Podcasts about Due Process Clause

The latest in the ongoing battle between the Trump Admin. and Harvard University includes an effort by the Trump Admin. to bar the university from using the Student and Exchange Visitor Program for not complying with their demands to supply information on student visa holders. Harvard followed up with a lawsuit against the administration for violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act, to which a federal judge temporarily blocked the Admin. from revoking Harvard's ability to enroll international students. Dan takes aim with the President's battle with Harvard and thinks he's wasting political capital. Do you agree or disagree?Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!

The Brady Rule is a legal principle that requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense in criminal cases. The rule is named after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland (1963), which held that the prosecution has a constitutional obligation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment.The Brady Rule applies to all evidence that is favorable to the defendant, including evidence that tends to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness. The rule also requires the prosecution to disclose any evidence that is known to the government, whether or not the prosecution intends to use the evidence at trial. This includes evidence that is in the possession of law enforcement agencies, as well as evidence that is in the possession of other government agencies, such as intelligence agencies.In this episode, we discuss the new information and how it may come into play during the trial.(commercial at 6:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho prosecutors disclosing info about 'internal affairs investigation' related to officer on Kohberger case | Fox NewsSource:Giglio Information Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The purpose of personal jurisdiction is to ensure that a court has the authority to compel a defendant to appear and litigate in a particular forum. This authority is constitutionally grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires that a defendant have sufficient connections with the forum state.General personal jurisdiction exists when a defendant's contacts with the forum state are so systematic and continuous that they can be sued there for almost any matter, even if the underlying events occurred elsewhere (e.g., a corporation's principal place of business is in the state). Specific personal jurisdiction arises when the lawsuit stems directly from the defendant's contacts with the forum state (e.g., a contract signed and performed within the state).The two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties, while diversity jurisdiction permits federal courts to hear cases between citizens of different states or between a state citizen and a foreign national, provided the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.The well-pleaded complaint rule dictates that for a case to fall under federal question jurisdiction, the federal issue must be presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. It is not sufficient for a federal question to arise only as a defense or a counterclaim.Venue rules determine the specific district within a court system where a case should be heard, focusing on the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the location of evidence or the events at issue. Factors determining proper venue often include the defendant's residence, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or where property involved in the lawsuit is located.Following Twombly and Iqbal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. This requires more than conclusory statements or a recitation of the elements of a cause of action; the factual allegations must allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.When responding to a complaint, a defendant can file an answer, admitting or denying the plaintiff's allegations and asserting any affirmative defenses, or file a pre-answer motion under Rule 12(b) to raise defenses like lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. Asserting affirmative defenses in the answer is crucial because failure to do so can result in their waiver.Under Rule 15, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving the original pleading, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.The "minimum contacts" test, established in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, states that for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, that defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. These contacts must be purposeful and related to the claim.The "amount in controversy" requirement for diversity jurisdiction currently stands at more than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. This threshold is important because it ensures that federal courts, when exercising jurisdiction based solely on the diverse citizenship of the parties, are addressing cases of sufficient financial significance.

This Day in Legal History: LochnerOn April 17, 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lochner v. New York, a landmark case in American constitutional law that struck down a New York law limiting bakery workers to a 60-hour workweek and 10-hour workday. The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause by interfering with the freedom of contract between employers and employees. Justice Rufus Peckham, writing for the majority, held that the state had overreached its police powers because the law did not have a sufficient connection to health or safety.This decision launched what is known as the “Lochner era,” a period lasting into the 1930s during which the Supreme Court routinely struck down economic regulations on the basis that they infringed upon economic liberties. Critics of the ruling saw it as judicial activism favoring corporate interests over workers' rights, while supporters viewed it as a defense of individual liberty and limited government.Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote a famous dissent, arguing that the Constitution does not enshrine any particular economic theory and warning against the Court imposing its own views on legislation. His dissent later became influential in shaping modern constitutional jurisprudence.The Lochner decision has since been largely discredited and is no longer considered good law, but it remains a critical case in debates over substantive due process, judicial restraint, and economic regulation.Google is facing a class action lawsuit in the UK that could result in damages of up to £5 billion ($6.6 billion), alleging it abused its dominant position in the online search market. Filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the case argues that Google's control of the search engine landscape allowed it to inflate advertising prices. The suit claims Google secured exclusive deals with phone manufacturers and Apple to make its search engine the default option, effectively excluding competitors.The claim also alleges Google offered better functionality and features for its own ads, making it harder for rivals to compete. Led by competition law expert Or Brook, the suit represents thousands of businesses who argue they had no real alternative to using Google Ads. Brook emphasized that visibility on Google is critical for businesses, calling its control a form of monopoly power.Google rejected the allegations as speculative and said it would fight the lawsuit, maintaining that users and advertisers choose its services because they are effective, not because they are forced to. Meanwhile, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority launched a separate investigation into Google's practices earlier this year, citing its dominant role in UK search and advertising markets.Google faces 5 billion pound UK lawsuit for abusing dominance in online search | ReutersThe Associated Press (AP) has accused the Trump White House of ignoring a court order that reinstated the news agency's access to press events. The dispute centers around a federal judge's finding that the AP was unlawfully retaliated against for refusing to use the term “Gulf of America” in place of the historically recognized “Gulf of Mexico” in its reporting, as requested by President Trump. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden ruled that the White House likely violated the AP's First Amendment rights and ordered that access restrictions be lifted while the case proceeds.Despite this, AP lawyers say the White House continues to exclude its journalists from the press pool, including access to the Oval Office and presidential travel. In response, the White House implemented a new policy removing all wire services, including AP, Reuters, and Bloomberg, from permanent pool status, placing them instead in a rotating system with about 30 other outlets. The AP claims this is a veiled attempt to continue its exclusion.Both Reuters and the AP criticized the policy, noting that many media outlets, especially smaller and international ones, depend on wire service coverage for timely updates on presidential actions. The White House has appealed Judge McFadden's ruling, with arguments scheduled before a federal appellate court.AP accuses Trump White House of defying court order restoring access | ReutersThe California attorney general's office has declined to support Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI, stating in a public letter that the legal action doesn't appear to serve the state's public interest. Musk, who co-founded OpenAI but later left, accuses the company and CEO Sam Altman of abandoning its nonprofit mission in favor of profit. He urged the state to join his lawsuit, arguing the transition to a for-profit model undermines the original intent of the organization.The attorney general's office responded that Musk hadn't demonstrated how the lawsuit would benefit the public and raised concerns that he may be trying to control OpenAI's assets for personal gain. This comes after Musk's consortium offered an unsolicited $97 billion bid for the company earlier this year. Musk's legal team pushed back, claiming the state misunderstood his intentions and noting support from former OpenAI employees and philanthropic leaders who oppose the company's restructuring.OpenAI, which is still legally a nonprofit in California, must get approval from the state for its planned governance changes. The company says the changes are essential to secure $40 billion in investment and that the nonprofit will retain a stake in the for-profit entity, helping it fulfill its mission long-term.Musk filed his lawsuit in 2024, asserting OpenAI had strayed from its founding purpose of developing AI to benefit humanity. A jury trial is scheduled for next year. Meanwhile, Musk has launched a competing AI firm, xAI, and Altman has accused him of trying to sabotage a rival.California attorney general declines to join Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI | 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

Short-Answer QuizWhat is the fundamental purpose of personal jurisdiction, and what constitutional provision provides its basis?Personal jurisdiction ensures a court has the authority to compel a defendant to appear and litigate in the forum. Its constitutional basis lies in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, preventing individuals from being unfairly haled into court in distant or unconnected locations.Explain the difference between general and specific personal jurisdiction, providing a brief example of how each might arise.General jurisdiction exists when a defendant's contacts with the forum state are so continuous and systematic that they can be sued there for any claim, even if unrelated to those contacts (e.g., a corporation with its headquarters in a state). Specific jurisdiction arises when the lawsuit directly relates to the defendant's specific contacts with the forum state (e.g., a contract dispute stemming from a sale made in the state).What are the two primary bases for subject matter jurisdiction in federal courts, and what is a key requirement for each?The two primary bases are federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. For federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff's claim must arise under federal law and be evident in the well-pleaded complaint. For diversity jurisdiction, the case must be between citizens of different states (or a state and a foreign national) with an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, and there must be complete diversity of citizenship.How does venue differ from jurisdiction, and what is the primary goal of venue rules?Jurisdiction concerns a court's power to hear a case (either over the person or the subject matter), while venue dictates the specific geographic district where the case should be heard. The primary goal of venue rules is to ensure a convenient and appropriate location for the litigation, considering factors like the parties' residences and where the events occurred.Describe the key elements that must be included in a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought by the pleader.How have the Twombly and Iqbal Supreme Court decisions impacted the federal pleading standard?These decisions raised the pleading standard beyond mere notice pleading, requiring complaints to contain sufficient factual allegations to state a claim that is plausible on its face. This means the factual narrative must be more detailed and suggest a likelihood of liability, rather than just reciting the elements of a cause of action.What are the two main ways a defendant can respond to a complaint after being served? Briefly explain each.A defendant can file an answer, which requires them to admit or deny each of the plaintiff's allegations and assert any affirmative defenses they may have. Alternatively, a defendant can file a pre-answer motion under Rule 12(b), which raises legal objections to the complaint, such as lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to state a claim.List three examples of affirmative defenses a defendant might assert in their answer.Examples of affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations (the lawsuit was filed after the legal deadline), res judicata (the issue has already been decided by a court), and estoppel (the plaintiff is prevented from asserting a claim due to their prior conduct or statements).Under what circumstances can a party amend their pleading "as a matter of course"?A party can amend their pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving the original pleading, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.

Episode 27: Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO v. EdelblutLocal 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO v. Edelblut, argued before Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, Senior Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr., and Circuit Judge Seth Aframe in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 8, 2025. Argued by Charles G. Moerdler and Gilles R. Bissonnette (on behalf of Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO, et al.) and Mary A. Triick, Senior Assistant Attorney General (on behalf of Edelblut, et al.).Case Background, from the Brief for Plaintiffs—Appellees Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO:New Hampshire's “Banned Concepts Law” (or the “Law”) is unconstitutionally vague. Enacted in June 2021, the Law bans the teaching, instruction, advocacy, advancement, and training of—or compelling a student to express belief in or support for—four concepts in public schools and places of public employment. The four concepts implicate aspects of “age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion or national origin.”Statement of Issues Presented for Review, from the Brief for Plaintiffs—Appellees Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO:Did the district court correctly hold that the Law violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause on its face because its “prohibitions against teaching banned concepts are unconstitutionally vague,” and because the law contains “viewpoint-based restrictions on speech that do not provide either fair warning to educators of what they prohibit or sufficient standards for law enforcement to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement”?As an independent basis for affirmance, does the Law violate the First Amendment where it implicates the private, extracurricular speech of educators on matters of public concern?Resources:CourtListener case docket for Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO v. EdelblutNew Hampshire “Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education” lawBrief for Defendants—AppellantsBrief for Plaintiffs—AppelleesReply Brief for Defendants—AppellantsThe Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss President Trump's Executive Orders that target major law firms (such as WilmerHale and Jenner & Block). The orders target the firms for retaliation based largely on their past support of various left-wing legal causes. Do those Orders violate the firms' (and their clients') Free Speech Clause or Petition Clause rights? Might they also violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (in civil cases) and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (in criminal cases)? Recorded on March 31, 2025.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Devas v. Antrix considers whether foreign governments are protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause in the context of international arbitrations. The Ninth Circuit held that Antrix, an Indian government-owned corporation, lacked sufficient “minimum contacts” to meet the Due Process Clause and therefore dismissed attempts by petitioner Devas to enforce an arbitration award from […]

Devas v. Antrix considers whether foreign governments are protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause in the context of international arbitrations. The Ninth Circuit held that Antrix, an Indian government-owned corporation, lacked sufficient “minimum contacts” to meet the Due Process Clause and therefore dismissed attempts by petitioner Devas to enforce an arbitration award from India. Devas, supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and leading scholars of international arbitration, is asking the Court to reverse arguing that U.S. courts need not consider due process protections for foreign states, and are authorized under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to enforce such awards even without a nexus to the United States.While there are strong originalist and textualist arguments in favor of granting foreign states constitutional due process protections, the Court’s decision to grant such protections could undercut U.S. treaty obligations to enforce foreign arbitral awards and the broader international system for commercial arbitration. It could also affect other litigation against foreign states in U.S. courts, including lawsuits seeking to recover for state-sponsored terrorist attacks. This panel will debate these questions and offer explanations of the ruling’s possible impacts.

In this case, the court considered this issue: May Oklahoma carry out the execution of Richard Glossip in light of the prosecutorial misconduct and other errors that affected his conviction and sentencing?The case was decided on February 25, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's failure to correct false testimony violated the Due Process Clause under Napue v Illinois. A conviction that relies on false evidence, knowingly allowed by the prosecution, requires reversal if there is a reasonable likelihood the falsehood affected the jury's judgment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 6-2 majority opinion of the Court.The prosecution allowed its key witness, Justin Sneed, to provide false testimony about his mental health and medical treatment. The new evidence showed that Sneed was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prescribed lithium, facts that were withheld from the defense. At trial, Sneed falsely claimed he was never treated by a psychiatrist and received lithium mistakenly. This falsehood was material because Sneed's testimony was the only direct evidence implicating Glossip, and impeachment of his credibility could have influenced the jury's decision. The prosecution had prior knowledge of Sneed's mental health treatment and still failed to correct the misstatement when it was made to the jury.Correcting this false testimony would likely have changed the jury's assessment of Sneed's reliability. Additionally, the prosecution's violations extended beyond Napue: it suppressed exculpatory evidence, interfered with witness testimony, and allowed destruction of key physical evidence. Given these cumulative errors and their impact on the fairness of the trial, Glossip is entitled to a new trial. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' rejection of the attorney general's confession of error was based on a misapplication of federal law.Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

The case was decided on January 21, 2025. Brenda Andrew was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of murdering her husband, Rob Andrew, and was sentenced to death. During her trial, the prosecution introduced extensive evidence about her sex life and personal failings, which was later conceded to be irrelevant. Andrew argued in a federal habeas petition that this evidence was so prejudicial it violated the Due Process Clause. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) upheld her conviction, finding some of the evidence about her extramarital affairs relevant but acknowledging that much of the other evidence was irrelevant. Despite this, the OCCA deemed the errors harmless. Two judges dissented, arguing that the prejudicial evidence undermined the fairness of the trial. In federal court, the District Court denied relief, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, stating that Andrew failed to cite clearly established federal law. The Tenth Circuit majority acknowledged the precedent set by Payne v Tennessee but dismissed it as a pronouncement rather than a holding. Judge Bacharach dissented, arguing that the prejudicial evidence deprived Andrew of a fair trial. The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the Tenth Circuit erred in its interpretation. The Court clarified that Payne established that the Due Process Clause can protect against the introduction of unduly prejudicial evidence that renders a trial fundamentally unfair. The Court vacated the Tenth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the trial court's admission of irrelevant evidence was so prejudicial as to render Andrew's trial fundamentally unfair. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

This lecture provides a comprehensive overview of personal jurisdiction in civil procedure. It explains the concept's definition, constitutional basis (primarily the Due Process Clause), and different types (in personam, in rem, quasi in rem). Key Supreme Court cases like International Shoe, Burger King, and Daimler are examined to illustrate jurisdictional tests and the distinction between specific and general jurisdiction. Finally, the lecture discusses the impact of modern issues like the internet and global commerce on jurisdictional principles, including the "sliding scale" test for websites and challenges related to social media and blockchain technology. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

In the last several years, numerous minors who identify as transgender have undergone surgery and other medical procedures to mirror common physical features of the opposite sex.In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity. Individuals, joined by the United States, brought suit against Tennessee. They allege that a ban on “gender affirming care” violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Due Process Clause’s “substantive” component gives parents a right to demand medical interventions for their children, even if a state has found them to be unproven and risky.The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law. The Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari on June 24, 2024, on the question of whether and how the Equal Protection Clause interacts with Tennesse's law. Argument before the Court occurred on December 4, 2024.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Culley v Marshall. In this case, the court considered this issue: What test must a district court apply when determining whether and when a post-deprivation hearing is required under the Due Process Clause? The case was decided on May 9, 2024.  The Supreme Court held that in civil forfeiture cases involving personal property, the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not require a separate preliminary hearing. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment generally requires notice and a hearing before the government seizes property. However, the Court's precedents differentiate between real property, which can be neither moved nor concealed, personal property risks being removed, destroyed, or concealed before a civil forfeiture hearing. Thus, as the Court recognized in United States v $8,850 and United States v Von Neumann, a timely post-seizure forfeiture hearing provides the constitutionally required process after seizing personal property. For such personal property, a separate preliminary hearing before the forfeiture hearing is not required. In contrast, in United States v James Daniel Good Real Property, the Court held that the government must ordinarily provide notice and a hearing before seizing real property that is subject to civil forfeiture. Here, the property subject to forfeiture is a vehicle—personal property—so a timely post-seizure forfeiture hearing is all the Due Process Clause requires. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined, agreeing in large part with the majority's reasoning and conclusions but writing separately to highlight some of the many larger questions this decision leaves unresolved about whether, and to what extent, contemporary civil forfeiture practices can be squared with the Constitution's promise of due process. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority's opinion is too broad and prevents “lower courts from addressing myriad abuses of the civil forfeiture system.” She, on the other hand, “would have decided only which due process test governs whether a retention hearing is required and left it to the lower courts to apply that test to different civil forfeiture schemes.” The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Summary of Chapter 12: The Right to Privacy. Chapter 12 explores the evolving concept of privacy rights in the United States, covering its historical origins, key legal developments, and emerging challenges in the digital age. The chapter is divided into several key sections: 1. Origins and Development of the Right to Privacy. Privacy as a legal concept has deep historical roots, beginning with English common law's recognition of the home as a protected space. In the U.S., privacy rights began to take shape in the 19th century, as industrialization and urbanization raised concerns about personal autonomy and dignity. A seminal moment in privacy law came with Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis' 1890 article, The Right to Privacy, which argued for privacy as an independent legal right. This article became the foundation for the modern understanding of privacy, defined as “the right to be let alone.” The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to privacy, but courts have interpreted various amendments to protect privacy in specific contexts. Landmark Supreme Court cases such as Griswold v Connecticut (1965), Katz v United States (1967), and Roe v Wade (1973) have established privacy as a constitutional right, particularly regarding personal decisions about marriage, reproductive rights, and bodily autonomy. 2. Reproductive Rights. The right to privacy has been particularly significant in the area of reproductive rights. Contraception: The Supreme Court first recognized the right to privacy in reproductive decisions in Griswold v Connecticut, which struck down a law banning contraceptives for married couples. This right was extended to unmarried individuals in Eisenstadt v Baird (1972), establishing reproductive autonomy as a matter of individual privacy. Abortion: In Roe v Wade (1973), the Court recognized a woman's right to choose to have an abortion as part of her privacy rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This right was later modified in Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992), which introduced the "undue burden" test, allowing for state regulation of abortion as long as it does not place an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Current Challenges: Reproductive rights have faced increasing legal challenges, culminating in the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v Wade, returning the authority to regulate abortion to individual states. 3. Right to Marry and Family Autonomy. The right to marry and family autonomy are also protected under the umbrella of privacy rights. The Right to Marry: The Supreme Court has long recognized marriage as a fundamental right. In Loving v Virginia (1967), the Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage, affirming that marriage is a basic civil right. This was further expanded in Obergefell v Hodges (2015), where the Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, grounding this decision in both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Family Autonomy: Privacy rights also protect family autonomy, particularly parents' rights to make decisions about the upbringing and education of their children. In Pierce v Society of Sisters (1925) and Troxel v Granville (2000), the Court ruled that the government cannot interfere with parents' fundamental rights to direct their children's upbringing, unless there is a compelling state interest. 4. Emerging Issues in Privacy Law. As society evolves, so too does the concept of privacy. Emerging issues in privacy law include: Digital Privacy and Technology: The rise of digital platforms has introduced new privacy concerns, particularly regarding the collection, storage, and use of personal data by both governments and private companies. Issues of data privacy and government surveillance, as seen in cases like Carpenter v United States (2018), highlight the need for updated legal protections in the digital age. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

