Podcasts about eighth circuit

A federal judge blocks Trump's plan to create a federal voting database designed to help states purge voter rolls, finding the effort unlawful because it relied on sensitive and private information, including Social Security data, and caused erroneous voter removals. At the same time, the Supreme Court allows an Eighth Circuit ruling to stand that effectively strips private individuals and organizations of a key tool for enforcing the Voting Rights Act, leaving voters in several states soley dependent on Trump's DOJ to protect their voting rights. Dina Doll reports on the growing wave of voting rights litigation ahead of the midterms. Lola Blankets: Get 40% off your entire order at https://lolablankets.com by using code MISSTRIAL at checkout. Experience the world's #1 blanket with Lola Blankets. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis sits down with Jason Cover and Colin Wilson to discuss the evolving world of auto-renewal and subscription compliance, including the FTC's click-to-cancel rule, its Eighth Circuit setback, and the states racing to fill the gap. They also spotlight a first-of-its-kind municipal rule proposed by New York City and explain why, even in a deregulatory environment, UDAP authority and ROSCA mean the compliance pressure hasn't gone anywhere. If your business involves subscriptions, recurring billing, or point-of-sale financing, this is a conversation you can't afford to miss. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

An ICE whistleblower reveals a secret memo where DHS lawyers say agents can arrest people in their homes without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment says otherwise! And the Supreme Court's conservatives were extremely unimpressed with Trump's plan to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook on Truth Social. We'll break down Wednesday's oral argument in detail but first, we've got approximately one million ...   DOCKET ALERTS (Dun dun DUNNNN):   Former Special Counsel Jack Smith testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Watch it for yourself here.   The Justice Department arrested three people in relation to the protest on January 18 at Cities Church in St. Paul. Nothing has appeared on the docket, but the DOJ claims to have charged them under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, meant to protect women seeking abortion care.   The Eighth Circuit administratively stayed District Judge Katherine Menendez's preliminary injunction barring DHS goons from brutalizing protesters.   A jury in Chicago took just three hours to acquit a man of trying to hire someone to murder CBP's head thug Greg Bovino. Don't drunk text!    Donald Trump's latest trollsuit targets JP Morgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon. It's filed in state court in Miami and seeks $5 billion for tortious debanking.   Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson secured a standstill order barring the government from looking at the computers and hard drives it seized from her house in Virginia as part of its investigation into classified leaks by government contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones.    The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, reheard a challenge to Louisiana's HB71, which required every public school classroom to display the Ten Commandments. Background here.   Judge Paul Engelmayer rebuffed a request by Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna to enforce the Epstein Files Transparency Act and order the government to disclose all materials on Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Remember this next time you hear some rightwing pundit railing against "activist judges."   And we bid a fond farewell to Lindsey Halligan, who finally quit trying to pass herself off as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Well … fond-ish. After getting benchslapped by a federal judge and seeing her job posted online by the chief judge in EDVA, she finally took the hint.   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

NEXT EPISODE WILL RELEASE ON JULY 9TH! SEASON 5!!! Today's case is about how some cases aren't just about what happened—they're about everything that almost stopped it.From the 1970s through the mid-1980s, across Indianapolis, Indiana and St. Louis, Missouri, and twenty-one additional states, a pattern quietly takes shape. Complaints that don't go far enough. Identities that shift just enough. Moments that, on their own, don't seem like proof—but together tell a much darker story.At the center is Vernon Brown, a man who was able to move through lives and communities without drawing the kind of attention that might have stopped what came next.Listen to this episode to hear Claire unravel a timeline filled with missed chances, overlooked connections, and the chilling reality of how long danger can go unnoticed—until it can't anymore, and all the lives one man can destroy. Sources:Brown v. Luebbers. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 19 Sept. 2003. ECF CA8,ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/021845P.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.“Execution Date Set For Convicted Killer Vernon Brown.” Missourinet, 15 Apr. 2005,www.missourinet.com/2005/04/15/execution-date-set-for-convicted-killer-vernon-brown/. Accessed 18 Apr.2026. (Missourinet)State v. Brown. 902 S.W.2d 278. Supreme Court of Missouri, 25 July 1995. Justia,law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/1995/71264-0.html. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026. (Justia Law)“Vernon Brown Case Notes.” User-provided source text, uploaded in conversation, Apr. 2026.“50 American Serial Killers You've probably never heard of” Volume 5, By Robert Keller

Second Amendment: May unlawful marijuana users be forbidden from possessing firearms? - Argued: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 9:3:47 EDT

Tort: Is Sig Sauer liable for not including safety features on its firearms? - Argued: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 8:59:1 EDT

Thursday, April 16th, 2026 Today, members of Jeanine Pirro's office made an unannounced visit to the Federal Reserve and were turned away; Donald is now straight up threatening to fire Jerome Powell if he doesn't resign; the US is sending thousands more troops to Iran despite claiming the war is over; Senate Republicans and Fetterman have once again blocked a War Powers Resolution to rein in Trump; Tennessee's Charlie Kirk Act bans school walkouts and protects conservative speakers; mass civil rights violations are being reported at alligator Alcatraz; the Eighth Circuit swats a challenge to a Minnesota policy embracing trans athletes; Chinook salmon are found naturally hatching in the Upper Klamath River for first time in a century; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News. Thank You, 3 Day Blinds For their buy 1 get 1 50% off deal, head to 3DayBlinds.com/DAILYBEANS. Thank You, LumiGummies Go to LumiGummies.com and use code DAILYBEANS for 30% off your order. June 20 Gala in Chicago -  tickets will be available next week for Patrons patreon.com/muellershewrote The Daily beans is donating $10,000 and invites you to give what you can to support their life-affirming work - Donate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans Fundraiser Guest: Andrea LaFlamme Democratic Write-In Candidate for U.S. Senate in MaineAndrea LaFlamme For Maine Senate@andrealaflamme - Bluesky, @laflammeformaine - Threads, @andreaformaine - Instagram, Andrea-LaFlamme - Facebook The Latest Breakdown:Boasberg's Contempt Proceedings Blocked Again! StoriesU.S. sends thousands more troops to Mideast as Trump seeks to squeeze Iran | Washington Post Senate Republicans Again Block Bid to Limit Trump's Iran War Powers | The New York Times Trump Threatens to Fire Powell if He Does Not Resign From Fed | The New York Times Chinook salmon found naturally hatching in Upper Klamath River for first time in a century | OPBJustice Department officials turned away from Fed construction site | Washington Post Tennessee's Charlie Kirk Act bans student walkouts, protects conservative speakers | WPLN News Alligator Alcatraz phones were cut off. Then the beatings began, court docs say | Miami Herald Eighth Circuit swats challenge to Minnesota policy embracing trans athletes | Courthouse News Service Good Trouble On Friday we will be 200 days from the midterms. Your very simple, very important Good Trouble today — Make sure you and everyone you know and love is registered to VOTE - It is quick and It never hurts to double check! Check Your Voter Registration Status - Vote.org →Palmetto State Abortion Fund - Midland Gives  →2026 Primary Election Calendar: All the Dates Ahead of Midterms →Standwithminnesota.com →Tell Congress Ice out Now | Indivisible, Defund ICE | 5Calls →Congress: Divest From ICE and CBP | ACLU →ICE List  →iceout.org Good News Tour - Dana Goldberg →Norfolk NATO Festival - Virginia Arts Festival Boise takes down its Pride flag after Gov. Little signs new flag bill into law The Pope Is Weak On Crime T-Shirt – RAYGUN Central Kansas Activists.org/about →Share your Good News & Good Trouble - The Daily Beans →Beans Talk audio -beans-talk.simplecast.com Subscribe to the MSW YouTube Channel - MSW Media - YouTube Harry Dunn is running for CongressHarry Dunn for Maryland Our Donation Links The Daily beans is donating $10,000 and invites you to give what you can to support their life-affirming work - Donate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans Fundraiser Pathways to Citizenship link to MATCH Allison's Donationhttps://crm.bloomerang.co/HostedDonation?ApiKey=pub_86ff5236-dd26-11ec-b5ee-066e3d38bc77&WidgetId=6388736 Join Dana and The Daily Beans with a MATCHED Donation http://onecau.se/_ekes71 More Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - Donate, ActBlue.com/donate/msw-bwc, WhistleblowerAid.org/beans Dr. Allison Gill - The Breakdown | Allison Gill, Mueller, She Wrote @muellershewrote.com - Bluesky, MSW & The Daily Beans Podcast @muellershewrote - Instagram, MSW Media - YouTube →Federal workers - email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.  Dana Goldberg - Dana is on Patreon! At Dana's Dugout, @dgcomedy - Bluesky, @dgcomedy - IG, Dana Goldberg - Facebook,  DanaGoldberg.com More from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | Allison Gill Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode of The Book Faire Podcast, we break down the Books Save Lives Act of 2026, recently introduced by Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley to combat the rise in school library book bans. Host Anthony explores how this federal legislation aims to protect inclusive literature and support the freedom to read nationwide.We also provide an essential roundup of new children's book releases, offering valuable insights for educators, librarians, and parents. The conversation covers critical library news updates, including the Eighth Circuit's ruling on Iowa's book ban and the Minnesota Supreme Court's upcoming librarian case. Join us to learn how these legislative developments and new diverse titles are shaping the future of the elementary school classroom.New Releases:Three Pieces of Broken Glass by Emily Barth Isler, illustrated by Vesper Stamper (Ages 4-8)Forbidden Mountain by Brandon Mull (Ages 8-12)My Sister, the Freak by Dani Jones (Ages 8-12)The Delta Codex by Deva Fagan (Ages 10+)Rialto by Kate Milford (Ages 10+)Forgive-Me-Not by Mari Costa (Ages 14+)

