Podcasts about Dred Scott

Mark Simone Interviews Author Ann Coulter on Her Latest Article on Birthright Citizenship. The Mark Simone Show July 1, 2026 • 11 min Episode Description They talk about the Supreme Court blocking Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship, which means if you're born in the U.S., you're a citizen, no matter your parents' status. They also get into how college campuses are pushing students to vote for progressive candidates.   Article mentioned- https://anncoulter.com/2026/07/02/dred-scotus/   Dred SCOTUS by Ann Coulter  July 2, 2026  Obviously, the Supreme Court's ruling on anchor babies in Trump v. Barbara is ridiculous. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with the Papist nut and the three witches, has apparently decided the “FREE MONEY” sign on our border was not good enough. We need to give the third world an even bigger incentive to flock here. Henceforth, we will lure illegal aliens with the guarantee of American citizenship for any kids they give birth to on U.S. soil. Welcome Hamas! (And you thought Democratic primaries were already wild!) Inasmuch as no one on TV seems to have bothered reading the opinions, here are a few highlights. 1) Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent is a tour de force. It will go down in history with Justice Benjamin Curtis's dissent in Dred Scott and Justice Frank Murphy's dissent in Korematsu. (It's also a good primer for snowbirds, who plan to avoid state taxes by moving to Florida, on the vital importance and clear legal meaning of “domicile.”) By contrast, Roberts's opinion for the court will go down with Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, finding that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination against transgender employees—a ruling that was so embarrassing it was immediately ignored by everyone, including Gorsuch. That was clear this week, when, for the fourth time since Bostock, the court rejected similar claims by transgenders. 2) I'm sorry to mention that, inasmuch as Gorsuch was on the right side of the anchor baby case. Which reminds me, could the conservatives confidently informing us that anchor babies are required by the constitution (Bill O'Reilly, John Yoo, The Wall Street Journal, etc.) cite a single other case with Roberts on one side and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the other, where Roberts was right? How about that terrific Obamacare ruling, deeply grounded in the text of the constitution? 3) Thomas's central point—appalling to liberals, but true nonetheless—is that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to overrule Dred Scott, which held that black Americans were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Black slaves and freedmen alike, Thomas writes, “were unambiguously Americans. They were not foreigners. They were not aliens. They owed no foreign allegiance.” He quotes Frederick Douglass's plea for the citizenship of blacks: “We address you not as aliens nor as exiles … We are Americans.” In response to Thomas's manifestly obvious point that the Fourteenth Amendment was “enacted … with the one pervading purpose of securing equal citizenship for the freed slaves,” the great legal scholar Justice Ketanji Jackson ripostes: “The teacher who scolds a student for bullying a classmate hopes the student learns the broader lesson of treating everyone with kindness, not just that one kid.” 3) In his 91-page dissent, Thomas cites 42 legal cases, 19 historical letters or diplomatic dispatches, 6 formal Attorney General opinions and 11 statutes, including The Civil Rights Act of 1866, The Expatriation Act of 1868 and the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802. All directly on point. This, Roberts calls “scant evidence.” Whereas he cites a mighty three cases for his majority opinion: an inapposite one from Britain; the opinion of a New York assistant vice chancellor in an 1844 inheritance dispute in New York (BIG, if true); and one, Wong Kim Ark—the “strongest support for today's decision,” as Alito put it—using dubious dicta from a wandering opinion that primarily relied on the parents having been “legally domiciled” in the U.S. when the child was born. Not to be confused with, “living here illegally.” (Or “wintering in Palm Beach.”) It's as if Roberts didn't realize the case was about kids born to illegal aliens. 5) Roberts's weirdest citation is to an 1872 letter from Attorney General George Williams describing Francois Heinrich, a child born to Austrian parents while they were “temporarily residing” in New York City, as having been “originally clothed with American nationality.”

In this bonus episode of Talk Law Radio, host Todd Marquardt and co-host Shannon Salmon-Haas dive headfirst into three major, headline-grabbing Supreme Court rulings that are reshaping the legal and political landscape of the United States. From intense debates on biological sex and fairness in sports to historical dives into English common law, Todd and Shannon bring both legal expertise and spirited debate to the table. Whether you lean left, lean right, or just want to know how the law impacts your daily life, this episode breaks down complex constitutional arguments into a conversation you won't want to miss. Key Topics Discussed: Transgender Athletes & Title IX: A look at the landmark case West Virginia v. B.P.J.. Todd and Shannon clash over the Balance of Due Process, Title IX regulations, and safety concerns versus inclusivity in biological female sports. The Fate of Birthright Citizenship: Tracing the law from King James I in 1603 to the 14th Amendment and the Dred Scott decision, the hosts break down Trump v. Barbara. Discover why the Supreme Court upheld that if you are born here, you are a citizen—and the real-world logistical nightmare that changing it would create. Money, Speech, and Campaign Finance: An analysis of National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission. The Supreme Court overturned a 2001 precedent to rule that political parties can now coordinate unlimited spending with candidates. Todd and Shannon square off on whether "money is speech" or if this decision puts American democracy up for sale to the highest bidder. Key Takeaways: The Constitution is a Living Debate: While Todd approaches the text from a strict originalist viewpoint, Shannon highlights how modern societal complexities challenge centuries-old frameworks. The Internet Changes the Legal Burden: A major reason the Supreme Court loosened campaign finance limits was the modern availability of online disclosure and transparency tools for voters. The Buck Stops at the Supreme Court: No matter how much tax money or legislative effort is poured into executive orders and state laws, the high court remains the final arbiter of what is constitutional. Enjoying the show? Don't forget to like, subscribe, click the thumbs-up button, and leave your thoughts in the comments section! Visit marquardtlawfirm.com to submit your own business, elder law, or estate planning questions. -Sponsored by Marquardt Law Firm and Financial Planning HQ -Go to marquardtlawfirm.com and financialplanninghq.netSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

July 9, 2026On July 9, 1868, Americans changed the US Constitution for the 14th time, The Fourteenth Amendment brought the principles of the Declaration to life, requiring the Federal government to protect the equal rights of all American men, The Thirteenth Amendment prohibited slavery on the basis of race, but did not guarantee equality for Black Americans, The Fourteenth Amendment took on the Dred Scott v Sandford decision and provided that all persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US, It also overturned the idea that democracy was created at the state level, forbidding states from making laws that were discriminatory, The principles of the Fourteenth Amendment were behind civil rights decisions of the 50s, 60s, and 70s, Opponents objected, and called for “originalism,” an idea promoted by Robert Bork who was nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan, Reaction to the nomination recognized the importance of the Fourteenth Amendment to equality.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: The Fourteenth Amendment Is RatifiedOn July 9, 1868, South Carolina and Louisiana became the final two states needed to push the Fourteenth Amendment over the three-quarters threshold, and with their votes the amendment was ratified into the Constitution. It is, by almost any measure, the most consequential of the Reconstruction amendments and arguably the most important addition to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights.The amendment was written to answer the central question left open by the Civil War and the abolition of slavery: what did freedom actually mean, and who was entitled to it? Its first section does an enormous amount of work in a single sentence. It establishes birthright citizenship—declaring that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of both the nation and their state. It then forbids any state from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens, from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying any person the equal protection of the laws. Those three clauses—privileges or immunities, due process, and equal protection—became the constitutional text on which vast stretches of modern American law are built.The historical purpose was direct. The framers of the amendment, led in the House by John Bingham, wanted to overrule Dred Scott, which had held that Black Americans could not be citizens, and to constitutionalize the civil rights protections Congress had already tried to enact by statute—putting them beyond the reach of any future hostile Congress or Southern legislature. They understood that emancipation without citizenship and equal protection would be a hollow victory, and they wrote a guarantee that applied against the states, not just the federal government.The significance of July 9, 1868 is hard to overstate, because so much of what we argue about today runs directly through this text. The Equal Protection Clause is the basis of Brown v. Board of Education and school desegregation, of Loving v. Virginia striking down bans on interracial marriage, and of Obergefell recognizing marriage equality. The Due Process Clause became the vehicle for incorporating most of the Bill of Rights against the states, so that free speech, free exercise, and protections for the criminally accused bind state governments too. And the Citizenship Clause is the reason that birthright citizenship is a constitutional guarantee rather than a policy preference—as the Supreme Court reaffirmed just this past term. When you hear debates about who counts as a citizen, what process the government owes a person before it takes something from them, or whether a law treats people equally, you are hearing an argument about the amendment ratified on this date.A federal judge in Florida has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to keep giving four Republican-led states—Florida, Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio—access to a federal database those states use to check whether registered voters are citizens. The order, from U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II in Pensacola, lets the states continue using the system while the underlying legal fight plays out.The database is called SAVE—Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements—a federal system historically used to verify immigration status for benefits. After a revamp last year, it became far more powerful for election purposes: users could search many records at once, and it exposed individuals' Social Security numbers. Several Republican-led states began comparing their voter rolls against SAVE and canceling the registrations of people the database flagged as noncitizens. The problem is what happens when the database is wrong or out of date—people who are in fact citizens can get flagged and purged.That risk is exactly why this ruling sits in tension with another one. Just weeks earlier, on June 22, a different federal judge in Washington, D.C., restricted broader use of the database, warning that relying on it could result in eligible voters being wrongly stripped from the rolls. So you now have two federal courts pointing in different directions—one worried about wrongful purges and limiting the database's use, and one ordering DHS to keep the spigot open for these four states. When trial courts split like this, the disagreement typically has to be resolved higher up, and it means the rules can differ depending on which state and which courtroom you're standing in.The significance is that this is a live fight over the machinery of voter-roll maintenance heading into a midterm election year. There's a genuine and legitimate interest in keeping noncitizens off the voter rolls—but there's an equally real risk that a blunt, error-prone matching process disenfranchises actual citizens who then have to fight to get back on. This ruling tilts toward giving states the verification tool; the D.C. ruling tilts toward protecting against wrongful removals. Watch the appellate courts, because the boundary between list maintenance and unlawful voter purging is about to get drawn more sharply.US judge orders four states be given access to citizenship data for voter checks | ReutersIn a closely related development, the Justice Department has sent letters to all fifty states warning that state and local election officials could face criminal prosecution if they allow noncitizens to remain on their voter rolls. The letters, from Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Department's Civil Rights Division, give officials just five days to respond with a plan to comply. The federal government does have statutes on the books aimed at protecting the integrity of elections and barring noncitizens from voting, and the letters invoke several of them. But the ordinary way these laws work is that you prosecute a person who actually votes illegally, or who knowingly facilitates fraud. What's unusual here is the target: the letters put state and local election administrators—the people who maintain the rolls—on notice that they personally could be charged. That reframes routine election administration as potential criminal exposure for the officials doing it.Think about the position this puts an election official in. Maintaining accurate voter rolls is genuinely hard—people move, die, naturalize, and occasionally register in error—and every state already has processes for it. Now imagine being told by the U.S. Department of Justice that if the federal government later decides your rolls were inadequate, you could be a criminal defendant, and you have five days to send in a compliance plan. Even if few or no prosecutions ever materialize, the threat itself is designed to change behavior—to push officials toward more aggressive purging out of fear of personal liability. Critics call that coercion; the Department frames it as enforcement.The significance is about federal pressure on the decentralized American election system. Elections in this country are run by states and localities, deliberately, so that no single national authority controls the vote. Democratic officials in states like Michigan pushed back hard, noting they've already taken extensive steps to ensure only eligible voters can vote. The letters, arriving alongside the SAVE database fight, are part of a coordinated push ahead of the midterms, and they raise a serious question about the line between legitimate federal enforcement of election laws and using the threat of prosecution to lean on the officials who administer them.US Justice Department tells state officials they could be prosecuted over noncitizen voting | ReutersAnd in a very different kind of case, a former Olympic canoe racer, David Hearn, pleaded not guilty in D.C. Superior Court to a felony charge of deliberately damaging the recently renovated Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Hearn, who is 67 and competed in three Summer Olympics, entered his plea through an attorney at his first court appearance, and his lawyers have described the prosecution as an abuse of power built on what they call a “concocted narrative.”The Reflecting Pool sits on the National Mall between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument and had just undergone a roughly $16 million renovation. Hearn has said he was stopped by National Guard troops and U.S. Park Police and detained for about five hours after pausing at the pool during a 64-mile bike ride in June. He was later indicted on a single felony count of property destruction. The top federal prosecutor for D.C., U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, said six other people were arrested on misdemeanor charges connected to damage at the same site.The legal question worth watching is the gap between the charge and the conduct. Property-destruction law generally requires proof that the defendant intentionally caused the damage, and a felony charge usually turns on the dollar value of that damage. Hearn's defense is essentially that the government has manufactured intent and seriousness out of an innocent encounter—that a man pausing on a bike ride has been turned into a felony defendant. The judge apparently agreed there was little flight or danger risk: Hearn was released without court supervision pending an August 5 status hearing, which tells you something about how the court currently views the threat he poses.The significance here is less about one damaged pool and more about the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Deciding whom to charge, and whether to charge a felony versus a misdemeanor versus nothing at all, is one of the most powerful and least reviewable choices in the legal system. When critics call a prosecution politically motivated or an abuse of power, they're pointing at that discretion. Whether this case is a legitimate property-crime prosecution (it isn't) or an overreach (it is) is exactly what the coming proceedings will test—and it's a useful reminder that the same charging power that holds genuine wrongdoers accountable can also be aimed in ways that raise real fairness concerns.Former US Olympian pleads not guilty in Reflecting Pool vandalism case | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Supreme Court just upheld birthright citizenship, striking down Trump's executive order in a 6-3 ruling that leans directly on a case 130 years in the making. We're re-releasing our deep dive into Wong Kim Ark — the Chinese American son of immigrants who won this exact fight at the Supreme Court in 1898 — because Chief Justice Roberts built this week's decision on Wong's story, by name. In this episode: the history of the 14th Amendment, the Chinese Exclusion Act, Julia Lynch's 1844 citizenship case, and how "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been the most contested phrase in American immigration law for over a century. Plus a new opening and closing segment breaking down this week's ruling, the rejected "domicile" argument, and why the fight isn't actually over. Birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment. American identity. Immigration history. All still unfinished business. Show Notes Episode Summary Originally released in 2025, this episode traces the legal and racial history of birthright citizenship in America — from the Naturalization Act of 1790 through Wong Kim Ark (1898), Lynch v. Clarke (1844), and Trump's January 2025 executive order. This re-release adds new bookend segments covering the Supreme Court's June 30, 2026 ruling in Trump v. Barbara, which upheld birthright citizenship 6-3. What's New in This Re-Release Breakdown of the Supreme Court's ruling and Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion Why the administration's "domicile" argument failed Fact-check: can Congress end birthright citizenship by passing a law? (No — here's why) What comes next for immigration policy after this ruling Topics Covered The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) Lynch v. Clarke (1844) The Chinese Exclusion Act and the Naturalization Act of 1790 Dred Scott v. Sandford and its legacy Trump's 2025 executive order on birthright citizenship Trump v. Barbara (2026) Host & Producer: Saadia Khan I Content Writer: Michaela Strauther I Editorial review: Shei Yu I Sound Designer & Editor: Lou Raskin I Immigrantly Theme Music: Simon Hutchinson | Other Music: Epidemic Sound Immigrantly Podcast is an Immigrantly Media Production. For advertising inquiries, contact us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠info@immigrantlypod.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠BOYOT (Belong On Your Own Terms) ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠is the next step. It's our new app, designed to help you think through identity, culture, ambition, relationships, and the stories we carry with guided reflections, prompts, and frameworks developed over years of conversations on this show. It's thoughtful. It's challenging. And honestly, it's the kind of space many of us wish existed earlier in our lives. If you're ready to go deeper than the podcast, subscribe to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠BOYOT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and start the journey. Don't forget to subscribe to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Immigrantly Uninterrupted⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠for insightful podcasts. Follow us on social media for updates and behind-the-scenes content. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ann Coulter: Birthright Citizenship Is ABSURD, Stephen Miller Goes NUCLEAR On Supreme Court ‘This is SUICIDE…', PragerU- What Is Birthright Citizenship?     Stephen Miller Goes NUCLEAR On Supreme Court In SAVAGE On-Air Rant: ‘This is SUICIDE…' Ann Coulter: Birthright Citizenship Is ABSURD What Is Birthright Citizenship? 5-Minute Videos. PragerU   Stephen Miller Goes NUCLEAR On Supreme Court In SAVAGE On-Air Rant: ‘This is SUICIDE…' Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/eiWw3kGOnGY?si=J6BwFI2xwwAUNeg1 Benny Johnson 6.1M subscribers 89,853 views Jul 1, 2026 Stephen Miller went off If you want to help support independent journalism, become a Member:    / @bennyjohnson   FOLLOW BENNY ON SOCIALS: https://www.bennyjohnson.com/follow CHECK OUT OUR MERCH: https://shop.bennyjohnson.com/ Sign up for The Benny Newsletter: https://www.bennyjohnson.com/newsletter SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST https://www.bennyjohnson.com/thebenny...   Ann Coulter: Birthright Citizenship Is ABSURD https://youtu.be/lApoF5aM-lw?si=09dzhevwAZth2PdK The American Conservative 13.3K subscribers 13,176 views Jul 1, 2026 This is a segment from a longer conversation between Andrew Day and Ann Coulter recorded May 20, 2026:    • Ann Coulter Talks Massie's Loss, Rubio vs....   Follow Day and Coulter on X. Andrew Day: https://x.com/AKDay89 Ann Coulter: https://x.com/AnnCoulter A new video by The American Conservative Magazine, a publication of the American Ideas Institute. ------ ► Support The American Conservative's Mission to reclaim "Main Street" Conservatism https://www.theamericanconservative.c... Follow The American Conservative on Social Media: Twitter -   / amconmag   Facebook -   / the.american.conservative   Instagram –   / amconmag   YouTube –    / amconmag   ◎ Subscribe to the The American Conservative's Podcasts" https://www.theamericanconservative.c...   What Is Birthright Citizenship?   5-Minute Videos. PragerU Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/MkgspNujMHg?si=eqfXyxJFQHksstAQ Do children born on U.S. soil automatically become American citizens? Many claim the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that they do. Are they right? Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, confronts this question head-on. PragerU 3.45M subscribers 5,880 views Premiered Jun 30, 2026 5-Minute Videos Transcript: What Is Birthright Citizenship? Presented by Amy Swearer Does the Constitution grant citizenship to anyone born in the United States? Even the children of people who've entered the country illegally? Or the children of foreign tourists who owe our country no allegiance? That's the question underlying the controversial issue of birthright citizenship. Many people today take it for granted that the answer is yes: if you're born on American soil, you're an American citizen. Period. End of issue. But is that what the Constitution says? Let's first look at the text of that document, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment. It reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...” Case closed, right? Not so fast. The key phrase here is, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” — it creates a second condition for birthright citizenship beyond merely being born on American soil. But it also raises another question: who is born subject to U.S. jurisdiction? To answer that question, we need some historical context. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, just three years after the end of the Civil War. Its purpose was to rectify the infamous 1857 Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which the Court declared that black Americans were not and could never be citizens. Even after slavery was abolished in 1865, Dred Scott technically remained the law of the land. Black Americans were left in limbo—they were no longer slaves, but they still were not citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment resolved the issue, once and for all. These newly freed slaves and their descendants were certainly born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This had been their home for generations. If they were not American citizens, to which other nation did they still belong? So while the Fourteenth Amendment resolved the issue as it related to race, its authors would have been shocked to learn that we now interpret these words to make citizens of virtually anyone born on U.S. soil, under all circumstances. As Yale Law Professor William C. Robinson explained in his 1875 legal treatise, the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship only to those “born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States”—a condition that requires, at minimum, lawful permanent residence in this country. This was also the original understanding of the federal government. In 1885, for example, the State Department rejected the citizenship claim of a man named Richard Greisser. Yes, Greisser had been born in Ohio eighteen years earlier, but his German parents never intended to stay in the United States. They returned with their son to Germany shortly after his birth. Because Greisser's parents did not owe the United States political allegiance, their son wasn't born subject to its jurisdiction, at least not within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause. Similarly, in 1890, the Justice Department considered the citizenship claim of a child born to one Mary Devereaux, a pregnant Irish woman being held on a ship in New York Harbor. While awaiting immigration approval, Devereaux left the ship for medical treatment and subsequently gave birth in a New York hospital. Authorities later denied her immigration application. Because Devereaux wasn't eligible for lawful admission to the U.S., her U.S.-born daughter was not recognized as a U.S. citizen. Both mother and child were sent back to Ireland. The Supreme Court addressed the question of birthright citizenship in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong was born and raised in San Francisco, the son of Chinese immigrants. In 1895, after a short trip to China, Wong returned to the U.S., only to be detained by authorities and threatened with deportation. Wong sued, arguing that he was an American citizen by birth. The Supreme Court agreed. Access the full transcript here...

Stanford's Fred Smith examines the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship decision, its historical roots in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the questions the Court leaves unresolved. --- The Fourteenth Amendment opens with a simple constitutional promise: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. In a closely divided Supreme Court decision, that understanding of birthright citizenship is once again tested through competing readings of text, history, and precedent. In this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Fred Smith, a leading scholar of the federal courts, joins Pam Karlan to examine the Court's ruling in Trump v. Barbara and the history behind the Citizenship Clause. The discussion traces the Clause to Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to Black Americans, and to the Reconstruction-era effort to overturn it, as well as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood to affirm birthright citizenship for those born on U.S. soil. The discussion highlights deeper disagreements over how that history should shape constitutional meaning today. Smith and Karlan explore tensions between originalist approaches, reliance on precedent, and questions about congressional authority over citizenship. At stake is not only the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the broader question of who the Constitution recognizes as part of the American political community—and who gets to decide. Links: Fred Smith  >>> Stanford Law School Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

It's Friday, July 3rd, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Ethiopian Christian convert from Islam attacked and forced to flee As a child in Gawo Kebe, Ethiopia, Taha Dinka faithfully attended the mosque and adhered to his community's Islamic beliefs. He never imagined his life would ever take a different direction, reports International Christian Concern. In 2019, Dinka heard the Gospel and decided to follow Jesus. He said, “When I accepted Christ, I felt peace in my life. I believed God had rescued me from darkness.”   However, the decision that brought him hope also opened the door for rejection, threats, and persecution. Soon after his conversion, Dinka began facing strong opposition from those closest to him because of his faith in Christ.    Dinka said, “People I loved turned against me, and some even told me I had betrayed my family and my religion. Others warned me that I would suffer or die if I continued following Christ.”   Christian converts from Islam in Muslim-majority areas often face violence and even death threats. In August 2025, Dinka said, “I was violently attacked and forcefully removed from my home because I had refused to renounce Christianity. The attacks left me injured and traumatized. I was beaten because I would not deny Jesus. At that moment, I realized my life was truly in danger.”  He was forced to flee in search of safety. In Matthew 10:22, Jesus said, "You will be hated by everyone because of Me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” House Speaker Johnson puts SAVE Act in budget reconciliation bill Here in the United States, On Wednesday. House Speaker Mike Johnson said he is aiming to push the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE America Act, through a third budget reconciliation bill, reports NewsNation. Johnson's remarks came shortly after President Trump canceled a signing ceremony for a sweeping bipartisan housing package, saying he will not sign the legislation until the Senate passes the voter ID bill. The SAVE America Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and the presentation of an ID to cast a ballot. The bill passed the House, but has stalled in the Senate, where Democrats have vowed to oppose it, leaving it short of the votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has repeatedly dismissed Trump's calls to eliminate or reform the filibuster in order to pass the bill. Johnson talked to the president about adding the SAVE America Act to the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA so that the entire bill including the funding of the troops and the SAVE America Act would only need a simple majority vote.  Here's Speaker Johnson at the Wednesday press conference. JOHNSON: “The SAVE America Act, as passed in February unanimously by all Republicans -- and that's components of the proof of citizenship to register to vote and voter ID when you show up to vote, that will be merged onto the [National Defense Authorization Act] and transmitted to the Senate as one bill. That's the most efficient, effective way to do it.” Call your two Senators at 202-224-3121 and urge them, whether they are Democrat or Republican, to support the National Defense Authorization Act which has the SAVE America Act added to it. Clarence Thomas: Birthright citizenship devalues what it means to be American citizen In a lengthy dissent, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took the majority to task for interpreting the Constitution to mean that citizenship is automatically conferred on anyone born in the United States, regardless of the legal status of the parents, Thomas argued that the ruling “devalues” what it means to be an American citizen. In the 6-3 decision on June 30th, the majority held that an executive order President Donald Trump issued on the first day of his second term violated the Constitution. The order directed that only children born on American soil to legal residents are automatically citizens of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment states, in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” In his dissent, Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, noted as Trump previously argued, that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. It was in direct response to the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision of 1857, which held that blacks were not citizens. Thomas wrote, “Both the Civil Rights Act [of 1866] and the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race. Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States.” He added, “Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority,” Under Trump's proposal, birthright citizenship would be limited to those with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Babies born to temporary visitors or people who entered the country illegally would not be citizens at birth, reports NBC News. Young Washington movie in theaters tonight On the cusp of America's 250th birthday tomorrow, Angel Studios* and Wonder Project release the movie “Young Washington” nationwide tonight. Watch the trailer. It follows the early life of George Washington as he transforms from an ambitious, awkward youth into a military commander. Facing class barriers, he secures a job surveying the Ohio Valley, only to stumble into the bloody triggers of the French and Indian War. Directed by Jon Erwin, who also produced the House of David TV series, the historical drama explores Washington's steep climb into Virginia's upper crust. William Franklyn-Miller, the 22-year-old British actor, portrays George Washington, Ben Kingsley portrays Robert Dinwiddie, and Kelsey Grammer portrays Thomas Fairfax. When setbacks shake George's faith in a kind, loving God, he gets angry. He tells his mother, “Providence placed me here. Why? For me to fail?” Focus on the Family says that Mary Washington, George's mother, serves up one of the movie's best lines. She says, “Failure is the tutor sent by God. If you don't learn from it, you fail twice. If you do learn from it, you've earned wisdom.” After George improbably survives a disastrous battle, a Native American chief—one who fought alongside the French—demands to meet George. His own warriors had George in their sights repeatedly. He claims they “never miss.” And yet, somehow, George stands before him, uninjured. The Indian chief tells him, “The Creator chose you. You have been shielded by the Spirit.” (Get the booklet entitled The Bulletproof George Washington by David Barton) Shortly thereafter, George shows up in Virginia Lt. Gov. Robert Dinwiddie's office with a bullet hole in his hat and a well-earned reputation for surviving impossible situations. Listen to the scene from the “Young Washington” movie. DINWIDDIE: “What happened, Washington? All those bullet holes in your jacket? How are you alive?” WASHINGTON: “I don't know.” Proverbs 16:9 says, "A man's heart plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps". The movie, Young Washington, dramatizes the events leading up to the French and Indian War, including the war's initial bloody triggers. PluggedIn.com warns that the film is not suitable for young children because there's plenty of fighting, shooting and chopping. And while none of it is particularly bloody or gory, it may come as a shock for those expecting a gentler “Christian” film. *Note: Angel Studios is owned by the Mormons also known as the “Church” of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Worldview cautions our listeners to remember that Mormons teach a false gospel and an unbiblical worldview. So, please be discerning in the viewing of any Angel Studios productions. 15-year-old listener from Eswatini, Africa sounds off Yesterday, 21 Worldview listeners took the time to send me an email about what they enjoy about this newscast. I'll be sharing their emails throughout this month. If you are one of the 21 people who wrote me, thank you! Eli McSeveney, a 15-year-old in Eswatini, Africa, bordered by South Africa and Mozambique, wrote me at Adam@TheWorldview.com. He said, “We listen to The Worldview in 5 Minutes every day, mid-morning, when we take a break from our homeschool over a cup of tea.  I love that I can trust the facts you give, unlike CNN. But my favorite part is right at the end, when you urge us to ‘Seize the day for Jesus Christ!' “Quinn, age 13, said, ‘I love how Mr. Adam McManus addresses the transgender issue.  He says a man, who is ‘pretending to be woman.'  And the regular updates on the persecution of Christians throughout the world is eye opening.' “And Bianca, my mom, said, ‘Thank you for your team's faithfulness in bringing us truth. We find that you help us make sense of the news, and we feel hopeful instead of distraught. And thank you for the Bible verses that shed light on how to interpret what is going on.'” 7 Worldview listeners gave $800 yesterday Yesterday, 7 Worldview listeners stepped up to the plate and invested their treasure to ensure that The Worldview stays on the air for another 365 days. Our thanks to Jason in Fairbanks, Alaska and Steven in Jacksonville, Florida – both of whom gave $50. We're grateful to God for Janice in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Susan in Hoyt, Kansas – both of whom gave $100. And we appreciate the generosity of Samuel in Fellsmere, Florida and Jeremy in Swansea, Wales -- both of whom gave $150 as well as Linda in Hanahan, South Carolina who gave $200. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please. (drum roll sound effect) $2,562. (sound effect of people cheering) In the first three days of our month-long fundraiser, we are seriously behind!  We need to raise $9,888 by 12 midnight tonight, Friday, July 3rd – when a lot of people are on vacation -- to get back on track toward our $123,500 finish line come July 31st. I've got 2 brainstorms. First, would you consider being one of 30 listeners to make a donation, no matter how small?  Whether it's $5 or $500, give what you feel the Lord has placed on your heart.  Second, if the Lord has blessed you financially, would you be open to being one of 5 people to give a one-time gift of $1,000? Go to TheWorldview.com, click on Give, select the dollar amount, and make sure to click on the “recurring” button if that's your wish.  This Christian newscast does not bow to our politically correct culture. We champion the truth and a Biblical worldview. That is why you love it!  Invest in it today so that this newscast can continue. Again, go to TheWorldview.com, click on Give. Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, July 3rd, in the year of our Lord 2026. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

If you prefer to watch the video you can find it at the bottom of this webpage. Episode Sponsors: Happy 250th Birthday America Sale – https://www.concealedcarry.com/hba – One of our biggest sales of the year kicks off July 2nd for Guardian Members and July 3rd for non-members. All customers that place an order during the sale will receive an exclusive challenge coin commemorating the 250th anniversary of our Nation’s birth! Don’t miss it! Guardian Nation – https://www.guardiannation.com – To save the BIGGEST during our Independence Day Sale, you’re going to want to be a member of Guardian Nation. Our members always save the most with an across the board 10% discount, even on top of already discounted products during the sale! About This Episode: We trace the history of the right to keep and bear arms from English law in the 1300s through modern U.S. Supreme Court cases. We discuss the Statute of Northampton, the Stuart era, the English Bill of Rights, and how these developments shaped American constitutional thinking and the Second Amendment. We then cover the colonial period, the Revolution, and post-Civil War developments, including restrictions on enslaved Black people, the Black Codes, the 14th Amendment, and cases such as Dred Scott, Cruikshank, and Miller. We end with major modern laws and decisions, including the NFA, the Gun Control Act, FOPA, Heller, McDonald, Bruen, and Rahimi, as well as current cases involving AR-15 bans and magazine limits. As always, any questions or suggestions for future episodes can be submitted to podcast@concealedcarry.com! Thanks for Listening! Thanks so much for joining us this week. Have some feedback you'd like to share? Leave a note in the comment section below. If you enjoyed the podcast the biggest compliment you could give us would be to subscribe to future episodes via a podcast app on your phone or via iTunes. You can find past podcast episodes by clicking here. Video Recording: Press PLAY on the video below to watch the video recording! {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","@id":"https://www.concealedcarry.com#/schema/video/4252451","name":"S14E1: Freedom Bought, Freedom Maintained – 700 Years of Receipts","description":"Concealed Carry Podcast brought to you by HK - "S14E1: Freedom Bought, Freedom Maintained - 700 Years of Receipts" Episode Sponsors: -Happy 250th Birthday","thumbnailUrl":"https://i.ytimg.com/vi/p4SYCYvnkH8/maxresdefault.jpg","uploadDate":"2026-07-01T19:54:25-06:00","embedUrl":"https://www.concealedcarry.com/player-embed/id/4252451/?autoplay=0","duration":"PT02H11M21S"}

It's the last opinion day of the term, and the big one landed: Trump v. Barbara, the birthright-citizenship case. We read the majority as the rare easy case and spend most of the episode on why the four dissents each end up somewhere different — and trying to figure out exactly where they actually land. Along the way: a bogus Nina Totenberg story, a Landor GVR that might quietly unsettle a chunk of Spending Clause criminal law, and whether the professors who defended the order deserve the "legal scholarship police." Highlights[00:00:27] The bogus Nina Totenberg wire story that Justice Alito was retiring — "Fake news, Dan."[00:02:03] The Justice Alito / Justice Sotomayor bench-dissent dust-up from the immigration hand-downs[00:03:11] Last opinion day — 3 opinions, 4 cases; NRSC v. FEC and West Virginia v. B.P.J. / Little v. Hecox flagged for later[00:05:27] A significant new grant teed up on possession of semi-automatic rifles (AR-15s)[00:06:43] A GVR in light of Landor in a federal arson case, and the narrow-vs-broad theory of what a GVR means[00:09:34] Whether Landor's narrowing of Sabri could upend a swath of Spending Clause federal criminal law[00:10:58] Why RLUIPA reaches prisoners — Chuck Colson's post-Watergate lobbying (courtesy of a listener, Emma Kaufman)[00:12:55] Trump v. Barbara — Trump loses, but closer than predicted: "Trump beats the spread"[00:15:25] Should professors who defended the order be punished? — "we don't need legal scholarship police"[00:19:58] The majority's walk: common law → Dred Scott → the 14th Amendment → Wong Kim Ark[00:26:21] Wong Kim Ark as linchpin, and whether its "domiciled here" language was doing any work[00:36:48] Justice Kavanaugh concurs in the judgment on the statute, then dispatches the constitutional question breezily[00:42:05] New states, Hawaii, and Living Originalism — when may you add new exceptions? "Weird islands you can't drive to"[00:48:33] The 91-page Justice Thomas dissent, the facial-challenge pivot, and the reserved domicile question[00:56:40] Justice Alito's Civil Rights Act / "not subject to any foreign power" reading, and the statelessness caveat[01:00:11] Justice Gorsuch's 3-page solo dissent: if not domiciled here, then where? — a jab Thomas may not share[01:05:33] Justice Jackson's anti-subordination concurrence, and whether it lands against Thomas[01:10:24] "I feel proud to be an American, Dan" — hail to the Chief, and to Justice Barrett; sign-offRelevant linksCasesTrump v. Barbara — slip opinionLandor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections — slip opinionSabri v. United States (2004)United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)NRSC v. FEC — slip opinionWest Virginia v. B.P.J. / Little v. Hecox — slip opinionCommentary & articlesSCOTUSblog opinion recap: "Supreme Court strikes down Trump's order ending birthright citizenship"Ilan Wurman & Randy Barnett's NYT essay defending the order (Minnesota Law summary)

Dr. Gerald Horne's intellectual power is widely recognized — he earned the American Book Award for The Dawning of the Apocalypse, a sweeping study of how the 16th century forged the intertwined systems of slavery, settler colonialism, and capitalism that still shape global power. He received the Frantz Fanon Lifetime Achievement Award. On this podcast Horne often breaks down the colonial process of the founding of the U.S. - Spanish slave trade, the Haitian Revolution, the origins of the U.S. Constitution, the Dred Scott decision, and the three‑fifths theory reveal the racial foundations of the nation's origin — and how 18th‑century constitutional structures are being tested today.https://www.uh.edu/class/history/faculty-and-staff/horne_g/ https://www.instagram.com/diprimaradio/

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show delivers a wide-ranging, politically charged discussion centered on a major Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship, which dominates the hour and drives broader debates on immigration policy, constitutional law, and American identity. Hosting solo, Buck Sexton frames the 6–3 ruling as one of the most consequential—and controversial—judicial decisions in modern history, emphasizing that the Court upheld the interpretation that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen (with limited exceptions such as diplomats), including children of undocumented immigrants and so-called “birth tourism.” The conversation repeatedly highlights concerns about immigration loopholes, anchor babies, and national security risks, arguing that the ruling could incentivize foreign nationals to exploit U.S. laws, particularly citing China as a geopolitical rival. Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio calls in and analyzes dissenting opinions from Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, portraying the ruling as an example of judicial overreach versus originalist constitutional interpretation, while also drawing comparisons to historically controversial Supreme Court cases like Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade. The discussion expands into immigration enforcement policy, including critiques of sanctuary cities, catch-and-release practices, and the broader political divide between Republicans and Democrats on border security. There is also a significant focus on how birthright citizenship could influence future political eligibility, chain migration, and even hypothetical national security threats, such as foreign-born individuals returning to the U.S. as citizens after being raised abroad. Buck welcomes guest Rafael Mangual, author of Criminal Injustice. This third hour emphasizes a deep dive into crime policy, policing debates, and the real-world consequences of progressive reforms, alongside culturally charged conversations about gender identity issues, free speech, and American political identity. Mangual’s expert analysis of criminal justice reform and the push for decarceration and depolicing, arguing that these policies—widely supported after the 2020 protests—have had harmful effects, particularly in urban communities and among Black Americans. The discussion frames rising crime trends and the subsequent reversal of some reforms as evidence that reduced policing and leniency in prosecution increased violence, with hosts emphasizing that effective policing historically correlates with lower homicide rates and improved public safety outcomes. Mangual underscores that incarceration serves a critical role in crime prevention through incapacitation, challenging progressive narratives that prioritize rehabilitation over deterrence. A major legal and political focus of Hour 3 is the Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship, sparking a detailed constitutional debate. Mangual aligns more closely with the dissenting justices, questioning whether the 14th Amendment’s original intent supports granting automatic citizenship to children of non-citizens or temporary visitors, including so-called “birth tourism” cases. The conversation highlights competing interpretations among justices such as Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, and critiques the use of executive action instead of legislative authority. The hosts and guest ultimately argue that any meaningful change would require congressional action or a constitutional amendment—an extremely unlikely outcome, reinforcing the political stalemate around immigration reform. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuckYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Let's talk about Trump and Dred Scott vs the Constitution.

The Court's last day of the term, and they emptied the clip. Birthright citizenship survives. Campaign finance gets gutted. Trans girls get banned from girls' sports. One win, one robbery, and one where I break from my own side and tell you why.I read every page so you don't have to. Real case for and against all three, then a Reality Check on what these rulings actually do to this country. Spoiler: the one nobody's talking about is the one that's going to cost you the most.Cases: Trump v. Barbara. NRSC v. FEC. The Idaho and West Virginia sports cases. Thomas cited Dred Scott thirty-one times. In 2026. We get into it.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/we-saw-the-devil-unfiltered-political-analysis--4433638/support.Website: http://www.wesawthedevil.comPatreon: http://www.patreon.com/wesawthedevilRobin's Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/robin_wstdTwitter: http://www.twitter.com/WeSawtheDevilInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/wesawthedevilpodcast.TikTok: tiktok.com/@wesawthedevilpolitics

This Day in Legal History: Revenue Act of 1862On this day in legal history, July 1, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Revenue Act of 1862, one of the most important financing measures of the Civil War. The Union war effort required enormous amounts of money, and Congress could no longer rely only on tariffs, loans, and traditional sources of federal revenue. The act created the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the direct predecessor of today's Internal Revenue Service.This new office gave the federal government an administrative structure for assessing and collecting taxes across the country. The law also expanded the federal government's role in the financial lives of ordinary Americans. It imposed a 3% tax on annual incomes between $600 and $10,000 and a 5% tax on incomes above $10,000. Although modest by modern standards, this was a major shift in American tax law because it treated income itself as a source of federal revenue.The act also included taxes on goods, licenses, businesses, and other transactions, helping create a broader national tax system. Its purpose was practical and urgent: to raise the money needed to preserve the Union. But its legal significance went beyond the battlefield. The Revenue Act of 1862 helped normalize the idea that the federal government could collect taxes directly from individuals. The Civil War income tax was later allowed to expire, but the machinery of federal tax administration had been built.Decades later, the Sixteenth Amendment would give Congress clearer constitutional authority to impose a national income tax. July 1, 1862, therefore marks a turning point in the legal history of federal taxation and the growth of national administrative power.The Supreme Court ruled that President Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship is invalid. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or only temporarily present still meet the requirements of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Roberts wrote that the Constitution makes those children citizens at birth because they are born on U.S. soil and are subject to U.S. law.The executive order, signed on January 20, 2025, never took effect because federal courts blocked it while lawsuits moved forward. Earlier, the Supreme Court had limited the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, but the legal challenges to the order continued through class-based and case-specific proceedings.The Court's majority relied heavily on the history of birthright citizenship, including English common law, the purpose of the 14th Amendment after Dred Scott, and the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Roberts rejected the administration's argument that citizenship should depend on whether a child's parents had permanent allegiance or domicile in the United States.Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the order was invalid, but he based his reasoning on federal statute rather than the Constitution. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented in different ways, arguing that the majority misread the 14th Amendment's history or failed to address important limits on birthright citizenship.Supreme Court strikes down Trump's order ending birthright citizenship | SCOTUSblogThe Supreme Court ruled that Idaho and West Virginia may enforce laws limiting girls' and women's school sports teams to athletes the states classify as biologically female. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the main opinion, saying the laws do not violate Title IX or the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.The Court was unanimous that the challenged laws do not violate Title IX, but the justices split over the constitutional issue, especially as applied to Becky Pepper-Jackson, the West Virginia student at the center of one case. Kavanaugh reasoned that Title IX permits schools to have separate teams based on sex and that, when the law was enacted, “sex” referred to biological sex. He also said states have important interests in safety and competitive fairness, and that courts should not be required to create individualized exceptions for athletes who have taken puberty blockers or hormones. The decision reversed lower-court rulings that had blocked Idaho and West Virginia from enforcing their bans.Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority and wrote separately to emphasize his view that sex is binary and biological. Justice Neil Gorsuch also wrote separately, focusing on the idea that Title IX, as a funding statute, must give schools clear notice of any conditions attached to federal money. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, agreed that West Virginia's law did not violate Title IX but dissented on the constitutional question. Sotomayor argued that the Court should have allowed more factual development on whether Pepper-Jackson, who had not gone through male puberty, was actually similarly situated to cisgender girls for athletic purposes.Court rules that states can exclude transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports teams | SCOTUSblogThe Supreme Court declined to hear Cathy Harris's appeal after lower courts allowed President Trump to remove her from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. Harris, a Democratic member and former chair of the board, had challenged her firing under a law that limited removal of board members to cases of inefficiency, neglect, or misconduct. The Court's refusal came one day after it ruled 6-3 that similar removal protections for Federal Trade Commission members were unconstitutional. Because Merit Systems Protection Board members had nearly identical protections, Harris's case was strongly affected by that new ruling.The same appeals court decision that rejected Harris's claim also upheld Trump's firing of Gwynne Wilcox, a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board. The Merit Systems Protection Board is especially important because it hears appeals from federal employees who have been disciplined or fired. Harris warned that the decision weakens the board and threatens the independence of the civil service system. Her removal had temporarily left the three-member board without enough members to decide certain cases, though a later Senate confirmation restored a quorum. The ruling may also affect other lawsuits brought by officials Trump removed from independent agencies. More broadly, the decision gives the White House greater authority over agencies that were originally designed to have some protection from direct political control.After FTC ruling, US Supreme Court turns away labor board member fired by Trump | 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

A timely re-release exploring the history behind one of the Supreme Court's most consequential constitutional questions. With the Supreme Court poised to issue a landmark ruling on birthright citizenship, I'm re-releasing one of the most important conversations we've had on the subject. In this episode, historian Martha S. Jones discusses her groundbreaking book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America, which traces the origins of birthright citizenship long before the Fourteenth Amendment—and long before today's immigration debates. We explore how free and formerly enslaved Black Americans fought to define who belonged in the United States, challenged efforts to deny them citizenship, and helped lay the foundation for one of the Constitution's most consequential guarantees. We also discuss the Dred Scott decision, the colonization movement, the legal strategies Black Americans used to claim their rights, and why understanding this history is essential to understanding the debate today. Although this conversation was originally recorded in 2019, its historical context is arguably even more relevant today. If you found this conversation helpful, like this episode and follow @electorette for more conversations on democracy, constitutional rights, and the people shaping America's future. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett. Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment while dissenting in part. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Neil Gorsuch. The court grounded its decision in the historical context of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, tracing the language back to English common law, the Dred Scott decision and its widespread condemnation, Attorney General Edward Bates' wartime opinion on citizenship, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the court's prior precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Hawk connects the executive order directly to Stephen Miller's documented stated goal of an America populated almost entirely by people who look like him, and explains why birthright citizenship was the primary legal mechanism the administration intended to use to strip citizenship from Black and brown Americans descended from earlier generations born in the United States. He closes by noting that Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito remain on the court, and what that means for the 2026 midterm Senate races in Texas and Maine if either justice resigns under a Republican-controlled Senate. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

Description:As we celebrate Juneteenth, Jen sits down with writer, activist, theologian, and longtime friend Lisa Sharon Harper for a conversation that's equal parts history lesson, spiritual challenge, and call to action. Together, they explore the often-overlooked story of Juneteenth—not just the delayed news of emancipation in Texas, but the deeper history of freedom promised, denied, and fought for across generations.Fresh from a powerful march across Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge, Lisa reflects on what it means to stand in the footsteps of civil rights heroes while confronting the realities of the present moment. Drawing from her own family's legacy of resistance, she shares why her hope no longer rests in institutions, laws, or political systems, but in ordinary people willing to bend the arc of history toward justice.The conversation moves from the unfinished work of voting rights to the spiritual courage required for this cultural moment. As Lisa puts it, perhaps our task is not simply to recover what has been lost, but to become “the architects of the next America.”Whether you're marking Juneteenth, wrestling with questions about democracy and belonging, or searching for hope in uncertain times, this conversation is a timely reminder that freedom has always depended on people willing to imagine—and build—something better.Thought-provoking Quotes:★ “The Supreme Court has effectively placed us back into the time of Plessy vs Ferguson, which said separate and equal is okay, the time of even Dred Scott, which says a black man has no rights that a white man need abide by. That's what they're gunning for.”★ In the past, my hope was in the law. In the past, my hope was in the dream of America. My hope was in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights. My hope was in the church. But what I'm learning is that the arc of the moral universe has bent toward justice because people have bent it.”★ “What can they do to us? What can they do? They can put us in jail. God is there. They can deport us. God will be there. They can kill us. And God will be there. So what can they do? They can't do anything to us. Not really.” Resources Mentioned in This Episode:➢ (The Gospel of Shalom) Unequally Saved: The Church's Role in Racism with Lisa Sharon Harper - https://jenhatmaker.com/podcasts/series-08/unequally-saved-the-churchs-role-in-racism-with-lisa-sharon-harper/➢ Fortune: How Race Broke My Family and the World--and How to Repair It All by Lisa Sharon Harper - https://amzn.to/43LTXW1➢ “All Roads Lead To The South” Rally - https://blackpowerwarroom.com/dayofaction/➢ A Resistance History of the United States by Tad Stoermer - https://amzn.to/4dK3RNS➢ Amazing Grace | William Wilberforce film - https ...

Contributing writer Fritz Godard heads to Starkville to undertake a three-day apprenticeship in Space Hulk: Death Angel, the classic and brutal Warhammer 40,000 co-op card game. We played it — and classic Golden Era hip hop CDs on his boombox — for three days straight.I flipped the mic on and off with little regard to best recording practices as we stuffed our faces, guzzled beer, invented impossible sponsorship plans, and watched as Fritz went from a guy who couldn't tell which direction his Blood Angels were facing to a guy who can do gunslinger tricks with a Storm Bolter.Day One (1:14)Fritz rolls up in the driveway. I heat up a Lou Malnati's pizza, we crack some beers and review Fritz's journey of discovery in board gaming — and where I think that journey leads next.Interlude: “I Got it Bad Y'all” by King Tee feat. Tha Alkaholiks (10:36)Day Two (12:44)Lured out of bed via text the following morning with the promise of good company and complimentary powdered eggs, I head over to the Holiday Inn Express to meet Fritz for Day Two's action.Interlude: “Free Mumia” by KRS-One feat. Channel Live (19:13)Day Three (20:53)Fritz has already checked out of his room, but he's waiting in the lobby for me to come back with the game because he wants one more go at it before his long drive. Is he ready to seize victory?Interlude: “Nutin' ta Lose” by Dred Scott (25:57)Coda (27:44)Fritz made it back to Denver under adverse circumstances. We review the cost of victory and our intentions to become permanent residents of the Holiday Inn Express.Music• Main Theme and Bumpers: “Wash Y'ass,” D.O. the Fabulous Drifter and Dow Jones, Five Points Plan• Game of the Week Background: “Suit & Tie,” Sky Gienger via UppbeatLicense code: 0UY4C9TRFTVO4W0ETracks of the Week• “Got it Bad Y'all,” King Tee feat. Tha Alkaholiks, ©️1993 Capitol Records LLC• “Free Mumia,” KRS-One feat. Channel Live, ©️2004 X-Ray Records• “Nutin' Ta Lose” Dred Scott, ©️Vinyl Digital GmbH#SpaceHulkDeathAngel #Warhammer40K #BoardGames #TabletopGaming #CooperativeGames #OldSchoolHipHop #PodcastLife #BreakupGamingSocietyJoin Breakup Gaming Society episode sponsor Doghouse Reilly in being clever bastards and wearing clever things.

DOCKET ALERTS:   The House Judiciary Committee wants to change the US Attorney statute to say what Attorney General Bondi claimed it did in court. This would involve the Senate voluntarily surrendering their power to vote on nominees, so … lotsa luck. Back in New Jersey, prosecutors say they'll seek superseding indictments in cases with Alina Habba's name on them, to remove the stink of illegitimacy.   The DOJ has quietly settled a trollsuit filed by red states and rightwing trolls, including Robert Kennedy, alleging social media censorship by the Biden administration. The Supreme Court already dropkicked this case once, so the parties agreed to simply declare victory and go home.   And Sam Bankman-Fried finds new ways to piss off judges and be sooooo weird, this time with help from his mom.   MAIN SHOW:   The DOJ settled a bogus lawsuit filed by former national security advisor Mike Flynn. His malicious prosecution claims had already been tossed by a federal judge, but she let him amend his complaint again, and by then Trump was back in the White House. Is this a new template for MAGA criminals to back the truck up to the Treasury and start filling it with taxpayer cash? The January 6 defendants sure seem to think so! We'll compare a newly filed case by rioters with a suit filed by pardoned Proud Boys.   And we've got a deep dive into the birthright citizenship case Trump v. Barbara, which will be argued at the Supreme Court this Wednesday.   Kennedy v. Biden https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67089647/kennedy-v-biden/?order_by=desc   Missouri v. Biden https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/missouri-v-biden/?order_by=desc   US v. Bankman-Fried https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66631292/united-states-v-bankman-fried   Tarrio v. US [Proud Boys Bivens Suit] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70474277/tarrio-v-united-states-of-america   Sullivan v. US [J6ers FTCA Suit] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73101995/sullivan-v-united-states/   Flynn v. US [Flynn FTCA] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66930673/flynn-v-united-states   Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3231372247892780026   US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765   Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 https://www.archives.gov/files/historical-docs/doc-content/images/indian-citizenship-act-1924.pdf   Indian Law Scholars' Amicus Brief [via SCOTUS] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/399370/20260226125541217_Barbara%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf   The Nationality Act of 1940 [student Note] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1335062   Trump v. Barbara https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-365.html   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod

-The show erupts after Democrats compare modern America to the 1857 Dred Scott era, with Rob repeatedly asking whether anyone seriously believes Republicans are plotting to send people “back to the cotton fields” in a country where everybody streams the same music and shops at Target. -Former federal prosecutor Doug Burns joins the “Newsmax hotline” and sharply criticizes Rep. Ro Khanna's comparison of the Supreme Court to the Dred Scott era, calling the rhetoric unethical and dangerous. Today's podcast is sponsored by : GHOSTBED - I used to think a mattress was just furniture, until I got my GhostBed! GhostBed is offering my audience their lowest prices of the season, plus an extra 10% off. Go to http://GhostBed.com/CARSON and use promo code CARSON BIRCH GOLD - Protect and grow your retirement savings with gold. Text ROB to 98 98 98 for your FREE information kit! To call in and speak with Rob Carson live on the show, dial 1-800-922-6680 between the hours of 12 Noon and 3:00 pm Eastern Time Monday through Friday… Musical parodies provided by Jim Gossett (http://patreon.com/JimGossettComedy) You can now WATCH and chat with The Rob Carson Show LIVE on Newsmax's social media channels (Facebook, X/Twitter, YouTube, Rumble) Listen to Newsmax LIVE and see our entire podcast lineup at http://Newsmax.com/Listen Make the switch to NEWSMAX today! Get your 15 day free trial of NEWSMAX+ at http://NewsmaxPlus.com Looking for NEWSMAX caps, tees, mugs & more? Check out the Newsmax merchandise shop at : http://nws.mx/shop Follow NEWSMAX on Social Media:  -Facebook: http://nws.mx/FB  -X/Twitter: http://nws.mx/twitter -Instagram: http://nws.mx/IG -YouTube: https://youtube.com/NewsmaxTV -Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/NewsmaxTV -TRUTH Social: https://truthsocial.com/@NEWSMAX -GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/newsmax -Threads: http://threads.net/@NEWSMAX  -Telegram: http://t.me/newsmax  -BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/newsmax.com -Parler: http://app.parler.com/newsmax Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tonight on Habari Live, we expose the growing controversies shaking America from Washington to local communities fighting for survival. Republicans erupt over a controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund tied to Trump allies and possible January 6 compensation, while the Supreme Court weighs Trump's push to end birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil. We break down the dangerous historical parallels to Dred Scott, the 14th Amendment, and why civil rights groups say these attacks threaten constitutional protections for everyone.We also react to explosive clips featuring Bernie Sanders calling out billionaire influence and demanding a ban on Super PACs, residents in Wisconsin sounding the alarm over data centers draining local water supplies, AOC confronting officials over undrinkable water in Georgia communities, Trump claiming affordability concerns are “made up,” and JD Vance defending Trump on insider trading concerns. From political corruption to environmental injustice, Habari Live connects the dots that mainstream media ignores.#Trump #AOC #BernieSanders #BirthrightCitizenship #SupremeCourt #JDVance #WaterCrisis #Politics #HabariLive #NewsOurWay #January6 #SuperPACs #TrumpNews #CivilRights #BreakingNews

This Day in Legal History: Plessy v. FergusonOn May 18, 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Plessy v. Ferguson, a case that became one of the most infamous constitutional decisions in American history. The dispute arose from a Louisiana law requiring separate railroad cars for Black and white passengers. Homer Plessy, who was of mixed race, deliberately sat in a whites-only rail car to challenge the law. After he was arrested, Plessy argued that the statute violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and held that racial segregation did not violate the Constitution as long as the separate facilities were considered equal. This became known as the “separate but equal” doctrine.In practice, the doctrine gave legal cover to segregation across the South and helped support the broader Jim Crow system. The Court treated segregation as a matter of public policy rather than as a badge of racial inferiority imposed by law. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote the majority opinion, reasoning that enforced separation did not necessarily imply inequality. Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented, warning that the Constitution should be color-blind and that the ruling would become as harmful as the Court's decision in Dred Scott. His dissent later became one of the most important statements in American civil-rights law. For nearly six decades, Plessy allowed governments to maintain racially separate schools, transportation, and public facilities.The decision was finally undermined in 1954, when the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education and rejected segregation in public education. Plessy remains a stark example of how constitutional interpretation can either protect civil rights or help entrench systems of inequality.A proposed class action filed in Washington federal court accuses Amazon of keeping money it allegedly collected from customers through prices inflated by now-invalidated Trump administration tariffs. The plaintiffs say Amazon could seek refunds from the federal government after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the tariffs, but has refused to do so because it wants to stay in President Trump's good graces. The lawsuit claims Amazon passed tariff costs on to shoppers, then failed to commit to returning that money even though other retailers have allegedly pursued refunds. The customers point to Amazon's abandoned plan to show tariff-related price increases on product pages as evidence that the company can identify both the tariff amounts and the consumers who paid them. They also claim Amazon backed away from that plan after criticism from the Trump administration and a call involving Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.The complaint alleges violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The plaintiffs say Amazon misled consumers by suggesting tariffs were not increasing prices, while allegedly raising prices on certain low-cost goods after the tariffs took effect. They also argue Amazon failed to tell customers it would not seek tariff refunds even if the tariffs were later found unlawful. The proposed class would include Amazon customers who paid tariff-related surcharges from February 4, 2025, through February 20, 2026. The suit estimates the class could include tens of millions of buyers and seeks to recover money the plaintiffs say belongs to consumers. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other major companies, including Nike, Sony, Nintendo, Costco, Temu, and FedEx.Amazon Skipped Tariff Refunds To Appease Trump, Suit Says - Law360The Federal Circuit held its biennial judicial conference in Washington, D.C., bringing together its active judges, agency leaders, district judges who have recently sat by designation, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Solicitor General D. John Sauer. Chief Judge Kimberly Ann Moore opened the event with lighter moments, including praise for Senior Judge Raymond C. Clevenger and the debut of an AI-generated Federal Circuit theme song meant to make the court feel more accessible. The conference did not address the ongoing suspension of Judge Pauline Newman, although she attended the event while continuing to challenge the suspension at the Supreme Court. Judge Moore said the court issued 630 opinions in 2025, its highest total in a decade, and noted an effort to use fewer one-line Rule 36 affirmances. Still, court leaders and practitioners criticized Rule 36 decisions, especially because they give lower courts and litigants little explanation.The judges also discussed en banc arguments, emphasizing that lawyers must stay focused because full-court arguments leave little time for extended exchanges with any one judge. A major theme was the renewed use of district judges sitting by designation, with 23 visiting judges helping decide nearly 200 cases since February 2024. Visiting district judges said the experience gave them a new appreciation for appellate work, the quality of Federal Circuit advocacy, and the process of narrowing trial records into appealable issues. Federal Circuit judges also described sitting on other courts, including in criminal sentencing matters, which several said gave them a deeper appreciation for the workload and human stakes faced by district judges. The judges offered practical advice to lawyers, urging them to narrow issues, address weaknesses directly, provide full context for citations, and make appropriate concessions. USPTO Director John Squires also appeared and defended his approach to discretionary denials of inter partes review petitions, saying he is returning the process to what Congress intended under the America Invents Act.Fed. Circ. Drops A Theme Song, Talks Guest Judges - Law360President Donald Trump has dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury Department, a move linked to discussions about creating a $1.8 billion compensation fund for people who claim they were unfairly investigated by prior administrations. The court filing did not describe any settlement, but Trump's lawyers said the case was still early enough that he could dismiss it without court permission or IRS approval.The dismissal was filed “with prejudice,” meaning Trump cannot bring the same claim again. Trump and his sons filed the lawsuit in January, accusing the IRS of failing to protect confidential tax information after his tax records were leaked. A former IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, was sentenced to prison for leaking Trump's tax information as well as records belonging to many others. Trump brought the case as a private citizen, not in his official role as president. The federal judge overseeing the case had already questioned whether a sitting president could properly seek personal monetary damages from an agency inside the executive branch.The dismissal follows settlements in lawsuits brought by Trump allies, including Michael Flynn and Carter Page. Shortly after Trump's filing, House Democrats submitted a brief accusing him of self-dealing and arguing that any attempt to use the court process to support a settlement should be closely reviewed.Trump drops lawsuit against IRS amid talks of establishing a $1.8 billion fund for allies | CNN Politics 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

Historian and New York Times bestselling author Jemar Tisby joins Mark Labberton to confront the Supreme Court's 6–3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which has eviscerated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and reopened the door to racial gerrymandering across the South. Recorded in the immediate aftermath, the conversation traces the long arc from the Three-Fifths Clause and Dred Scott through Selma to this hour. "This has landed in the black community harder and heavier than a lot of what we've seen during the Trump administration." In this episode with Mark Labberton, Tisby reflects on the history of black disenfranchisement, the cynicism of colorblind jurisprudence, and what remains of multiracial democracy in America. Together they discuss how the legal architecture of Jim Crow reemerges under neutral language, John Roberts's decades-long campaign against the Voting Rights Act, Justice Kagan's umbrella analogy, the suspension of Louisiana's primary, the black church's response, and why this midterm may be the country's last political chance. Episode Highlights "This has landed in the black community harder and heavier than a lot of what we've seen during the Trump administration, and that's saying a lot." "It boggles the mind that folks sitting on the highest court in the land who have been to all these Ivy League schools, have literally decades of experience, can get it so wrong and stand so arrogantly on such faulty reasoning." "Colorblindness only works if you're starting from a level playing field." "These are not good-faith actors, not people wanting a representative democracy, but people wanting to consolidate power, which we call minority rule." "If you can't win on the merits of what you believe, then you have to rig the system so that no one can get you out of office." About Jemar Tisby Jemar Tisby is a New York Times bestselling author, historian, speaker, and professor of history at Simmons College of Kentucky, a historically black college in Louisville. He holds a BA from the University of Notre Dame, an MDiv from Reformed Theological Seminary, and a PhD in history from the University of Mississippi, where he studied race, religion, and social movements in the twentieth century. He is the founder of The Witness, Inc., a black Christian collective, and the author of The Color of Compromise, How to Fight Racism, and The Spirit of Justice: True Stories of Faith, Race, and Resistance. His commentary appears on CNN and in The Atlantic, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, and he writes Footnotes, a top-ranked history publication on Substack. Helpful Links and Resources Jemar Tisby's website: https://jemartisby.com Footnotes by Jemar Tisby (Substack): https://jemartisby.substack.com The Spirit of Justice: True Stories of Faith, Race, and Resistance (most recent book): https://jemartisby.com/the-spirit-of-justice/ The Color of Compromise: The Truth About the American Church's Complicity in Racism (bestseller): https://www.zondervan.com/9780310113607/the-color-of-compromise/ How to Fight Racism: https://www.harpercollins.com/products/how-to-fight-racism-jemar-tisby The Justice Briefing podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/footnotes-with-dr-jemar-tisby/id1460240056 Louisiana v. Callais, opinion of the Court (April 29, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf Elie Mystal, "The Supreme Court Has Completed Its Quest to Kill the Voting Rights Act," The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-demolishes-voting-rights-act/ "Sing Out, March On"—Joshuah Campbell's tribute to John Lewis, Harvard 2018 Commencement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=mKNRXQemxWQ NAACP Legal Defense Fund—Louisiana v. Callais case page: https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/louisiana-v-callais/ Brennan Center for Justice—Louisiana v. Callais: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/louisiana-v-callais Show Notes Why this conversation now: the SCOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act last week News breaking through a group text of lawyers, organizers, clergy, nonprofit leaders "This has landed in the black community harder and heavier than a lot of what we've seen during the Trump administration." John Lewis, SNCC, and the march from Selma to Montgomery A baton hard enough to crack the skull, the hardest bone in the body "It boggles the mind that folks sitting on the highest court in the land…can get it so wrong and stand so arrogantly on such faulty reasoning." Allen Temple Baptist in Oakland—watermelons, bubbles, and jelly beans on a Sunday morning The Three-Fifths Clause and the architecture of representation Dred Scott v. Sandford—"property can't sue" Reconstruction Amendments: 13th, 14th, 15th—birthright citizenship newly under threat Jim Crow's neutral codes: poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses Voting Rights Act of 1965 as the culmination of the civil rights movement Edmund Pettus Bridge—Bloody Sunday going viral in its day LBJ signs the bill with Rosa Parks and MLK in the room Elie Mystal in The Nation: gerrymandering with plausible deniability—https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-demolishes-voting-rights-act/ Shelby County v. Holder, 2013—preclearance gutted Roberts's tautology—stop discriminating to stop discrimination "Colorblindness only works if you're starting from a level playing field." Cast and umbrella analogies for premature dismantling of civil rights remedies Plaintiff Bert Callais's January 6 ties; Louisiana's roughly one-third black population Governor Jeff Landry's emergency order suspends Louisiana's May primary mid-election "These are not good faith actors…people wanting to consolidate power, which we call minority rule." "If you can't win on the merits of what you believe, then you have to rig the system so that no one can get you out of office." The activism horizon—courts, churches, voter registration, midterm turnout, NAACP, LDF, Brennan Center The last political chance before competitive authoritarianism #VotingRightsAct #JemarTisby #LouisianaVCallais #SCOTUS #CivilRights #BlackChurch #FaithAndJustice #SelmaToMontgomery #Democracy #MarkLabberton Production Credits Conversing is produced and distributed in partnership with Comment magazine and Fuller Seminary.

There's a ludicrous talking point being shopped by the Democrats, that somehow blacks have been denied their "voting rights" unless they're allowed to be represented by a black Democrat. If you end "majority-minority" districts, their votes no longer count. MS NOW has been a hourly cesspool of leftists crying "Jim Crow" and "Dred Scott" and "most racist Supreme Court ever" over their decision against racial gerrymandering.

SCHEDULE JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW, THURSDAY 4-9-2016.1705 PERSIAN EMPIRE1. **Evan Ellis** discusses **Peru's critical presidential election** amidst severe political instability. He explores the **move to a bicameral legislature** and the strategic risks posed by **deepening **Chinese** influence** in mining and infrastructure. (1)2. **Evan Ellis** explains **China's "lawfare" and economic pressure** against Panama after port disputes. He describes the struggle for influence over the **strategic Panama Canal** and the **demonstration of **Chinese** economic power**. (2)3. **Evan Ellis** details **Venezuela's complex political transition** under Delcy Rodríguez following Maduro's removal. He highlights the **reopening of the oil economy**, the lifting of U.S. sanctions, and **budding signs of tourism**. (3)4. **Evan Ellis** reports on **Brazil's strategic rare earth minerals** and a U.S. deal to diversify supplies away from **China**. He also notes the **impending presidential election**, where polling shows **Lula and Bolson's son** neck-and-neck. (4)5. **Anatol Lieven** evaluates **NATO's internal divisions** over the Middle East crisis and potential reconstruction in **Iran**. He analyzes how **Russia and **China** balance priorities** while the U.S. considers **lifting sanctions for regional stability**. (5)6. **Anatol Lieven** analyzes **Prime Minister Keir Starmer's low approval ratings** and his party's fragmentation during international crises. He explores **Britain**'s **diplomatic balance** between public opinion and its **essential security alliance** with the **United States**. (6)7. **John Yoo** outlines the history of **birthright citizenship** and the 14th Amendment's goal to overrule *Dred Scott*. He details **Trump administration legal challenges** concerning illegal migration and the definition of **jurisdiction and domicile**. (7)8. **John Yoo** examines the landmark ***United States v. Wong Kim Ark*** case and the debate over "jurisdiction". He analyzes the **Supreme Court's oral arguments** and potential hurdles for the government's **narrow interpretation of citizenship**. (8)9. **Daniel Rood** connects **modern California cotton booms** to historical plantation capitalism and labor exploitation. He explains how **17th-century sugar production in Barbados** pioneered industrial agriculture, mass enslavement, and **racialized labor concepts**. (9)10. **Daniel Rood** explores the **history of plantations** as systems designed to exploit cash crops with high margins. He discusses the **unending cycle of boom and bust** and the **"shadow of the great house"**. (10)11. **Daniel Rood** examines **John Locke's legal influence** on racial slavery and the fiction of the "negro". He also analyzes **Bacon's Rebellion** as a driver for creating **concrete notions of racial superiority**. (11)12. **Daniel Rood** reveals the tragic fate of **thousands of black Loyalists** abandoned by the **British** at **Yorktown**. He details how the revolution solidified the **uncompromising southern plantation system** as a military strategy. (12)13. **Mary Anastasia O'Grady** analyzes **Mexico's organized crime crisis** and the 130,000 missing persons since 2006. She critiques President Sheinbaum's struggle to confront **alleged corruption within her own Morena party**. (13)14. **Jim McTague and Lance Gatling** discuss **soaring oil prices** impacting Pennsylvania and **Tokyo**. They examine **Japan's strategic petroleum reserves** and diplomatic efforts to **de-escalate Middle Eastern tensions** affecting energy security. (14)15. **Haym Benaroya** details **engineering lunar settlements**, focusing on rigid structures, inflatables, and lava tube cities. He explains the challenges of **utilizing local regolith** while protecting astronauts from **radiation and toxic dust**. (15)16. **Haym Benaroya** addresses the **psychological and physiological stresses** of low gravity, including bone mass loss. He outlines the importance of **crew screening** and the **projected 2040s-2050s timeline** for sustainable habitation. (16)

7. John Yoo outlines the history of birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment's goal to overrule *Dred Scott*. He details Trump administration legal challenges concerning illegal migration and the definition of jurisdiction and domicile. (7)1877

This Day in Legal History: Civil Rights Act of 1866On April 9, 1866, the United States Congress took a decisive step in shaping post-Civil War legal order by overriding President Andrew Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This marked the first time in American history that a major piece of civil rights legislation became law over a presidential veto. The Act established that all persons born in the United States were citizens, directly challenging the legacy of Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had denied citizenship to African Americans. By affirming equal protection under the law, Congress sought to secure basic civil rights for newly freed individuals in the aftermath of the Civil War. The override demonstrated a powerful assertion of legislative authority during the Reconstruction era.The law also reflected growing tensions between Congress and the executive branch over how to rebuild the nation. Johnson had argued that the Act overstepped federal authority, but Congress rejected that view, signaling a shift toward stronger federal protection of individual rights. This moment helped redefine the balance of power within the federal government. It also underscored the role of Congress in enforcing civil rights when the executive resisted such measures. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 would later serve as a foundation for the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which constitutionalized its key principles.In practical terms, the Act granted citizens the right to make contracts, sue in court, and own property regardless of race. Although enforcement remained uneven, the statute represented a critical legal milestone in the transition from slavery to citizenship. It also set an enduring precedent for future civil rights legislation. The events of April 9, 1866, illustrate how constitutional mechanisms like veto overrides can shape the trajectory of American law.A former DLA Piper associate, Anisha Mehta, testified in federal court that she was unexpectedly fired shortly after announcing her pregnancy, despite receiving positive feedback on her work. She told the jury she handled significant responsibilities, including managing trademark portfolios for major corporate clients, and believed her performance was strong. Mehta said her supervisor initially reacted supportively to her pregnancy but soon raised vague performance concerns that she had not previously encountered. She described feeling shocked and distressed when she was terminated during a call with her supervisor and an HR representative in August 2022.Mehta claims the firm violated federal and New York City laws by discriminating against her based on pregnancy, while DLA Piper maintains she was dismissed for poor performance. She testified that she attempted to challenge the termination and requested to go through a formal evaluation process, but was denied. After her firing, she continued working briefly until her system access was cut off when she declined a severance agreement.Following her termination, Mehta applied to hundreds of jobs while pregnant but struggled to find employment. She eventually secured a position at eBay in 2024, earning significantly less than her prior salary. During cross-examination, the defense highlighted several alleged mistakes, including minor errors in client communications and administrative oversights, to support its claim of poor performance. Mehta acknowledged some errors but characterized them as minor and not indicative of overall poor work.At the center of the case is whether Mehta's termination was motivated by unlawful pregnancy discrimination or legitimate performance concerns. The legal issue involves employment protections under anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit adverse actions based on pregnancy while still allowing employers to terminate at-will employees for lawful reasons.Pregnant DLA Piper Atty Recounts Firing: ‘This Feels Wrong' - Law360A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that a coalition of states can proceed with their lawsuit challenging a major restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose denied the federal government's motion to dismiss, finding that the states presented plausible claims under both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. She also criticized the government for repeating jurisdictional arguments that had already been rejected earlier in the case and by the appellate court.The lawsuit, brought by 19 states and Washington, D.C., challenges a sweeping overhaul that aimed to significantly reduce the agency's workforce and restructure key programs. The states argue that the changes disrupted essential public health services, including disease detection, tobacco control efforts, and lead poisoning prevention. They also claim the restructuring caused missed regulatory deadlines, canceled health initiatives, and confusion around federal grants.Judge DuBose had previously issued a preliminary injunction blocking layoffs, noting that the states demonstrated real and ongoing harm. In this latest ruling, she emphasized that courts have the authority to review and stop government actions that may violate constitutional principles, including separation of powers. The states allege the overhaul exceeded executive authority and violated both statutory requirements and constitutional limits on government power.The federal government argued that the states lacked standing, that the court lacked jurisdiction, and that the agency's actions were lawful internal management decisions. However, the judge rejected these arguments, stating they had already been considered and did not undermine the plausibility of the claims. As a result, the case will move forward, allowing the states to continue challenging the legality of the HHS restructuring.HHS Must Face States' Suit Over RFK's ‘Dramatic Overhaul' - Law360John Deere has agreed to a $99 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit brought by farmers who accused the company of restricting competition in the repair market for its equipment. The farmers alleged that John Deere limited access to necessary diagnostic tools and software, effectively forcing customers to rely on authorized dealers for repairs at higher costs. The company denied wrongdoing but said the agreement resolves the dispute and allows it to move forward.The settlement includes both monetary compensation and significant changes to repair access. Farmers who paid for repairs through authorized dealers since 2018 will be eligible for compensation, with total payouts expected to exceed $100 million with interest. Experts estimated that the alleged overcharges ranged much higher, making the recovery a relatively strong percentage compared to typical antitrust settlements.In addition to financial relief, John Deere agreed to provide independent repair shops and equipment owners with access to diagnostic tools and software over a 10-year period. This change is intended to allow farmers to repair their own equipment or use third-party providers, addressing concerns about restricted competition. Plaintiffs described this as a major shift that breaks down the company's control over the repair market.The lawsuit, filed in 2022, claimed that John Deere monopolized the aftermarket for repairs by designing equipment that required proprietary tools. A federal judge previously allowed the case to proceed, finding sufficient evidence of potential market power. While this settlement resolves the private lawsuit, similar claims brought by the Federal Trade Commission remain ongoing.John Deere Inks $99M Deal In Farmers' Right-To-Repair Suit - Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This month on Conversations from the Pointed Firs: Carol Gardner, author of "The Divided North, Black and White Families in the Age of Slavery" (2025) written as part of a series, "Black New England." Divided North is a beautifully researched history of two families from Portland, Maine, one black, one white, who represented two multi-generational paths through the history of slavery in Maine, one as a founder of the abolitionist movement and underground railroad, and the other as captains and traders of slaves between Africa, Cuba, and the United States. These parallel histories are astonishingly evocative of the history of race in Maine, the north, and the larger USA from the mid-19th century to present day. 

April 1, 2026Trump attended the Supreme Court hearing of the case under which he hopes to end birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, The Fourteenth Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision and established that Black men were citizens, While discriminatory laws persisted until after WWI, the Supreme Court always upheld the citizenship of children born in the US, In the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision, the court upheld birthright citizenship, Trump appeared at the Supreme Court presumably to intimidate the justices during the hearing, The ACLU's Cecilia Wang, herself a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, argued the case for the plaintiffs.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

Andrew Branca- The Question of Birthright Citizenship The Supreme Court is about to take up one of the most consequential questions in decades: who actually qualifies for U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment. At the center is Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and temporary visitors. The legal battle now turns on one phrase—“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”—and whether it means full political allegiance or simply being present on U.S. soil. Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/DJ-D1_VANGY?si=NDgodTj0Z0ua4Jcq The Andrew Branca Show 283K subscribers 18,109 views Apr 1, 2026 "BRANCA FOR SCOTUS" MUGS! https://thebrancashow-shop.fourthwall... JOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month:    / @thebrancashow   Visit Here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook "You are wise to buy this material. I hope you watch it, internalize it, and keep it to the forefront whenever you even think of reaching for a gun" -Massad Ayoob (President of the Second Amendment Foundation) The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you. ➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors ➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble ​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style. ​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examples Get Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook 00:00 Supreme Court Takes Up Citizenship Case 00:06 Trump Executive Order Explained 00:21 Who Gets Citizenship Under the Order 00:43 Birth Tourism Industry Exposed 01:00 Foreign Nationals Using U.S. Citizenship 01:22 “Anchor Baby” Strategy Explained 01:44 Election Impact Concerns Raised 02:15 14th Amendment Core Language 02:43 What “Jurisdiction” Really Means 03:16 Citizenship Requires Allegiance 03:49 Why Presence Alone Isn't Enough 04:12 Permanent Residents vs Visitors 04:49 Why Illegals Don't Qualify 05:12 Supreme Court Oral Argument Preview 05:38 Purpose of the 14th Amendment 06:06 Dred Scott and Freed Slaves Context 06:38 Why Citizenship Was Created 07:10 Trump's Argument Explained 07:38 Global Citizenship Comparison 08:00 Scale of Birth Tourism 08:27 China's Role in Birth Tourism 08:56 Estimated Numbers Explained 09:26 National Security Concerns 09:50 Allegiance vs Paper Citizenship 10:21 Dual Citizenship Problem 10:48 Italy Tightening Citizenship Rules 11:10 Supreme Court Question Presented 11:38 Why Case Focuses on Constitution 12:04 Standing Problem Explained 12:39 Executive Order Scope (Prospective Only) 13:10 Constitutional Authority Argument 13:32 “We the People” Interpretation 14:03 Why Jurisdiction Isn't Just Criminal Law 14:28 Ambassador and Native American Examples 15:02 Political vs Legal Jurisdiction 15:29 Historical Debate Evidence 16:00 What Senators Said About Citizenship 16:32 “Not Subject to Foreign Power” Standard 17:00 Allegiance as the Key Requirement 17:28 Why Tourists Don't Qualify 18:00 Civil War Context Revisited 18:29 Purpose of Citizenship Clause 19:00 Wong Kim Ark Case Explained 19:32 Limits of That Decision 20:00 Permanent Residents vs Illegals 20:32 What Counts as Binding Law 21:00 Why Dicta Isn't Law 21:30 Final Legal Takeaways

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Annie Lee moderates a panel with African and Asian Americans about the impacts of Birthright Citizenship and the need for Surviving Through Solidarity. Guests include: Lisa Holder, Ming Hsu Chen, Don Tamaki and Michael Harris.   Link to an APEX Episode on Wong Kim Ark from March 20, 2025 Show Transcript [00:00:00] Opening Music: Apex Express Asian Pacific expression. Community and cultural coverage, music and calendar, new visions and voices, coming to you with an Asian Pacific Islander point of view. It's time to get on board the Apex Express.   [00:00:40] Miko Lee: Welcome to Apex Express. I'm your host, Miko Lee, and tonight we will listen to a recent event, Birthright Citizenship, Surviving Through Solidarity that took place at Chinese for Affirmative Action. Just yesterday, on April 1st, the Supreme Court heard the case around birthright citizenship. This event that you're gonna listen to was highlighting Asian and African American solidarity. As you might know, the cases of dread Scott in 1857 and Wong Kim Ark in 1898 are linked as landmark Supreme Court cases that directly defined and redefined American citizenship specifically about race and birthright. While Dred Scott denied citizenship to people of African descent, Wong Kim Ark's case utilized the subsequent 14th Amendment to solidify birthright citizenship for children born to foreign nationals. I'm just noting that in this conversation, because it was a panel discussion that was live, there was some irregular use of microphones, so sometimes the audio can be a bit spotty. Please bear with us, and if you want to review the transcript, check out our website, kpfa.org, apex Express. And last year we also covered the story of Wong Kim Ark and have included this past show in our show notes. Now let's listen in to moderator Annie Lee, Lawyers Michael Harris and Don Tamaki, Lisa Holder of Equal Justice Society and Ming Chen of UC Law.   [00:02:20] Annie Lee: Everyone. My name is Annie Lee and I am the managing director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action. Welcome to CAA's office here in San Francisco, Chinatown. And thank you all for being here today for our discussion: Birthright Citizenship Surviving through Solidarity. CAA and Stop AAPI Hate are proud to co-sponsor this event because it matters to us. CAA has been around since 1969 and we are a community based organization that provides direct services to lingual working class Chinese immigrants. And we also try to improve their lives through policy and advocacy. And in 2020, we co-founded Stop AAPI Hate, which is the national leading aggregator of anti-Asian hate incidents. And we know at Stop AAPI Hate that anti-immigrant policies are anti-Asian hate. So why are we here right now? March marks two anniversaries of two Supreme Court cases. One is Dred Scott and the other is Wong Kim Ark. These are two seminal cases in US history. And next week on April 1st, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the lawsuits challenging Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. So we are here to talk about birthright citizenship because it's an issue that is near and dear to both the Black and Asian communities.   [00:03:46] Without further ado, I am so thrilled to welcome this panel of amazing folks. Let's start with Michael Harris. Michael Harris here on my right is a retired attorney. He, for many, many years led the juvenile justice division at the National Center for Youth Law, an incredible litigator and advocates, and I'm so proud that he's here. He's also on the Equal Justice Society Board. Next to Michael is Don Tamaki. Don is a lawyer at the firm Minami Tamaki, and you might know him because he was part of the legal team that successfully got reparations for Japanese Americans after decades of fighting that injustice. So thank you Don. Don and Lisa, actually, spend time together on the California Reparations Task Force. And so this is Lisa Holder next to Don. Lisa is the president of the Equal Justice Society, which is based in Oakland, an incredible legal organization that has been in many, many fights, including, they filed an amicus brief in support of birthright citizenship, and that brief discusses why this is an issue for the Black community. And last but not least, we have Professor Ming Chen, who is a law professor at UC Law, and she's also the faculty director of the RICE Program, which is Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality. So thank you so much to my panel and let's dive in. So some of you know, but I am a former US history teacher, so I often worry that people don't adequately understand American history and I fear that people don't understand reconstruction and the 14th Amendment. So let's start with the origin of birthright citizenship. What is birthright citizenship and where did it come from and why does its origin matter for understanding what's happening today? So Ming, I'm gonna start with you because you're a law professor and then others chime in. Lisa, Michael, Don. 'cause I think you'll have more to add.   [00:05:45] Ming Chen: Great. Thank you so much Annie, and thank you to CAA for having us all. I'm really excited to be part of this conversation, which I think is going to be really the beginning of a series of conversations over the next few months. So you're starting in the right place, Annie, in asking us what birthright citizenship is, because that is the heart of what the common lawsuit will be about: who gets to be a citizen in the United States. And that's actually why I named my organization RICE. I think the emphasis is on the “C” [citizenship], because I do think it is something that brings together immigrant communities, as well as all of the different communities within the United States that have been expanding, over time. Getting to the, legal text I, I think it's important to remember first that birthright citizenship is bigger than the United States. Worldwide there are at least two ways of becoming a citizen. One is by birthright and the other is by naturalized citizenship. So we're talking about the birthright half. And the United States is not alone. It's among countries mostly in the Western hemisphere that have chosen to focus on the “jus soli” version of birthright citizenship, which is “soli” is soil. So it's birth by touching US soil. And the idea behind that theory was always meant to be an egalitarian one. It's one that is about the idea that anyone can become a citizen, right? In contrast to the older system that Europe and other countries use, “jus sanguinis,” which is to say that citizenship could only be inherited by blood and heritage. Right? So I think right from the very beginning, it tells us what the text and the history of our 14th amendment citizenship clause intended to accomplish, which was to have an egalitarian spirit, a fresh start, and a continual renewal of what it means to be an American.   [00:07:33] Lisa Holder: Just sort of continuing on the path that Ming just opened up for us, birthright citizenship is very much connected to the African American experience. Particularly because the genesis of that right, really was a reversal of the construct and the regime of the enslavement era, right? Everyone's aware that during that era, descendants of Africa were not considered humans, much less citizens. And the legal cases that were brought where people try to have their citizenship, and their humanity acknowledged, the courts universally said, no, you are not citizens and Black people have no rights that white people need to respect. Right. And so that was the case, law of the land until, after the Civil War, when we had the 13th, 14th, and 15th, amendments were lifted up and embedded into our laws. You also had the Civil Rights Act of 1866 where that body of law was overturned and enshrined into our constitution was a new law that said that freed people are citizens and they do have rights that everyone needs to respect and rights to equality. You know, we know that there have been problems executing that [laughs] but at least enshrined in our laws and enshrined in our constitution that is where the birthright citizenship, constitutional law came from. It came out of that experience.    [00:09:21] Michael Harris: I just want to add a couple things to that. I mean, it's very distinguished scholars, they're hitting it really hard. Two things, universality and so I wanna talk about that first. I got one more coming forward. It's universal. Birthright citizenship is universal. And what I mean by that is everybody gets to be a citizen who's born here in the United States. Period. It's universal, applies to everybody. It doesn't matter if you're Black or white or Asian, none of that matters. That's really important. The other thing is it's that this criteria is not something that's subjective, nobody gets to decide. It's automatic. If you're born here, you automatically have citizenship. Those two things being automatic and being universal I think are really important. And this, we'll talk about this more as we go through the conversation, but those two things are what makes birthright citizenship so powerful and why they keep coming to try and take it down because it's universal so everybody gets it and it's automatic. Nobody can take it away. So let's, we'll I'll just leave it there for now, but we'll come back to that.   [00:10:33] Annie Lee: Don, this one's for you. So the 14th Amendment passes in 1868. Like Lisa said, it's to reverse Dred Scott, where the Justice Taney wrote that Black people had no rights, which the white man was bound to respect. And so they had to repudiate that through the 14th amendments, they have universal and automatic birthright citizenship with very, very few exceptions for like diplomats kids. Okay, that's like so, so narrow. So 14th Amendment passes in 1868, but it takes another 30 years for a Chinese American man named Wong Kim Ark to establish that birthright citizenship actually applied to the children of immigrants. So Don, can you tell us Wong Kim Ark's story, who was he, what happened to him and why did the federal rural government make him this test case?   [00:11:22] Don Tamaki: Just a couple words about context. I mean, one of the remarkable things about the case is it occurred during especially California's ultra racist, ultra virulent racist period. It's a contradiction in that regard. So just taking you back to the origins of where this racial pathology comes from, of course we focus, tend to focus on Asian American history, but actually you have to begin with Black history and indigenous history in the country. So in 1619, the first enslaved people were brought to America. And you know, 12 million people were kidnapped off the west coast of Africa. 2 million died during the middle passage. 400,000 were dropped off in America, and the million other millions ended up in the Caribbean, in the Brazil in Haiti, Jamaica, et cetera. And from there, slavery in America continued for 246 years. Two and a half centuries. Civil war happened in 1865. It concluded, and for another 100 years, Jim Crow exclusion infected America. And San Francisco, by the way, was heavily Jim Crow until the 1960s and into the 1970s. The vestiges of that exclusion and discrimination directly are rooted in the Black American experience.   [00:12:52] Michael Harris: And it's still present here today. That's why we have a Chinatown. That's why we have a Japantown in San Francisco because of what Don just did.    [00:13:00] Don Tamaki: Redlining and racial covenants.    [00:13:02] Michael Harris: That's right.    [00:13:03] Don Tamaki: Exclusions, redevelopment, and so on. So people think of California as being like a enlightened state. Well, California did enter the union in 1850 before the Civil War. 1849 enslavers came to California and they brought their human property with them. So there were probably at least 1500 enslaved people in California. 1865 Civil War ended, but Democrats in 1868 rose to power saying they would vote against any law that would have any equality between , Black Californians, indigenous people, and Chinese folks. And beginning toward late 1800s, that's when the bulk of Asian American immigration began. First Chinese American coming during the gold rush, and then Japanese Americans have followed and so on. And so, Jim Crow seeped into all that. Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882. California was known as a strong Klan state by the end of the 1800s with strong Ku Klux Klan chapters in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, Riverside, San Jose, Anaheim and so on. And so this was a toxic stew that Chinese immigrated into and other groups too. So unsurprisingly, tons of anti-Asian legislation policies, exclusion, follow. So Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who lived and operated a business here. His parents continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, and then they departed for China. Probably no doubt because of the inhospitable conditions here. And racial terror was part of that, including the race riots here in Chinatown. And now that I mention it between 1865 to 1935, 352 people were lynched in California. Eight of those were Black Californians, but the rest were indigenous, Chinese, and persons of Mexican descent.   [00:15:18] So that was the environment. Wong Kim Ark continued to live in California into his twenties, reportedly working as a cook in San Francisco. And at the age of 21 he actually made two trips to China. He made a trip to China when he was 17 to visit his parents. Stayed there a year, came back without incident worked, came back here, worked till he was 21, then went back to China to visit his parents at that point. And when he attempted to reenter the United States, he was denied entry and detained with a threat of deportation upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States. Of course he was born here. So the issue was you know, birthright citizenship was the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment did it apply to Wong Kim Ark. And the interesting thing is about the case is that the court ruled in his favor. All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And those words are now, today becomes crucial. And people, I think we on the panel will talk about the implications of that language subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it established this principle that basically was reaffirmed repeatedly throughout our history for this 100 year plus period. To get to your last question, why did the court do this? I think scholars smarter than me can explain this, but I'll give you some clues. The court ruled in Wong Kim Ark's favor despite the virulent context of the era, because that's what the plain and expansive language of the 14th Amendment says.   [00:17:02] All persons didn't say formally enslaved, didn't say Black Americans. It said all persons. That's what the plain expensive language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 says: all persons and as Lisa referred to. And the congressional record of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1862, where legislators are debating these issues they clearly understood, and the record shows that if you include this expansive language, it will apply to groups like Chinese and Asians. And so with that understood it was adopted and ratified in 1868, 14th Amendment, and it was reaffirmed in other legislation like the Immigration Act of 1940. They just assumed that if you're born in this country, you're an American citizen. It was applied throughout the turbulent history involving my community, Japanese Americans. As you recall, 1942, 125,000 people were rounded up and put in concentration camps and the first generation were ineligible to become citizens. They were given identity cards marking them as enemy aliens. 2000 people died in those camps, but people were born in those camps. And the government, despite the fact that we were at war with Japan, understood that if you're born in this country. And even if your parents were quote, “enemy aliens,” you're gonna be classified as American citizens. And maybe lastly, the court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark because the 14th Amendment was trying to repair the harm done by Dred Scott v. Sandford, which was to provide human beings who've been here for two and a half centuries, the right to become an American citizen with all the benefits that go with that, like voting for instance. And recognizing that if you don't have those rights, you don't have anything, you are you, you're nothing. And for Japanese Americans, for instance, who are born in those camps, can you imagine if they didn't have birthright citizenship? They're not part of Japan. They're not part of America. Where are they? They're stateless. They have no home. They have no rights. And so it would create another underclass of people who have no rights for, and for which the 14th Amendment was trying to remedy which was you know, to provide a pathway. And so I guess you could say that's why, that's the incongruity of why Wong Kim Ark came out that way. In my opinion.   [00:19:59] Ming Chen: Maybe what I could add to the conversation is not just sort of who is included but who is not included. Because I think that's actually a much more small and specific group than the current dialogue would have you believe. So in the very language of the 14th Amendment, this idea of subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It refers to three exceptions and only three exceptions. One is for Native Americans, and that is because as of 1924 there wasn't a need to grant citizenship through the 14th Amendment because there were other provisions to grant citizenship to Native Americans. The second exception is for those who are children of diplomats. And the reason for that is because they have citizenship in their home country and their parents are only on a temporary post to the United States with the understanding that they're here in the United States in service to their home country. And I think that actually points to the limited meaning of the third exception, which is the one that I have to say, I have a really hard time understanding is part of the debate now. Because I think up until now, you know, this debate renews itself a couple times every year. Every time there's a new census, every time there's redistricting on all of the anniversaries, and usually the fight is about subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the third exception, which has come into the dialogue, is about the language of accepting children of invading armies. And that is one that I have not thought we needed to argue about. It really becomes a touch point as Don mentions this history with internment and the children of a group of enemy aliens. I think that gives it a whole new historical read.   [00:21:48] But one of the reasons that this argument, I guess I should first explain the argument because it may not be obvious to you as it was not obvious to me the first time I heard it, which was about 18 months ago. And so the argument is that the children of invading armies referring mostly to the children of immigrants coming across the US Mexico border should not be considered birthright citizens. So that's kind of what the public debate, what the insinuation is behind some of the current effort to chip away at Wong Kim Ark through the executive order. There have been many efforts to chip away through legislation. I don't know how frequently it's been attempted through constitutional amendment, which is what it would actually require. That's a very, very high bar that's almost never met. I think most people haven't really made a serious, serious effort there. But what I think is kind of stunning to me in the sort of momentum behind the current moment is that Judge Ho who himself is a birthright citizen. Took up this language and this argument about the children of invading armies after previously saying that he agreed with this interpretation that children of undocumented immigrants, children of temporary visas all of these different legal statuses in addition to all of these racial groups, would immediately be citizens. And the argument he tried to make is that it wouldn't include the group at the border because historically it wouldn't have included enemy aliens or invading aliens either. And I think that what is so surprising to me is that a) that there is meant to be this historical analog between what would've been happening at the time of the Civil War and what is happening now at the US Mexico border. We are not having a civil war. We are not in active military conflict at the US Mexico border. I'll set aside other US military conflicts and how we wanna use that terminology. But I think that's really important because I, I feel like it's almost a trick, you know, to turn what is a media frame that's meant to be like clickbait, right? The idea that there is an invasion at the border, right. That we're being flooded with people who don't belong here. And to try to turn that into a legal argument saying this is actually an invading army and that takes this group outside of the 14th Amendment.    [00:24:19] Michael Harris: That's, I was gonna ask you a follow up question because we haven't been invaded that many times by armies I mean, maybe the War for Independence when the British sent ships over and took over Boston for a while. I could see how if they had kids, I mean, that's a stretch, that might apply to this. But I think the rhetorical device, they're touching on where they speak of people who come into the United States without proper documentation as an invading army or an invading whatever. They use that terminology quite often. Is that enough to bootstrap into this exception?    [00:24:59] Ming Chen: I, not to me, [audience and panel laughter] I think not to serious legal scholars and jurists. I mean, and you know, I'm not trying to be inflammatory by saying that. I think there are a lot of people who are pretty far away from me on a legal and political spectrum who would also say that this argument is pretty unprecedented. To try to say that that would be enough to bootstrap it into the actual text of the constitution or the spirit of Wong Kim Ark. So I think it's going really, really far. And I think too far, and I hope that if that becomes a line of discussion during the oral argument, that it would be cut off pretty quickly.   [00:25:38] Annie Lee: Well, let me punt it to Lisa then. If it's pretty clear based on the text, based on the legislative history, based on, just everything in the last 125 years that has said very clearly that birthright citizenship is universal and automatic. Why is Trump doing this? Like, what is being attempted legally, but also politically? And Lisa, you take a stab at this first and then others can chime in.    [00:26:04] Lisa Holder: Yeah. You know, why is Trump doing this? [audience and panel laughter] There's many layers, you know? And it, this is a strategic play and you have to sort of think about this in a layered way. Like there's a long term strategic play. There's a short term strategic play, there's a procedural strategic play, but that sort of bootstraps and brings in a much more moral and narrative rhetorical play. Procedural play. The short term strategic play has a lot to do with the midterm elections. Right, right. And also limiting people of color's ability to pick people who look like them as their representatives. Right. Because all of a sudden you're not only putting into question people's citizenship based on birth and turning this into a lineage thing where you have to bring me proof that your parents or their parents were born here or something like that, or were naturalized. So you're starting to put into question in a practical measure, people's access to the franchise, people's access to the voting booth. Right. And you're also starting to create a chain effect. So people are actually afraid to go to the voting booth. Right. And then you couple that with moving the migration of ICE. Now ICE is in the airports. Guaranteed by November, ICE will be in the voting booth, right? So you create this chilling effect. And then in terms of having representation that looks like you having people of color represent you in the US House of Representatives, your state representative. When you put birthright into question in this way, you're also gonna be able to challenge people who are running for office, people of color, running for office and say, well, you can't really run because you need to prove. And that is a rhetorical issue that we have seen being used already with both Harris and Obama, you know, because they were brown, Black people. Their birthright citizenship was, they were manipulating that rhetoric and that narrative.   [00:28:25] So this is not coming out of the outta left field. It's iterative and it's a it's rhetoric that has been, you know, percolating up for a long time. This is just a culminating moment. The long term strategy is really about white supremacy. We know that, you know, all of the social science shows that in 20 years this, the country will be a majority minority country, right? And people of color will have a huge amount of power in terms of, you know, in terms of the vote, right? Because of that, switch to majority minority and white people will be in the minority. And so, this is about, from a long term perspective, ensuring that certain people maintain their power as an electoral block. Right? So that's sort of like a long term electoral politics play. And then finally, the procedural issues are what's outstanding, okay? As Ming mentioned, if you are going to use procedure to overturn a constitutional amendment that is a, an astronomical feat to accomplish, right? Because you need two thirds of all of the representatives in Congress, and then on top of that, you need 75% of the states to ratify that process. So overturning a constitutional amendment is virtually impossible. But what we have here is trying to do the same thing. One person trying to do the same thing using the powers of the executive office. It is unprecedented. It is absurd. It has no legal viability, but it is a political moment where this man sees an opportunity because of the bias that we see in the judicial branch, in the court system. And that is being leveraged for the executive to to do something that is unprecedented and that is actually procedurally impossible, right? For one person by just signing a document all of a sudden disenfranchising 13 million people. That is not the democratic process. It's quite the opposite.   [00:30:38] Michael Harris: I just wanted to add to that. The Senate and the House of Representatives are both very narrowly controlled by the Republicans, and so it's really important to Trump to maintain that control. He'll only be able to continue doing these outrageous things by virtue of getting a rubber stamp from Congress. And so either house going the other way would put a stop sign in front of him and make it much more difficult for him to do all those things. All this money he's spending he would not be able to do that if Congress was actually active in doing it's job. Cause under the Constitution, spending is supposed to be controlled by the Congress, not by the Executive. So everything's upside down, but that's only working because Congress is allowing him to do that and not trying to stop him. If the Democrats are able to take over the Senate or the House where there's only a three or four seat margin right now that would make it much, much, much harder for him to pull these things off. And so anything he can do to get an advantage in that way I think is also part of what they're trying to do and trying to pull off.   [00:31:48] Ming Chen: One other thought, and you know, I'm trying very hard to not be professorly in the sense of using jargon or highfalutin terms, but I'm just curious, has anyone in this room heard the term perpetual foreigner before? A few of you have, I mean, I think it's really pertinent here. The first time I heard of this idea was when I started to learn from other Asian American law professors when I was still in college. I think that idea was that for certain groups of people, including Asian Americans, it doesn't matter whether you are actually a citizen by law or how many generations you've lived in the United States, right? So I'm a birthright citizen like Wong Kim Ark, but I think the first time I heard about it was, you know, this idea of Asian Americans not being able to be Americans socially in terms of belonging regardless of whether they are themselves, the child of citizens or immigrants and if they're the sixth generation children, right. I remember taking a Chinatown tour with David and is that where we are about six generations out for a lot of the descendants. So even if you were in the sixth generation that if you look Asian, that you will still be seen as being foreign. And so I think that idea has animated a lot of the work that I do. Like why it is that a lot of the work I do on race centers Asian Americans and then a lot of the work I do on immigrants centers, the naturalization process.   [00:33:16] But I think it's also important to recognize the breadth of that idea. Again, this idea of trying to blur the line between actuality, like what is real and what sounds like a fancy argument. Right. And I think what Lisa said, you know, her brief reference to the challenges against Barack Obama and Kamala Harris when they were running for a highest offices. You know, I think again, there's not, it's not a coincidence. I mean, to me that's the perpetual foreigner at work again. Because it's the idea that not only that Black people cannot possibly be the leader of this country, right? Sort of the, the figurehead of this country, but that for Barack Obama, the child of one international student on a lawful, probably f visa at the time, or that for Kamala Harris, the child of two lawful immigrants, that they cannot be birthright citizens that would be eligible for president. So there's a lot of commonality in that argument. And I think, you know, people forget, I think people assume that if you're talking about groups who are not Asian right, or who are not Latinx, that we're not talking about foreignness, we're only talking about race. And certainly we are talking about race, but we're not talking about it exclusively.   [00:34:33] Michael Harris: And then in addition to all of that is just the straight up racism of it. And that's supported by this notion of white supremacy. And what I mean when I say that, Lisa has touched on this already, is that there is a hierarchy of racial groups. And we're not all created equal. There's a hierarchy and the top group is, you already know, I don't have to say it, is the whites [laughter], and then below that are the other people like us who look different. And the reason there's, they're able to put these groups out there and get people to buy into that belief system is because we look different. And so this is why the perpetual thing is perpetual it's because we still look different. And that is a key part of the white supremacy. They still want to buy into this notion that white people are superior. And the only way they can make that work is by saying that people who look different are inferior.   [00:35:34] Annie Lee: I love this discussion because it's so real. And what you are saying essentially is you're talking about belonging and you're talking about power. Like who gets to belong in America? And then that is necessarily connected with who has power in America, who deserves to have power in America. But I know that we all belong in America and that we have power. So I wanna shift this conversation now to what can we do? And so beyond the courts everybody tune in next week. But beyond the courts, what is the role of community organizing, state and local policy advocacy? Public education in defending birthright citizenship and fighting against the attack on birthright citizenship is one sliver of everything that he has done. So many executive orders that came out on day one. So how, how do we, as everyday people fight white supremacy? What can we do when they are redistricting and trying to take away our franchise right before the midterm elections? What do we do when they're using courts that they've already packed with their federal society judges? And so what, what can an average regular person do? And Don I'm gonna go to you first.    [00:36:47] Don Tamaki: Let me say something in a very far less intellectual way than my colleagues here. This is a very old playbook. The playbook of demagoguery is very old. He said the old is humanity. And there are three elements to that playbook. One, appeal to prejudice, however, that is, race, skin, color, religion, whatever. Secondly, fear monger and scapegoat. And thirdly trafficking, conspiracy theories, fake news, false information, erasure of history. That's how you control the culture. And it worked in 1619. It worked in 1882. It worked in Germany in 1933. And it works today, you know, 2016, 2020. You know, when Chinese were blamed as spreaders of the Chinese virus. Asian Americans, when Mexicans were characterized as drug dealers and rapists when Jews and immigrants were portrayed as replacing good white people. This dehumanizing [of] people where one more Black man killed during an encounter with law enforcement barely evokes a shrug because it is so normal. It is so normal, folks, and so it works. And so, you have the candidate Trump running for office and say to a national audience that, to the people of Springfield, Ohio, that Haitian immigrants are eating your dogs and cats and getting away with it. Or the images of the Obamas transposed on cartoon apes. And this is really Jim Crow stuff. This is Antebellum stuff. And it's a recycling of the same playbook. And so the first part of organizing is being aware of what's going on. This is not a new thing. Okay, it's just a racial pathology that churns in one form or another, and it has an origin. It predates us. And so I, I think part of that is educating ourselves how everything is interconnected.   [00:38:58] And since we're talking about Black Asian solidarity, I'll just say a couple things. I mean, the civil rights movement had three triumphs that we all should remember. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of '65 began the dismantling of Jim Crow, which I, as I said, was a hundred year phenomenon following the end of the Civil War and the Immigration of Act of 1965. The third act. It ended as, you know, racist quotas. It prioritized family ties and skills and it greatly increased Asian immigration. As a result, the majority of AAPIs today are post 1965 Americans whose very presence here was made possible by the Black Civil Rights Movement. How many of us know that, you know? I mean, everybody focuses not everybody, but people tend to focus on their own peculiar predicament as if it's unique to our own situation. And in fact, it's all, quite connected. So I think part of this organizing process is realizing, you know, it's Martin Luther King, the oft quoted statement where he says we may have come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now. And especially in connection with what's happening and, and you're seeing it in different parts of the country where sure, immigrants are being targeted in Minneapolis, but then you have thousands of Minneapolitans that, you know, ordinary people, business folks, teachers, laborers, protesting in Sub-Zero weather against what, what happened? And, and yeah. You know what, can we do protest work? I hope everybody's out there on March 28th, you know, this Saturday on the No Kings March.    [00:40:51] Michael Harris: Not just protesting, running them out of town.    [00:40:55] Don Tamaki: Well, [audience and panel laughter] Gregory Bovino, Gregory Bovino, who was the leading charge? Gone. Kristi Noem. Gone.    [00:41:03] Michael Harris: Yes, right.    [00:41:05] Don Tamaki: 2000 ICE agents in Minneapolis reduced to much smaller numbers. That's right. Their plans then launching Ohio trashed. You know, so that's why you, so boycotts, boycotts work. Ask Elon Musk. Ask Target. Local elections, Michael mentioned the midterm elections. It is if we don't, if Democrats don't get back the House, the country's cooked. So, I mean, everybody should be involved one way or the other in that. Raising money, you know, we are part of a, a fundraising group called CAPA21, and there are other groups out there, but those are, those things are crucial to funnel money toward swing elections and critical races. The education part I think is essential. If you consider the velocity change in terms of the civil rights movement, Japanese American redress and reparations was a 20 year movement. And it was full of education of the public. Civil rights movement, same thing. The philosophy of change on marriage equality or LGBTQ rights and all those things happened because they became normal. They were, they started out as ideas that people thought were preposterous. You know, that'll never change.    [00:42:26] Michael Harris: Right.    [00:42:26] Don Tamaki: And Jim Crow will never end. And San Francisco can segregate Asian Americans within Japantown and Chinatown. It, it will never change. But that idea of change, which were thought preposterous happens. But it requires civic engagement. So just examples.   [00:42:46] Michael Harris: I want to amplify two things that Don said. One is there will be a march this Saturday a No Kings March, and it's really, really important for people to show up for that march. ‘Cause the one thing that's devastating to a government is to have its people out there visible on the streets saying what the government is doing is wrong. Because you can spin certain things, you can lie about certain things, but bodies in the streets you can't lie about. It's there and it's real. So that's one thing that's really important, really. But I would encourage all of you if you can, if you are able, please join us and come out on Saturday. The other thing I want to add to the Don's excellent list is there's a few groups in the Bay Area and in San Francisco that does postcards. And their strategy is they identify particular jurisdictions where it's a very close race and it'll be pivotal if a Democrat can win over a Republican, say in a House or maybe even like the Texas Senator race. That one's probably gonna be very close too. And they send postcards to people encouraging them to vote. Don't sit it out. And those extra votes can be the difference between winning and losing. And that might flip the House might flip the Senate. So those are some other additional items.    [00:44:11] Ming Chen: I think at a much more basic level, it's just like telling, telling your story, telling the story of America. Because, you know, when we talk about all these rhetorical tricks, I mean, I think what it means is that that narrative is gaining a lot of power. And so I think you have to reclaim the narrative, right? You have to tell the counter story which happens to be the real story of what's happening. This is something that I actually haven't talked about this publicly, but my daughter she's like on the brink of being 13, not yet a teenager. It made me really sad that she came back from her well-funded, pretty liberal public school about a month ago crying because she said that in her Mandarin Chinese class, there was a child who was saying that Asian people eat dogs. And then writing swastikas on the chalkboard and singing Nazi songs making fun of the women in the room, I guess they're girls in the room saying that they're all lesbian without knowing anything about them. And it just made me really profoundly sad because I'd like to think that a lot of ignorant narrative is because people don't know better, right? I mean, as an educator, I hope that education will simply solve it. And it made me really sad to hear that again. You know, I'm, I'm on the brink of Berkeley. I basically live in Berkeley, right? So one of the most densely populated PhD overeducated people in America. And to be three generations in and to still have this story being told in the classrooms was really distressing to me. And even more distressing that it isn't just the like Chinese people that eat dogs as being a stereotype from those who are not educated, but it's something she might have heard on TV from the highest offices in the land, right? Something she might've heard the vice president say, for example. And so I just think it's so important and doesn't take education, doesn't take a law degree, right? To be able to tell that story. And so I was really, really proud that my daughter you know, did file a complaint with the principal that she came home and told us about it. And you know, her two parents who are civil rights and immigration lawyers, [laughter] but also that she's been like talking to her classmates right, about the fact that that's not true. That's not right. She's been comforting the other kids in the classroom who don't share the same background that she does. And I feel like that kind of work is just as important.    [00:46:45] Michael Harris: I want to add something to that. We have to take note of the fact that a lot of these types of comments really vile, racist things and not just about Asians, it's also some of the things about Black people, young people are saying. Part of it is because it's very easy to say things like that online because you can do it anonymously and not have to, you know, stand up and back up your comments, so to speak. And another part of it is our culture. We gotta be real about this. When I was growing up, I'm sure you were told this too, as the country became more educated and got more exposed to people of color and more people got higher education, all this crazy stereotypical racist stuff would go away because people would know better. That's what they told me the whole time I was growing up and now we know that's not true [audience laughter] because the reverse is happening. It's growing because some people are making money by putting stuff like that online and selling t-shirts and hats and stuff like that. Or starting, you know, whatever they start. There's this guy, Alex Jones, who made millions of dollars doing that kind of stuff. So some people are making money off of it. Other people are just buying into that ideological tip and are using that to gain power and influence and clicks. So we just have to be aware that this is a current going on in our society right now. And it's happening and it's growing and we, we need to be aware of it and start thinking about ways how we can put it to rest. Cause it's, it's happening.    [00:48:30] Annie Lee: Thank you so much. I do wanna give our audience some time to ask any questions that you all might have. So if you have a burning question to ask our illustrious panel now is your opportunity.   [00:48:45] Audience member: I was wondering how does this with, with the rhetoric of, of Washington pushing for IDs for voting how will that impact on people's presence at the voting booths and validating their ability to vote?   [00:49:04] Michael Harris: I think what you're referring to is the Safeguard [SAVE America] Act is now in Congress, and if it's passed and signed by the president, then it'll become law. And what it will require is anyone who wants to vote will have to have a photo ID. And even if you registered, you have to prove you're a citizen. So those two steps are, I think, designed to suppress the vote of people of color. I mean, I think it's very straightforward. This has been what Republicans have been trying to do for ever since the case that Don just mentioned passed and they were able to start doing this stuff. And I agree. It goes back to the notion that in 20 years, America's going to be a majority minority country. There's gonna be more people of color than white people. And I think that I'm just gonna come out and say that freaks them out. It really freaks 'em out. I think a lot of them have lived their whole lifetime where only white people were in charge, running stuff, and they can envision a future not too far off where that might not be the case anymore. And that's scary. It shouldn't be. I mean, we're all the same. It's all gonna be, you know, and there's Black Republicans and Black Democrats and there's Asian Republican. I don't know why they're so freaked out about it, but but they are freaked out about it. And a lot of this is to suppress the vote so that they can continue to stay in power and will not have to give up the power that they would lose otherwise.   [00:50:35] Lisa Holder: Yeah, I mean, it's always been about limiting the franchise, right? And since the time that it expanded beyond white males with property, there's been a battle to keep it as limited as possible. You know? And when you think about what happened after the Civil War, after the 13th, 14th, and particularly the 15th Amendment were passed and African Americans were allowed to vote, you had a 100 year backlash. Where 10,000 African Americans were murdered and lynched. Most of those were people who were trying to mobilize their communities to enter into the franchise and exercise the right to vote. That's the retrenchment that we're seeing being reiterated right now. Right. And we know that during that period, there were all kinds of hoops that, for instance, Black people had to jump through because of those Black Codes where you had to, for instance, prove that you can read this particular statement. Right. Or, you know, just like all kinds of random hoops that you had to jump through. And so when we see these barriers, these gatekeepers, like, oh, you have to have an ID. If this birthright citizenship goes through, no, no, no you can't bring in your birth certificate. You know, we need some proof of your parent, of your lineage. Right. And it's really is combined with that narrative and that rhetorical aspect, that Ming was articulating because although in fact we are America. America looks like us, Americans look like us. The alternative narrative where white predominance is the point is always going to be pushed where no, no, no, we are different. We are not normal and we are not America. And so that's, that's the narrative piece that all of this leads to. And that's why this story of storytelling that Ming talked about is so important. And also it is so important to just constantly push back to resist, to vote. To run for office when you look like an American.   [00:52:45] Audience member: My question is, if the executive order passes, what can we do to resist? Because one of the things is it will also disenfranchise women because it's about proving your identity that matches your birth certificate. Right. And there are really so many people that will not have their names to match their identities. And so what can people do to, to, to counter if that should happen?   [00:53:11] Don Tamaki: The legislative answer? Well, there'll be court challenges, no doubt    [00:53:15] Audience member: but, but before, let's say the midterm election.   [00:53:18] Michael Harris: Call your representative, fax 'em, email 'em, get your friends to do that, because it's pending in Congress right now.   [00:53:25] Don Tamaki: But elections have consequences is the point. And it people who says, well my vote doesn't count, doesn't matter. Everybody, both parties the same. Elections have consequences. I, I guess the only other thing to remember, I keep, you know, repeating this, the solidarity and connectedness bears repeating because the story keeps recycling. It's very recycled story about voter suppression. You know, the Civil War ended in 1865, 12 years of reconstruction. Lincoln is assassinated shortly after during the beginning of reconstruction and thereafter, you know, a deal was struck in the contested election of 1876. Federal troops are withdrawn from the south and then the voter suppression comes in literacy tests, poll taxes.   [00:54:19] Annie Lee: Mm-hmm. Grandfather clauses.   [00:54:21] Don Tamaki: Yeah. I mean in Virginia. During reconstruction 140,000 formerly enslaved people registered to vote after the collapse of reconstruction it was reduced to 21,000. California had you know, poll taxes. Other states had literacy tests and whatever, and it's now repeating because folks don't like the results of an election. The answer is not to, you know, broaden your net and appeal to upfront (?) policy. The answer is to suppress voting, stop people from voting. And so again, it's a matter of awareness I think we have to realize the game plan. And it makes it so important about who is voted into the dials and levers of the controls that run the country. So that's critical.    [00:55:13] Ming Chen: I can jump onto that. go vote. But I think it's also, you know, it's early enough to say, get your documents in order. Right? Go and be ready to vote in a way that won't draw question, right? So you don't have to wait for the lawsuit. And I will say for that, as someone who spends most of my days working with 20 something year olds who move all over the country, a lot of it is about sort of get your ducks in order, right? So if you don't have a driver's license with the current address that matches your name, you can fix that now. So many people who don't have a normal ID because they never learn how to drive, right? So make sure you go get that document. You mentioned marriage, Anna, and I remember I moved to New York at the same time that I got married and trying to get my name on the document when I was it, you know, it's like this endless loop, right? Because you're getting a new ID because of your address. If you don't have that, you can't get your social security card, if you don't have that you can't validate the marriage certificate, right? There's just this endless loop. And you have to get all of that in order, right? So I think maybe there needs to be two parts to our voter mobilization this year, right? It's get yourself ready, sort of like arm up and then vote so that your vote will actually end up counting.    [00:56:33] Miko Lee: Please check out our website, kpfa.org/program/apexexpress to find out more about our show and our guests tonight. We thank all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating, and sharing your visions with the world because your voices are important. Apex Express is produced by Ayame Keane-Lee, Anuj Vaidya, Cheryl Truong, Isabel Li, Jalena Keane-Lee, Miko Lee, Miata Tan, Preti Mangala-Shekar and Swati Rayasam. Tonight's show was produced by me Miko Lee, and edited by Ayame Keane-Lee. Have a great night.   The post APEX Express – 4.2.26 – Surviving Through Solidarity. appeared first on KPFA.

Today's Poll Question at Smerconish.com: Which should determine US citizenship, the place of birth or the citizenship of one's parents? Michael Smerconish breaks down the high-stakes legal and political battle over birthright citizenship as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments tied to Donald Trump's executive order. With history stretching from Dred Scott to Wong Kim Ark, the episode explores whether the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all born on U.S. soil—or if that interpretation could shift. Smerconish also examines how the U.S. compares globally and why this issue cuts to the core of national identity, law, and constitutional limits. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

En este episodio analizamos un momento histórico para la comunidad inmigrante: el debate en la Corte Suprema sobre el derecho a la ciudadanía por nacimiento bajo la Enmienda 14. Explicamos los argumentos del gobierno, la defensa de los derechos civiles, y lo que podría pasar en los próximos meses. También exploramos el contexto histórico, desde el caso Dred Scott hasta el precedente de Wong Kim Ark, y cómo estos influyen en la decisión actual. Además, revisamos las preguntas clave de los jueces y qué señales nos dan sobre el posible resultado. En este episodio hablamos de:  El caso “Trump vs. Barbara” y la orden ejecutiva sobre ciudadanía  Qué dice la Enmienda 14 y el significado de “jurisdicción”  El precedente de 1898 (Wong Kim Ark)  Argumentos del gobierno vs. defensores de inmigrantes  Participación histórica del presidente en la Corte Suprema  Posibles consecuencias: bebés sin nacionalidad  Análisis de los jueces clave y sus posturas  Qué deben hacer las familias inmigrantes ahora  Preguntas del público sobre doble ciudadanía, procesos migratorios y derechos Capítulos00:00 – Introducción y noticia histórica02:20 – ¿Qué está en juego con la ciudadanía por nacimiento?04:40 – Contexto histórico: Dred Scott y la Enmienda 1407:10 – Caso Wong Kim Ark (1898) y precedente clave11:50 – Racismo histórico y paralelos actuales14:15 – Presencia de Trump en la Corte Suprema16:30 – Argumentos del gobierno vs. ACLU19:25 – Debate sobre “jurisdicción” y lealtad21:45 – Análisis de los jueces (Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett)29:10 – Preguntas clave de los jueces progresistas31:30 – ¿Qué pasará ahora? Posible decisión33:00 – Recomendaciones para familias inmigrantes36:00 – Preguntas del público (doble nacionalidad, hijos ciudadanos)47:30 – Cierre del programa  Contenido informativo general; no sustituye asesoría legal individual. 

The McGraw Show 4-1-26: Dred Scott's Legacy, TV Guides, Pray the Gay Away & April Fool's by

Visit SCOTUSblog here. In this episode, Michael and Amy unpack: -The origins of birthright citizenship (Dred Scott → 14th Amendment → Wong Kim Ark) -What “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” really means -How the current Supreme Court might rule -Whether the U.S. is an outlier globally Then, Michael turns to listeners for a wide-ranging and candid debate: Should being born on U.S. soil automatically make you a citizen? This is a timely, nonpartisan conversation about law, policy, and identity—right at the center of today's political and constitutional crossroads. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

People matter. “And may the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all.” - 1 Thessalonians 3:12 (NKJV)

Wisconsin's Act 15 would put even more work requirements on the underfunded University of Wisconsin system and the co-president of the faculty union talks to Labor Radio, Walmart has to pay out millions in a multistate wage theft case involving driving gigs, a northern Michigan town is raising a statue honoring early 20th-century labor organizer "Big Annie" Clemenc, Rick Smith looks at the notorious Dred Scott case, and Labor Radio looks back at a late 19th woodworkers strike in Oshkosh in which women took a major role. THIS IS A PLEDGE WEEK EDITION.

National Oreo Cookie day. Entertainment from 2010. Battle of the Alamo ended, Dred Scott decision, Aspirin invented, Silly Putty went on sale. Todays birthdays - Michelangelo, Lou Costello, Ed McMahon, Mary Wilson, Kiki Dee, Rob Reiner, Tom Arnold, D.L. Hughley, Skip Ewing, Connie Britton. Nancy Reagan died.Intro - God did good - Dianna Corcoran   https://diannacorcoran.com/Oreo cookie TV commercialImma be - The Black Eyed PeasWhy don't we just dance - Josh TurnerBirthdays - In da club - 50 Cent     http://50cent.com/Who's on first - Abbott and CostelloPretty Baby - SupremesDon't go breaking my heart - Kiki Dee Elton JohnBurnin a hole in my heart - Skip EwingExit - Texy and I know it - Taylor Branch   Taylor on FacebookHistory & Factoids about today Playlist on SpotifyHistory & Factoids about today webpagecooolmedia.comcountryundergroundradio.com

This Day in Legal History: Hiram Rhodes RevelsOn February 25, 1870, Hiram Rhodes Revels was sworn in as the first African American to serve in the United States Senate. His election came during the turbulent Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War, a period defined by constitutional change and political uncertainty. Revels represented Mississippi, a former Confederate state that had only recently been readmitted to the Union. In a moment heavy with symbolism, he filled the Senate seat once held by Jefferson Davis, the former president of the Confederacy. The contrast between the two men reflected the profound transformation taking place in American law and government.Revels' swearing-in came after the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which abolished slavery, guaranteed equal protection, and protected voting rights regardless of race. His presence in the Senate gave tangible meaning to those constitutional promises. Yet his path to office was not without challenge. Some senators argued that he did not meet the Constitution's nine-year citizenship requirement, claiming that the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford had denied Black Americans citizenship before the Civil War. Supporters countered that the 14th Amendment had settled the question of citizenship, making Revels eligible to serve. The Senate ultimately voted to seat him, affirming the legal force of the Reconstruction Amendments.Revels served only a brief term, but his impact was lasting. His election marked a rare window in American history when federal power was actively used to expand civil and political rights in the South. Although Reconstruction would eventually give way to decades of segregation and disenfranchisement, February 25, 1870 stands as a reminder of a constitutional moment when the nation attempted to redefine equality under the law.The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission released its first major update to its enforcement manual in eight years, outlining a new vision focused on fairness and transparency. SEC Chairman Paul Atkins described the revisions as overdue and said the agency will now review the manual annually. The updated 115-page guide provides clearer direction on how enforcement investigations will proceed and what options are available to individuals and companies under scrutiny.One key change involves the Wells process, which notifies potential defendants that SEC staff intend to recommend enforcement action. Under the revised policy, recipients of a Wells notice will have four weeks to submit a written response. After filing that response, they may request a meeting with senior leadership in the Division of Enforcement to argue against pursuing charges or to present their perspective on the case.Atkins has previously indicated that reforming the Wells process is a priority, emphasizing the need for accurate and carefully considered enforcement actions. Enforcement Division Director Meg Ryan also noted that a persuasive Wells response can influence whether commissioners ultimately approve a case. The manual further reinstates the ability of settling parties to request waivers from automatic industry bars that can follow enforcement actions. In addition, it introduces clearer guidance on how cooperation may reduce penalties and explains how the SEC may coordinate with criminal authorities. Overall, the agency says the revisions aim to clarify how it enforces federal securities laws and strengthen public confidence in the process.SEC Lays Out New Enforcement Vision In Revised Guidelines - Law360Paramount Skydance has submitted a revised proposal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, as a bidding battle with Netflix continues. The new offer follows the expiration of a seven-day waiver period under WBD's existing merger agreement with Netflix. For Paramount's deal to move forward, WBD's board must first determine that the revised bid qualifies as a “Company Superior Proposal” under the Netflix agreement. After that, a four-business-day match period would need to pass, the Netflix agreement would have to be terminated, and a new definitive agreement would need to be signed with Paramount.While the board reviews the updated proposal, Paramount said it will keep its tender offer in place and continue urging shareholders to reject what it calls the less favorable Netflix transaction. The rivalry between the bidders has spilled into public statements, with Paramount criticizing the structure of the Netflix deal as potentially reducing shareholder value. Netflix has pushed back, accusing Paramount of mischaracterizing regulatory issues and focusing on appearances rather than results.WBD confirmed it received the revised bid but reiterated that its current merger agreement with Netflix remains active and that the board still recommends the Netflix deal. Specific terms of Paramount's updated offer were not disclosed, though it recently added financial safeguards, regulatory commitments, and an offer to cover the breakup fee if WBD exits the Netflix agreement. Netflix's agreement to acquire WBD's studio and streaming operations is valued at about $82.7 billion, while Paramount's competing proposal to purchase the entire company is valued at roughly $108.4 billion.Paramount Revises WBD Offer As Netflix Bid War Goes On - Law360​​A federal judge has temporarily barred prosecutors from freely searching devices seized from a Washington Post reporter during a national security leak investigation. The FBI searched reporter Hannah Natanson's home in January and took electronic devices as part of a probe into the alleged disclosure of government secrets. Natanson, who has reported on President Donald Trump's efforts to dismiss large numbers of federal employees, has not been charged with any crime.U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter ruled that the government may not conduct an unrestricted review of the seized materials. Instead, he said the court will oversee the examination of the devices to ensure that journalistic protections are respected while still allowing investigators to seek relevant evidence. Porter rejected the Justice Department's request to let prosecutors carry out a broad, unsupervised search.Justice Department attorneys had argued that reviewing the materials was essential to a criminal investigation involving national security concerns. They proposed using a separate FBI “filter team” to screen the data and remove irrelevant content before investigators accessed it. The judge's order reflects an effort to balance press freedom with the government's authority to pursue evidence in sensitive cases.US judge blocks search of Washington Post reporter's devices | ReutersA California woman is set to testify in Los Angeles that her early use of Instagram and YouTube harmed her mental health, in a closely watched trial against Meta and Google. The plaintiff, identified as Kaley G.M., says she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, and later struggled with depression and body dysmorphia. Her attorneys argue the companies deliberately designed their platforms to attract and retain young users despite being aware of potential psychological risks.The case is part of a broader international push to address the impact of social media on children, with some countries already imposing restrictions. Earlier phases of the trial focused on what the companies knew about the effects of their platforms on young users and how they targeted that demographic. Now the proceedings are turning to Kaley's personal experiences and whether the platforms substantially contributed to her mental health challenges.To succeed, her legal team must prove that the design or operation of the platforms was a significant factor in causing or worsening her condition. Meta has pointed to her history of family instability and alleged abuse as alternative explanations for her struggles. Her lawyer, however, referenced internal company research suggesting that teens facing difficult circumstances were more likely to use Instagram compulsively.The lawsuit also challenges features such as autoplay videos, endless scrolling, “like” buttons, and beauty filters, which the plaintiff claims encouraged prolonged use and distorted self-image. YouTube's defense argues that she did not fully use available safety tools and presented data indicating her recent average viewing time was relatively limited.Woman suing Meta, YouTube over social media addiction takes the stand at trial | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Send a textFind out more information at https://www.bookclues.comPresidents aren't just dates and policies; they're people formed by families, faith, loss, ambition, and a country that rarely stops arguing. We sat down with author and veteran editor Mary Carol Ghislin to unpack her new book—a compact, classroom-friendly journey through every U.S. president that doubles as an eye-opening guide for adults who want the big picture without the bloat.Mary Carol explains why she built each profile around three anchors: formative childhood moments, defining actions in office, and a clear, factual “footprint” on slavery and civil rights. That design turns biography into a timeline of American change, letting listeners watch ideas harden, soften, and finally move. Along the way, we test two loaded claims: Are we more divided than ever, and are modern presidents more corrupt? The answers surprise. From Washington's anxiety about unity—and his striking promise of religious liberty—to social media's megaphone effect, division looks less like a new wound and more like an old scar we keep picking.We also grapple with power and ethics. Some leaders chased fame more than service; others crossed lines that history refuses to forgive. Buchanan's shadow over Dred Scott, Wilson's resegregation of the federal government, Truman's push toward desegregation—these choices build a map of retreat and recovery that readers can follow across administrations. And then there's character: Lincoln's moral gravity without formal church ties, Reagan's mother teaching forgiveness amid family struggle. These human details don't excuse policy; they explain it.If you teach history, this episode offers a ready-made structure for meaningful discussions. If you love history, it's a fast track to the patterns that matter: constitutional norms like the peaceful transfer of power, the slow arc from slavery to civil rights, and the way personal conviction shapes public life. Listen, reflect, and share your takeaways with someone who disagrees with you—then subscribe, leave a review, and pass this episode to a friend who loves American history.Mary Carol's publishing company https://candlecreek.com/about-candle-creek/https://www.bookclues.com

Pulitzer Prize-winning Lincoln historian Eric Foner chronicles the Dred Scott decision (often derided as the Supreme Court’s worst ruling), which held that black people have “no rights” and aggravated tensions between north and south, setting the stage for the bloody Civil War. To see additional resources and our other programs, please visit humanmedia.org . Humankind specials are  heard on NPR and PRX member-stations, in association with GBH Boston.

Henry Wilson was one of the most important abolitionists and a savvy politician who thought well ahead of his time. How did he discuss patriotic causes in the abolitionist cause? Hear how an 1857 (in the wake of the Dred Scott decision) speech highlights ways we can relate to the pillar of patriotism.Support the showVisit georgewashingtoninstitute.org to sign up for our e-mail list! The site is the one-stop shop of all things Friends & Fellow Citizens and George Washington Institute!JOIN as a Patreon supporter and receive a FREE Friends & Fellow Citizens mug at the $25 membership level!IMPORTANT NOTE/DISCLAIMER: All views expressed by the host are presented in his personal capacity and do not officially represent the views of any affiliated organizations. All views presented by guests are solely those of the interviewees themselves and may or may not represent the views of their affiliated organizations, the host, Friends & Fellow Citizens, and/or The George Washington Institute.

On today's episode, we discuss the infamous Dred Scott decision with future law student Madeline, unpacking how questions of citizenship, jurisdiction, and property rights produced one of the Supreme Court's most morally repugnant yet technically intricate rulings. The conversation probes whether Chief Justice Taney applied the law as it then stood or twisted it to entrench slavery, how states and the federal government once shared power to define citizenship, and why subject-matter jurisdiction can make an entire case legally void. The hosts then discuss the legality of a pardon by President Trump for Tina Peters, specifically whether federal "crimes against the United States" could extend presidential pardon authority to state-level convictions. Particularly in the context of Biden-era election-related tactics. Don't miss it!

It's the usual brawl at the bar with the three barflies of the Three Whisky Happy Hour, where we take note of Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson sayiing the quiet (progressive) part out loud, likely flattered by the New York Review of Books recently saying of her: "Ketanji Brown Jackson is proving to be the sharpest justice on the Supreme Court." (No, seriously—they really printed that sentence.) But did she really just give away the whole anti-democratic impulse of progressives? It looks like she did.We actually agree that Humphrey's Executor is going to get executed because Slaughter (the party to the case against Trump) ha set it up for the slaughter.Speaking of slaughtering, we get around to celebrating the seasonal apperance of the McRib, but not before reviewing how his bears on John Yoo's favorite constitutional doctrine, the 'unitary executive,' and we take a brief tour to argue over some of the fine points of the Dred Scott case. Because whisky will do that to you.

We Like Shooting Episode 638 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Midwest Industries, Primary Arms, Night Fision, Die Free Co., Mitchell Defense, Rost Martin, and Swampfox Optics   Welcome to the We Like Shooting Show, episode 638! Our cast tonight is Jeremy Pozderac, Aaron Krieger, Nick Lynch, and me Shawn Herrin, welcome to the show! Sponsor Black Friday Deals - Gear Chat Nick - 1911 Project News 1911 project update Shawn - Lights Out for Bright Lights Cloud Defensive EPL Shawn - TitanX: The Future of Laser Training Weapons The article presents the TitanX, a new inert training pistol designed for realistic dry fire training, incorporating features like a resetting trigger and laser for instant feedback. It aims to improve shooting skills through advanced training analysis via the MantisX app. The introduction of the TitanX may enhance training for gun owners across all skill levels, providing a cost-effective tool for skill development while maintaining a focus on familiarity with popular firearm models. Bullet Points Shawn - Comparing Shooters Global SG Timer Models: GO vs 2 Shooters Global has launched two new shot timers, the budget-friendly SG Timer GO and the premium SG Timer 2, each designed for different types of shooters. Both come with advanced smart sensor technology and integrate with the Drills app for enhanced training features. The SG Timer GO is priced around $164.99, while the SG Timer 2 costs $329.99, reflecting their respective target markets. The article highlights a Black Friday sale for potential buyers. The introduction of these timers is likely to attract various shooters, offering more accessible options for improving training techniques. Shawn - Walther Halts PPK Series Production Walther Arms, Inc. has suspended production of its PPK, PPK/S, and PP handgun lines as part of a long-term modernization program, marking a pause in nearly a century of manufacturing. This break is intended to update the production processes while maintaining the traditional characteristics of the firearms. Existing stock will become the last available units for an extended period, potentially increasing interest and demand among collectors and users of the PP-series. No timeline for the release of updated models has been provided. Shawn - Primary Arms Launches Exciting Golden Ticket Giveaway Primary Arms is hosting a significant giveaway event from November 24 to December 1, 2025, offering customers a chance to win one of five premium LaRue rifle packages valued over $4,000 each with every purchase made. This promotion aims to enhance customer engagement during their Black Friday sales and may stimulate interest and participation within the gun community. Savage1r - Gideon Optics swag bag Gun Fights Step right up for "Gun Fights," the high-octane segment hosted by Nick Lynch, where our cast members go head-to-head in a game show-style showdown! Each contestant tries to prove their gun knowledge dominance. It's a wild ride of bids, bluffs, and banter—who will come out on top? Tune in to find out!   Agency Brief Agency171.com Dred Scott v. Sandford  "If Black people were citizens, they'd have the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went." That's not me talking. That's Chief Justice Roger Taney in 1857, explaining why the Supreme Court couldn't let Black Americans be citizens. Think about that. The Court admitted the Second Amendment was an individual right. They just didn't want certain people exercising it. So they ruled an entire race had zero constitutional rights. This is the story of how fear of an armed population led to the worst Supreme Court decision in history—and why it matters for every gun owner today. What's really on the line: Can the government decide who counts as "the people" with rights? If courts can strip rights from one group, who's next? Will slavery expand nationwide, or can it be contained? Does the Second Amendment mean individuals can bear arms, or just militias? Hidden stake: Southern states terrified of armed free Black people The entire future of constitutional rights—and the Union itself—hangs on one family's lawsuit. 1846: Dred and Harriet Scott sue for freedom in St. Louis Their owner took them to free territory (Illinois + Wisconsin) Missouri law = "once free, always free" Their real motivation: Keep their daughters from being sold away 1850: They win at trial. Declared free. 1852: Missouri Supreme Court reverses—protecting slavery politics over precedent 1856: Case hits U.S. Supreme Court Nation boiling over slavery and states' rights 7 of 9 justices appointed by pro-slavery presidents Initially planning narrow ruling—then they get greedy THE CONSPIRACY: President-elect Buchanan secretly contacts Justice Catron: "When will you rule?" Catron leaks insider info back Buchanan pressures Justice Grier: "Join the Southern majority" Grier caves March 4, 1857: Buchanan's inauguration—he promises the Court will "settle" everything He already knows the outcome March 6, 1857—THE BOMBSHELL: 80-year-old Chief Justice Taney delivers a 200-page ruling designed to end the debate forever: Black people can never be citizens—not even free Black people in Northern states They have "no rights which the white man was bound to respect" Congress can't restrict slavery anywhere—Missouri Compromise unconstitutional Here's the 2A moment: Taney writes that if Black people were citizens, they'd have the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went." He uses this as proof they can't be citizens—the idea of armed Black Americans was too dangerous. What this reveals: The Court understood the 2A as an individual right, not just militia They feared an armed population—specifically armed Black Americans Gun control was a tool of racial oppression from day one They chose to strip citizenship rather than allow armed equality THE EXPLOSION: North erupts in fury Republicans see it as proof of "slave power conspiracy" (they're right) Abraham Lincoln rises: "What's next—making free states into slave states?" Four years later: Civil War begins 600,000 dead THE FIX: 13th Amendment (1865): Abolishes slavery 14th Amendment (1868): Overturns Dred Scott—declares all Americans are citizens This becomes the foundation for applying the Bill of Rights—including the 2A—to state governments THE 2A CONNECTION Why every gun rights advocate should know this case: ✓ SCOTUS explicitly tied citizenship to the right to bear arms—they admitted it was individual, not militia-based ✓ The Court's fear of armed citizens drove their decision—they'd rather strip citizenship than allow armed Black Americans ✓ Gun control as racial control—disarming populations has always been about power, not safety ✓ The 14th Amendment's purpose: Overturn Dred Scott and protect rights against state infringement ✓ McDonald v. Chicago (2010): Supreme Court incorporated 2A against states by citing the 14th Amendment's reversal of Dred Scott and how Southern states disarmed free Black people THE 14TH AMENDMENT - Ratified July 9, 1868—specifically to overturn Dred Scott Section 1 (the critical part): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." What this did: ✅ Overturned Dred Scott — Declared ALL people born in the U.S. are citizens ✅ Protected rights against state infringement — States can't "abridge the privileges or immunities" of citizens ✅ Applied the Bill of Rights to states — Before this, only the federal government was bound by the Bill of Rights ✅ Made the 2A enforceable against states — This is why state gun bans can be challenged in federal court The 14th Amendment's Framers on the Right to Bear Arms: During congressional debates over the 14th Amendment, Republicans repeatedly cited Southern states disarming free Black people as a reason the amendment was necessary: Senator Jacob Howard said the amendment would protect "the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as...the right to keep and to bear arms" Congressmen cited "Black Codes" that banned Black Americans from owning firearms The amendment was designed to prevent states from doing what Dred Scott enabled: stripping constitutional rights based on race Modern Impact: McDonald v. Chicago (2010) — Supreme Court incorporates the Second Amendment against state and local governments Justice Alito's majority opinion: Cited the 14th Amendment as overturning Dred Scott Discussed how Southern states used gun control to oppress freed slaves after the Civil War Concluded the right to bear arms is a "fundamental right" protected by the 14th Amendment's guarantee that states can't abridge the "privileges or immunities" of citizens The direct line: Dred Scott says Black people aren't citizens and can't have rights (including arms) Civil War fought partly over this 14th Amendment passes to reverse Dred Scott and protect all citizens' rights 150+ years later, that same amendment is used to strike down state gun bans THE LESSON: The Constitution protects "the people"—not "some people." When courts decide rights don't apply to certain groups, nobody's rights are secure.

A Supreme Court decision that sent shockwaves across America. Dred Scott v Sandford, 1857. Who was the Chief Justice responsible for the decision? On what grounds did he rule that Dred Scott, and by extension all African Americans, was not a citizen of the US? Don is joined by renowned historian Kate Masur, author of "Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement".Edited by Aidan Lonergan. Producer is Freddy Chick.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  You can take part in our listener survey here.All music from Epidemic Sounds.American History Hit is a History Hit podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sarah Isgur and David French walk listeners through the entire history of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, some of the biggest cases ... all prompted by one listener question. Plus: Grifter Sarah makes a reappearance. The Agenda:—Understanding substantive due process—Supreme Court to consider whether to hear challenge to same-sex marriage on November 7—Dred Scott v. Sandford being the worst decision ever—Scaring our libertarian friends with Slaughter-House cases—The dissent everyone knows was right—Liberty to brutally oppress your workers—‘Grown-ass men' and their group chats—The Based Ritual 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

It's Fun Day Monday on the Majority Report On today's show: The Trump administration is hinting at a link between Acetaminophen and autism. Border Czar Tom Homan was investigated for receiving $50,000 in cash back in 2024 for a promise of employment in the Trump Administration. Oddly, after Trump's victory the DOJ shut down the FBI investigation. Professor of immigration and citizenship law at the University of Virginia, Amanda Frost joins the show to discuss her book You Are Not American: Citizen Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers. In the Fun Half: Despite saying himself that we are on a path to a dictatorship, Chuck Schumer still won't commit to a government shutdown or doing anything at all. When asked about how House Democrats can resist fascism Hakeem Jeffries says the answer is more protest, more speeches and offers nothing else. The Charlie Kirk Memorial in Glendale, Arizona had Donald Trump feeling like dancing. Stephen Miller addresses the Kirk mourners with a Goebbels inspired speech. The patriots leaving the memorial left an incomprehensible amount of garbage throughout the streets of Glendale. All that and more. The Congress switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: HELLOFRESH: Go to HelloFresh.com/majority10fm to get 10 Free Meals + a Free Item for Life! One per box with active subscription. Free meals applied as discount on first box, new subscribers only, varies by plan. COZY EARTH: Go to cozyearth.com/MAJORITYREPORT for up to 40% off the best pants, joggers, shirts, everything SUNSET LAKE:  Head to SunsetLakeCBD.com and use the code FlowerPower25 to save 40% on all their sun grown flower, pre rolls, and even vapor cartridges. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/

In 1857, this country told Dred Scott that Black people like him could never be citizens. Then, our ancestors secured our birthright citizenship. Today, Trump is threatening to make the “impossible” possible, filing to end birthright citizenship. What does that mean for Black Americans? _____________ 2-Minute Black History is produced by PushBlack, the nation's largest non-profit Black media company. PushBlack exists to amplify the stories of Black history you didn't learn in school. You make PushBlack happen with your contributions at BlackHistoryYear.com — most people donate $10 a month, but every dollar makes a difference. If this episode moved you, share it with your people! Thanks for supporting the work. The production team for this podcast includes Cydney Smith and Len Webb. Our editors are Lance John and Avery Phillips from Gifted Sounds Network. Lilly Workneh serves as executive producer. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices