Podcast appearances and mentions of Elena Kagan

We Like Shooting Episode 622 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Midwest Industries, Swampfox Optics, RMA Defense, XTech Tactical, Night Fision, and Mitchell Defense   Welcome to the We Like Shooting Show, episode 622! Our cast tonight is Jeremy Pozderac, Aaron Krieger, Nick Lynch, and me Shawn Herrin, welcome to the show!   GOALS   August 9th and 10th in Knoxville, Tennessee. Knoxville Convention Center Free to GOA members https://events.goa.org/goals/   If you were at GunCon and are attending GOALS. Don't forget to get some pics with the cast to claim your free shirt.   Guest: Jon Patton - The Gun Collective https://www.instagram.com/theguncollective/?hl=en @theguncollective   Gear Chat Nick - MP5 News Drop MP5 update Pew Deals   Bullet Points Shawn - Weekly P320 Updates P320 Weekly changes FFL NCIC gun lookup Gun Fights Step right up for "Gun Fights," the high-octane segment hosted by Nick Lynch, where our cast members go head-to-head in a game show-style showdown! Each contestant tries to prove their gun knowledge dominance. It's a wild ride of bids, bluffs, and banter—who will come out on top? Tune in to find out! WLS is Lifestyle GunCon Fun GunCon Aaron's Alley Justices are getting old, what needs to be done Clarence Thomas: 75  Samuel Alito: 73  Sonia Sotomayor: 69  John Roberts: 69  Elena Kagan: 63  Brett Kavanaugh: 58  Neil Gorsuch: 56  Ketanji Brown Jackson: 53  Amy Coney Barrett: 52 Going Ballistic Gun Rights: No ifs, ands, or buts Contrast this The Right to Bear Laughs With this Guns in the Capitol? Sure! New Proposal Would Permit Concealed Carry In Michigan State Capitol Building Silencer Showdown: ATF vs. Truth Why Silencer Shop Is Suing the ATF and DOJ Over the NFA Gun Control Hysteria: Here We Go Again That Evil AR-15 Again: Media Spins Rifles, Suppressors, and the Shane Tamura Shooting Reviews ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - EH EYE  “The only gun podcast that could survive the Dungeon.” Welcome to We Like Shooting, reimagined as if the hosts were thrown into the blood-soaked arenas of the Dungeon Crawler Carl universe and somehow made it funnier, louder, and deadlier.    Aaron steps into the shoes of Mordecai, always plotting and sometimes prepared. He has an opinion on everything, though nobody's really listening, and he probably carries a cursed artifact nobody wants to touch. Shawn is Carl, the reluctant, self important hero who's just trying to keep the podcast from collapsing under its own insanity plus, he loves walking around with no pants on. Nick perfectly fits Princess Donut, setting fashion trends for both guns and camouflage patterns that Shawn will obviously follow. He believes a rifle should both slay and match your entire loadout. Jeremy is Samantha, bringing pure chaos, carnage, and a voice so loud it could punch through walls. Also, his mouth is almost always open like a sex doll. And Savage1r is our Prepotente, the all-knowing, no-nonsense goat who drops stats and laws while silently judging everyone and laughing at his own jokes. Each episode is a wild mix of honest firearm talk, tactical insight, ridiculous banter, and just the right amount of madness. You'll get gear reviews, heated debates, political hot takes, and the kind of chemistry only a group this dysfunctional could create. If you want a podcast that's smart, unfiltered, and unapologetically fun, We Like Shooting might just be the only gun show crazy enough to survive the Dungeon and make you laugh the whole way through. It's smart. It's unhinged. It's the most fun you'll have while learning about firearms and the only podcast where a talking goat might bore you to death.   ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - from Lo Hung-Huang - Five stars Five stars, Wow he put five stars again.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a Texas law that requires any website that publishes content one-third or more of which is “harmful to minors” to verify the age of each of its users before providing access subject to “rational basis” review or “strict scrutiny”?The case was decided on June 27, 2025.The Supreme Court held that Texas's age-verification law for sexually explicit websites triggers only intermediate scrutiny and is constitutional because it merely imposes an incidental burden on adults' protected speech while serving the state's important interest in shielding children from harmful content. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.H.B. 1181 requires commercial websites where more than one-third of content is “sexual material harmful to minors” to verify visitors are 18 or older through government ID or transactional data. The First Amendment permits states to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective, and this power necessarily includes the ordinary means of enforcing age limits through verification requirements. Because no person has a First Amendment right to access obscene-to-minors content without submitting proof of age, the law directly regulates only unprotected activity. Adults retain their right to access this protected speech after verification, making any burden merely incidental rather than a direct content-based restriction requiring strict scrutiny.Under intermediate scrutiny, laws must advance important governmental interests unrelated to suppressing free speech without burdening substantially more speech than necessary. Texas's interest in protecting children from sexually explicit content is undoubtedly important, even compelling. Age verification represents a traditional, widely-accepted method of reconciling children's protection with adults' access rights; similar requirements exist for in-person purchases of sexual materials and numerous other age-restricted products. The specific methods H.B. 1181 permits (government ID and transactional data) are established verification methods already used by pornographic websites and other industries. The law need not adopt the least restrictive means available, and Texas's decision to initially target websites with higher concentrations of sexual content while excluding search engines represents a reasonable legislative choice that survives intermediate scrutiny.Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that strict scrutiny should apply because H.B. 1181 directly burdens adults' access to protected speech based on its content, and that the majority's creation of a new “partially protected” speech category contradicts four prior Supreme Court precedents applying strict scrutiny to similar laws.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In just the past week, the legal battles swirling around Donald Trump have reached a new level of intensity, drawing the nation's attention back to a courthouse drama that seems never-ending. On July 23, the Supreme Court stepped in yet again—this time granting the Trump administration's emergency request for a stay in Trump v. Boyle. The decision, delivered without a full briefing or oral argument, reflected a split on the bench, with Justice Kagan writing in dissent. The outcome means the administration can press ahead with removing federal officials—part of a broader campaign by Trump's White House to reshape the executive branch and its agencies. This is happening as the judiciary weighs a surge of legal challenges, not just to Trump personally, but to the policies he's enacted since returning to office.Just before that, the Supreme Court handed down a blockbuster decision on July 9, clearing the way for President Trump to push forward with plans for dramatic reductions in the federal workforce. According to SCOTUSblog, this order lets agencies initiate what Trump described as “large-scale reductions in force”—RIFs—across government. The move came even as lower courts had temporarily blocked it, citing the risk of irreversible damage. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stood alone in her dissent, warning of “an apparently unprecedented and congressionally unsanctioned dismantling of the Federal Government.” Labor unions and advocacy groups vow to keep fighting the order in court, but for now, the Trump administration has the green light.Meanwhile, in New York, the repercussions of Trump's criminal conviction are still rippling outward. The New York Unified Court System's January 2025 audio and filings document the intensity of those final courtroom moments. There's an active appeals process challenging both the verdict and orders in the high-profile Manhattan case overseen by Judge Juan Merchan, as well as appeals stemming from the related Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg prosecution. Despite Trump's attempts to move proceedings to federal court and to dismiss charges on procedural grounds, those efforts have been repeatedly denied. The appeals now move forward on a consolidated docket, setting up a pivotal next chapter.On multiple fronts, Trump's team is locked in appellate battles not only over the handling of state cases but also the fallout from the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. After Justice Engoron's major summary judgment and subsequent damages order, both sides are set for a protracted fight in the Appellate Division, which could bring new revelations and risks for Trump's business empire.Layered atop all this is the stream of litigation documented by the Lawfare Litigation Tracker, which notes nearly 300 cases still winding their way through the courts—many challenging executive actions and personnel moves made in Trump's second term. Judges across the country are being asked to rule on the bounds of presidential discretion, the reach of federal courts, and the meaning of separation of powers, as the nation watches with no clear sense of when it all will settle.Thank you for tuning in and staying informed on these unprecedented court battles. Come back next week for more updates—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease dot AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss how Jeffrey Epstein's ex-girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, is attempting to get out of jail on a technicality. Could a deal with the Department of Justice involving Epstein extend to her? Agenda:—Ghislaine's team identifies a circuit split—MAGA and the Epstein list—189 days of lawlessness on the TikTok ban—The emergency docket is a mess—Justice Elena Kagan's dissent and the precedential value of interim orders—SCOTUS gaining favorability ⁠⁠ This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at ⁠⁠burfordcapital.com/ao⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Apollo 11On July 24, 1969, the Apollo 11 mission concluded when astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins safely splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, returning from the first successful lunar landing. While the event was widely celebrated as a scientific and political triumph, it also raised an unexpectedly terrestrial legal issue: customs law. Upon returning to Earth, the astronauts were required