In this episode of The Book Faire Podcast, we break down the Books Save Lives Act of 2026, recently introduced by Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley to combat the rise in school library book bans. Host Anthony explores how this federal legislation aims to protect inclusive literature and support the freedom to read nationwide.We also provide an essential roundup of new children's book releases, offering valuable insights for educators, librarians, and parents. The conversation covers critical library news updates, including the Eighth Circuit's ruling on Iowa's book ban and the Minnesota Supreme Court's upcoming librarian case. Join us to learn how these legislative developments and new diverse titles are shaping the future of the elementary school classroom.New Releases:Three Pieces of Broken Glass by Emily Barth Isler, illustrated by Vesper Stamper (Ages 4-8)Forbidden Mountain by Brandon Mull (Ages 8-12)My Sister, the Freak by Dani Jones (Ages 8-12)The Delta Codex by Deva Fagan (Ages 10+)Rialto by Kate Milford (Ages 10+)Forgive-Me-Not by Mari Costa (Ages 14+)

Joseph Duggar faces charges in two states. In Florida, the charges are classified as a life felony — mandatory minimum of 25 years if convicted. According to the Bay County arrest affidavit, a now-fourteen-year-old girl reported that Joseph allegedly harmed her during a family vacation when she was nine. The affidavit states he allegedly admitted to the conduct twice — once when confronted by the girl's father, and again when the father called back with a detective monitoring the line. Joseph posted $600,000 bond with Jim Bob Duggar reportedly in the courtroom. He had already filed a written not-guilty plea and demanded a jury trial before the hearing took place.In Arkansas, both Joseph and Kendra face charges after investigators reportedly found locks on the outside of their children's bedroom doors — a detail that carries particular weight given the Duggar family's documented history of using exterior locks after Josh's earliest allegations became known internally. Kendra reportedly retained the family's longtime attorney for herself, left the home with the children, and has not returned.The broader pattern demands examination. Josh Duggar is serving twelve and a half years in federal prison, conviction upheld through the Eighth Circuit and Supreme Court cert denied. Bill Gothard, founder of the Institute in Basic Life Principles that shaped the Duggar family's belief system, has faced accusations from more than thirty women — zero criminal charges, denies everything, organization still operating. A federal judge found Jim Bob Duggar's sworn testimony not credible during Josh's case. No legal consequence. The voices speaking most clearly — Amy Duggar King to Fox News, Jim Bob's own sister to Page Six, Jinger Duggar on her podcast — are the ones who separated from the system. The voices still inside it communicate through spokespeople. That divide tells its own story about accountability, institutional failure, and who this system was designed to protect.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#JosephDuggar #DuggarFamily #JoshDuggar #IBLP #BillGothard #JimBobDuggar #KendraDuggar #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #TrueCrimePodcast

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals appears skeptical of a truck driver's position that Minnesota's refusal to recognize his GA and FL carry permits violates his 2A rights, but as Cam points out, one of the best arguments in the plaintiffs' favor was never raised during oral arguments.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals appears skeptical of a truck driver's position that Minnesota's refusal to recognize his GA and FL carry permits violates his 2A rights, but as Cam points out, one of the best arguments in the plaintiffs' favor was never raised during oral arguments.

Ellingburg v. United States concerned whether forced restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), was a civil remedy or a criminal penalty. The MVRA requires defendants who are convicted of some types of federal crimes to pay monetary restitution to the victims. Holsey Ellingburg committed a robbery in 1995. Then, during the course of his trial, the MVRA was passed. When sentenced, he was given both a prison sentence and ordered to pay mandatory restitution under the MVRA. Ellingburg eventually challenged the forced restitution, arguing that the application of the MVRA to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Eighth Circuit ruled against Ellingburg, holding that MVRA restitution is a civil remedy. Ellingburg petitioned the Supreme Court for review, which held the MVRA is "plainly criminal punishment" and thus its application to Ellingburg violated the Ex Post Facto clause.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.Featuring:Matthew P. Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute(Moderator) Sarah Field, Chief Counsel, Legal Policy, Koch Capabilities, LLC

Former US Attorney Rachel Paulose speaks out on ICE, court rulings and fraud. Rachel Kunjummen Paulose is an American attorney. She was nominated by President George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to serve as a United States Attorney.She was the youngest person and the first woman to lead the District of Minnesota and the first Indian American woman to be nominated by a president and confirmed by the Senate for any federal position.Paulose's legal career began in 1997 when she worked as a law clerk under Judge James B. Loken of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. She then worked as a trial attorney in the Attorney General's Honors Program from 1998 to 1999. There, she prosecuted violations of the federal civil rights laws in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division.From 1999 until 2002, she worked as an Assistant United States Attorney. She first-chaired many trials in federal district court. She also briefed and argued many appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Cases involved narcotics, violent crime, economic crime. Jury trial and Eighth circuit appellate highlights: precedent-setting detention of suspect based on economic threat alone; precedent-setting appellate work rejecting expansion of alien criminal defendants' claims of rights under Vienna Convention.She worked in private practice after 2002 with the Williams & Connolly law firm in Washington D.C. until 2003, where her work focused on health care litigation and business.She was with the Dorsey & Whitney law firm in Minneapolis from 2003 until December 2005. Work included defense of health care providers, commercial litigation, and constitutional advocacy. Paulose was appointed as the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota in August 2006 and remained in that position until November 2007.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