The Brady Rule is a legal principle that requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense in criminal cases. The rule is named after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland (1963), which held that the prosecution has a constitutional obligation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment.The Brady Rule applies to all evidence that is favorable to the defendant, including evidence that tends to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness. The rule also requires the prosecution to disclose any evidence that is known to the government, whether or not the prosecution intends to use the evidence at trial. This includes evidence that is in the possession of law enforcement agencies, as well as evidence that is in the possession of other government agencies, such as intelligence agencies.In this episode, we discuss the new information and how it may come into play during the trial.(commercial at 6:52)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho prosecutors disclosing info about 'internal affairs investigation' related to officer on Kohberger case | Fox NewsSource:Giglio Information Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

The Brady Rule is a legal principle that requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense in criminal cases. The rule is named after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland (1963), which held that the prosecution has a constitutional obligation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment.The Brady Rule applies to all evidence that is favorable to the defendant, including evidence that tends to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness. The rule also requires the prosecution to disclose any evidence that is known to the government, whether or not the prosecution intends to use the evidence at trial. This includes evidence that is in the possession of law enforcement agencies, as well as evidence that is in the possession of other government agencies, such as intelligence agencies.In this episode, we discuss the new information and how it may come into play during the trial.(commercial at 8:17)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho prosecutors disclosing info about 'internal affairs investigation' related to officer on Kohberger case | Fox NewsSource:Giglio Information Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Summary of Chapter 9: Due Process. Chapter 9 explores the concept of Due Process, a fundamental principle in American constitutional law that protects individuals from arbitrary and unfair government actions. Due Process is divided into two key components: Procedural Due Process and Substantive Due Process. Procedural Due Process focuses on ensuring that the government follows fair procedures when depriving individuals of life, liberty, or property. This includes key elements such as: Notice: Individuals must receive adequate and timely notice before any government action that could impact their rights. Opportunity to Be Heard: A fair hearing must be provided, where individuals can present their case and challenge the government's actions. Impartial Decision-Maker: Decisions must be made by an unbiased authority, free from conflicts of interest. Right to Counsel: In certain cases, individuals have the right to legal representation to ensure a fair trial. Right to an Appeal: Individuals may seek review of a lower court's decision by a higher court to correct any errors in the application of the law. Timeliness: Legal proceedings should be conducted without unnecessary delays to prevent harm to individuals. Procedural Due Process applies in various contexts, including criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, ensuring that the government respects individuals' rights and follows established legal norms. Substantive Due Process goes beyond procedural fairness and focuses on protecting fundamental rights and liberties from government interference, even when fair procedures are followed. Key aspects include: Fundamental Rights: Substantive Due Process protects rights that are essential to ordered liberty, such as the right to marry, reproductive rights, privacy, and bodily autonomy. Strict Scrutiny and Rational Basis Review: Courts apply strict scrutiny when a fundamental right is at stake, requiring the government to justify its actions with a compelling interest. For non-fundamental rights, courts use a more lenient rational basis review. Incorporation Doctrine: This doctrine applies the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, ensuring that state and local governments respect fundamental rights. Substantive Due Process has been crucial in landmark cases involving personal liberties, such as reproductive rights (Roe v. Wade), marriage equality (Obergefell v. Hodges), and privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut). The chapter also highlights several fundamental rights protected by Due Process, including: Marriage and Family: The right to marry and form a family is a fundamental right protected by substantive due process. Reproductive Rights: Rights related to reproductive choices, including the right to an abortion, are protected under substantive due process. Privacy and Bodily Autonomy: Individuals have the right to privacy and autonomy in making personal decisions about their lives. Parental Rights: Parents have the right to make decisions about the upbringing and education of their children. Right to Travel: The right to travel, both domestically and internationally, is protected by Due Process. Voting Rights: Voting rights are essential to democracy and are protected by Due Process, ensuring that government actions affecting voting are subject to strict scrutiny. Chapter 9 underscores the importance of Due Process in safeguarding individual rights and liberties. While Procedural Due Process ensures that the government follows fair procedures, Substantive Due Process protects fundamental rights from government infringement. Together, these doctrines play a vital role in maintaining justice, equality, and the rule of law in the American legal system. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 9: Due Process. Chapter 9 explores the concept of Due Process, a fundamental principle in American constitutional law that protects individuals from arbitrary and unfair government actions. Due Process is divided into two key components: Procedural Due Process and Substantive Due Process. Procedural Due Process. Procedural Due Process focuses on ensuring that the government follows fair procedures when depriving individuals of life, liberty, or property. This includes key elements such as: Notice: Individuals must receive adequate and timely notice before any government action that could impact their rights. Opportunity to Be Heard: A fair hearing must be provided, where individuals can present their case and challenge the government's actions. Impartial Decision-Maker: Decisions must be made by an unbiased authority, free from conflicts of interest. Right to Counsel: In certain cases, individuals have the right to legal representation to ensure a fair trial. Right to an Appeal: Individuals may seek review of a lower court's decision by a higher court to correct any errors in the application of the law. Timeliness: Legal proceedings should be conducted without unnecessary delays to prevent harm to individuals. Procedural Due Process applies in various contexts, including criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, ensuring that the government respects individuals' rights and follows established legal norms. Substantive Due Process. Substantive Due Process goes beyond procedural fairness and focuses on protecting fundamental rights and liberties from government interference, even when fair procedures are followed. Key aspects include: Fundamental Rights: Substantive Due Process protects rights that are essential to ordered liberty, such as the right to marry, reproductive rights, privacy, and bodily autonomy. Strict Scrutiny and Rational Basis Review: Courts apply strict scrutiny when a fundamental right is at stake, requiring the government to justify its actions with a compelling interest. For non-fundamental rights, courts use a more lenient rational basis review. Incorporation Doctrine: This doctrine applies the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, ensuring that state and local governments respect fundamental rights. Substantive Due Process has been crucial in landmark cases involving personal liberties, such as reproductive rights (Roe v. Wade), marriage equality (Obergefell v. Hodges), and privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut). Fundamental Rights Under Due Process. The chapter also highlights several fundamental rights protected by Due Process, including: Marriage and Family: The right to marry and form a family is a fundamental right protected by substantive due process. Reproductive Rights: Rights related to reproductive choices, including the right to an abortion, are protected under substantive due process. Privacy and Bodily Autonomy: Individuals have the right to privacy and autonomy in making personal decisions about their lives. Parental Rights: Parents have the right to make decisions about the upbringing and education of their children. Right to Travel: The right to travel, both domestically and internationally, is protected by Due Process. Voting Rights: Voting rights are essential to democracy and are protected by Due Process, ensuring that government actions affecting voting are subject to strict scrutiny. Conclusion. Chapter 9 underscores the importance of Due Process in safeguarding individual rights and liberties. While Procedural Due Process ensures that the government follows fair procedures, Substantive Due Process protects fundamental rights from government infringement. Together, these doctrines play a vital role in maintaining justice, equality, and the rule of law in the American legal system. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Mallory v Norfolk Southern Railway Co. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a state registration statute for out-of-state corporations that purports to confer general personal jurisdiction over the registrant violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? The case was decided on June 27, 2023.  The Supreme Court held that a Pennsylvania law requiring out-of-state companies that register to do business in Pennsylvania to agree to appear in Pennsylvania courts on “any cause of action” against them comports with the Due Process Clause. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the main opinion of the Court. The outcome in this case is controlled by the Court's decision in Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. v Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., which held that suits based on the defendant's consent to jurisdiction do not deny the defendant due process of law. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded otherwise based on its erroneous belief that the Court had “implicitly overruled Pennsylvania Fire in International Shoe Co. v Washington. However, rather than displace Pennsylvania Fire, International Shoe merely paved an additional road to jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations. Thus, the facts of this case fall squarely within Pennsylvania Fire, and there is no due process violation. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion noting another precedent, Insurance Corp. of Ireland v Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, which she finds “particularly instructive.” Justice Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito agreed with the plurality that exercising jurisdiction pursuant to the state registration statute does not violate the Due Process Clause, but he opined that the statute might be unconstitutional on other grounds not before the Court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh joined, arguing that compelled state registration does not constitute “consent.” The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Summary of Chapter 3: Personal Jurisdiction. Chapter 3 focuses on the concept of personal jurisdiction, which is a court's authority to make legal decisions affecting the parties involved in a lawsuit. Personal jurisdiction ensures that defendants are not unfairly brought into court in a state with which they have no meaningful connection. Key Points Covered: What is Personal Jurisdiction? Personal jurisdiction refers to a court's power over the individuals or entities involved in a lawsuit. It is essential for establishing the court's authority and ensuring due process. The Constitutional Basis for Personal Jurisdiction Rooted in the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, personal jurisdiction requires sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, purposeful availment of the state's laws, and that exercising jurisdiction is reasonable and fair. Long-Arm Statutes State long-arm statutes extend personal jurisdiction to non-residents based on activities such as transacting business, committing a tort, or owning property in the state. These statutes ensure defendants can be brought to court in states where they have sufficient contacts. Service of Process Service of process is the formal procedure to notify defendants of legal actions. Methods include personal service, substituted service, service by mail, and service by publication. Proper service is crucial for establishing personal jurisdiction and ensuring due process. Consent and Waiver Defendants can consent to personal jurisdiction explicitly through forum selection clauses or implicitly by participating in activities within the forum state. Waiver occurs when defendants fail to timely raise a jurisdictional defense, thereby forfeiting their right to contest it. Challenging Personal Jurisdiction Defendants can challenge personal jurisdiction through motions to dismiss, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction due to insufficient contacts. Special appearances can be made specifically to contest jurisdiction without submitting to the court's authority for other matters. Successful challenges result in dismissal or transfer of the case to a court with proper jurisdiction. Understanding personal jurisdiction is critical for ensuring that legal proceedings are fair and that defendants are not subjected to litigation in inappropriate forums. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 3: Personal Jurisdiction. Chapter 3 focuses on the concept of personal jurisdiction, which is a court's authority to make legal decisions affecting the parties involved in a lawsuit. Personal jurisdiction ensures that defendants are not unfairly brought into court in a state with which they have no meaningful connection. Key Points Covered: What is Personal Jurisdiction? Personal jurisdiction refers to a court's power over the individuals or entities involved in a lawsuit. It is essential for establishing the court's authority and ensuring due process. The Constitutional Basis for Personal Jurisdiction Rooted in the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, personal jurisdiction requires sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, purposeful availment of the state's laws, and that exercising jurisdiction is reasonable and fair. Long-Arm Statutes State long-arm statutes extend personal jurisdiction to non-residents based on activities such as transacting business, committing a tort, or owning property in the state. These statutes ensure defendants can be brought to court in states where they have sufficient contacts. Service of Process Service of process is the formal procedure to notify defendants of legal actions. Methods include personal service, substituted service, service by mail, and service by publication. Proper service is crucial for establishing personal jurisdiction and ensuring due process. Consent and Waiver Defendants can consent to personal jurisdiction explicitly through forum selection clauses or implicitly by participating in activities within the forum state. Waiver occurs when defendants fail to timely raise a jurisdictional defense, thereby forfeiting their right to contest it. Challenging Personal Jurisdiction Defendants can challenge personal jurisdiction through motions to dismiss, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction due to insufficient contacts. Special appearances can be made specifically to contest jurisdiction without submitting to the court's authority for other matters. Successful challenges result in dismissal or transfer of the case to a court with proper jurisdiction. Understanding personal jurisdiction is critical for ensuring that legal proceedings are fair and that defendants are not subjected to litigation in inappropriate forums. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

The Fourteenth Amendment - Its Impact on Civil Rights and Liberties. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, has profoundly influenced civil rights and liberties in America. Its broad and powerful language has provided the legal foundation for numerous landmark cases and legal protections, fundamentally transforming American society. The amendment contains several key clauses, each playing a critical role in shaping the legal landscape: Key Clauses. Citizenship Clause: Text: "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." Impact: This clause grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., overturning the Dred Scott decision and ensuring that all citizens are entitled to the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship. It has been central to debates about immigration and birthright citizenship. Privileges or Immunities Clause: Text: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Impact: Intended to protect citizens' rights against state infringement, though its scope was limited by the Slaughter-House Cases. It remains a potential basis for future legal arguments regarding federal and state relationships. Due Process Clause: Text: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Impact: Protects both procedural and substantive rights, ensuring fair procedures and safeguarding fundamental rights from government interference. It has been used to protect privacy, personal autonomy, and incorporate most of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. Equal Protection Clause: Text: "Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Impact: Requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people, serving as a cornerstone for many landmark civil rights decisions aimed at eliminating discrimination and ensuring equality. Key Applications and Impact. Challenging Segregation in Schools: Brown v Board of Education (1954): Declared that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause, leading to desegregation and advancing the Civil Rights Movement. Right to Privacy and Reproductive Rights: Roe v Wade (1973): Held that the Due Process Clause protects a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, establishing a framework for abortion rights and significantly impacting women's reproductive freedoms. Extending Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples: Obergefell v Hodges (2015): Ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, stating that denying this right violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, thus legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. Broader Implications and Influence. Beyond these landmark cases, the Fourteenth Amendment has played a crucial role in numerous other areas of civil rights and liberties: Racial Equality: Used to challenge discriminatory practices in housing, employment, and voting rights. Loving v Virginia (1967), which struck down laws banning interracial marriage, exemplifies its impact. Gender Equality: The Equal Protection Clause has been instrumental in advancing gender equality. Reed v Reed (1971) highlighted its role in combating gender discrimination. Disability Rights: The amendment has been pivotal in protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities, as seen in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Immigration and Citizenship: The Citizenship Clause affirms the rights of individuals born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' immigration status, shaping policies around birthright citizenship. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

The Fourteenth Amendment - Its Impact on Civil Rights and Liberties. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, has profoundly influenced civil rights and liberties in America. Its broad and powerful language has provided the legal foundation for numerous landmark cases and legal protections, fundamentally transforming American society. The amendment contains several key clauses, each playing a critical role in shaping the legal landscape: Key Clauses. Citizenship Clause: Text: "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." Impact: This clause grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., overturning the Dred Scott decision and ensuring that all citizens are entitled to the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship. It has been central to debates about immigration and birthright citizenship. Privileges or Immunities Clause: Text: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Impact: Intended to protect citizens' rights against state infringement, though its scope was limited by the Slaughter-House Cases. It remains a potential basis for future legal arguments regarding federal and state relationships. Due Process Clause: Text: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Impact: Protects both procedural and substantive rights, ensuring fair procedures and safeguarding fundamental rights from government interference. It has been used to protect privacy, personal autonomy, and incorporate most of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. Equal Protection Clause: Text: "Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Impact: Requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people, serving as a cornerstone for many landmark civil rights decisions aimed at eliminating discrimination and ensuring equality. Key Applications and Impact. Challenging Segregation in Schools: Brown v Board of Education (1954): Declared that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause, leading to desegregation and advancing the Civil Rights Movement. Right to Privacy and Reproductive Rights: Roe v Wade (1973): Held that the Due Process Clause protects a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, establishing a framework for abortion rights and significantly impacting women's reproductive freedoms. Extending Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples: Obergefell v Hodges (2015): Ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, stating that denying this right violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, thus legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. Broader Implications and Influence. Beyond these landmark cases, the Fourteenth Amendment has played a crucial role in numerous other areas of civil rights and liberties: Racial Equality: Used to challenge discriminatory practices in housing, employment, and voting rights. Loving v Virginia (1967), which struck down laws banning interracial marriage, exemplifies its impact. Gender Equality: The Equal Protection Clause has been instrumental in advancing gender equality. Reed v Reed (1971) highlighted its role in combating gender discrimination. Disability Rights: The amendment has been pivotal in protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities, as seen in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Immigration and Citizenship: The Citizenship Clause affirms the rights of individuals born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' immigration status, shaping policies around birthright citizenship. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Under the 14th Amendment, "No state shall...deprive any person of...property, without due process of law." This principle was at the heart of the matter of the 2023 Supreme Court case of Culley v. Marshall, in which two women had respectively loaned their cars to others only to have the cars seized under an Alabama civil forfeiture law following each lendee's arrest for drug offenses. The petitioners claimed that, absent a preliminary hearing, their 14th Amendment rights had been violated. Justice Kavanagh wrote for the majority stating that “In civil forfeiture cases, the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing, but does not require a separate preliminary hearing.” In this episode, Craig is joined by Attorney Kirby Thomas West from the Institute for Justice to discuss the recent SCOTUS decision in Culley v. Marshall. Craig & Kirby spotlight civil forfeiture and the potential impact of this ruling. 

Under the 14th Amendment, "No state shall...deprive any person of...property, without due process of law." This principle was at the heart of the matter of the 2023 Supreme Court case of Culley v. Marshall, in which two women had respectively loaned their cars to others only to have the cars seized under an Alabama civil forfeiture law following each lendee's arrest for drug offenses. The petitioners claimed that, absent a preliminary hearing, their 14th Amendment rights had been violated. Justice Kavanagh wrote for the majority stating that “In civil forfeiture cases, the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing, but does not require a separate preliminary hearing.” In this episode, Craig is joined by Attorney Kirby Thomas West from the Institute for Justice to discuss the recent SCOTUS decision in Culley v. Marshall. Craig & Kirby spotlight civil forfeiture and the potential impact of this ruling. 