to fill out a standard U.S. Customs declaration form. The departure point was listed as “Moon,” and the flight number: “Apollo 11.” Among the items declared were “moon rock and moon dust samples,” brought back from the lunar surface.Despite their unprecedented journey, the crew still had to comply with Department of Agriculture and Customs rules designed to monitor and control potentially hazardous biological materials. In the “Declaration of Health” section of the form, they noted that the presence of any condition that could spread disease was “To be determined.” This moment captured how U.S. law, even in its most routine forms, extended to the edge of human experience.The astronauts' re-entry into the U.S. technically triggered the same legal processes that greet travelers arriving from abroad. This event also underscored the broader legal challenge of adapting existing statutes to cover entirely new domains like space travel. Though humorous in hindsight, the customs declaration reflected a serious concern: whether extraterrestrial material might carry unknown biological risks.The completed form, now a historical artifact, reminds us that legal frameworks often evolve reactively. In 1969, space law was largely uncharted territory. Today, those early steps form part of the foundation for international agreements like the Outer Space Treaty and modern debates over resource rights beyond Earth.The U.S. Supreme Court granted President Donald Trump the authority to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), reversing a lower court ruling that had temporarily blocked the dismissals. The CPSC was established by Congress in 1972 as an independent agency to protect the public from hazardous products, and its members were traditionally shielded from at-will removal by the president. The justices, in a brief unsigned order, suggested that Trump was likely to prevail in arguing that the Constitution gives him broad authority to remove executive officials, even from agencies Congress meant to be independent.This move followed a June ruling by District Judge Matthew Maddox, who sided with the ousted commissioners, citing a 1935 Supreme Court precedent (Humphrey's Executor v. United States) that upheld removal protections for independent agency officials. The Supreme Court's majority, with all three liberal justices dissenting, appeared to undermine that precedent. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent warned that using the Court's emergency docket to erode agency independence risked shifting constitutional power toward the presidency.The fired commissioners, whose terms extended through 2025 to 2028, had sued Trump, arguing their removal lacked legal justification. Their attorney, Nicolas Sansone, criticized the Court's decision as harmful to public safety oversight. The Justice Department, however, contended that limiting the president's removal power was unconstitutional.This decision echoes a similar ruling in May allowing Trump to remove members of other federal boards, reinforcing a pattern of the Court endorsing expanded executive control over federal agencies.US Supreme Court lets Trump remove consumer product safety commissioners | ReutersSupreme Court Lets Trump Oust Top Consumer-Safety Officials - BloombergU.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals withdrew a June 30 opinion in a securities fraud case against CorMedix Inc. after attorneys pointed out significant factual and legal errors. Lawyers flagged that the opinion included invented quotes, misattributed statements, and references to non-existent or misidentified cases. Among the problems was a supposed quote from Dang v. Amarin Corp. about “classic evidence of scienter,” which does not appear in the actual case, as well as misquoted content from a case involving Intelligroup and a fabricated citation to a Verizon case in the Southern District of New York.The withdrawn opinion had denied CorMedix's motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit alleging the company misled investors about its FDA approval efforts for the drug DefenCath. CorMedix's counsel, Andrew Lichtman of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, raised concerns but clarified he wasn't seeking reconsideration, only correction of the record. The same opinion had been cited as persuasive authority in a separate but similar shareholder lawsuit against Outlook Therapeutics Inc., before being discredited due to its inaccuracies.The incident drew attention not just for the mistakes themselves, but because judicial errors of this nature are rare—especially when resembling the kind of AI-generated errors that have recently led to lawyer sanctions. There is no indication AI was involved in drafting Judge Neals' opinion, but the situation reflects heightened scrutiny of legal drafting in an era where reliance on technology is increasing.Judge Withdraws Pharma Opinion After Lawyer Flags Made-Up QuotesColumbia University has agreed to pay over $200 million to the U.S. government in a settlement with the Trump administration, resolving federal investigations and securing the reinstatement of most of its previously suspended federal funding. The dispute stemmed from Columbia's handling of pro-Palestinian campus protests and alleged antisemitism, which led the administration in March to freeze $400 million in grants. In addition to the main settlement, Columbia will pay $21 million to resolve claims brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.The agreement includes several conditions: Columbia must discipline students involved in severe campus disruptions, reform its Faculty Senate, review its international admissions process, and overhaul its Middle Eastern studies programs to promote “viewpoint diversity.” The university is also required to eliminate race-based considerations in hiring and admissions and to dismantle its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.Columbia has agreed to appoint two new administrators: one to oversee compliance with the settlement and another to address antisemitism. The university has also severed ties with the pro-Palestinian group Columbia University Apartheid Divest and adopted a new definition of antisemitism that equates it with opposition to Zionism—moves that have sparked backlash among students and faculty.Rights advocates have voiced alarm over academic freedom and due process, especially amid reports of deportation attempts against foreign pro-Palestinian students. Critics say the government is equating legitimate political protest with antisemitism, while ignoring rising Islamophobia and anti-Arab bias.Columbia University to pay over $200 million to resolve Trump probes | ReutersFrench President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, have filed a defamation lawsuit in Delaware against U.S. right-wing podcaster Candace Owens, alleging she spread false and harmful claims about Brigitte's gender identity. The suit centers on Owens' podcast series Becoming Brigitte, which claims Brigitte was born male under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux—actually the name of her older brother—and accuses the couple of incest and identity fraud. The Macrons argue these assertions amount to a global smear campaign intended to boost Owens' profile and cause personal harm.Owens responded by labeling the lawsuit a politically motivated PR move and maintained it is an attack on her First Amendment rights. Her spokesperson framed the suit as a foreign government's attempt to silence an American journalist. The Macrons, however, stated that they had made multiple requests for a retraction, all of which Owens ignored.Defamation lawsuits by sitting world leaders are rare, and as public figures, the Macrons must meet the high legal bar of proving “actual malice”—that Owens knowingly spread falsehoods or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The complaint also notes the rumors originated in 2021 and were amplified by other high-profile commentators like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan. A similar French court case involving Brigitte ended in a temporary victory, but was later overturned on appeal and is now pending before France's highest court.French president Macron sues right-wing podcaster over claim France's first lady was born male | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this case, the court considered this issue: Did Congress violate the Constitution in the way it delegated power to the FCC to collect Universal Service Fund money, and did the FCC violate the Constitution by letting a private, industry-controlled company make those collection decisions?The case was decided on June 27, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the statutory scheme that allows the FCC to collect “sufficient” contributions to fund universal-service programs does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Justice Elena Kagan authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.The Communications Act directs the FCC to collect contributions that are “sufficient” to support universal-service programs, which sets both a floor and a ceiling on the agency's authority. The FCC cannot raise less than what is adequate to finance the programs, but also cannot raise more than that amount. Congress provided adequate guidance by specifying whom the programs must serve (rural and high-cost areas, low-income consumers, schools, and libraries) and defining which services qualify for subsidies. To receive funding, services must be subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers, be available at affordable rates, and be essential to education, public health, or safety. These conditions create determinate standards that meaningfully constrain the FCC's discretion.The FCC's use of the Universal Service Administrative Company to help calculate contribution amounts also passes constitutional muster. The Administrator operates subordinately to the Commission, which appoints its Board of Directors, approves its budget, and retains final decision-making authority. While the Administrator produces initial projections of carrier revenues and Fund expenses, the Commission reviews, revises if needed, and approves these figures before setting the contribution factor. The arrangement mirrors the permissible structure approved in Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, where private parties could make recommendations to a government agency that retained ultimate authority.Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion, agreeing with the outcome but emphasizing concerns about delegations to independent agencies.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion, expressing skepticism about the viability of the private nondelegation doctrine as an independent constitutional principle.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, arguing that Section 254 impermissibly delegates Congress's taxing power by failing to set a tax rate or meaningful cap on collections.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

A federal judge is holding January 6th organizer Caroline Wren in contempt for failing to hand over documents in the civil case brought by Capitol Police Officers. It appears that Rudy Giuliani is also failing to hand over documents.Justice Kagan has denied four Seattle cops their bid to keep their names secret pursuant to a public records request. A magistrate judge has recommended that Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan's motion to dismiss on immunity and Constitutional grounds be dismissed. We also have some new information about Alexander Acosta, the prosecutor who gave Jeffrey Epstein a sweetheart deal in Florida. Allison Gillhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com/https://bsky.app/profile/muellershewrote.comHarry DunnHarry Dunn | Substack@libradunn1.bsky.social on BlueskyWant to support this podcast and get it ad-free and early?Go to: https://www.patreon.com/aisle45podTell us about yourself and what you like about the show - http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Medicaid Act's “any qualified provider” provision unambiguously confer a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider?The case was decided on June 26, 2025.The Supreme Court held that Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) of the Medicaid Act does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights enforceable under 42 U-S-C § 1983. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.Federal statutes create individual rights only in “atypical cases,” and 42 U-S-C § 1983 provides causes of action for deprivation of “rights,” not mere “benefits” or “interests.” To prove an enforceable right, plaintiffs must show the statute clearly and unambiguously uses “rights-creating terms” with “an unmistakable focus” on individuals. This is a “stringent” and “demanding” test that spending-power statutes are especially unlikely to satisfy because spending-power legislation is “much in the nature of a contract” requiring States' voluntary and knowing consent to private suits.Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) lacks the required clear rights-creating language. The provision states that Medicaid plans must “provide that…any individual eligible for medical assistance…may obtain such assistance from any…qualified” provider. This language addresses state duties and may benefit providers and patients, but lacks the clear “rights-creating language” found in the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act provisions upheld in Talevski. Congress knows how to create clear rights, as FNHRA shows by giving nursing-home residents “the right to choose a personal attending physician.” The any-qualified-provider provision contains no such language. The provision's exceptions confirm this reading—States may exclude providers “convicted of a felony” and “determine” which convictions qualify, which makes sense if the provision addresses state duties to the federal government but creates problems if it confers individual rights.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion arguing that the Court should reexamine more broadly its § 1983 jurisprudence, which, he claimed, bears little resemblance to the statute as originally understood.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, arguing that the any-qualified-provider provision readily creates an enforceable right under a faithful application of the Court's unambiguous-conferral test. She criticized the majority's requirement that Congress mirror the specific language of the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act rather than apply the established test for whether a statute unambiguously confers rights, and she warned that the decision continues a pattern of weakening Reconstruction-era civil rights protections.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

On June 27th, the Supreme Court ruled in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton that Texas’s age-verification law did not violate the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. Justice Thomas wrote the Court’s opinion, holding that States had a right to protect children from obscenity, even if that meant incidentally burdening adults’ own access to that content. Many are celebrating the 6-3 decision as a victory for the protection of children, as it will cement similar laws in the 21 other states that have implemented them. Yet, as in Justice Kagan's dissent, others worry about Paxton’s implications for Freedom of Speech in the digital age. When does an incidental burden become a substantial violation of adults' First Amendment Rights? What kind of precedent does Paxton set for speech cases going forward?

The courtroom drama surrounding Donald Trump has barely let up these past few days, and it seems every headline and courthouse step is brimming with new developments. The most impactful moment came as the Supreme Court wrapped up its 2023-24 term by handing Trump a pivotal legal victory. The justices ruled that former presidents enjoy at least presumptive immunity for their official acts, a decision that's reverberated through every courthouse where Trump is a defendant. This not only helped shape the legal landscape but arguably smoothed his return to power in January 2025, making Trump an even larger presence, not just in politics, but in the judiciary's crosshairs, according to analysis from SCOTUSblog.Against this backdrop, New York has continued to be a legal battleground for Trump. In People v. Donald J. Trump, the case files show a flurry of motions and decisions, including on immunity and sentencing. Just last week, on July 2, both sides filed new letters on the immunity issue. The prosecution and defense are locked in arguments about whether Trump can claim protections as a former president from actions that led to his conviction. The docket is thick with filings: motions to recuse, to terminate gag orders, and responses over discovery disputes. It's relentless, with Judge Merchan overseeing the proceedings and each new motion drawing national scrutiny, as shown in the court's public records.Meanwhile, Trump's legal maneuvering isn't limited to New York. His legal team continues to pursue removal of the Manhattan criminal case to federal court, though their efforts there hit a wall when the Southern District of New York rejected his late notice. The subsequent appeal is still pending, meaning the case remains mired in jurisdictional chess. At the same time, on the appellate front, Trump's appeal of the New York civil fraud judgment is progressing, now consolidated after Attorney General Letitia James's successful request. The stakes in these appeals are high, touching everything from Trump's business operations to his political eligibility.On the federal side, Trump's January 2025 executive orders, like the one ending birthright citizenship, have sparked emergency litigation. One judge, John Coughenour, described the order as “blatantly unconstitutional,” leading to swift filings that have made their way to the Supreme Court. The high court's ruling last week made clear that federal district judges can't issue national injunctions blocking administration policies, a significant win for Trump's agenda. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, with dissent from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan. The legal community is closely watching what these rulings mean for presidential power now and in the future.All of this means Donald Trump's legal saga is moving at full tilt, with historic constitutional questions and the exercise of presidential power on open display. Thanks for tuning in to this courtroom chronicle. Be sure to come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Hobbs Act require a federal district court to accept the Federal Communication Commission's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not preclude judicial review of an agency's statutory interpretation in district court enforcement proceedings, and district courts must independently determine whether the agency's interpretation is correct under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.Courts may grant pre-enforcement review of agency orders through three types of statutes: those that expressly preclude subsequent judicial review in enforcement proceedings (like the Clean Water Act), those that expressly authorize review in both contexts, and those that remain silent on enforcement proceedings (like the Hobbs Act). The Hobbs Act falls into the third category, which triggers a default rule allowing district courts to independently assess agency interpretations. The Administrative Procedure Act codifies this presumption of judicial review, stating that “agency action is subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for judicial enforcement” unless prior review was adequate and exclusive. The phrase “determine the validity” in the Hobbs Act refers specifically to entering declaratory judgments in pre-enforcement proceedings, not to the broader process of evaluating an agency interpretation's correctness in enforcement actions.The Emergency Price Control Act precedent from Yakus v United States does not control because that wartime statute contained two provisions working together: exclusive jurisdiction language plus an express prohibition against other courts considering validity. Congress chose not to include this second, prohibitive provision when enacting the Hobbs Act six years later, demonstrating its intent not to preclude enforcement-stage review. Practical concerns about potential court disagreements do not override statutory text and administrative law principles, as circuit splits followed by Supreme Court review represent the ordinary judicial process. Requiring all potentially affected parties to challenge every agency order within 60 days or lose their rights would be impractical and unfair, particularly for entities that did not exist when orders issued or had no reason to anticipate future enforcement proceedings.Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that the Hobbs Act's grant of “exclusive jurisdiction” to appellate courts to “determine the validity” of agency orders plainly precludes district courts from making such determinations in enforcement proceedings.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Sarah Isgur and David French break down the biggest takeaways from the Supreme Court's latest term using SCOTUSblog's stat pack as their guide. They also explain the outcomes in the Texas explicit content case and the “pride puppy” case. The Agenda:—OT25 in review—The most influential justice—What makes a case “important”—Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton—Explaining tiers of scrutiny—The pride puppy case—Curriculum opt-outs— Mahmoud v. Taylor This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at ⁠burfordcapital.com/ao⁠. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – The ruling was 6–3, with the three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissenting in favor of the School Board having more control over what children are learning than parents. Indeed, parents have ALL of the power when it comes to their children's education. Clearly, Sotomayor does not know what the “essence of public education” is...

Ryan Wiggins, host of Wiggins America, joins the Marc Cox Morning Show to break down a new Supreme Court ruling limiting district courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, and how Justice Elena Kagan's stance has shifted. They explore the potential policy agenda under a second Trump term, including sanctuary city funding cuts, voter ID enforcement, restrictions on DEI programs in public schools, and transgender-related federal funding. The discussion also turns to Trump's proposed “Alligator Alcatraz” detention facility, with some lighthearted commentary on alligator behavior, including their reactions to space shuttle launches.