An ICE whistleblower reveals a secret memo where DHS lawyers say agents can arrest people in their homes without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment says otherwise! And the Supreme Court's conservatives were extremely unimpressed with Trump's plan to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook on Truth Social. We'll break down Wednesday's oral argument in detail but first, we've got approximately one million ...DOCKET ALERTS (Dun dun DUNNNN):Former Special Counsel Jack Smith testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Watch it for yourself here.The Justice Department arrested three people in relation to the protest on January 18 at Cities Church in St. Paul. Nothing has appeared on the docket, but the DOJ claims to have charged them under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, meant to protect women seeking abortion care.The Eighth Circuit administratively stayed District Judge Katherine Menendez's preliminary injunction barring DHS goons from brutalizing protesters.A jury in Chicago took just three hours to acquit a man of trying to hire someone to murder CBP's head thug Greg Bovino. Don't drunk text! Donald Trump's latest trollsuit targets JP Morgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon. It's filed in state court in Miami and seeks $5 billion for tortious debanking.Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson secured a standstill order barring the government from looking at the computers and hard drives it seized from her house in Virginia as part of its investigation into classified leaks by government contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones. The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, reheard a challenge to Louisiana's HB71, which required every public school classroom to display the Ten Commandments. Background here.Judge Paul Engelmayer rebuffed a request by Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna to enforce the Epstein Files Transparency Act and order the government to disclose all materials on Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Remember this next time you hear some rightwing pundit railing against “activist judges.”And we bid a fond farewell to Lindsey Halligan, who finally quit trying to pass herself off as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Well … fond-ish. After getting benchslapped by a federal judge and seeing her job posted online by the chief judge in EDVA, she finally took the hint.Show Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wolford v. Lopez | 01/20/26 | Docket #: 24-1046 24-1046 WOLFORD V. LOPEZ DECISION BELOW: 116 F.4th 959 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen , 597 U.S. 1, 33 (2022), holds that "the Second Amendment guarantees a general right to public carry" of arms, meaning ordinary, law-abiding citizens may "'bear' arms in public for self-defense." In this case, the Ninth Circuit sustained a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a concealed carry permit holder to carry a handgun on private property unless he has been "given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property by the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property." H.R.S. § 134-9.5. That holding is in acknowledged direct conflict with the Second Circuit's holding in Antonyuk v. James , 120 F.4th 941 (2d Cir. 2024), a decision that struck down an identical State law in the same procedural posture as this case. The Ninth Circuit also sustained a multitude of other location bans on carry by permit holders, relying solely on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws. That doctrinal approach is in direct conflict with the Third Circuit's decision in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police , 125 F.4th 428 (3d Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Connelly , 117 F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024), the Eighth Circuit's decision in Worth v. Jacobson , 108 F.4th 677 (8th Cir. 2024), and, most recently, the Eleventh Circuit's en banc decision in NRA v. Bondi , No. 21- 12314, 2025 WL 815734 at *5 (11th Cir. March 14,2025) (en banc), all of which hold that primary focus must be on Founding generation laws and tradition in applying the text, history and tradition test Bruen mandates. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier? 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen 's text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-16164

The FTC may be quietly reviving its controversial Click-to-Cancel rule — and companies with subscription or auto-renewal programs should take notice. After the Eighth Circuit vacated the original rule on procedural grounds, consumer groups petitioned the FTC to reopen the rulemaking, and the Commission has now invited public comment, signaling that federal scrutiny of cancellation practices is far from over. For legal, compliance, and marketing teams, this development underscores the ongoing risk around negative-option offers and the need to evaluate enrollment disclosures and cancellation flows now, not later. Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Gonzalo E. Mon, Donnelly L. McDowell, and Aaron J. Burstein.

Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment | 12/01/25 | Docket #: 24-171 24-171 COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT DECISION BELOW: 93 F.4th 222 CERT. GRANTED 6/30/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. This Court has held that a business commits contributory copyright infringement when it "distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps to foster infringement." Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster , Ltd ., 545 U.S. 913, 919 (2005). The courts of appeals have split three ways over the scope of that ruling, developing differing standards for when it is appropriate to hold an online service provider secondarily liable for copyright infringement committed by users. Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a service provider can be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it? 2. Generally, a defendant cannot be held liable as a willful violator of the law-and subject to increased penalties-without proof that it knew or recklessly disregarded a high risk that its own conduct was illegal. In conflict with the Eighth Circuit, the Fourth Circuit upheld an instruction allowing the jury to find willfulness if Cox knew its subscribers ' conduct was illegal-without proof Cox knew its own conduct in not terminating them was illegal. Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that mere knowledge of another's direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-1168

Gerrymandering—the manipulation of voting maps for partisan gain—has been part of American politics since its founding, but today, the problem is reaching a breaking point.In this episode, host Simone Leeper shares the story of Vicki and Malcolm Reed, a Utah couple who Campaign Legal Center are representing in a landmark lawsuit defending voters' rights, alongside Mark Gaber, CLC's Senior Director of Redistricting. Together, they trace how Utahns fought back after lawmakers attempted to overturn a voter-approved ballot measure that created a citizen-led independent  redistricting commission—and how the Utah Supreme Court ultimately sided with voters.As Malcolm and Vicki's story unfolds, we also highlight how the current wave of mid-decade redistricting arms race that started in Texas and is now spilling into other  states threatens to weaken voters' voices nationwide.  We explore how voters, courts and Congress can act to restore fairness to America's elections and ensure that voters — not politicians — decide the outcome.Timestamps:(00:01) — Who are Vicki and Malcolm Reed, and why did they take on Utah's legislature?(02:10) — What is gerrymandering, and how does it work?(05:11) — How did the framers envision fair representation?(10:10) — What is redistricting, and why does it matter for voters?(11:25) — What was Utah's Proposition 4, and how did it aim to end gerrymandering?(14:42) — What's the difference between racial and partisan gerrymandering?(15:12) — How do “packing” and “cracking” weaken voters' power?(16:02) — How has technology supercharged modern gerrymandering?(17:12) — How did Utah lawmakers gut the independent redistricting commission?(20:44) — Why did Campaign Legal Center sue the Utah legislature?(23:22) — What happened when CLC argued the case before the Utah Supreme Court?(25:15) — What did the unanimous court decision mean for Utah voters?(28:50) — What is happening right now in Texas and other states across the country?(32:55) — What federal laws could end gerrymandering nationwide?(36:13) — Why should the fight for fair maps in Utah give us hope for democracy?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Mark Gaber manages Campaign Legal Center's redistricting litigation and policy program, which seeks to achieve fair maps for racial and language minority groups, and to curb the influence of partisanship in redistricting.Mark has led CLC's redistricting program to major successes since the 2020 Census. He argued for petitioners in the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Clarke v. Wisconsin Election Commission, which resulted in the invalidation of Wisconsin's state legislative maps and the transformation of the state's legislative maps from being among the most politically skewed to among the most politically fair in the country. He is lead counsel in League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, in which CLC has successfully challenged the Utah legislature's repeal of a voter-adopted initiative reforming the state's redistricting process and its enactment of an extremely gerrymandered congressional map. In that case, Mark has (to date) argued twice in the Utah Supreme Court, resulting in two unanimous decisions in favor of CLC's clients.Mark has also led CLC's redistricting team to victories enforcing the Voting Rights Act (VRA). These include two cases on behalf of North Dakota's Native American voters, where he has argued in the Eighth Circuit against a challenge aiming to neutralize the VRA by precluding citizens from filing suit and where CLC's clients have secured two legislative districts providing Native American voters an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. Mark also led CLC's successful challenge to Washington's legislative map, which was found to discriminate against Latino voters in the Yakima region, and CLC's ongoing challenge to the racially discriminatory Galveston County, Texas, map.Links: Cartoon, "The Gerry-Mander", 1813 — Smithsonian Gerrymandering: The Origin Story — Library of Congress Blogs LWV Utah and MWEG v. Utah State Legislature — CLC Voting Rights Groups Sue To Ensure All Utah Voters Have a Voice — CLC Opinion: Why we sued Utah lawmakers for alleged gerrymandering — Desert News CLC, Utahns Score Huge Victory in the Fight for Fair Maps — CLC Utahns Score Huge Victory Voiding Amendment D — CLC What Is Gerrymandering? — CLC How Can We Combat Gerrymandering? — CLC Do Independent Redistricting Commissions Really Prevent Gerrymandering? Yes, They Do — CLC New Report Outlines How to Make a Redistricting Commission Effective — CLC Independent Redistricting Commissions: Primer and Best Practices — CLC Redistricting Commissions in the 2021 Redistricting Cycle — CLC League of Women Voters on the Utah win — LWV Understanding the Current High Stakes Redistricting Fight – Trevor Potter's Newsletter Inside the Trump Administration's Efforts to Discriminate Against Texas' Black and Latino Voters — CLC About CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Free Speech: May a state criminalize election misinformation in the lead up to an election? - Argued: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:53:4 EDT

Send in your questions to hrask.org or leave your questions in the chat! We're breaking down the implications of the October 1st government shutdown with special guest, D.C. insider Jim Plunkett. What does this mean for E-Verify, immigration processes, labor agency operations, and your compliance deadlines? With uncertainty on Capitol Hill, HR leaders can't afford to wait. Tune in for expert guidance, practical solutions, and a few laughs to carry you through the chaos. Timestamps:  0:00 – Show intro: Phil, Burt, and Nick kick things off 3:10 – Guest introduction: Jim Plunkett joins from Washington D.C. 3:42 – Lawyer on the Clock: Burt breaks down an Eighth Circuit case on drug testing and at-will employment 8:16 – Senate confirms key Trump-era appointees at the EEOC, Wage & Hour, and OSHA 11:00 – AI and the future of work: Bernie Sanders' “artificial labor” warning and the 32-hour workweek debate 15:27 – Introducing next week's guest on AI, Katherine Von Jahn 16:15 – Jim Plunkett's update from D.C.: Inside the government shutdown 18:11 – What could force Congress to act—military pay, TSA, and market pressure 20:08 – Key political standoff: healthcare subsidies vs. funding extension 25:43 – The H-1B visa reentry fee controversy and legal challenges 28:04 – Who's still working? USPS, federal workers, and unemployment pay 31:22 – E-Verify shutdown: What employers still must do 32:57 – EEOC dynamics: How the lone Democrat could stall GOP momentum

A review of the week's major US international tax-related news. In this edition:  US Congress fails to pass CR to fund federal government – Trump Administration to release first IRS Priority Guidance Plan soon – Eighth Circuit vacates Tax Court TP decision in Medtronics – USTR initiates public review of USMCA – US Customs and Border Protection releases updated guidance on US-Japan trade agreement – President Trump signs EO on trade and security agreements – OECD releases report on revised BEPS Action 5 transparency framework.

After Congress slashed the National Firearms Act (NFA) tax on silencers and short-barreled firearms, nearly every gun-rights group in the country promised to sue in an effort to overturn those sections of the law outright. Now, a few weeks later, those groups have nearly all sorted into two coalitions, and they've both filed suit. One coalition, led by Gun Owners of America (GOA), filed in the Fifth Circuit. Another, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), filed in the Eighth Circuit. To analyze the arguments of each case, we've got independent gun-rights lawyer Matt Larosiere on the show. He's brought both tax power and Second Amendment challenges against the NFA before. So, he has direct experience with the claims at issue in both cases. Larosiere said he is on board with the logic behind the GOA and NRA lawsuits, but he argued they face a difficult climb to achieve their goals. He said tax challenges are more complex than most people imagine, and it can be difficult for Second Amendment attorneys to navigate the waters of a successful pleading. He said the Second Amendment claim in the NRA case may have an easier path, but noted it wasn't a new tactic and has failed in the past. Special Guest: Matt Larosiere.

This Day in Legal History: Expansion of US House of RepresentativesOn August 8, 1911, President William Howard Taft signed into law a measure that permanently expanded the size of the U.S. House of Representatives from 391 to 433 members. This change followed the 1910 census, which revealed significant population growth and shifts in where Americans lived. Under the Constitution, House seats are apportioned among the states according to population, and each decade's census can lead to changes in representation. Prior to 1911, Congress often responded to new census data by simply adding seats rather than redistributing them among states. The 1911 legislation reflected both that tradition and the political realities of the time, as expanding the House allowed growing states to gain representation without forcing other states to lose seats. It also set the stage for the modern size of the House—just two years later, New Mexico and Arizona joined the Union, bringing the total to 435 members. That number has remained fixed by law since 1929, despite the nation's continued population growth. The 1911 increase carried implications beyond arithmetic: more members meant more voices, more local interests, and a larger scale for legislative negotiation. It also underscored Congress's role in adapting the machinery of government to the country's evolving demographics. In many ways, the expansion reflected Progressive Era concerns with fair representation and democratic responsiveness. While debates over House size have continued into the 21st century, the 1911 law remains a pivotal moment in the chamber's institutional development. By enlarging the House, Taft and Congress preserved proportionality between population and representation, even if only temporarily.After the 1911 increase under President Taft, the size of the House stayed at 435 members following Arizona and New Mexico's statehood in 1912. The idea at the time was that future census results would continue to trigger changes, either by adding more seats or by redistributing them among the states.But after the 1920 census, Congress ran into a political deadlock. Massive population growth in cities—and significant immigration—meant that urban states stood to gain seats while rural states would lose them. Rural lawmakers, who still held considerable power, resisted any reapportionment that would diminish their influence. For nearly a decade, Congress failed to pass a new apportionment plan, effectively ignoring the 1920 census results.To end the stalemate, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. This law capped the House at 435 seats and created an automatic formula for reapportionment after each census. Instead of adding seats to reflect population growth, the formula reassigns the fixed number of seats among states. This froze the size of the House even as the U.S. population more than tripled over the next century.Critics argue that the 1929 cap dilutes individual representation—today, each representative speaks for about 760,000 constituents on average, compared to roughly 200,000 in 1911. Supporters counter that a larger House would be unwieldy and harder to manage. The debate over whether to expand the House continues, but the 1929 law has held for nearly a hundred years, making Taft's 1911 expansion the last time the chamber permanently grew in size.A fourth federal court blocked President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship, halting its enforcement nationwide. The order, issued on Trump's first day back in office, sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Immigrant rights groups and 22 Democratic state attorneys general challenged the policy as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland sided with the challengers, issuing the latest in a series of nationwide injunctions despite a recent Supreme Court ruling narrowing judges' power to block policies universally. That June decision left a key exception: courts could still halt policies nationwide in certified class actions. Advocates quickly filed two such cases, including the one before Boardman, who had previously ruled in February that Trump's interpretation of the Constitution was one “no court in the country has ever endorsed.”In July, Boardman signaled she would grant national relief once class status was approved, but waited for the Fourth Circuit to return the case after the administration's appeal was dismissed. Her new order covers all affected children born in the U.S., making it the first post–Supreme Court nationwide injunction issued via class action in the birthright fight. The case, Casa Inc. et al v. Trump, continues as part of a broader legal battle over the limits of presidential power in defining citizenship.Fourth court blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order nationwide | ReutersThe Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a lower court order restricting immigration enforcement tactics in much of Southern California. The Justice Department's emergency filing seeks to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who barred federal agents from stopping or detaining individuals based solely on race, ethnicity, language, or similar factors without “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful presence. Her temporary restraining order stemmed from a proposed class action brought by Latino plaintiffs—including U.S. citizens—who alleged they were wrongly targeted, detained, or roughed up during immigration raids in Los Angeles.The plaintiffs argued these tactics violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, describing indiscriminate stops by masked, armed agents. Judge Frimpong agreed, finding the operations likely unconstitutional and blocking the use of race, ethnicity, language, workplace type, or certain locations as stand-alone reasons for suspicion. The Ninth Circuit declined to lift her order earlier this month.The challenge comes amid a major escalation in Trump's immigration enforcement push, which includes aggressive deportation targets, mass raids, and even the deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines in Los Angeles—a move sharply opposed by state officials. The administration contends the restrictions hinder operations in a heavily populated region central to its immigration agenda. The Supreme Court will now decide whether to allow these limits to remain in place while the underlying constitutional challenge proceeds.Trump asks US Supreme Court to lift limits on immigration raids | ReutersMilbank announced it will pay seniority-based “special” bonuses to associates and special counsel worldwide, ranging from $6,000 to $25,000, with payments due by September 30. Milbank, of course, is among the big firms that bent to Trump's strong-arm tactics, cutting a $100 million deal and dropping diversity-based hiring rather than risk becoming his next executive-order target. The New York-founded firm used the same bonus scale last summer, signaling optimism about high activity levels through the rest of the year. Milbank, known for setting the pace in Big Law compensation, is the first major corporate firm to roll out such bonuses this summer—a move that often pressures competitors to follow suit.Special bonuses are not standard annual payouts, and last year rival firms mostly waited until year's end to match Milbank's mid-year scale, adding those amounts to their regular year-end bonuses. Milbank also led the market in November 2024 with annual bonuses up to $115,000. The firm is one of nine that reached agreements with President Trump earlier this year after his executive orders restricted certain law firms' access to federal buildings, officials, and contracting work.In a smaller but notable move, New York boutique Otterbourg recently awarded all full-time associates a $15,000 mid-year bonus, citing strong performance and contributions to the firm's success.Law firm Milbank to pay out 'special' bonuses for associates | ReutersMilbank reaches deal with Trump as divide among law firms deepens | ReutersA federal judge in North Dakota vacated the Federal Reserve's rule capping debit card “swipe fees” at 21 cents per transaction, siding with retailers who have long argued the cap is too high. The decision, which found the Fed exceeded its authority by including certain costs in the fee calculation under Regulation II, will not take effect immediately to allow time for appeal. The case was brought by Corner Post, a convenience store that claimed the Fed ignored Congress's directive to set issuer- and transaction-specific standards under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.Banks, backed by groups like the Bank Policy Institute, defended the cap as compliant with the law, while retailers and small business advocates supported Corner Post's challenge. This is Judge Daniel Traynor's second ruling in the dispute; he initially dismissed the case in 2022 as untimely, but the U.S. Supreme Court revived it in 2024, easing limits on challenges to older regulations. An appeal to the Eighth Circuit is expected, with the losing side likely to seek Supreme Court review. The ruling comes as the Fed separately considers lowering the cap to 14.4 cents, a proposal still pending.US judge vacates Fed's debit card 'swipe fees' rule, but pauses order for appeal | ReutersTexas-based Fintiv sued Apple in federal court, accusing the company of stealing trade secrets to develop Apple Pay. Fintiv claims the mobile wallet's core technology originated with CorFire, a company it acquired in 2014, and that Apple learned of it during 2011–2012 meetings and nondisclosure agreements intended to explore licensing. According to the complaint, Apple instead hired away CorFire employees and used the technology without permission, launching Apple Pay in 2014 and expanding it globally.Fintiv alleges Apple has run an informal racketeering operation, using Apple Pay to collect transaction fees for major banks and credit card networks, generating billions in revenue without compensating Fintiv. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages under federal and Georgia trade secret and anti-racketeering laws, including RICO. Apple is the sole defendant and has not commented.The case follows the recent dismissal of Fintiv's related patent lawsuit against Apple in Texas, which the company plans to appeal. The new lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, where CorFire was originally based.Lawsuit accuses Apple of stealing trade secrets to create Apple Pay | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Antonín DvořákThis week's closing theme comes from a composer who knew how to weave folk spirit into the fabric of high art without losing either warmth or polish. Dvořák, born in 1841 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew from a village-trained violist into one of the most celebrated composers of the late 19th century. His music often married classical forms with the rhythms, turns, and dances of his homeland—an approach that made his work instantly recognizable and deeply human.His Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81, written in 1887, is a prime example. Dvořák had actually written an earlier piano quintet in the same key but was dissatisfied with it; rather than revise, he started fresh. The result is one of the most beloved chamber works in the repertoire. Across its four movements, the quintet blends lyrical sweep with earthy energy—romantic in scope, yet grounded in folk idiom. The opening Allegro bursts forth with an expansive theme, the piano and strings trading lines as if in animated conversation.The second movement, marked Dumka, takes its name from a Slavic song form alternating between melancholy reflection and lively dance. Here, Dvořák's gift for emotional contrast is on full display—wistful cello lines give way to playful rhythms before sinking back into introspection. The third movement is a Furiant, a fiery Czech dance bristling with syncopation and vigor, while the finale spins out buoyant melodies with an almost orchestral fullness.It is music that feels both intimate and vast, as if played in a parlor with the windows thrown open to the countryside. With this quintet, Dvořák shows how local color can speak in a universal voice—how the tunes of a homeland can travel the world without losing their soul. For our purposes, it's a reminder that endings can be celebratory, heartfelt, and just a bit homespun.Without further ado, Antonín Dvořák's Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81 – enjoy! 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

FTC Negative Option Rule Vacated by Eighth Circuit Just days before the FTC's new Negative Option Rule was set to take effect, the Eighth Circuit vacated it entirely. What does that mean for federal enforcement, and how should businesses approach autorenewal compliance now? In this Ad Law Access podcast episode, host Simone Roach walks through the key takeaways from the ruling and the broader landscape ahead from the blog post from Beth Chun and Aaron Burstein. #KelleyDrye #AdLawAccess #NegativeOption #AutoRenewal #FTC

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education?The case was decided on June 12, 2025.The Supreme Court held that Schoolchildren bringing claims related to their education under either Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are not required to make a heightened showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was amended in 1986, Congress explicitly declared that nothing in the IDEA “shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under” the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, or other federal laws protecting disabled children's rights. This provision directly repudiates judicial attempts to create special barriers for educational discrimination claims. The Eighth Circuit's rule requiring schoolchildren to prove “bad faith or gross misjudgment”—rather than the standard deliberate indifference required in other disability contexts—artificially limits disabled students' ability to vindicate their rights under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Neither statute's text suggests that educational services claims deserve different treatment than other disability discrimination claims. Both laws use expansive language applying protections to “any person” alleging discrimination, without distinction based on the type of claim.The heightened standard originated in 1982 when the Eighth Circuit attempted to “harmonize” the IDEA with the Rehabilitation Act, reasoning that courts should defer to educators unless they departed grossly from professional standards. This Court made a similar harmonization attempt in 1984, holding the IDEA was the exclusive remedy for educational claims, but Congress swiftly overturned that decision. The Eighth Circuit's continued application of its heightened standard conflicts with Congress's clear directive that the IDEA does not limit other federal antidiscrimination laws. By imposing a higher burden of proof for educational claims compared to other disability discrimination contexts, courts effectively read the IDEA as restricting the independent rights and remedies that Title II and Section 504 provide to disabled children.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, suggesting the Court should consider in a future case whether intent to discriminate must be proven for all ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, not just educational ones.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, emphasizing that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act require no showing of improper purpose or animus because discrimination against people with disabilities often results from thoughtlessness rather than malice.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: A new way to pay for Texas: With precious metals via a debit-like card of some type. It should be all working in a year or so depending upon outside vendors. Read more here: Texans Can Use Precious Metals in Everyday Transactions Under New Law.Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.Eighth Circuit judges reject Gov. “Get High” Abbott's rational for vetoing THC ban. Lt. Gov. Patrick says legislators should just re-pass the ban in the called special session.Texas an ice breaker construction hub?Border news: Feds add 250 miles of Texas border land to a National Defense Area Trump Plans Mass Dismissal Of Asylum Claims, Fast-Track Deportations 1,500 Iranian Nationals Apprehended by Border Patrol During Biden Administration DHS: 11 Iranian Nationals Arrested Across U.S. over Weekend A tit-for-tat squabble amongst former Office of Attorney General employees and their former boss, Brent Webster. So far there isn't much in press reporting that lends much credibility to the claims Stone and Hilton but there is some credibility the other way, in my view.Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

This Day in Legal History: Harry Blackmun Confirmed to SCOTUSOn May 12, 1970, the U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Harry A. Blackmun to the Supreme Court, filling the vacancy left by Justice Abe Fortas. Nominated by President Richard Nixon, Blackmun had previously served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was considered a moderate, scholarly jurist. His confirmation marked the culmination of a tumultuous series of failed nominations for the seat, including two rejections by the Senate, making Blackmun's 94–0 approval a moment of bipartisan relief.Blackmun would go on to serve nearly a quarter-century on the Court, authoring over 700 opinions. He is perhaps best known for writing the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade (1973), which recognized a constitutional right to abortion. The decision would shape political and legal debates for decades and define Blackmun's legacy, despite his broader jurisprudential contributions. Over time, he evolved from a judicial centrist to one of the Court's more liberal voices, especially on issues of individual rights and the death penalty.After retiring in 1994, Blackmun remained active in legal education and public service until his death in 1999. The Library of Congress released his extensive papers in 2004, providing scholars with a revealing look into the internal workings of the Court during his tenure. His former clerks, some of whom became influential legal figures themselves, publicly remembered him for his deep humanity and commitment to justice. Blackmun's confirmation anniversary serves as a reminder of how judicial legacies can transcend the expectations of those who appoint them.U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued a temporary 14-day halt on the Trump administration's federal government restructuring plan, citing a lack of congressional authorization for mass layoffs and agency overhauls. The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by unions, nonprofits, and local governments opposing the large-scale “reductions in force” initiated by the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), led by Elon Musk. Judge Illston emphasized that the president cannot broadly restructure federal agencies without clear approval from Congress. The plaintiffs submitted extensive evidence showing critical services being disrupted, including nearly complete staff terminations at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in Pittsburgh. Similar losses were reported at Head Start, the Farm Service Agency, and the Social Security Administration. Illston found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits of several claims, including violations of administrative law and overreach by DGE, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Personnel Management. The administration's efforts, ordered in February by Trump, aim to automate services, eliminate redundant roles, and reduce federal personnel. Critics argue the changes are destabilizing and harmful to community services. Illston's ruling aims to preserve the status quo while legal challenges proceed, with a hearing on a potential preliminary injunction scheduled for May 22.Judge orders temporary halt to Trump administration's government overhaul | ReutersRumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish PhD student at Tufts University, returned to Massachusetts after being held for over six weeks in U.S. immigration custody in Louisiana. Her arrest stemmed from a revoked student visa, which the government linked to an opinion piece she co-wrote criticizing Tufts University's response to the war in Gaza and urging divestment from companies tied to Israel. Ozturk was apprehended by masked officers in Somerville, Massachusetts, and was quickly transferred from Vermont to a detention facility in Louisiana. Her legal team, including the ACLU, argued her detention was a retaliatory act against constitutionally protected speech, aimed at silencing pro-Palestinian voices on campus.U.S. District Judge William Sessions granted her release after determining she had strong grounds for claiming her constitutional rights were violated. Upon arrival at Logan International Airport, Ozturk expressed relief and gratitude, thanking supporters and calling attention to other detained women. Representative Ayanna Pressley condemned the detention as a politically motivated act of intimidation, citing inhumane conditions and medical neglect during Ozturk's confinement. The case has drawn national attention amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to deport campus activists engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy.Tufts student returns to Massachusetts after release from immigration custody | ReutersOver the weekend Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested and charged with trespassing at the Delaney Hall immigration detention center in New Jersey during an unannounced visit by three Democratic members of Congress. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detained Baraka after a scuffle at the facility's gate while a bus of detainees was arriving. Representatives Bonnie Watson Coleman, LaMonica McIver, and Robert Menendez Jr. were also present and said to have been jostled during the confrontation. According to ICE and the Department of Homeland Security, the group's uncoordinated attempt to enter the site was unsafe and politically motivated.Baraka, who is campaigning for governor, stated after his release that he was there to support the lawmakers and did not cross into restricted areas. His supporters and congressional aides claim he remained outside the facility's fence and that ICE exaggerated the incident. DHS accused the group of endangering detainees and law enforcement, while the lawmakers insisted they were exercising lawful oversight powers. The detention center, operated by the GEO Group, has faced criticism from immigrant rights advocates for allegedly lacking local permits and operating against community wishes. The controversy has become entangled in Baraka's gubernatorial campaign, spotlighting tensions over immigration policy and the role of private detention facilities.New Jersey mayor charged with trespassing at US immigration detention center | ReutersPresident Donald Trump announced plans to slash U.S. prescription drug prices to match the lowest prices found internationally, prompting a global selloff in pharmaceutical stocks. In a post touting cuts of “59%, PLUS!,” Trump previewed an executive order mandating a “most-favored nation” pricing rule. This would require that Americans pay no more than citizens in the cheapest country for the same medication—a move that starkly contradicts the administration's prior market-driven rhetoric, now seemingly embracing a form of price fixing. Investors, analysts, and drugmakers scrambled to assess the implications, especially since Medicare and Medicaid represent a major share—around 40%—of U.S. drug spending.The proposed pricing shift offers manufacturers two theoretical paths to comply: lower U.S. drug prices to align with cheaper countries like France or Japan, or raise prices overseas to maintain U.S. revenue levels. It remains unclear which route companies will choose, but economic incentives suggest they'll resist U.S. price drops by inflating foreign costs instead. Trump framed the move as restoring fairness to American consumers, whom he described as having long subsidized global drug development. The executive order follows a prior, unsuccessful attempt during his first term to peg Medicare prices to international benchmarks—a plan struck down in court for procedural flaws.The Inflation Reduction Act already initiated drug price negotiations under President Biden, but Trump's new approach could broaden the scope or accelerate the effort. However, legal and legislative obstacles remain, especially since the administration cannot set prices for the commercial market without congressional support. Analysts are watching closely for whether the policy targets just Medicare, specific drug types, or a wider range. Meanwhile, critics note the contradiction in Trump's newfound support for a centralized pricing strategy after years of decrying government interference in markets.Trump Vows US Drug Price Cuts of Up to 80% in Industry Blow (2) 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

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about the Supreme Court's decision to reject Minnesota's appeal of an Eighth Circuit decision striking down its age limit for carry permits, effectively clearing the way for young adults to carry guns in the state. We also talk about a new bill signed into law in Iowa this week that accomplishes the same thing for that state's residents. We then cover a new Fox poll showing more people disapprove of President Trump's handling of gun policy than approve in his first 100 days back in office. Finally, we wrap up with an update on my upcoming trip down to Atlanta to cover the NRA's annual meeting.

Second Amendment, gun rights, legal battles, Maryland assault weapon ban, drones, privacy rights, Supreme Court, Armed American Radio Takeaways The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the Jacobson v. Wirth case is seen as a win for Second Amendment rights. The Eighth Circuit's ruling allows 18 to 20-year-olds to carry handguns for self-defense in Minnesota. The ongoing Maryland assault weapon ban case has yet to be decided by the Supreme Court after multiple conferences. The conversation highlights the importance of local victories in the fight for gun rights. The ambiguity of 'reasonable force' in Florida's drone legislation raises questions about privacy rights. The discussion reflects on the evolving nature of privacy in the age of surveillance technology. Mark Walters emphasizes the need for clarity in laws regarding personal privacy and drone usage. The conversation touches on the implications of the Patriot Act on personal privacy. The hosts speculate on the political motivations behind the Supreme Court's decision-making process. The episode concludes with a call to action for listeners to stay informed and engaged in these issues. Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics surrounding Second Amendment rights, including recent legal victories, the ongoing Maryland assault weapon ban case, and the implications of drone surveillance on personal privacy. The conversation highlights the importance of local victories in the fight for gun rights and the evolving nature of privacy in the age of technology. The hosts also speculate on the political motivations behind the Supreme Court's decision-making process and emphasize the need for clarity in laws regarding personal privacy and drone usage. titles Easter Reflections and Legal Wins Second Amendment Victories: A Closer Look Maryland Assault Weapon Ban: What's Next? Drones, Privacy, and the Right to Defend

How much control can public schools exercise over the speech of their students and staff on divisive issues such as anti-racism and using preferred pronouns? Two en banc cases out of the Sixth Circuit and Eighth Circuit are poised to answer that question soon. In Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, the Eighth Circuit will […]

How much control can public schools exercise over the speech of their students and staff on divisive issues such as anti-racism and using preferred pronouns? Two en banc cases out of the Sixth Circuit and Eighth Circuit are poised to answer that question soon. In Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, the Eighth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s “equity training” violated the First Amendment by requiring employees to give the school’s preferred answer to questions about ideologically charged issues such as anti-racism and white privilege. The panel held that the plaintiffs lack standing because the district never punished or threatened to punish anyone for remaining silent or expressing dissenting views. The Eighth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and heard argument on January 15, 2025. In Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s anti-harassment policies violate the First Amendment when it prohibits students from using biological pronouns to refer to someone who prefers otherwise. Answering that question requires the court to tackle thorny issues about the evidence required to justify a speech regulation under Tinker and whether Tinker allows schools to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The panel rejected the plaintiffs’ claims on the merits, and the Sixth Circuit reheard the case en banc on March 19, 2025.Featuring:Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech(Moderator) Edward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett Greim LLC