This Day in Legal History: Free Exercise Clause Applies to StatesOn this day, May 20, in 1940, the United States Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the case of Cantwell v. Connecticut, significantly shaping the landscape of religious freedom in America. The Court held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which guarantees individuals the right to practice their religion freely, applied to state governments. This decision was pivotal as it extended the protections of the Bill of Rights to state actions, not just federal, through the incorporation doctrine.The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional principle that ensures the fundamental rights and freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights are protected against infringement by state governments. This doctrine relies on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which has been interpreted to incorporate most of the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. The Cantwell case was a critical moment in the application of this doctrine, marking the first time the Supreme Court applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states.In Cantwell v. Connecticut, the case involved Jehovah's Witnesses who were arrested for soliciting without a permit and for inciting a breach of the peace. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cantwells, stating that their arrests violated their First Amendment rights. This decision underscored the importance of protecting religious expression from state interference and set a precedent for future cases involving the incorporation of other Bill of Rights protections.This ruling reinforced the principle that religious freedom is a fundamental right that must be respected by all levels of government, ensuring that individuals could practice their faith without undue state interference. It paved the way for broader interpretations of the First Amendment and fortified the legal framework that guards against religious discrimination and promotes religious liberty in the United States.Donald Trump, currently on trial in New York for falsifying business records, may testify in his defense this week, although his decision remains uncertain. While Trump initially indicated he would testify, his lawyer Todd Blanche has since expressed uncertainty. Trump faces 34 counts related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, aimed at silencing her allegations of an affair before the 2016 election, which Trump denies. Outside the courtroom, Trump has labeled the trial a politically motivated effort to undermine his 2024 presidential campaign. Inside, he has listened to testimony, including lurid details from Daniels and accounts of efforts to suppress negative stories. Prosecutors are expected to conclude their case after testimony from Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer who made the payment to Daniels.Trump's legal team will soon present their defense, potentially calling witnesses, including Trump himself. If Trump chooses to testify, he could challenge the allegations directly but would also face rigorous cross-examination, posing risks of perjury and damaging his credibility. The outcome of this trial, one of four criminal cases Trump faces, could impact his political future.Trump has the chance to testify at hush money trial - if he so chooses | ReutersColorado is set to become the first U.S. state to enact a comprehensive law regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in employment and other critical areas with Senate Bill 24-205 (SB205). Passed on May 8 and awaiting Governor Jared Polis' signature, the law aims to prevent algorithmic discrimination and will take effect in 2026. It targets high-risk AI systems influencing decisions in employment, education, finance, government services, healthcare, housing, insurance, and legal services.SB205 imposes significant compliance obligations on both developers and users of high-risk AI systems. Developers must provide detailed information about their AI systems, publish risk management strategies, and disclose known discrimination risks to the attorney general. Deployers are required to implement risk management policies, conduct annual impact assessments, and notify consumers about the use of AI systems in decision-making.The law also mandates that businesses inform consumers about the purpose and nature of AI systems, their influence on decisions, and the right to opt out of profiling. The Colorado attorney general will enforce the law, treating violations as unfair and deceptive trade practices, though there is no private right of action. Businesses can defend themselves by showing they discovered and corrected violations through feedback or internal reviews.This groundbreaking legislation is expected to influence broader AI regulation across the U.S., as other states consider similar measures, prompting employers nationwide to prepare for stricter AI compliance requirements.Colorado Passes Groundbreaking AI Discrimination Law Impacting EmployersThe U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) funding mechanism, which allows it to draw funds from the Federal Reserve rather than through annual congressional appropriations. This 7-2 decision, issued on May 16, has broader implications for other financial regulators such as the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which also rely on independent funding mechanisms. Justice Elena Kagan, in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, emphasized that Congress has historically used various funding mechanisms for federal agencies, underscoring the constitutionality of such arrangements. This decision signals to potential litigants that challenges against the funding of financial regulators are unlikely to succeed.The ruling reassures that the established funding methods for these agencies, which include assessing fees on the banks they supervise, are constitutionally sound. The decision also highlighted that the independent funding of U.S. regulatory agencies has long been accepted due to its prevalence and practical necessity.Dissenting Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, while disagreeing with the majority on the CFPB, did not find the funding methods of other regulators constitutionally problematic. They pointed out that the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC operate on specific charges for services, contrasting with the CFPB's unique funding ability.Legal experts see this ruling as a robust defense of the current financial regulatory framework, suggesting that any future claims against the funding structures of these agencies will likely face significant hurdles. The case referenced is CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of America, U.S., No. 22-448.Banking Regulators See Relief From Funding Fights in CFPB RulingStates poised to receive portions of $7 billion for bringing solar power to low-income communities face a significant skilled labor shortage in the construction industry. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has selected 60 applicants, including many state energy departments, to implement the Solar for All program, aimed at providing residential solar to disadvantaged populations as part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.The program faces a shortage of 500,000 skilled construction workers, exacerbated by early retirements and recruitment challenges, according to Ben Brubeck of the Associated Builders and Contractors. The Department of Energy's 2023 US Energy and Employment Report noted that 97% of construction employers find it difficult to hire qualified solar workers.The Solar for All funding encourages project labor agreements, which may deter non-union contractors. Currently, only about 11% of solar energy workers are unionized. This shortage raises concerns about maintaining high-quality and safe infrastructure.Labor union representatives argue that the issue is more about wages than worker availability. Higher wages, as mandated by the program, might attract more skilled workers. However, the absence of solar-specific apprenticeship programs, unlike those in other construction sectors, contributes to the labor gap.States like Michigan, Colorado, Washington, and New York are planning to address these workforce challenges during their planning periods. Michigan is considering partnerships with community colleges and labor organizations to meet the expected demand surge. Colorado aims to balance labor distribution between rural and urban areas, while Washington plans to require an apprentice for each solar installation project. New York will leverage federal funding to enhance its existing clean energy jobs and workforce development programs. The EPA emphasizes that workforce development is crucial for the success of Solar for All, with many applications proposing partnerships to build a robust clean energy workforce.States Set for Solar Cash Infusion Aim to Build Worker PipelineNew federal staffing requirements for nursing homes, introduced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in April, aim to enhance care quality but face significant hurdles due to waivers and exemptions. These regulations, set to take full effect in 2026, mandate specific staffing levels for registered nurses (RNs) and nurse aides. However, federal laws and the Social Security Act allow states and the Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary to grant waivers, potentially delaying compliance for many facilities.Thousands of nursing homes may qualify for exemptions from these staffing requirements, which worries advocates like Sam Brooks from the Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care. These exemptions could disproportionately benefit poorly performing homes, undermining the rule's intent. Enforcement is further complicated by a shortage of state nursing home inspectors, affecting timely compliance verification.The rule stipulates that facilities must provide 3.48 hours of care per resident per day (HPRD), with specific hours allocated to RNs and nurse aides. Significant staffing gaps exist, with an estimated need for 12,000 RNs and 77,000 nurse aides to meet the new standards. Facilities in nonrural areas have three years to comply, while rural ones have five.Exemptions are not guaranteed; facilities must document efforts to hire staff and meet transparency requirements. Critics argue the exemption process is cumbersome and may lead to facility downsizing or closures, limiting seniors' access to care. CMS aims to encourage compliance through these transparency and documentation mandates, but industry representatives are concerned about the feasibility and impact of these rules. The ongoing labor shortage in the nursing home sector and the high cost of compliance, estimated at $43 billion over 10 years, present additional challenges to the successful implementation of these staffing requirements.Nursing Home Watchers Wary of Staffing Rule Waivers, Exemptions Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Rights and Protections under the Bill of Rights Overview: The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were adopted to address concerns about the powers of the federal government and protect individual freedoms. Key Amendments: First Amendment: Protects freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. Fourth Amendment: Guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Fifth and Sixth Amendments: Provide rights related to criminal proceedings, including the right to a fair trial, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel. Eighth Amendment: Prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Application: These rights are vital in limiting government power and protecting personal freedoms. Over time, many of these protections have been incorporated to apply to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

This Day in Legal History: Gorbachev at the HelmOn this day in 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev became the new leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics following the death of Konstantin Chernenko. At just 54 years old, Gorbachev was the youngest member of the Politburo and brought a new vision for reform to the stagnant Soviet system.Domestically, he introduced policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) to liberalize the economy and allow greater freedom of expression. These sweeping changes upended decades of repressive Soviet policies and paved the way for democratization.On the international front, Gorbachev pursued arms reduction negotiations with US President Reagan, easing Cold War tensions. In 1987, they signed the historic INF Treaty, eliminating an entire class of nuclear missiles from Europe.Gorbachev's reforms proved too fast and destabilizing for the Soviet system. In 1991, hardline communists attempted a coup against him which failed, hastening the dissolution of the USSR into independent republics by year's end.For helping end the Cold War without bloodshed, Gorbachev was awarded the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize. His legacy remains complex but he is widely credited with allowing self-determination for Eastern Europe and averting catastrophic conflict.A federal judge in Texas has struck down a rule issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that would have expanded the definition of "joint employer" to include many companies that contract or franchise workers. The rule would have treated those companies as employers of the contract or franchise workers, requiring them to bargain with unions representing those workers. The judge agreed with business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that the rule was too broad and violated federal labor law. The NLRB chair said they are considering next steps, likely an appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The rule was intended to ensure companies can be held liable for labor violations when they control key working conditions of contract/franchise workers. However, businesses argued it would disrupt franchising and contracting arrangements. The joint employer issue has been contentious, with shifting standards between the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations.Judge blocks US labor board rule on contract and franchise workers | ReutersLabor Board's Joint Employer Rule Struck Down in Texas Court (4)A committee of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit argued that a lower court should dismiss the remaining parts of a lawsuit filed by 96-year-old colleague Pauline Newman over her suspension. The judges claim the law governing Newman's suspension for an investigation into her fitness to serve is constitutional, despite her challenges. Newman's attorney plans to respond to the arguments made. Last month, a federal judge dismissed most of Newman's other allegations against the judicial council that suspended her. The council suspended Newman in September 2022 for at least a year amid concerns over her mental competency, which she has defended. The judges argue even if some suspension orders could violate the Fourth Amendment in certain situations, that would not make the governing law unconstitutional overall.By way of brief background, Judge Newman contends that certain elements of what was demanded of her violate the Fourth Amendment as they are unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause. Specifically, in Counts VIII and IX of the complaint, linked in the show notes, Judge Newman argues that the Act's authorization of demands for medical records or examinations without a warrant based on probable cause or constitutional reasonableness violates the Fourth Amendment. However, these claims are likely legally untenable for multiple reasons, including the failure to meet the standards of a facial challenge.US appeals judges argue suspension of 96-year-old colleague is constitutional | ReutersCustomers have filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary in Los Angeles federal court. The suit alleges J&J failed to warn consumers that its acne products like Clean & Clear and Neutrogena contain benzene, a cancer-causing chemical. The customers claim they would not have purchased the products if they knew about the benzene and associated cancer risk. This comes days after an independent lab alerted the FDA about high benzene levels in popular acne product brands. The EPA has stated breathing low levels of benzene over a lifetime can increase cancer risk. The suit accuses J&J of ignoring the FDA's 2022 warning to test products for benzene contamination. It seeks to represent a national class and subclasses in several states against J&J's alleged failure to warn.J&J Allegedly Failed to Warn Acne Cream Customers of Cancer RiskA new trial involving a fatal 2018 crash while Tesla's Autopilot was engaged will test the company's defense that drivers must remain attentive and ready to take over at any moment. Lawyers for the plaintiff are citing internal emails and testimony suggesting Tesla knew drivers could become distracted or complacent when using Autopilot. They argue Tesla should have studied how quickly drivers can regain control if Autopilot fails. Testimony indicates Tesla did not research this issue until after the 2018 crash, and only added driver monitoring cameras in 2021. The case could pose a significant challenge to Tesla's stance that Autopilot is safe if drivers follow instructions. It highlights questions about Tesla's knowledge of likely driver behavior and obligation to design safeguards against foreseeable misuse. The outcome may influence other lawsuits Tesla faces over accidents involving its driver assistance systems.Next Autopilot trial to test Tesla's blame-the-driver defense | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Introduction to Statutory Law. Statutory law refers to laws passed by a legislative body, such as Congress, at the federal level or state legislatures. These laws address a wide range of issues, from criminal offenses and civil rights to environmental regulations and tax policies. Significance: Statutory law plays a crucial role in shaping constitutional interpretation. It can define and clarify the rights and responsibilities of individuals, government agencies, and other entities. Additionally, statutes can fill gaps in constitutional law or provide specific guidance on how to implement constitutional principles. Example: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal statute that addresses discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It complements the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by providing specific protections against discrimination in areas such as employment and public accommodations. Relationship Between Statutory Law and Constitutional Rights. The relationship between statutory law and constitutional rights is multi-faceted. Statutes can reinforce constitutional rights, provide remedies for violations, or expand upon constitutional protections. Key aspects of this relationship include: 1. Reinforcing Constitutional Rights. Statutory laws can reinforce and clarify constitutional rights. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to eliminate racial discrimination in voting, further upholding the principles of the Fifteenth Amendment. 2. Providing Remedies for Violations. Statutes often provide remedies for individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated. They can establish mechanisms for legal action, such as lawsuits, to seek redress when rights are infringed upon. 3. Expanding Constitutional Protections. In some cases, statutory laws expand upon the protections provided by the Constitution. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), for instance, extends protections to individuals with disabilities in various areas, ensuring equal access and opportunities. Significance: Statutory laws are tools that legislators use to address specific issues and challenges in society. They can be instrumental in enforcing constitutional rights, providing redress for violations, and adapting the legal framework to evolving social and technological changes. Example: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal statute that ensures that students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education. It operationalizes the constitutional principle of equal protection and nondiscrimination for students with disabilities. Major Federal Statutes Impacting Constitutional Law. Several major federal statutes have had a significant impact on constitutional law. Let's explore a few of these statutes and their implications: 1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark statute prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It addresses issues related to employment, education, and public accommodations, reinforcing the principles of equal protection and due process. Significance: The Civil Rights Act has been a cornerstone of civil rights law, enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. 2. The Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights Act aimed to eliminate racial discrimination in voting. It provides mechanisms to ensure that individuals are not denied the right to vote on the basis of race or language minority status. Significance: This statute enforces the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition on racial discrimination in voting. 3. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, public services, and public accommodations. It ensures equal access and opportunities for individuals with disabilities. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a state or local government to provide a post seizure probable cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should district courts apply the "speedy trial" test employed in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983) and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), as held by the Eleventh Circuit or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) as held by at least the Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.

A case in which the Court will decide what test a district court must apply when determining whether and when a post-deprivation hearing is required under the Due Process Clause.

Which Test is it Anyway? Civil Asset Forfeiture and the Right to a Prompt Post-Seizure Hearing at the High Court. The Court will hear argument on Monday, October 30, 2023, in Culley v. Marshall. Petitioners Halima Culley and Lena Sutton contend police seized their vehicles and held those vehicles for more than a year without judicial oversight. The Respondents assert that those vehicles were seized because they were being used to traffic narcotics and then Petitioners sat on their rights. Ultimately, the state court denied the Petitioners a post-seizure hearing based on the Sixth Amendment speedy-trial test of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). The Petitioners contend the court employed the wrong test and they should have received a prompt post-seizure hearing under the Due Process Clause. Accordingly, the Question Presented in the case is: “In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a state or local government to provide a post seizure probable cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should district courts apply the “speedy trial” test employed in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983), and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), as held by the Eleventh Circuit or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), as held by at least the Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.” Stef Cassella, CEO of Asset Forfeiture Law, LLC, and Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, joined us for an an exciting preview of the oral argument in Culley. The discussion was moderated by Adam Griffin, Constitutional Litigation Fellow at Pacific Legal Foundation. Featuring: Stefan Cassella, CEO, Asset Forfeitrure Law, LLC Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice Moderator: Adam Griffin, Constitutional Litigation Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation

In the United States, variances in the insanity defense between states, and in the federal court system, are attributable to differences with respect to three key issues: Availability: whether the jurisdiction allows a defendant to raise the insanity defense, Definition: when the defense is available, what facts will support a finding of insanity, and Burden of proof: whether the defendant has the duty of proving insanity or the prosecutor has the duty of disproving insanity, and by what standard of proof. In Foucha v Louisiana (1992) the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a person could not be held "indefinitely" for psychiatric treatment following a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. Availability. In the United States, a criminal defendant may plead insanity in federal court, and in the state courts of every state except for Idaho, Kansas, Montana, and Utah. However, defendants in states that disallow the insanity defense may still be able to demonstrate that a defendant was not capable of forming intent to commit a crime as a result of mental illness. In Kahler v Kansas (2020), the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 6–3 ruling, that a state does not violate the Due Process Clause by abolishing an insanity defense based on a defendant's incapacity to distinguish right from wrong. The Court emphasized that state governments have broad discretion to choose laws defining "the precise relationship between criminal culpability and mental illness." Definition. Each state and the federal court system currently uses one of the following "tests" to define insanity for purposes of the insanity defense. Over its decades of use the definition of insanity has been modified by statute, with changes to the availability of the insanity defense, what constitutes legal insanity, whether the prosecutor or defendant has the burden of proof, the standard of proof required at trial, trial procedures, and to commitment and release procedures for defendants who have been acquitted based on a finding of insanity. M'Naghten test. The guidelines for the M'Naghten Rules, state, among other things, and evaluating the criminal responsibility for defendants claiming to be insane were settled in the British courts in the case of Daniel M'Naghten in 1843. M'Naghten was a Scottish woodcutter who killed the secretary to the prime minister, Edward Drummond, in a botched attempt to assassinate the prime minister himself. M'Naghten apparently believed that the prime minister was the architect of the myriad of personal and financial misfortunes that had befallen him. During his trial, nine witnesses testified to the fact that he was insane, and the jury acquitted him, finding him "not guilty by reason of insanity". The House of Lords asked the judges of the common law courts to answer five questions on insanity as a criminal defense, and the formulation that emerged from their review—that a defendant should not be held responsible for their actions only if, as a result of their mental disease or defect, they (1) did not know that their act would be wrong; or (2) did not understand the nature and quality of their actions—became the basis of the law governing legal responsibility in cases of insanity in England. Under the rules, loss of control because of mental illness was no defense. The M'Naghten rule was embraced with almost no modification by American courts and legislatures for more than 100 years, until the mid-20th century. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

On Tuesday, June 27, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. The question before the Court was whether a Pennsylvania law governing out-of-state corporations registered to do business inside the state that purports to confer general personal jurisdiction over the registrant violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The Court vacated and remanded the case in a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch holding that the law comports with the Due Process Clause as set forth in Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co. (243 U.S. 93). Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion. Please join us as Ashley Keller, John Masslon, and Professor Brian Fitzpatrick discuss the decision.

The Brady Rule is a legal principle that requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense in criminal cases. The rule is named after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland (1963), which held that the prosecution has a constitutional obligation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment.The Brady Rule applies to all evidence that is favorable to the defendant, including evidence that tends to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness. The rule also requires the prosecution to disclose any evidence that is known to the government, whether or not the prosecution intends to use the evidence at trial. This includes evidence that is in the possession of law enforcement agencies, as well as evidence that is in the possession of other government agencies, such as intelligence agencies.In this episode, we discuss the new information and how it may come into play during the trial.(commercial at 8:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho prosecutors disclosing info about 'internal affairs investigation' related to officer on Kohberger case | Fox NewsThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5003294/advertisement

The Brady Rule is a legal principle that requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense in criminal cases. The rule is named after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland (1963), which held that the prosecution has a constitutional obligation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment.The Brady Rule applies to all evidence that is favorable to the defendant, including evidence that tends to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness. The rule also requires the prosecution to disclose any evidence that is known to the government, whether or not the prosecution intends to use the evidence at trial. This includes evidence that is in the possession of law enforcement agencies, as well as evidence that is in the possession of other government agencies, such as intelligence agencies.In this episode, we discuss the new information and how it may come into play during the trial.(commercial at 6:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho prosecutors disclosing info about 'internal affairs investigation' related to officer on Kohberger case | Fox NewsThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5080327/advertisement

In 1919, Nebraska enacted a statute known at the Siman Act, which restricted the use and study of foreign languages in the classroom. A year later in Hampton, Nebraska, a parochial school instructor named Robert Meyer was convicted under the law for teaching German to a 10-year-old boy. The case made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, which ruled in Meyer's favor in 1923. The Court declared the law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” On today's show, Jessica Lander discusses her new book Making Americans: Stories of Historic Struggles, New Ideas, and Inspiration in Immigrant Education with Maria Corpuz. The book, which is available now, covers Meyer v. Nebraska and other key historical moments to look at the past, present and future of immigrant education in America. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/riversidechats/support

The Brady Rule is a legal principle that requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense in criminal cases. The rule is named after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland (1963), which held that the prosecution has a constitutional obligation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment.The Brady Rule applies to all evidence that is favorable to the defendant, including evidence that tends to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness. The rule also requires the prosecution to disclose any evidence that is known to the government, whether or not the prosecution intends to use the evidence at trial. This includes evidence that is in the possession of law enforcement agencies, as well as evidence that is in the possession of other government agencies, such as intelligence agencies.In this episode, we discuss the new information and how it may come into play during the trial. (commercial at 6:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho prosecutors disclosing info about 'internal affairs investigation' related to officer on Kohberger case | Fox NewsSource:Giglio Information Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

The Brady Rule is a legal principle that requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense in criminal cases. The rule is named after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland (1963), which held that the prosecution has a constitutional obligation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment.The Brady Rule applies to all evidence that is favorable to the defendant, including evidence that tends to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness. The rule also requires the prosecution to disclose any evidence that is known to the government, whether or not the prosecution intends to use the evidence at trial. This includes evidence that is in the possession of law enforcement agencies, as well as evidence that is in the possession of other government agencies, such as intelligence agencies.In this episode, we discuss the new information and how it may come into play during the trial. (commercial at 6:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho prosecutors disclosing info about 'internal affairs investigation' related to officer on Kohberger case | Fox NewsSource:Giglio Information Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Audio of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) Majority Opinion (Minimum Wage for Women, Right to Contract) In the case I'll be reading today, the Court revisited the minimum wage for women issue once again. This time, regarding a Washington state law requiring a minimum wage of $14.50 for women for a 48-hour work week. But an employee of the West Coast Hotel Company, Elsie Parrish, received less than the required wage. So, she sued her employer to recover the difference in wages owed to her under the law. Her employer argued that the minimum wage requirement violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This time, the Court held that a minimum wage for women did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause. Citing Muller v. Oregon, the Court held that states may use their police power to restrict individual freedom to contract - overruling Adkins and marking an end to the Court's broad view of the freedom to contract during the Lochner era.   Contact Show Music by Epidemic Sound

      Slam the Gavel welcomes a new guest, Mike Rowe to the podcast. Mike was once a public school teacher and was arrested off campus which set off a chain of events.      Now, a Civil Rights Lawyer with no law degree, he is in the process of suing the State of Nevada, now two times in Federal Court under the, “Due Process Clause.”      He stuck down a state statute as being unconstitutional by accident, involving Assembly Bill 255. All of these "legal principles" over lap with Family Court.     Mike had also drafted a motion for a 78 year old man proving Family Court is one big fraud. The court gave this 78 year old man a divorce AND he was NEVER married. Think about how ASININE that is.    We discussed fraud in the Clark County School District as they are an entity unto themselves.     A national PROBLEM, being RAILROADED in the Family Courts generates a revenue for people to use kids or assets to extort money  and to keep a person in litigation for years. We also encouraged everyone and anyone to go in as a Pro Se Litigant (representing yourself), as this would bring a decline to the revenue generated by the courts. Also, we discussed the Due Process of Law and will be discussing what really goes on in the Federal Court System on our next podcast in February 2023.Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

On November 8, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway. Petitioner Robert Mallory, a Virginia resident, sued Virginia-based Norfolk Southern in sued in the Court of Common Pleas, the court of general jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, claiming that exposure to carcinogens while working for the company caused him to develop colon cancer. According to his complaint, Mallory was exposed to harmful carcinogens while employed by Defendant in Ohio and Virginia between 1988 through 2005. He did not allege that he suffered any harmful occupational exposures in Pennsylvania but sued in Pennsylvania court on a theory that the court could exercise jurisdiction over the Virginia company because it had registered to do business in Pennsylvania.Under Pennsylvania law, a foreign corporation “may not do business in this Commonwealth until it registers” with the Department of State of the Commonwealth. State law further establishes that registration constitutes a sufficient basis for Pennsylvania courts to exercise general personal jurisdiction over that foreign corporation. Norfolk Southern Railway objected to the exercise of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the exercise violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court agreed and held Pennsylvania's statutory scheme unconstitutional. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed.The Supreme Court is to decide if a state registration statute for out-of-state corporations that purports to confer general personal jurisdiction over the registrant violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Featuring: --John Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation.Associated Blog Post: Mallory v. Norfolk Southern: Oral Argument Preview

''Nearly 80 years removed from International Shoe, it seems corporations continue to receive special jurisdictional protections in the name of the Constitution. Less clear is why." Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1038 (2021) (Gorsuch J., concurring). This petition seeks resolution of an issue that has divided courts around the country. More than a dozen state supreme courts and every federal court of appeals have weighed in on the question with conflicting results. An unbroken line of this Court's cases holds that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction with a party's consent. Corporations enforce that precedent to the letter in their contracts of adhesion, requiring flesh and blood consumers to litigate disputes with businesses in often-distant tribunals. E.g., Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991). Turnabout should be fair play (and is, incidentally, consistent with substantial justice). Consistent with that rule, states have enacted laws requiring corporations operating within their boundaries to consent to personal jurisdiction when they register to do business in those states. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found such a statute unconstitutional under this Court's decision in International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), and its progeny. That erroneous result is but the latest decision among dozens that are squarely divided on the question presented: Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from requiring a corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction to do business in the state. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1168.html

Audio of the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (2000). I'm reading this opinion today as homework to prep us for the upcoming case Moore v. Harper, which will require the Court to consider the controversial Independent Legislature Theory. Two questions before the Court were 1) whether the Florida Supreme Court violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution; and whether standardless manual recounts violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Over the next few episodes, I'll be reading some opinions of the Court that you'll want to hear before Moore v. Harper is heard and subsequently decided by the Court. If you are interested in learning about the origins of the Independent Legislature Theory, you won't want to miss the next episode in which Chief Justice Rehnquist gives it substance.   Access this SCOTUS opinion with citations and other essential case information at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949   Music by Epidemic Sound

The pro-life community should rejoice that Roe v. Wade was reversed. Many praised Justice Alito's majority opinion for its treatment of abortion at common law, laying waste to the Roe Court's “historical” justification for abortion. What Justice Alito really did was ignore the text of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause and preserve the Court's made up doctrine of substantive due process that gave us abortion and will soon give us “transgender rights'. Today David explains how Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion exposed Alito's “textual” subterfuge. Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donate See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sam hosts Khiara M. Bridges, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, to discuss the recent overturning of Roe V. Wade and the repeal of concealed carry laws in New York State by the Supreme Court. First Sam reviews the standards set by this 6-3 conservative Supreme Court, overturning Roe and concealed carry laws while promoting single-religion prayer in public school, and the unsurprising result of an already unpopular court having it's approval ratings go into free fall, before covering MSNBC accidentally stumbling into Reproductive Rights activists that actually know the history of reproductive rights and the Democrats' fight (or lack thereof) for it. Then, he is joined by Professor Khiara Bridges as she dives into the actual state of the Dobbs decision, the difference between Alito's opinion to overturn Roe and Roberts' concurrence which saught to only address the ACTUAL question of the case on the viability line, and why the concepts the Court was addressing changed with the replacement of RBG with ACB. Next, they get into the role of the “Due Process” clause of the 14th Amendment, exploring how the leak went after this concept much more aggressively than the actual opinion and walking through the other elements of this Reconstruction amendment, and how this attempt to undermine the clause is still central to the opinion, just obscured in qualifier about what THIS case is doing, before Professor Bridges dives into the 9th Amendment and the legal establishment's refusal (from academia to the courts) to actually acknowledge the idea of rights of the public not previously enumerated in the Constitution. The professor then walks Sam through how the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause has been interpreted as a right to privacy, via reason and logic, by previous courts dating back to the start of the 20th Century, and dives into the arbitrary algorithm set up by this Court to reject “new” rights on a case by case basis, wrapping up by exploring this algorithm's contrary implementation in the Bruen decision. And in the Fun Half: Sam admires Tulsi Gabbard's empathy and commitment to rationality by refusing to respond to the Roe decision (which definitely has nothing to do with her move to conservatism), Kristi Noem reminds us that every life is precious, unless that life could produce a white dude, and the LAPD finally get back to their roots of ruthlessly beating nonviolent protesters and journalists alike. SCOTUS shows us we have nothing to fear from their future by shooting tear gas from their roof, Chuck Todd gets awkward when AOC brings up holding justices accountable for their actions and statements, and Ronald Raygun reflects back on the Trump Cuck Rushmore with our recent 1/6 revelations. Rudy claims he was struck by a boulder only for video evidence to show who the real Sisy-phus is, James from CO calls in about a libertarian track to home ownership, plus, your calls and IMs!   Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here:  https://madmimi.com/signups/170390/join Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Check out today's sponsors: Check out JustCoffee and get 25% off with the code MR25! https://justcoffee.coop/ sunsetlakecbd is a majority employee owned farm in Vermont, producing 100% pesticide free CBD products. Great company, great product and fans of the show! Use code Leftisbest and get 20% off at http://www.sunsetlakecbd.com. And now Sunset Lake CBD has donated $2500 to the Nurses strike fund, and we encourage MR listeners to help if they can. Here's a link to where folks can donate: https://forms.massnurses.org/we-stand-with-st-vincents-nurses/ Support the St. Vincent Nurses today! https://action.massnurses.org/we-stand-with-st-vincents-nurses/ Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Matt's other show Literary Hangover on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/literaryhangover Check out The Nomiki Show on YouTube. https://www.patreon.com/thenomikishow 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 The Letterhack's upcoming Kickstarter project for his new graphic novel! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/milagrocomic/milagro-heroe-de-las-calles Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Subscribe to AM Quickie writer Corey Pein's podcast News from Nowhere. https://www.patreon.com/newsfromnowhere  Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out AidAccess here: https://aidaccess.org/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

This time, Daniel and Jack talk about Uvalde, Buffalo, the cops, guns, and the discourse. This episode is respectfully dedicated to the victims of these crimes and their families. Content Extremely Warnings Show Notes: Please consider donating to help us make the show and stay ad-free and independent.  Patrons get exclusive access to at least one full extra episode a month plus all backer-only back-episodes. Daniel's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/danielharper Jack's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4196618 IDSG Twitter: https://twitter.com/idsgpod Daniel's Twitter: @danieleharper Jack's Twitter: @_Jack_Graham_ IDSG on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i-dont-speak-german/id1449848509?ls=1   Episode Notes: Shannon Foley Martinez Patreon: Shannon Foley Martinez is creating a different tomorrow | Patreon Last Week Tonight: LastWeekTonight - YouTube Michael Hobbes on Depp vs. Heard: Cancel Me, Daddy: Deep Depp-ception (ft. Michael Hobbes) on Apple Podcasts The bleak spectacle of the Amber Heard-Johnny Depp trial (readthepresentage.com) Buffalo News, Authorities investigating if retired federal agent knew of Buffalo mass shooting plans in advance “These were like-minded people who used this chat group to talk about their shared interests in racial hatred, replacement theory and hatred of anyone who is Jewish, a person of color or not of European ancestry,” said one of the two law enforcement officials with close knowledge of the investigation. “What is especially upsetting is that these six people received advanced notice of the Buffalo shooting, about 30 minutes before it happened. “The FBI has verified that none of these people called law enforcement to warn them about the shooting. The FBI database shows no advance tips from anyone that this shooting was about to happen.” Agents from the FBI are in the process of tracking down and interviewing the six people, including the retired agent, and attempting to determine if any of them should be charged as accomplices, the two sources with close knowledge of the probe told The Buffalo News. 4plebs archive on Buffalo shooter and "Sandman" https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/379701704 5-4 podcast on Castle Rock v. Gonzalez. 01:47 Peter: Today's case is Castle Rock v. Gonzales, a case that features two of my least favorite things in the world, procedural technicalities and the brutal murder of innocent children. [laughter] 02:01 Michael: In no particular order are those two things, yeah. 02:06 Peter: This case is, I think maybe the most tragic and poignant in a long line of cases in the Supreme Court and in other courts that have allowed police officers and police departments to escape any legal responsibility, even in cases where their actions are grossly negligent and lead directly to the loss of human life. 02:25 Michael: Right. 02:25 Peter: The issue here, simplifying a little bit, is whether the police are liable under the 14th Amendment's, Due Process Clause, when they don't even attempt to enforce a restraining order involving a rather insane husband, shall we say? 02:40 Michael: Right. 02:42 Peter: We'll get into the semantics, but the real question is this, I think, "Do the police owe the public, anything at all?" [chuckle] And the Court thinks probably not. Ben Collins tweet about toothaches and Peyton Gendron. Buffalo News, Authorities investigating if retired federal agent knew of Buffalo mass shooting plans in advance “These were like-minded people who used this chat group to talk about their shared interests in racial hatred, replacement theory and hatred of anyone who is Jewish, a person of color or not of European ancestry,” said one of the two law enforcement officials with close knowledge of the investigation. “What is especially upsetting is that these six people received advanced notice of the Buffalo shooting, about 30 minutes before it happened. “The FBI has verified that none of these people called law enforcement to warn them about the shooting. The FBI database shows no advance tips from anyone that this shooting was about to happen.” Agents from the FBI are in the process of tracking down and interviewing the six people, including the retired agent, and attempting to determine if any of them should be charged as accomplices, the two sources with close knowledge of the probe told The Buffalo News. 4plebs archive on Buffalo shooter and "Sandman" https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/379701704 5-4 podcast on Castle Rock v. Gonzalez. 01:47 Peter: Today's case is Castle Rock v. Gonzales, a case that features two of my least favorite things in the world, procedural technicalities and the brutal murder of innocent children. [laughter] 02:01 Michael: In no particular order are those two things, yeah. 02:06 Peter: This case is, I think maybe the most tragic and poignant in a long line of cases in the Supreme Court and in other courts that have allowed police officers and police departments to escape any legal responsibility, even in cases where their actions are grossly negligent and lead directly to the loss of human life. 02:25 Michael: Right. 02:25 Peter: The issue here, simplifying a little bit, is whether the police are liable under the 14th Amendment's, Due Process Clause, when they don't even attempt to enforce a restraining order involving a rather insane husband, shall we say? 02:40 Michael: Right. 02:42 Peter: We'll get into the semantics, but the real question is this, I think, "Do the police owe the public, anything at all?" [chuckle] And the Court thinks probably not. Ben Collins tweet about toothaches and Peyton Gendron.

Possibly as early as Monday June 13, 2022, a decision will be made in reference to the Roe vs. Wade case, as to whether abortion rights will be overturned or not. The purpose of abortion in underserved communities where mainly African Americns lived, was to have facilities nearby to commit "under the radar" genocide, as per Planned Parenthood founder. If this decision is overturned it will make a mark in history and in the world. Facts of the case: In 1970, Jane Roe (a fictional name used in court documents to protect the plaintiff's identity) filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, where she resided, challenging a Texas law making abortion illegal except by a doctor's orders to save a woman's life. In her lawsuit, Roe alleged that the state laws were unconstitutionally vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Question: Does the Constitution recognize a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? Conclusion: Sort: by seniority by ideology 7–2 DECISION FOR JANE ROE MAJORITY OPINION BY HARRY A. BLACKMUN William O. Douglas Douglas Potter Stewart Stewart Thurgood Marshall Marshall William J. Brennan, Jr. Brennan Byron R. White White Warren E. Burger Burger Harry A. Blackmun Blackmun Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Powell William H. Rehnquist Rehnquist Inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman's choice whether to have an abortion. However, this right is balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting “the potentiality of human life.” The Texas law challenged in this case violated this right. Justice Harry Blackmun delivered the opinion for the 7-2 majority of the Court. First, the Court considered whether the case was moot, concluding that it was not. When the subject of litigation is “capable of repetition yet evading review,” a case need not be dismissed as moot. Pregnancy is a “classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness.” The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state action the right to privacy, and a woman's right to choose to have an abortion falls within that right to privacy. A state law that broadly prohibits abortion without respect to the stage of pregnancy or other interests violates that right. Although the state has legitimate interests in protecting the health of pregnant women and the “potentiality of human life,” the relative weight of each of these interests varies over the course of pregnancy, and the law must account for this variability. In the first trimester of pregnancy, the state may not regulate the abortion decision; only the pregnant woman and her attending physician can make that decision. In the second trimester, the state may impose regulations on abortion that are reasonably related to maternal health. In the third trimester, once the fetus reaches the point of “viability,” a state may regulate abortions or prohibit them entirely, so long as the laws contain exceptions for cases when abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother. Cite this page APABluebookChicagoMLA "Roe v. Wade." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18. Accessed 11 Jun. 2022. .... #EP171 #PneuPneumaGodcast #NormanBrown #ROEvsWADE #CHH #Jesus #Cristiano #Dios #bible #God #MTR #prayer #christian #podcast #KevinSamuels Please, give us a 5-Star rating and leave an Inspirational comment, if you are an Apple Podcast listener. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or your favorite platform. Subscribe to the YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMyW-pOoocsvMVjHDSWNeeg Follow @PneuPneuma on all social media Follow Norman @normtheprofessor on Instagram --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/pneu-pneuma/support