Andrew McCarthy, Fox News Contributor, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and author of Ball of Collusion: The Plot To Rig An Election And Destroy A Presidency, joined The Guy Benson Show today to weigh in on the rise of radical leftism, including New York mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani's insane communist ideas. McCarthy also broke down last week's major Supreme Court rulings, including Donald Trump's significant victory on nationwide injunctions., and McCarthy unpacked Justice Kagan's surprising alignment with the progressive bloc. Andy then defended President Trump's legal authority to order strikes on Iran, although he suggested that he should have gone to Congress for the optics - and you can listen to the full interview below! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Tune in here to this Friday’s edition of the Brett Winterble Show with Chris Krok filling in! Chris kicks off the program by discussing a major Supreme Court decision limiting the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. He explains the Court’s 6-3 ruling, emphasizing that individual district judges should only have authority within their specific jurisdictions, not across the entire country. Chris highlights the irony of Justice Elena Kagan’s shifting stance and shares the sharp exchange between Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. He criticizes what he calls Jackson’s confusion and accuses her of embracing “judicial imperialism. Listen here for all of this and more on The Brett Winterble Show! For more from Brett Winterble check out his YouTube channel. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Justices seem intent on packing their summer vacation bags and getting on their way.  Earlier in the week, the court's conservative supermajority upheld a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for trans kids. The logic behind the decision was…lacking (Slate Plus members can hear about this right now). In this episode, Dahlia Lithwick talks to Chase Strangio, the lawyer for the Tennessee plaintiffs, about where we go from here. Meanwhile, don't miss the significance of Friday's batch of rulings: co-host Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to talk about the implications in cases seemingly about vaping and faxes and gas stations, but with much bigger implications. He also breaks down why Elena Kagan keeps joining the conservatives, and whether it foreshadows something bigger headed our way (light-at-end-of-tunnel-or-oncoming-train-dot-gif).  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.  (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Justices seem intent on packing their summer vacation bags and getting on their way.  Earlier in the week, the court's conservative supermajority upheld a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for trans kids. The logic behind the decision was…lacking (Slate Plus members can hear about this right now). In this episode, Dahlia Lithwick talks to Chase Strangio, the lawyer for the Tennessee plaintiffs, about where we go from here. Meanwhile, don't miss the significance of Friday's batch of rulings: co-host Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to talk about the implications in cases seemingly about vaping and faxes and gas stations, but with much bigger implications. He also breaks down why Elena Kagan keeps joining the conservatives, and whether it foreshadows something bigger headed our way (light-at-end-of-tunnel-or-oncoming-train-dot-gif).  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.  (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Justices seem intent on packing their summer vacation bags and getting on their way.  Earlier in the week, the court's conservative supermajority upheld a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for trans kids. The logic behind the decision was…lacking (Slate Plus members can hear about this right now). In this episode, Dahlia Lithwick talks to Chase Strangio, the lawyer for the Tennessee plaintiffs, about where we go from here. Meanwhile, don't miss the significance of Friday's batch of rulings: co-host Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to talk about the implications in cases seemingly about vaping and faxes and gas stations, but with much bigger implications. He also breaks down why Elena Kagan keeps joining the conservatives, and whether it foreshadows something bigger headed our way (light-at-end-of-tunnel-or-oncoming-train-dot-gif).  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.  (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Thursday, June 19th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark and Adam McManus Christian Indonesian boy died after Muslim students beat him An eight-year-old Christian boy died in Indonesia from a ruptured appendix on May 26th. This came days after older Muslim students beat him severely, sending him to the hospital.  Khristopel Butarbutar faced bullying for his faith leading up to his death. Morning Star News reports his father said, “A week before, he had been bullied a lot. The perpetrators speak about his ethnicity, his religion.” Sadly, bullying at schools in Indonesia is escalating. There were 1,478 cases in 2023, up from 119 cases in 2020. Psalm 116:15 says, “Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His saints.” United Kingdom decriminalized abortion up to birth The U.K. House of Commons voted Tuesday to effectively decriminalize abortion up to birth in England and Wales. The amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill ends the prosecution of women for getting an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. The measure must also pass in the House of Lords.  Catherine Robinson with Right To Life UK said, “This is the first time this extreme abortion amendment has been debated in the House of Commons, and there has been no consultation with the public on this seismic law change. We will be fighting this amendment at every stage in the [House of] Lords.” Supreme Court upholds state's right to ban transgender surgeries for kids In the United States, the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law yesterday that protects minors from transgender drugs and surgeries. The high court ruled 6-3 in the case. The liberal dissenters were Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan. and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the majority opinion, wrote that the issue should be decided by the state. He said, “Having concluded that [the law] does not [violate the equal protection clause], we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.” The ruling will also support 26 other states with similar laws to protect children from transgender drugs and surgeries.  Kraft/Heinz will cut artificial dyes from food The Kraft Heinz Company announced Tuesday it will cut artificial dyes from its U.S. food products by 2027. This comes after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced measures in April to phase out petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the nation's food supply. U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said, “For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent. … That era is coming to an end.” Daily Bible readers thrive more than non-daily Bible readers The American Bible Society released the third chapter of its State of the Bible USA 2025 report. The survey used the Human Flourishing Index from Harvard University which measures six domains of life, including satisfaction, health, purpose, character, and social relationships. The report found people who read the Bible every day scored 7.9 out of 10 on the index compared to 6.8 for those who never read the Bible. Also, younger generations tend to have the lowest levels of flourishing. However, both Gen Zers and Millennials who engage regularly with Scripture scored an impressive average of 8.1 on the index.  Psalm 119:105 says, “Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” Old Nordic letters carved into Canadian bedrock spell the Lord's Prayer Archaeologists recently announced the meaning of centuries-old Nordic runes, or alphabet letters, that were carved into the Canadian bedrock, reports CBC News.  Ryan Primrose, the director of the Ontario Centre for Archaeological Education, has been studying the letters since their discovery in 2018.  He believes they were written by Swedes who were hired to work at trading posts in the Canadian wilderness in the 1800s.  The 255 characters of Nordic runes or alphabet actually spell out the words of the Lord's Prayer in Swedish. They appear to come from a 1611 runic version of the prayer. The runes cover a square of about four feet by five feet and probably took weeks to carve. Worldview listeners in Texas and California share their hearts I invited Worldview listeners to share what they enjoy about the newscast in 2-6 sentences by email.  You can share your thoughts — along with your full name, city and state — and send it to adam@TheWorldview.com Christy Quinn in Grapevine, Texas said, “We love listening to The Worldview in 5 Minutes as a family. My 10-year-old says she enjoys hearing about Christians around the world, what they are doing to God's glory and how the world treats them. I enjoy the Biblical perspective on current events and politics including those sound bites. The intro music and your closing ‘Seize the day for Jesus Christ' is a hit. My kids are excited to listen.” Ben Duhem in Eureka, California said, “The Worldview helps my wife and I stay on the same page about certain topics and geopolitical events. I read dozens of articles every day and am extremely well-informed about current events, but I mostly carry the burden alone. “I like to keep my wife and children in somewhat of a protective bubble to maintain their innocence, joy, and hope. When I share too much of what I read, my wife becomes very disheartened. She is busy homeschooling, gardening, cooking, and cleaning, all day, every day. So, she does not have time to read the news or process the political analysis that I used to try to distill for her. “The Worldview is the one source of news she tries to make time for each day. It's short and sweet. And she receives inspiration from the scriptures and calls to join in prayer. So, it's the one source of news that she asks me about and we discuss and pray about together. It helps us stay bonded.” 3 Worldview listeners gave $849 to fund our annual budget And finally, toward our $92,625 goal by this Friday, June 20th  to fund three-quarters of The Worldview newscast's annual budget for our 6-member team, 3  listeners stepped up to the plate. We are so grateful for Michele in Kindersley, Saskatchewan, Canada who gave $25, Richard in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania who gave $300, and Providence Associates in Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia which gave $524. Those 3 Worldview listeners gave a total of $849. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please.  (Drum roll sound effect) $47,745.70 (People clapping and cheering sound effect)   Toward this Friday, June 20th's goal of $92,625, we need to raise $44,879.30. Remember, if you are one of the final 2 people who will give a one-time gift of $1,000, Scooter in Naples, Florida will match you with a corresponding $1,000 gift of his own.  If you believe in what we're doing, if you look forward to reading the transcript or listening to the newscast, please go to TheWorldview.com and click on Give on the top right. Your gift will help us fund the 6-member Worldview newscast team for another fiscal year. Amen and Amen! Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, June 19th, in the year of our Lord 2025.  Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Mexico brought suit against several U.S. gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson. It alleged, among other things, that they were in part liable for the killings perpetrated by Mexican cartels. Mexico argued that the gun manufacturers know the guns they sell are/may be illegally sold to the cartels and thus are the proximate causes of the resulting gun violence.The manufacturers argued that they were immune from such suits under the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects U.S. gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, though not universally, as it contains a predicate exception for manufacturers who knowingly violate applicable federal (and potentially international) law.The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 4, 2025. On June 5, 2025, the Court issued a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kagan, ruling that the PLCAA did prevent the suit from moving forward. Justices Thomas and Jackson both filed concurrences.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.Featuring:Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

The Supreme Court has been busy releasing opinions. Last week, it ruled against a ten billion dollar lawsuit from Mexico against American gun manufacturers. The Mexican government had alleged that US gun companies were fueling cartel violence south of the border. But in a unanimous opinion, liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the lawsuit didn't reach the burden required by a 2005 law. The court declined to take up two other gun cases: one challenging Maryland's ban on semi-automatic weapons and the other challenging Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines. To talk more about the Supreme Court's decisions (and lack of decisions) and what this means for gun policy, we spoke to Stephen Gutowski. He runs The Reload, a news outlet dedicated to firearms and the gun debate.And in headlines: The US and China (kinda) reach a trade agreement, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard warns of a nuclear holocaust, and the White House Rose Garden gets a makeover.Show Notes:Check out The Reload – https://thereload.com/Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

The Supreme Court handed a win to President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency on Friday, granting the efficiency unit access to records at the Social Security Administration. The unsigned opinion provides the Elon Musk-associated DOGE with even more access to sensitive government information to fulfill its mission of making government more efficient. Just last month, the team also gained access to payment systems at the Department of Treasury. The ruling also comes at an awkward time for the DOGE, as Musk — its creator — and Trump are in the midst of an apparent falling out on social media. Per the decision, a majority of the justices voted to grant the administration's request to stay a lower court decision and concluded that “SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.” Justices voted on political lines, with liberals Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor saying they would have denied the government's application for a stay. Simultaneously on Friday, the Supreme Court handed a second win to the DOGE, shielding it from producing documents as part of a discovery process in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. More federal workers would have access to artificial intelligence training under a bill reintroduced in the House on Thursday by Rep. Nancy Mace. The AI Training Extension Act of 2025 aims to expand the Artificial Intelligence Training for the Acquisition Workforce Act, which was signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022, by offering available AI training to more pools of federal employees beyond the acquisition workforce, including “supervisors, managers, and frontline staff in data and technology roles,” according to a release from the South Carolina Republican's office. Chair of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation, Mace previously introduced the bill in 2023 during the 118th Congress with Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., who passed away last month. Rep. Shontel Brown, D-Ohio, is a co-sponsor of the reintroduced bill. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can U.S. gun manufacturers be held liable for violence in Mexico under theories of proximate causation and aiding and abetting, based on their domestic production and sale of firearms that are later trafficked to Mexican cartels?The case was decided on June 5, 2025.In a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of American gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, dismissing a lawsuit filed by the Mexican government. Mexico had accused the companies of facilitating illegal firearms trafficking that contributed to cartel violence within the country.The Court's opinion, authored by Justice Elena Kagan, emphasized that the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) provides broad immunity to gun manufacturers against lawsuits arising from the criminal misuse of their products. While PLCAA includes an exception for cases where a manufacturer knowingly violates federal or state laws related to firearm sales or marketing, the Court found that Mexico's allegations did not meet this threshold. Specifically, Mexico failed to demonstrate that the manufacturers knowingly aided or abetted illegal trafficking beyond lawful commerce practices.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Perhaps nobody was more surprised than the US gun industry when the Supreme Court yesterday issued a UNANIMOUS decision in their favor, and against the efforts of the failed narco-nationstate Mexico to sue the gun industry into oblivion.That means even our two dumbest justices--Sonya "the DEI wise latina" Sotomayor and Kentaji "I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a woman is" Jackson felt compeled to side with the gun makers.Perhaps as surprising, it was Justice Kagan--not Justice Thomas!--who authored the unanimous decision in favor of Smith & Wesson and other prominent gun manufacturers.Join me as I break down this enormous gun industry win into plain English!Get Your FREE Copy of Our Best-Selling Book: "The Law of Self Defense: Principles"Visit Here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook"You are wise to buy this material. I hope you watch it, internalize it, and keep it to the forefront whenever you even think of reaching for a gun"-Massad Ayoob (President of the Second Amendment Foundation) The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court addressed what context courts need to consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment.Some circuits, including the Fifth Circuit (which decided Barnes before it reached the Supreme Court), as well as the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits, had adopted the “moment of threat” doctrine. This approach focuses solely on whether there was an imminent danger that created a reasonable fear for one’s life in the immediate moments preceding the use of force. In contrast, other circuits, including the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, held that courts must consider the “totality of the circumstances” when assessing whether the use of force was justified.The Court heard oral argument on January 22, 2025, and on May 15 issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Kagan, vacating the Fifth Circuit and remanding. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what it may mean for excessive force claims moving forward.Featuring:Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

It's not uncommon, to put the matter lightly, to find Jewish Americans well represented in the legal field. But the conventional storybook narrative of how Jews rise to occupy positions of promise and prestige in the law tends to emphasize the gradual softening or quieting of religious observance in favor of a broader, more secular American identity.   I remember back in 2010 when Elena Kagan had been nominated by President Obama to serve on the Supreme Court. In response to a question from Senator Lindsay Graham about a domestic terrorist event that took place on December 25, 2009, Elena Kagan—then dean of Harvard Law and since 2010 a Supreme Court justice—explained that, on that day, “like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant.” It was funny and charming and played perfectly to the room and the cameras looking on. But Elena Kagan's remark also illustrates, to me at least, precisely the sort of culturally Jewish secular sensibility that you wouldn't be surprised to find in elite positions like the ones she's held. There are, of course, religiously observant Jewish lawyers, some of them extremely accomplished and some of them having contributed greatly to the American constitutional order.    Matthew Solomson is not only a lawyer but a federal judge who represents a different model and different sense of identity, one in which deep Orthodox commitment and distinguished public service not only coexist but reinforce one another. Judge Solomson was elevated to the federal bench in 2020, and last month the president designated him as the chief judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims.   Rather than abandoning his Jewish observance and religious devotion in the name of secular citizenship, Judge Solomson is staking out a different path, and his example suggests that America is strengthened when its citizens bring their deepest commitments—including religious commitments—to bear on public service. In conversation with Jonathan Silver, he addresses the questions his career raises about the very nature of American democracy, the meaning of Jewish life in America, and the possibilities for religious citizens to serve the United States in an increasingly secular age.

A case with a thin record is raising plenty of questions at the Supreme Court. In this episode, Amanda and Holly examine the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, which involves parents who want to opt their children out of public school curriculum they say conflicts with their religious beliefs. But, what's the difference between expected exposure and unconstitutional coercion? Does age matter? What happens when opt-out options become too burdensome and overwhelming to accommodate? Amanda and Holly examine the issues in this case as well as the challenges for the school district and for the parents. They also share what the oral arguments revealed about the justices' interest in the books and discussions outside of the courtroom.     SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 01:50): Remembering Justice David Souter Amanda and Holly released a live mini-episode on Tuesday, May 27, to review the Supreme Court decision in the religious charter school case, the voucher proposal in the budget reconciliation bill, and a court decision halting the dismantling of the Department of Education. Hear the episode at this link or in your podcast feed, or watch it on YouTube. Amanda and Holly mention the other two church-state cases this term addressed in previous episodes: Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin in Ep. 12: Back to SCOTUS: Regular business in disturbing times Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, et al. v. Drummond in Ep. 14: The blockbuster SCOTUS case over religious charter schools BJC Executive Director Emeritus J. Brent Walker wrote a reflection piece on Justice David Souter when the justice retired in 2009: Walker reflects on Souter's Supreme Court tenure Amy Howe wrote a piece on Justice Souter for SCOTUSblog: David Souter, retired Supreme Court justice, dies at 85   Segment 2 (starting at 06:58): The facts (that we know) in the case and what's at stake BJC has a post on our website describing Mahmoud v. Taylor: In oral argument, U.S. Supreme Court wrestles with the limits of public school parents' opt-out rights The U.S. Supreme Court has a transcript of oral arguments and the audio recording of oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor available on its website.   Segment 3 (starting 25:54): The two big substantive points from the oral argument We played two clips from the oral argument in this segment: Justice Elena Kagan and Eric Baxter, who argued on behalf of the group of parents (the petitioners)  Justice Samuel Alito and Eric Baxter Amanda and Holly talked about the Texas Bible curriculum in episode 2 of this season: Oklahoma and Texas try to force Bible teaching in public schools Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

This past week, the Supreme Court issued stays of injunctions which lower courts had issued, those injunctions blocking the firings of officials on statutorily independent agencies.  In doing so, the Court may have pointed to an imminent overruling of Humphrey's Executor, possibly removing existing limitations on the unitary executive theory.  At the same time, the Court moved to protect the Federal Reserve, or at least markets' perception of the independence of that crucial Board.  Several justices reacted strongly, led by Justice Kagan, who found fault not only in the ruling regarding the injunction, but in the behavior of the President in bringing this case on in the first place.  We take a deeper look at these controversies.  Meanwhile, the Court deadlocked in a religious freedom case, and surprisingly, we see a connection between these two events.  And some other tidbits, as well.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

From the administrative state to voting rights, they're just sort of winging it trying to reverse engineer results. ----- As Supreme Court season hits fever pitch, we're joined by Professor Leah Litman, author of Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes, to discuss the nightmare we're facing. Elena Kagan took the opportunity to humiliate her colleagues last week calling out an arbitrary carve out created to protect their investments. Kagan's frustration seems to be growing down the stretch, having just eviscerated the government in the birthright citizenship case. Meanwhile, Kristi Noem failed introductory constitutional law in front of the Senate, flailing as she tried to define habeas corpus.

Alright, here we are—almost the end of May, and the legal rollercoaster around Donald Trump is still bucking and racing. Just a few days ago, on May 22, the Supreme Court made a dramatic move. In Trump v. Wilcox, the justices granted an emergency stay, allowing Trump—for now—to remove heads of federal agencies at will, no cause needed[3][1]. That decision threw the administration's power plays into high relief, especially for anyone watching how Trump handles bureaucratic pushback. Justice Kagan issued a note on the case, underscoring the split among the justices about the scope of presidential authority.But while that was unfolding in Washington, the broader litigation landscape around Trump was already buzzing. Over the past several days, courts across the country have been juggling cases that put Trump and his policies—current and past—under scrutiny. Take, for instance, the coalition of states like California and New York, which just sued the Trump administration over frozen transportation funds[2]. That case, filed on May 13, is only one thread in a tapestry of lawsuits tracking everything from environmental regulations to immigration policies.Meanwhile, in Florida, the saga of the classified documents case continues to twist. Last year, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed part of the indictment, but the government appealed, putting Jack Smith's special counsel appointment back in the spotlight[4]. The Eleventh Circuit is now set to hear arguments, and the legal teams are deep in briefs. That's just one of many appeals—Trump's legal calendar is crammed. Mark Meadows, his former Chief of Staff, is still seeking a Supreme Court review after failing to move his Georgia case to federal court[4]. Down in New York, Trump is appealing Justice Arthur Engoron's civil fraud judgments, while his allies fight to disqualify Fulton County DA Fani Willis.Not to be overshadowed, the refugees and advocates in Pacito v. Trump are still pushing for the government to implement a court-ordered framework for resuming refugee admissions—something the Trump administration had suspended. On May 5, the district court doubled down, ordering prompt compliance with its preliminary injunction[5]. That clock is ticking, too.So, as of this very moment, May 28, 2025, Donald Trump is everywhere in the legal system—from the Supreme Court's emergency docket to district courts and circuit appeals. Each case, each ruling, each appeal is another snapshot of a former president still shaping the law and being shaped by it, as courts across the country wrestle with questions about power, policy, and the rule of law. It's fast-moving, high-stakes, and far from over.

From the administrative state to voting rights, they're just sort of winging it trying to reverse engineer results. ----- As Supreme Court season hits fever pitch, we're joined by Professor Leah Litman, author of Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes, to discuss the nightmare we're facing. Elena Kagan took the opportunity to humiliate her colleagues last week calling out an arbitrary carve out created to protect their investments. Kagan's frustration seems to be growing down the stretch, having just eviscerated the government in the birthright citizenship case. Meanwhile, Kristi Noem failed introductory constitutional law in front of the Senate, flailing as she tried to define habeas corpus. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Good morning, I'm reporting live on the recent legal developments involving former President Donald Trump. The past few days have seen significant movement in several high-profile cases.Just three days ago, on May 22, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Trump v. Wilcox, with Justice Kagan delivering the opinion. This case represents one of many ongoing legal battles the Trump administration is currently facing.That same day, two transgender service members filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration challenging President Trump's ban on transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military. This case, identified as 1:25-cv-01918, adds to the growing list of litigation against the administration.Last week, on May 16, the Supreme Court delivered a per curiam opinion in the case between AARP and President Trump. The Court vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case back for further consideration. At issue was President Trump's March 14 Proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act, with the Court enjoining the government from removing named plaintiffs or putative class members under this act pending further court orders.The Supreme Court also recently ruled on Trump's authority to remove agency heads without cause. This decision, while temporary, represents a significant expansion of presidential power over the federal bureaucracy.These recent court battles come after a long string of legal challenges that began years ago. Trump has faced numerous criminal and civil cases, including the classified documents case in Florida where Judge Cannon granted Trump's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment in July 2024, challenging Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment.The New York civil fraud case also saw defendants, including Trump, filing appeals against Justice Engoron's earlier decisions. In Georgia, Trump's former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows petitioned the Supreme Court following the 11th Circuit's decision regarding his attempt to move his state criminal case to federal court.The Manhattan District Attorney's case against Trump has also seen continued legal maneuvering, with Trump attempting to remove the case to federal court in August 2024, though his filing was initially rejected as deficient.As Trump continues his presidency in 2025, these legal challenges represent a consistent theme of his time in office - a presidency defined not just by policy decisions but by unprecedented legal battles that continue to test the boundaries of executive power and the American judicial system.The coming days and weeks will likely bring further developments in these cases as the courts continue to grapple with complex constitutional questions surrounding presidential authority and accountability.

Preview Colleague Professor Epstein comments on Justice Elena Kagan's complaint that a faith-based charter school might advance a curriculum out of step with public school curriculums. More later. 1870 NEW ORLEANS

Good morning, folks. The legal world surrounding Donald Trump continues to evolve rapidly, with several significant developments in just the past week. Today, May 23rd, 2025, we've seen some major court decisions that will shape the political landscape in the months ahead.Just this morning, a federal judge in Florida—one who was actually nominated by Trump himself—indicated that the president does have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs. However, interestingly, the judge decided to punt the actual lawsuit to another court rather than making a final ruling on the case.Last week, on May 16th, the Supreme Court issued an important decision in a case between the AARP and President Trump. The Court vacated a judgment from the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case, while also issuing an injunction preventing the government from removing certain detainees under the AEA pending further court orders. This stems from Trump's presidential proclamation issued on March 14th this year.Then just yesterday, May 22nd, another Supreme Court case emerged involving President Trump against Gwynne A. Wilcox and others, with Justice Kagan issuing an opinion on an application for stay.These recent cases add to an already complex legal calendar for the former and now current president. Earlier legal battles from 2024 continue to reverberate through the system. Trump's classified documents case in Florida saw Judge Cannon grant his motion to dismiss a superseding indictment last July, with the government quickly appealing to the 11th Circuit.The New York civil fraud case appeals are moving forward as well, with defendants appealing both Justice Engoron's September 2023 summary judgment and his February 2024 final decision. The consolidation of these appeals means they'll proceed with a single record and set of briefs.There's also ongoing litigation regarding Trump's attempt to remove Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's state prosecution to federal court. His second notice of removal was initially rejected as deficient, and after Judge Hellerstein denied his request for leave, Trump appealed to the Second Circuit.The legal challenges facing the Trump administration extend beyond the president himself, with cases like Washington v. Department of Transportation regarding a federal funding freeze still pending in Maryland District Court as of earlier this month.As these cases continue to unfold, they'll undoubtedly shape both policy and politics during this tumultuous presidential term. The courts remain a crucial battleground for defining the limits of executive power in the Trump administration.

Our show opens with a huge TDS inspired mistake by former FBI Director James Comey. The idea that he has no idea what he was conveying by putting out an image of 86 47 on his social media is ludicrous. Beyond the stupidity of it, this action is actually against the law. Speaking of breaking the law, word on the street is Rep. McIver (D-NJ) is going to be formally charged today for her actions at the ICE detention facility. This is the only way to rein in the out of control Leftists and bureaucrats that have taken hold inside the beltway of Washington, D.C. The SCOTUS is hearing arguments as to whether or not inferior district court judges can issue national injunctions? First we get a brainless Ketanji Jackson Brown. Unfortunately, her fellow liberal justice, Elena Kagan spoke against such a notion in 2022. Then Justice Clarence Thomas brought some much needed sanity to the discussion. Sebastian Gorka wrecked a journalist with Politico over their love of MS-13 gang members. Then former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan gets put on the spot over the ongoing revelations that everyone knew Joe Biden was cognitively impaired. We learn that the Qatar jet discussion began under Biden, but the press doesn't seem interested in bringing us that bit of information. And, while most are doing nothing in Congress, Rep, Tim Burchett (R-TN) is introducing several single-subject bills to start to codify the Trump agenda. I wish I could believe it would be going anywhere. Please take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR,  TRUTH Social and YouTube by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. And, consider becoming a sponsor of the show by visiting my Patreon page!!

Trump is continuing to press his losing hand with the United States Supreme Court, and has filed his 12th phony “emergency” application to convince the Supreme Court that it when it called all Venezuelans “scum” and “dirtbags” it was only kidding before deciding to end their protective status and deport them. Michael Popok explains why filing this particular emergency application that Justice Kagan considers first may backfire for the Trump Administration and its Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem. Get 35% OFF on all orders above $139 @MixTiles with code: LEGALAF at https://mixtiles.com/LEGALAF #mixtilespod 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 The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Segment 1: VA Secretary Reverses Anti-Chaplain Policy Dr. Chaps reports on a major win for religious liberty in the military: the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has changed a controversial policy that had punished chaplains for preaching biblical truth. Now, chaplains can once again share their faith freely during services without fear of discipline. Segment 2: British Prime Minister Acknowledges Biological Reality In a rare moment of clarity, the British Prime Minister declares that men are not women under British law. Dr. Chaps examines the political and cultural implications of this statement, as well as the backlash from activists who want to blur gender distinctions. Segment 3: Justice Kagan Signals Support for Parental Opt-Out Rights Even liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan is now indicating that parents should have the right to opt their children out of LGBTQ+ curriculum that contradicts their religious beliefs. Dr. Chaps covers what this could mean for future religious freedom cases at the highest court. Get free alerts at http://PrayInJesusName.org © 2025, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, PhD. Airs on NRB TV, Direct TV Ch.378, Roku, AppleTV, Amazon FireTV, AndroidTV, GoogleTV, Smart TV, iTunes and www.PrayInJesusName.org

The Christian Outlook – April 26, 2025

Supreme Court justices from across the ideological spectrum appeared ready to side with a religious group seeking an unemployment tax exemption, in the first of three church-state disputes on tap in coming weeks. "I thought it was pretty fundamental that we don't treat some religions better than other religions," Justice Elena Kagan said. "And we certainly don't do it based on the content of the religious doctrine that those religions preach." Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus., and take a look of some of the court's recent opinions. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

For Part 3b of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984). We continue with with the Democrat's dissent written by Justice Kagan defending Chevron. We into the first few pages of Roman numeral I, to the top of page 9 of the Slip Opinion 603 U.S. _____ (2024) (Kagan's dissent), which we will continue to cover next time. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

For Part 3 of this deep dive we begin the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984). We begin with the Democrat's dissent written by Justice Kagan defending Chevron. We get up to Roman numeral I, which we will cover next time. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Clean Water Act allow the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform?The case was decided on March 4, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Clean Water Act does not authorize the EPA to include “end-result” provisions in wastewater discharge permits. Justice Samuel Alito authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.First, while rejecting San Francisco's broader argument that all limitations must be “effluent limitations,” the Court focused on §1311(b)(1)(C)'s authorization of “any more stringent limitation” necessary to meet water quality standards. The terms “limitation,” “implement,” and “meet” in this provision require the EPA to specify concrete actions permittees must follow, not merely mandate end results without guidance. A proper “limitation” is a “restriction imposed from without,” not a directive that forces permittees to determine compliance measures themselves.Second, Congress deliberately abandoned the pre-1972 backward-looking approach that had directly penalized polluters for water quality violations. The CWA's “permit shield” provision, which protects compliant permittees from penalties, would be undermined if end-result requirements could expose permittees to massive penalties despite following all specified steps. Additionally, the EPA's interpretation offered no solution for fairly allocating responsibility among multiple dischargers affecting the same body of water. Determining necessary compliance steps is the EPA's responsibility, and Congress has provided the agency with sufficient tools to make these determinations without resorting to end-result requirements.Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does an award of the “defendant's profits” under the Lanham Act allow a court to require the defendant to disgorge profits earned by legally separate, non-party corporate affiliates?The case was decided on February 26, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act limits recovery of profits in trademark infringement cases to those earned by the named defendant, not its separately incorporated affiliates. Justice Elena Kagan authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.The text of the Lanham Act authorizes recovery of the “defendant's profits,” which refers only to profits of parties named in the lawsuit. This interpretation aligns with fundamental corporate law principles that treat separately incorporated organizations as distinct legal entities with separate rights and obligations, even when they share common ownership. While exceptions exist through corporate veil-piercing doctrines, Dewberry Engineers never pursued this legal pathway. Courts may not, as the lower courts here did, disregard corporate separateness and treat a party and its non-party affiliates as “a single corporate entity” when calculating the profit award.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In the unanimous decision of Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the applicability of the False Claims Act (FCA) to reimbursement requests made under the E-Rate program, a federal initiative subsidizing internet and telecommunications services for schools and libraries. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that such reimbursement requests qualify as "claims" under the FCA because the government provides a portion of the funds disbursed by the program.

Today, we cover a South Asian Students Association collaboration event at Coffee Club, Elena Kagan's speech at Alumni Day, and a tribute to Maggie, a retiring service dog. ***https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2025/02/princeton-news-alumni-day-supreme-court-justice-elena-kagan-woodrow-wilson-award-david-card-james-madison-medal