Featuring:Prof. Sam Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Public Law, New York University School of LawProf. Chimène Keitner, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, University of California Davis School of LawModerator: Hon. David Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.We're less than a month into the second Trump administration, and mayors of major cities are already feeling the heat. The barrage of executive orders out of the White House can be hard to keep up with—and mayors of blue cities must decide which ones to fight, which ones to go along with, and which ones to try to change.So it's an interesting—and challenging—time to be Mayor Quinton Lucas, the 55th mayor of Kansas City, Missouri. He's having to navigate what all of Trump's actions mean for the city he governs, one of the 40 largest in the country. And as a Democratic mayor in a Republican-dominated state, he has to deal with his state's government as well—sometimes confrontationally, and sometimes cooperatively.As he goes about his work, “Mayor Q” draws upon his legal training and experience—as an Eighth Circuit clerk, practicing litigator, and law professor at the University of Kansas. And he's ultimately optimistic about the future—including February 9, when his city's powerhouse football team will go up against the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl LIX. Go Chiefs!Show Notes:* Meet Mayor Lucas, City of Kansas City* Post-Emption and the Mayoral Toolbox: Levers and Limits of City Resistance to State Preemption, by Quinton D. Lucas and Gavriel Schreiber for The University of Chicago Law ReviewPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

Episode 24: Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on January 15, 2025. Argued by Braden H. Boucek of the Southeastern Legal Foundation (on behalf of Brooke Henderson, et al.) and Tina Fowler (on behalf of the Board of Education of the Springfield R-12 School District, et al.). Background of the case, from Circuit Judge Colloton's Eighth Circuit panel opinion: In 2020, the Springfield R-12 School District required its employees to attend “equity training.” Two employees who attended the training sued the school district and several school officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs alleged that during the training, the defendants compelled them to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern, and engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment for the school district on the ground that the plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact and thus lacked standing to sue. The court also found that the lawsuit was frivolous and awarded attorney's fees to the school district. The plaintiffs appeal. Because we agree that the plaintiffs did not establish an injury in fact, we affirm the dismissal. We conclude, however, that the fee award was unwarranted and reverse that portion of the judgment. Statement of Issues Presented for Review, excerpted from the Brief of Appellants: Whether SPS [Springfield Public Schools] unconstitutionally compelled Plaintiffs to speak on matters of public concern and adopt its views in violation of the First Amendment. Whether SPS unconstitutionally discriminated against Plaintiffs' views when it adopted a position on current affairs and told Plaintiffs that their views were wrong. Whether SPS created an unconstitutional condition of employment when it compelled speech on matters of public concern and engaged in viewpoint discrimination. Whether the district court erred in finding Plaintiffs' claims frivolous. Whether the district court erred in awarding attorney fees in the amount of $312,869.50 and costs in the amount of $3,267.10 to Defendants. Whether reassignment to a different judge is appropriate on any remand. Resources: The 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

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti joins Dr. Roberts for a powerful discussion on the landmark case U.S. v. Skrmetti and the critical battles against federal overreach. General Skrmetti shares insights into his leadership in defending state sovereignty, tackling ESG mandates, and shaping the future of cyber law. From safeguarding education and healthcare policy to advancing common-sense public policy, this episode dives into the legal fights that will define America's future. About General Skrmetti: Jonathan Skrmetti was sworn in to an eight-year term as Tennessee's Attorney General and Reporter on September 1, 2022. Prior to his current role, General Skrmetti served as Chief Counsel to Governor Bill Lee and as Chief Deputy Attorney General to his predecessor, Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery. Before working for the State of Tennessee, General Skrmetti was a partner at Butler Snow LLP in Memphis. His legal career began with nearly a decade as a federal prosecutor. He worked at the Civil Rights Division at Main Justice and then at the Memphis U.S. Attorney's Office and prosecuted sex traffickers, corrupt government officials, and violent white supremacists. In addition, General Skrmetti taught cyberlaw as an adjunct professor at the University of Memphis. General Skrmetti earned honors degrees from George Washington University, the University of Oxford, and Harvard Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Following law school, Jonathan clerked for Judge Steven Colloton on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He lives in Franklin, Tennessee, with his wife and four children.

Over the past year, college campuses have been filled with student protests and demonstrations. A large number of these protests involved students camping out on campus for weeks, taking over administrative and academic buildings, harassing and threatening other students and faculty members, and destruction of property. Many administrators have refused to discipline students or enforce their policies because of First Amendment concerns. Instead, they contend the First Amendment prohibited them from punishing the students or enforcing their policies because the students were engaged in protected speech. When it comes to protests and demonstrations, what does the First Amendment protect? When does protected speech cross the line into unprotected conduct? What duties does a public university have to protect its students from harassment and intimidation? How does a university determine what speech is likely to incite imminent violence?This panel will examine the scope and limits of the First Amendment, especially as it relates to public colleges and universities.Featuring:Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under LawDean Thomas J. Miles, Dean & Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics, The University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties UnionProf. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor, UCLA School of LawModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Administrative Law: May the Department of Education forgive approximately $475 billion in federal-student-loan debt by altering the rules for income-based repayment? - Argued: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:17:10 EDT

This Day in Legal History: Great Chicago FireOn October 8, 1871, the Great Chicago Fire ignited, marking one of the most devastating urban disasters in U.S. history. The fire burned for two days, fueled by dry conditions and wooden structures that dominated the cityscape. It destroyed over three square miles of Chicago, killing around 300 people and leaving 100,000 residents homeless. In the aftermath, the catastrophe highlighted the dangers of poor urban planning and inadequate fire-prevention measures.The devastation led to a complete overhaul of building codes and fire safety regulations. Chicago introduced stricter fire-resistant building requirements, mandating the use of materials like brick, stone, and iron instead of wood for new construction. The city also improved its firefighting infrastructure, investing in modernized equipment and more efficient water systems.These reforms had a ripple effect across the country, influencing urban development nationwide. Many U.S. cities adopted similar codes, fundamentally reshaping fire safety standards. Today, much of modern building regulations, including fire codes that require sprinkler systems and fireproof materials, can trace their origins back to the lessons learned from the Great Chicago Fire of October 8, 1871. The event is a lasting reminder of how disasters can drive lasting legal and regulatory changes.The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments over whether a federal court can continue to oversee a consumer class action against Royal Canin and Purina after the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to remove federal claims. The case involves claims from pet owners who argue that the companies misled them into believing prescription pet food was required and conspired to inflate prices. Initially filed in Missouri state court, the case moved to federal court after Purina's request. The companies' attorney, Katie Wellington, argued that federal jurisdiction should remain despite changes to the lawsuit, citing Congress's codification of supplemental jurisdiction principles. However, justices like Elena Kagan and Chief Justice John Roberts expressed skepticism, questioning whether a prior version of the lawsuit, no longer relevant, should dictate jurisdiction. Both seemed to support the companies argument initially but appeared to reconsider after hearing from the consumers' attorney, Ashley Keller, who maintained that the Eighth Circuit correctly returned the case to state court.The case's procedural history, including its back-and-forth between courts, complicates the jurisdictional question. The justices appeared to struggle with balancing precedents and whether altering the claims should impact the court where the case is heard. The broader question hinges on civil procedure and jurisdiction when a lawsuit is amended post-removal from state to federal court.The concept of supplemental jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to retain jurisdiction over state law claims if a case initially involves federal claims, even if the federal issues are later removed is central to the companies' argument.Supreme Court Wrestles With Venue in Prescription Pet Food FightFTX has received court approval to begin repaying billions of dollars to customers after its bankruptcy plan was approved by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John Dorsey. The plan allows FTX to use up to $16.5 billion in recovered assets to repay customers affected by the crypto exchange's collapse. Under the plan, 98% of customers with claims of $50,000 or less will be repaid within 60 days of the plan's activation. FTX's bankruptcy was triggered by founder Sam Bankman-Fried's misappropriation of customer funds to cover risky bets made by his hedge fund, Alameda Research. Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison, and FTX has been recovering assets ever since.FTX will prioritize customer repayments over claims from U.S. government agencies like the IRS and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The company has worked with global liquidators and settled various disputes to move forward with repayments. Some customers, however, are unhappy with the repayment structure, citing the rise in cryptocurrency prices since 2022, which they feel should be reflected in their recovery amounts. Despite these objections, FTX argues that it is not feasible to return the same crypto assets, as they were largely misappropriated.FTX cleared to repay billions to customers after bankruptcy plan approval | ReutersThe EPA has finalized the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI), mandating an accelerated replacement of lead service lines in drinking water systems. The new rule requires replacing 10% of lead pipes annually over a decade, up from the previous 3%, with the process beginning in 2027. The EPA estimates that up to 9 million lead pipes remain in use across the U.S., posing significant health risks, especially to children. The rule also lowers the lead action level in drinking water from 0.015 to 0.010 milligrams per liter, triggering faster public notifications and filter distribution when lead is detected.The effort is backed by $15 billion from the 2021 infrastructure law, along with additional funding from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. It closes loopholes allowing extended replacement times and pressures homeowners to replace privately owned lead pipes. The rule reflects the Biden administration's emphasis on clean water as a priority, though legal challenges to the LCRI are expected. EPA Administrator Michael Regan reiterated that no level of lead in drinking water is safe due to its severe health impacts.EPA to Finalize Mass Lead Drinking Water Pipe Replacement PlanAnd in my column for Bloomberg this week, I talk a bit about a favorite bugbear of mine: film production tax incentives.California is losing its dominance in the film industry as productions move to other states and countries offering more attractive tax incentives. While expanding California's film tax credits might seem like an immediate solution, this approach could worsen the competition among states, leading to a "race to the bottom" in offering incentives. Instead, the state should focus on long-term solutions such as investing in infrastructure, green initiatives, and workforce development. These investments would create lasting economic benefits, rather than the temporary boosts provided by film tax credits.Tax credits for film productions have proven costly, with minimal sustained economic impact. Jobs created during productions are often short-lived, and sometimes the credits are sold, benefiting entities with no connection to the state. In contrast, California could use tax incentives to build shared production facilities and promote eco-friendly practices, lowering production costs and attracting filmmakers.Additionally, tying tax credits to workforce development through partnerships with educational institutions could create a skilled labor force within California. This would help sustain the industry locally while reducing the state's reliance on temporary incentives to compete with other regions. By investing in long-term infrastructure and labor, California can rebuild its film industry more sustainably. California Should Look Beyond Film Tax Credits to Boost Industry 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

Federalism: May Iowa criminalize illegal re-entry into the United States? - Argued: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:18:33 EDT

The feds just won round two against Missouri's 2nd Amendment Preservation Act. But here's the kicker - they didn't say it's unconstitutional for what it does, but for the words it uses. In this episode, get a full breakdown of what happened in the Eighth Circuit - and the very clear path to liberty going forward. The post DOJ vs Missouri 2nd Amendment Preservation Act: Round 2, Feds Win first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

On this  installment of the Gutowski Files we sit down with investigative reporter Stephen Gutowski of thereload.com and discuss recent statements from President Trump on how being shot with an AR-15 might have changed his outlook on them and we talk about a recent Eighth Circuit decision regarding pistol brace bans. Active Self Protection exists to help good, sane, sober, moral, prudent people in all walks of life to more effectively protect themselves and their loved ones from criminal violence. On the ASP Podcast you will hear the true stories of life or death self defense encounters from the men and women that lived them. If you are interested in the Second Amendment, self defense and defensive firearms use, martial arts or the use of less lethal tools used in the real world to defend life and family, you will find this show riveting.  Join host and career federal agent Mike Willever as he talks to real life survivors and hear their stories in depth. You'll hear about these incidents and the self defenders from well before the encounter occurred on through the legal and emotional aftermath. Music: bensound.com

Administrative Law: May Congress delegate rule-making authority to a private entity where a federal agency is given post hoc review? - Argued: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 9:30:11 EDT

On today's episode, Matt Gluck, Research Fellow at Lawfare, spoke with Sean Mirski and Aaron Sobel of Arnold & Porter. Mirski practices foreign-relations, international, and appellate law, and Sobel practices international and appellate law. They discussed Mirski and Sobel's recent Lawfare piece, co-authored with John Bellinger and Catherine McCarthy, on the Eighth Circuit's decision reviving part of Missouri's coronavirus-related lawsuit against several defendants connected to the Chinese government.They spoke about the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Missouri's claims and why one of them survived the Eighth Circuit's jurisdictional review, how this decision might affect other coronavirus lawsuits, and the potential implications of the decision for U.S. foreign policy, among other topics.Check out Mirski's recent book, “We May Dominate the World: Ambition, Anxiety, and the Rise of the American Colossus,” which examines the roots of the United States' ascension to hegemony and was rated by Kirkus as one of the 100 best non-fiction books of 2023.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Free Speech: May a state ban public school libraries from carrying books that contain depictions of "sex acts"? - Argued: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 16:1:3 EDT

Insurance: Is having sex a clearly foreseeable use of an automobile? - Argued: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:53:57 EDT

Welcome to the first "true crime" episode of the History of the Americans Podcast, the story of Oscar Hartzell and the Sir Francis Drake estate scam, perhaps the most audacious con of the 1920s, the great golden age of the confidence man. Hartzell swindled as many as 200,000 Midwesterners, many from my own state of Iowa, out of millions of dollars posing as the rightful heir to the lost estate of Sir Francis Drake. Eventually, it would drive him insane, at least as adjudged by the director of the behavioral clinic of the criminal court of Cook County, Illinois. Enjoy! X (Twitter): @TheHistoryOfTh2 Facebook: The History of the Americans Podcast Selected references for this episode Richard Rayner, "The Admiral and the Con Man," The New Yorker, April 15, 2002 (pdf, subscription necessary) Richard Rayner, Drake's Fortune: The Fabulous True Story of the World's Greatest Confidence Artist John Maynard Keynes, "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren," 1930 (pdf). Hartzell v. United States, Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, August 16, 1934.

The Voting Rights Act. Last week, a federal appeals court issued a ruling that only the U.S. government, not private citizens or civil rights groups, can sue under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). If the ruling is appealed to and upheld by the Supreme Court, or adopted by other courts, the decision would have a sweeping impact on voting rights across the country. The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling in a 2 to 1 decision.  You can read today's podcast ⁠⁠here⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story here, and today's “Have a nice day” story here.  You can also check out our latest video, a previously paywalled piece about how Israel has no good options here and the controversial debate we posted on YouTube here. Today's clickables: Announcement (0:42), Quick hits (1:28), Today's story (3:35), Left's take (6:30), Left's take (10:22), Isaac's take (14:00), Listener question (17:33), Under the Radar (20:40), Numbers (21:33), Have a nice day (22:20) You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.  Take the poll. What do you think about the Eighth Circuit's decision on the Voting Rights Act? Let us know! Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.  Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message

For its final sitting of 2023, the Supreme Court will hear cases on the Armed Career Criminal Act, double jeopardy, and whether the government is, well, constitutional. Leah, Melissa, and Kate preview those cases, and look into a hot mess of a voting rights case in the Eighth Circuit. Plus, US Representative Ro Khanna stops by to chat about SCOTUS ethics reform.Watch the Strict Scrutiny hosts on The Problem With Jon Stewart, previewing the horrors that await in Jarkesy v. SECRead Justice Jackson's powerful dissent from denial in the case of Michael Johnson, an Illinois inmate who was held in essentially complete isolation in a tiny, windowless cell, caked with human waste, for three years. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

A federal appeals court on Monday issued a ruling that jeopardizes the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that private groups or individuals can't sue under a key provision of the VRA. We're joined by Jay Willis, Editor-in-Chief of Balls and Strikes, to discuss what comes next.Over in Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Tuesday in a case that could toss Republican-drawn legislative maps. The lawsuit was filed by 19 Democratic voters in Wisconsin who argue that the maps are proof of gerrymandering because they ensure the GOP has an unfair advantage in State Assembly and Senate races.And in headlines: Microsoft hired Sam Altman and Greg Brockman to lead an A.I. research team, far-right populist Javier Milei was elected to be Argentina's next president, and autoworkers ratified their contract with Detroit carmakers.Show notes:WAD will be taking a break to celebrate Thanksgiving, and will be back with a new episode on Monday, November 27th.Balls and Strikes – https://ballsandstrikes.org/NASA's “Message In A Bottle” – https://europa.nasa.gov/message-in-a-bottle/sign-on/What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastCrooked Coffee is officially here. Our first blend, What A Morning, is available in medium and dark roasts. Wake up with your own bag at crooked.com/coffeeFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday