Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
POPULARITY
60 episodes with Elena Kagan
25 episodes with Elena Kagan
12 episodes with Elena Kagan
12 episodes with Elena Kagan
20 episodes with Elena Kagan
12 episodes with Elena Kagan
16 episodes with Elena Kagan
7 episodes with Elena Kagan
9 episodes with Elena Kagan
6 episodes with Elena Kagan
6 episodes with Elena Kagan
6 episodes with Elena Kagan
12 episodes with Elena Kagan
7 episodes with Elena Kagan
5 episodes with Elena Kagan
6 episodes with Elena Kagan
4 episodes with Elena Kagan
8 episodes with Elena Kagan
Welcome back to Latte with a Lawyer—the dynamic podcast for attorneys tracking the industry's boldest legal disruptors. In this episode, David Zimmer, co-founder of Zimmer, Citron, and Clark, explains how his firm is completely shattering the status quo of elite appellate litigation by throwing out traditional billing metrics in favor of radical collaboration and true work-life balance. David shares how this refreshing culture fueled their explosive growth from three to seven attorneys in just their first year, proving you don't need a sweatshop environment to build a powerhouse practice.But stripping away the billable hour doesn't mean lowering the stakes. David pulls back the curtain on how his team partners with trial firms nationwide to act as a "verdict shield"—defending blockbuster, multi-million dollar product liability and medical malpractice awards from aggressive Big Law appeals. He breaks down his elite legal pedigree, from working at the World Bank in Sierra Leone to clerking for Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, and gives a candid look into how his startup firm leverages cutting-edge tech tools like Claude to safely generate sharp courtroom analogies without losing human authorship.Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-zimmer-7858222Zimmer, Citron, and Clark Website: https://www.zimmercitronclarke.com/Learn more about EmotionTrac and our AI-driven Emotional Intelligence Platform: https://legal.emotiontrac.com/
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley on Tuesday revealed that former Special Counsel Jack Smith spied on 44 members of Congress and actually read their text messages. It was previously reported that Jack Smith obtained “toll records” or ‘call logs' of members of Congress. In fact, Jack Smith said under oath that he did not read any text messages – but this is not true. “I received records from DOJ confirming Jack Smith's investigative team reviewed the contents of text msgs sent by 44 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Im 1 of the 44,” Grassley said on Tuesday. And Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan on Tuesday testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. Justice Amy Coney Barrett detailed the chilling threats her family has faced following the Roe v. Wade draft opinion leak.Sponsor:My PillowWww.MyPillow.com/johnSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
How many Bond villain schemes can climate alarmists come up with? Apparently one every month or so. The latest scheme to “save the planet” and help make solar installations viable at night is to put giant mirrors in space to reflect sunlight down on earth during the night. And the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, amazingly, just gave that idea the go-ahead.On Episode 207 of The Climate Realism Show the Heartland Institute's Anthony Watts, Linnea Lueken, Sterling Burnett, and Jim Lakely will talk about that Crazy Climate News of the Week. We will also cover the huge conflict of interest Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has for an important upcoming climate case, the “climate score scam” that harms the value of your home, and will the political success of socialists in the United States put the Green New Deal back on the table?Join us Friday at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, X, and Facebook. Participate in the show by leaving your comments and questions in the chat.Visit our sponsor, Advisor Metals: https://climaterealismshow.com/metals In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!
Sarah Isgur and David French discuss Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Elena Kagan's testimony in front of Congress, an Alaska Airlines forum argument about religious issues, and President Donald Trump's various legal battles—from the War Powers Resolution to sanctioned lawyers to law firm subpoenas. The Agenda: –Supreme Court Justices testify before Congress –Canceling the Shadow Docket –Alaska Airlines and its employee forum –Recession of Wokeness –Trump Bait: War powers, slush fund, and law firm deals collapsing Show Notes: –Trump notifies Congress of new war against Iran Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan urge Congress to approve a larger court budget as escalating threats force unprecedented security measures for the justices and their families. Darline Graham Nordone is sworn into the U.S. Senate to complete the term of her late brother, Lindsey Graham, becoming the first woman to represent South Carolina in the chamber. Health officials investigate a fast-growing parasite outbreak that has sickened more than 4,000 people across over 30 states, with lettuce and bagged salad greens emerging as a possible source. A powerful heat dome brings dangerous temperatures and record-breaking heat to millions of Americans from the West Coast to the Northeast. Subscribe to Mark's show Next Up: Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/next-up-with-mark-halperin/id1810218232 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2f0n8G4xqUo8aGxbbbtRjH YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@nextuphalperin?sub_confirmation=1 Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold Lean: Discover why LEAN is becoming the choice for real weight‑loss results—shop now at https://TAKELEAN.com use code MK Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Trump says he's preparing a "huge" announcement about elections, Congress erupts over DEI, and one viral hearing exchange leaves lawmakers speechless.In today's episode we break down Trump's latest election tease, the Jack Smith records controversy, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan's testimony on judicial security, ICE's decision to pause certain vehicle stops after deadly shootings, and the House vote to make Daylight Saving Time permanent.We also react to a Democratic Socialists of America co-chair calling for the Senate to be abolished, a heated exchange with a Haitian caller, MTG's reality show trailer, another controversial moment from The View, the latest DEI hearing, and a tense debate over "pregnant people" language during a congressional hearing.Plus, we discuss AI replacing doctors, Candace Owens' online drama, debunk conspiracy theories surrounding Charlie Kirk, and end with one of the most heartfelt viral clips you'll see all week.SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS TO SUPPORT OUR SHOW!Make the switch to cleaner energy with MudWtr today! Go to https://MudWTR.com/Chicks and grab the starter kit — use code CHICKS and get 43% off.Put better beef on the grill this summer with Backyard Butchers. Visit https://BackyardButchers.com/Chicks where code CHICKS auto-applies for 30% off first order + 2 free 10-oz ribeyes + free shipping!Lose Meaningful Weight and keep it off with Lean. Get started with 20% off and FREE rush shipping at https://TakeLean.com with promo code CHICKSContact Chapter today to see if you could be saving money on your Medicare coverage. Visit http://AskChapter.org/Chicks to find out now.Subscribe and stay tuned for new episodes every weekday!Follow us here for more daily clips, updates, and commentary:YoutubeFacebookInstagramTikTokXLocalsMore InfoWebsite
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan testify about rising security threats, as the Court seeks more money from Congress. Plus, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche faces the Senate as he tries to get confirmed to the job permanently. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Join Jim and Greg for the Wednesday 3 Martini Lunch as they discuss the recent testimonies of U.S. Supreme Court justices over threats they face, Maine Democrats racing to find a replacement nominee for Graham Platner, DEI policy's reverse discrimination effects, and a new congressional bill requiring lawmakers to disclose extended absences to the public.First, Jim and Greg react to SCOTUS Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan testifying in Congress and raising concerns over their security. Barrett had to wear a bulletproof vest after the decision to reverse Roe v. Wade was leaked and her family was targeted in a swatting attempt. Jim argues that conservative justices are particularly targeted in acts carried out by radicals on the left.Next, they cover the scramble by Maine Democrats to find a Senate nominee to run against Sen. Susan Collins. On July 25, 601 Democrats will vote for potential candidates. And the whole process must be over a week from Saturday. Jim and Greg explain how this process is pathetic.Then, Jim and Greg blast the obvious discrimination effects from DEI policy, affecting whites and Asian Americans, as well as blacks and Hispanics. They point to yesterday's testimony from Inez Stepman of Independent Women (and a frequent 3 Martini Lunch guest host, who said we should “judge by merit, not by immutable characteristics.”Finally, they address New York Rep. Ritchie Torres's proposed Duty of Transparency Act, which would mandate Congress members “to give constituents timely notice of an extended absence from voting.” In light of prolonged absences for members of Congress who failed to adequately disclose reasons for their absences, Jim and Greg say this bill is headed in the right direction. Please visit our great sponsors:QuoMoney is on the line. Always say hello with QUO. Try QUO for FREE, PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months when you go to https://Quo.com/3ML.AG1Visit https://DrinkAG1.com/3ML. Get a FREE Morning Person Hat and a FREE AG1 Flavor Sampler in your Welcome Kit with your first AG1 subscription.New episodes every weekday.
Aaron McIntire covers ICE's decision to pause most vehicle stops in immigration enforcement operations nationwide after fatal shootings in Texas and Maine, and questions whether it counts as backing down. He breaks down the rare congressional testimony of Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan, who are asking for more security funding after swatting and threat incidents. Senator Chuck Grassley reveals that former special counsel Jack Smith's team secretly accessed the private text messages of 44 lawmakers during the Trump investigations. Aaron also reacts to a viral confrontation between a journalist and Senator Thom Tillis over his vote against the SAVE America Act. He closes with lighter stories on a health investigation into a possible Taco Bell link to a parasite outbreak and a Canadian surrogacy lawsuit making headlines.
Trump says he's preparing a “huge” announcement about elections, Congress erupts over DEI, and one viral hearing exchange leaves lawmakers speechless. In today's episode, we break down Trump's latest election tease, the Jack Smith records controversy, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan's testimony on judicial security, ICE's decision to pause certain vehicle stops after deadly […]
The Morning XTRA with Tug and Los delivers conservative talk on the biggest political, cultural, and news stories of the day. Smart analysis, unapologetic opinions, and real conversations every weekday morning. Every weekday from 6a to 10a! Tug and Los discuss the fallout from the Supreme Court's budget and security hearing, why the U.S. economy continues to grow despite ongoing global conflicts, and why they believe the rest of the country is finally realizing what conservatives have been saying for years. The guys also react to polling showing Americans' views on Hamas, take aim at the mainstream media's coverage of President Trump, and dive into the latest headlines surrounding New York City's housing crisis and President Joe Biden's new book. Also on today's show:• Storytime with Los: 20 quotes and why they still matter today• The argument that tyranny often comes in the name of compassion• Another edition of "Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes"• Why New York City's housing policies have fueled a rent crisis• How media narratives shape public perception and political debate• The broader cultural divide and why Americans are increasingly at odds over the country's futureAtlanta's ONLY All Conservative News & Talk Station.: https://www.xtra1063.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Morning XTRA with Tug and Los delivers conservative talk on the biggest political, cultural, and news stories of the day. Smart analysis, unapologetic opinions, and real conversations every weekday morning. Every weekday from 6a to 10a! First thing to know: The SCOTUS budget/security hearing did it’s job Despite the war, the economy still grows The rest of the country is about to find out what we’ve been telling you for 6 years Atlanta's ONLY All Conservative News & Talk Station.: https://www.xtra1063.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Guest Host: John Gerardi Robby Soave's opinion piece argues that recent testimony from Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan reveals an alarming escalation in threats against Supreme Court justices. Highlighting incidents ranging from harassment to assassination attempts, he supports increased security funding and contends that protecting the Court is crucial to preserving an independent judiciary. The review discusses Tom Bower's latest unauthorized biography of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, which follows his earlier 2022 book Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the War Between the Windsors. According to the reviewer, Betrayal continues Bower's examination of the couple's relationship with the British royal family and their post-royal public life. Please Like, Comment and Follow 'Philip Teresi on KMJ' on all platforms: --- Philip Teresi on KMJ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever else you listen to podcasts. -- Philip Teresi on KMJ Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 FM KMJ | Website | Facebook | Instagram | X | Podcast | Amazon | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Joe talks about what Elena Kagan had to say on Capitol Hill and why the Left's narrative doesn't quite add upSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Guest Host: John Gerardi Robby Soave's opinion piece argues that recent testimony from Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan reveals an alarming escalation in threats against Supreme Court justices. Highlighting incidents ranging from harassment to assassination attempts, he supports increased security funding and contends that protecting the Court is crucial to preserving an independent judiciary. The review discusses Tom Bower's latest unauthorized biography of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, which follows his earlier 2022 book Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the War Between the Windsors. According to the reviewer, Betrayal continues Bower's examination of the couple's relationship with the British royal family and their post-royal public life. Please Like, Comment and Follow 'Philip Teresi on KMJ' on all platforms: --- Philip Teresi on KMJ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever else you listen to podcasts. -- Philip Teresi on KMJ Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 FM KMJ | Website | Facebook | Instagram | X | Podcast | Amazon | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In this segment of The Charlie James Show, host Charlie James reacts to the previous day's congressional testimony from Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan regarding the urgent need for increased judicial security. James focuses heavily on Barrett's testimony, where she recounted having to explain a bulletproof vest to her 12-year-old son and experiencing a recent swatting incident. Criticizing the threats as stemming from radical leftists, James argues that Barrett's admitted fear compromises her ability to rule without "fear or favor." He highlights her past rulings, including on birthright citizenship, and controversially suggests that if she is too afraid to protect her family while serving, she should step down from the bench.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley on Tuesday revealed that former Special Counsel Jack Smith spied on 44 members of Congress and actually read their text messages. It was previously reported that Jack Smith obtained “toll records” or ‘call logs' of members of Congress. In fact, Jack Smith said under oath that he did not read any text messages – but this is not true. “I received records from DOJ confirming Jack Smith's investigative team reviewed the contents of text msgs sent by 44 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Im 1 of the 44,” Grassley said on Tuesday. And Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan on Tuesday testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. Justice Amy Coney Barrett detailed the chilling threats her family has faced following the Roe v. Wade draft opinion leak.Sponsor:My PillowWww.MyPillow.com/johnSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
President Donald Trump walks back his previous demand of 20 percent of the value of all cargo through the Strait of Hormuz as payment for the U.S. patrolling the Strait and instead says Gulf nations will be making major economic investments in the U.S.; Senate Democrats block the Senate from taking up the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), citing resumption of the war with Iran and failure of Republican and Democratic negotiators to reach agreement on spending levels, defense and non-defense, for the next fiscal year; Labor Department's Consumer Price Index inflation report for June was 3.5% year over year, less than expected; Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh testifies before a House committee, promising the Fed will tackle inflation and make its decisions without regard to politics; Senate swears-in its newest member, Darline Graham, appointed to serve out the term of her late brother, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC); Russia sanctions bill championed by Sen. Lindsey Graham before he died gets bipartisan support on Capitol Hill and in the White House; Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan testify before Congress on the Supreme Court's budget request, which includes more money for security in light of increase threats; CDC update on the cyclosporiasis outbreak across the country; House passes the Sunshine Protection Act, to make daylight saving time permanent nationwide. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Washington Stand's Casey Harper reports on Darline Graham Nordone's swearing-in ceremony, the Capitol Hill testimonies of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan asking Congress for more money to cover their security needs.
Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan are set to testify on Tuesday on the proposed $228 million 2027 budget. The nation's highest court is seeking a total of $228.4 million for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, a $20.6 million increase over the current year.President Donald Trump on Tuesday welcomed Iraq's new prime minister to the White House. Ali al-Zaidi, a businessman with no political background, emerged as a consensus candidate in Iraq after months of deadlock over the premiership following last year's parliamentary elections. The issue of Iran is likely to loom large in the discussions. Iraq has been under pressure to disarm a network of Iran-backed militias operating in the country, some of which launched attacks on U.S. bases and diplomatic facilities after the United States and Israel launched a war against Iran in February.
Andrew Walworth, Tom Bevan, and Carl Cannon discuss the shooting by ICE agents of a motorist in Maine, the second ICE shooting incident in less than a week. Also, a look forward at tomorrow's scheduled Senate confirmation hearings of Todd Blanche for Attorney General and Jay Clayton for Director of National Intelligence. Next, they talk about Pete Buttigieg's recent trip to Iowa and his chances of winning the Democratic presidential nomination for 2028, and new polling on the Iowa senate and gubernatorial races. Then, they discuss yesterday's choice of the late Lindsey Graham's sister to fill out his term in the U.S. Senate, and potential candidates for the seat in the upcoming Republican primary, including Nancy Mace. And finally, they talk about Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan testifing today before Congress about the need for additional funding for the Supreme Court, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio launching an effort to dismantle the International Criminal Court. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Dawn Stensland opens the hour with the stunning final exoneration of Zachary Reihl, a local Marine veteran, Temple University graduate, and J6 defendant who had his seditious conspiracy conviction completely thrown out. Dawn breaks down how Reihl survived over a year in pre-trial solitary confinement while treated worse than international terrorists. Reihl joins the show directly to expose the malicious tactics used by federal prosecutors—including withholding evidence, using coerced witness testimony, and scheduling critical hearings on his wife's pregnancy due date—and details his upcoming book and documentary highlighting the weaponization of the justice system. The crew then shifts focus to Washington, where Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan delivered rare Capitol Hill testimony to justify a major budget increase amid skyrocketing personal threats. We react to Justice Barrett's chilling, highly personal accounts of having to explain a bulletproof vest to her twelve-year-old son during the Dobbs leak and experiencing a dangerous swatting incident at her family home. Meanwhile, Donald Trump dominates the foreign policy front, greeting the new businessman-turned-prime-minister of Iraq at the White House and posting a massive Truth Social decree detailing a total maritime blockade on Iranian cargo and massive trade agreements in the Gulf. Finally, Abington Township Police Chief and Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association President Patrick Malloy joins the show to provide a law enforcement perspective on the growing debate over Flock license plate reader cameras. Chief Malloy addresses the privacy concerns of libertarians while demonstrating how these devices are vital in tracking international theft rings, locating missing non-verbal children, and solving local burglaries. Malloy also weighs in on a tragic hit-and-run arrest in Abington and argues passionately that true criminal justice reform in the region is completely impossible without comprehensive education reform and school choice.
Taking its signal from Justice Kagan's dissent in a recent immigration case, an Ohio Federal Judge has used Trump and Vance's frequent use of racial tropes and racist comments, such as calling certain countries “shit holes” (spelled out in the judge's order) and falsely claiming Haitians were eating our pets, to block an order that denied federal benefits like green cards and work permits to people from underprivileged countries. Popok examines Judge Marbley's decision and how SCOTUS dissents end up being powerfully used by other district court judges to prove their point. Quo: Try QUO for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months when you go to https://Quo.com/LEGALAF Subscribe: @LegalAFMTN Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
After a quick check on the Nina Totenberg embargo kerfuffle and one more revelation from Justice Thomas's memoir, we devote the episode to Chatrie v. United States, the Court's first major Fourth Amendment decision in years. We trace how the geofence-warrant ruling builds on — and goes beyond — Katz, United States v. Jones, and Carpenter v. United States, and what's left of the third-party doctrine and the mosaic theory. Will explains the positive law model of the Fourth Amendment; Dan tries to claim Justice Gorsuch's separate opinion for his general-law approach. We close with the dissents, the advisory-opinion objection, and whether the Court should be saying more about the Fourth Amendment or less about everything. Along the way: Venmo heroin deals, smart microwaves, whether Will has genuinely forgotten his passcode, and a field-trip assignment for Chicagoland listeners.Highlights[00:00:21] Cold open: three recording sessions in three days, and the theories swirling around the Nina Totenberg screw-up[00:02:04] Justice Alito's embargo story: the press-room idea he liked until he learned they have to let the journalists out of the room[00:03:04] My Grandfather's Son follow-up: Justice Thomas's over-cautious marijuana confession[00:04:35] Cleanup-order watch: GVRs still owed in light of Slaughter, Landor, and B.P.J.[00:04:57] The main event: Chatrie v. United States, the geofence-warrant case — and why a 5-Justice Fourth Amendment majority is a good get for Justice Kagan[00:06:51] What a geofence actually is (there is no fence) and the three-step Google Location History protocol[00:13:52] General warrants, particularity, the University of Chicago backpacks hypo, and Ybarra v. Illinois — with a field-trip assignment to the Aurora Tap House[00:21:09] Three questions — search, reasonableness, exclusion — and the clever cert grant that fenced out the exclusionary rule[00:25:52] The setup: Jones and the two tracks of Fourth Amendment doctrine, step 0 (the third-party doctrine), then Carpenter[00:33:13] Will's positive law model of the Fourth Amendment, and Justice Gorsuch's Carpenter dissent[00:36:29] Orin Kerr's mosaic theory: "building out the mosaic Byzantine style, it starts to become searchier"[00:39:15] Kagan shuts the mosaic door: where the Fourth Amendment applies, it applies regardless of quantity — a fortiori from Carpenter[00:47:36] What survives of the third-party doctrine: Strava, public Venmo feeds, and the "For heroin" hypo[00:50:53] Why it's a big deal: the anti-mosaic holding, and a majority of Justices revealed as Carpenter people[00:54:48] Tangent: Face ID, the Fifth Amendment, Will's forgotten passcodes, and his enemies[00:56:55] Does the Stored Communications Act make all this academic?[00:58:34] The Jackson concurrence's particularity nudge, en banc remand practice, and Levy & Newman on unwritten circuit rules[01:00:43] The Gorsuch concurrence: papers, effects, property — Will disowns it and gives it to Dan's general-law approach[01:08:36] The Alito dissent: the advisory-opinion objection, footnote 4, the Davis carve-out, and the NRA v. Vullo precedent for a do-over remand[01:18:59] Justice Barrett's à-la-carte joins and her one-paragraph dissent — "we should have more dissents like this"[01:22:31] Two kinds of law professors, "The Supreme Court Flunks Trusts," and whether we're good on law[01:24:15] Sign-off: the rare promise of a schedule — a fourth recording session this weekRelevant linksCasesChatrie v. United States — slip opinionYbarra v. IllinoisUnited States v. JonesKatz v. United StatesSmith v. MarylandCarpenter v. United States — slip opinionFlorida v. JardinesDavis v. United StatesNRA v. VulloCommentary & articlesAmy Howe, "Court rules that law enforcement's use of 'geofence warrant' was a 'search'" (SCOTUSblog)Kate Shaw, Will Baude & Steve Vladeck, end-of-term Supreme Court roundtable (N.Y. Times, July 1, 2026) — the "hosannas" Will mentions on airWilliam Baude & James Y. Stern, "The Positive Law Model of the Fourth Amendment," 129 Harv. L. Rev. 1821 (2016)Danielle D'Onfro & Daniel Epps, "The Fourth Amendment and General Law," 132 Yale L.J. 910 (2023)Orin S. Kerr, "The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment," 111 Mich. L. Rev. 311 (2012)John H. Langbein, "The Supreme Court Flunks Trusts," 1990 Sup. Ct. Rev. 207OtherClarence Thomas, My Grandfather's Son (2007)Jon O. Newman & Marin K. Levy, Written and Unwritten: The Rules, Internal Procedures, and Customs of the United States Courts of Appeals (Cambridge 2024)
June 30, 2026, 4pm; The nation's highest court upheld the principle that almost everyone who is born on American soil is considered an American citizen. In doing so, the court overturned Donald Trump's executive order, which would have eliminated birthright citizenship as we know it. For more from Nicolle, follow and download her podcast, “The Best People with Nicolle Wallace,” wherever you get your podcasts.To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
June 30, 2026, 5pm; Despite today's Supreme Court ruling being a clear win for the pro-democracy side of the aisle, the ruling was much closer than it looks at first glance. For more from Nicolle, follow and download her podcast, “The Best People with Nicolle Wallace,” wherever you get your podcasts.To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett. Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment while dissenting in part. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Neil Gorsuch. The court grounded its decision in the historical context of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, tracing the language back to English common law, the Dred Scott decision and its widespread condemnation, Attorney General Edward Bates' wartime opinion on citizenship, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the court's prior precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Hawk connects the executive order directly to Stephen Miller's documented stated goal of an America populated almost entirely by people who look like him, and explains why birthright citizenship was the primary legal mechanism the administration intended to use to strip citizenship from Black and brown Americans descended from earlier generations born in the United States. He closes by noting that Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito remain on the court, and what that means for the 2026 midterm Senate races in Texas and Maine if either justice resigns under a Republican-controlled Senate. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB
The end is nigh! Or, the end of this Supreme Court term is nigh, at least. On the second to last day of this term, the court's right wingers delivered a sweeping ruling that will reshape the federal government for years to come. In Trump v. Slaughter, the conservative supermajority voted 6-3 to allow the president to fire members of independent regulatory agencies—overturning Humphrey's Executor, a 91-year-old unanimous precedent—and handing Trump effective control over agencies that regulate consumer protection, nuclear energy, union activity, mine safety, and more. But the Roberts majority weren't quite ready to hand the nation's credit card (and their investment portfolios) over to the mad king, and so the Federal Reserve got a carve-out in a separate 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Cook. How did they reach these wildly different conclusions in such closely related cases? Justice Roberts offered a barely argued rationale, but who needs a rationale if your red lines are painted in a crimson of pure cynicism?The court also handed down a significant Fourth Amendment ruling on geofence warrants, with Justice Kagan writing for a 6-3 majority that such warrants constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. And in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court upheld state laws allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive shortly after. But the squeaker of a 5-4 majority was deeply alarming in a case that played to some of the justices' fox-brained ideas about election fraud. Justice Alito and his fellow dissenters appear to have signed onto the wholly unsupported view that Democrat wins are always suspect, and the only way to restore trust in voting is to restrict voting. As Rick Hasen writes for Slate, we won't be as lucky next time. The term wraps this week and Amicus is with you all the way for clear-eyed analysis of the final raft of decisions. Slate Plus members can also sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business as part of our live online audience, July 10 at noon EDT. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to 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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The end is nigh! Or, the end of this Supreme Court term is nigh, at least. On the second to last day of this term, the court's right wingers delivered a sweeping ruling that will reshape the federal government for years to come. In Trump v. Slaughter, the conservative supermajority voted 6-3 to allow the president to fire members of independent regulatory agencies—overturning Humphrey's Executor, a 91-year-old unanimous precedent—and handing Trump effective control over agencies that regulate consumer protection, nuclear energy, union activity, mine safety, and more. But the Roberts majority weren't quite ready to hand the nation's credit card (and their investment portfolios) over to the mad king, and so the Federal Reserve got a carve-out in a separate 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Cook. How did they reach these wildly different conclusions in such closely related cases? Justice Roberts offered a barely argued rationale, but who needs a rationale if your red lines are painted in a crimson of pure cynicism?The court also handed down a significant Fourth Amendment ruling on geofence warrants, with Justice Kagan writing for a 6-3 majority that such warrants constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. And in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court upheld state laws allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive shortly after. But the squeaker of a 5-4 majority was deeply alarming in a case that played to some of the justices' fox-brained ideas about election fraud. Justice Alito and his fellow dissenters appear to have signed onto the wholly unsupported view that Democrat wins are always suspect, and the only way to restore trust in voting is to restrict voting. As Rick Hasen writes for Slate, we won't be as lucky next time. The term wraps this week and Amicus is with you all the way for clear-eyed analysis of the final raft of decisions. Slate Plus members can also sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business as part of our live online audience, July 10 at noon EDT. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to 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.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The end is nigh! Or, the end of this Supreme Court term is nigh, at least. On the second to last day of this term, the court's right wingers delivered a sweeping ruling that will reshape the federal government for years to come. In Trump v. Slaughter, the conservative supermajority voted 6-3 to allow the president to fire members of independent regulatory agencies—overturning Humphrey's Executor, a 91-year-old unanimous precedent—and handing Trump effective control over agencies that regulate consumer protection, nuclear energy, union activity, mine safety, and more. But the Roberts majority weren't quite ready to hand the nation's credit card (and their investment portfolios) over to the mad king, and so the Federal Reserve got a carve-out in a separate 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Cook. How did they reach these wildly different conclusions in such closely related cases? Justice Roberts offered a barely argued rationale, but who needs a rationale if your red lines are painted in a crimson of pure cynicism?The court also handed down a significant Fourth Amendment ruling on geofence warrants, with Justice Kagan writing for a 6-3 majority that such warrants constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. And in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court upheld state laws allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive shortly after. But the squeaker of a 5-4 majority was deeply alarming in a case that played to some of the justices' fox-brained ideas about election fraud. Justice Alito and his fellow dissenters appear to have signed onto the wholly unsupported view that Democrat wins are always suspect, and the only way to restore trust in voting is to restrict voting. As Rick Hasen writes for Slate, we won't be as lucky next time. The term wraps this week and Amicus is with you all the way for clear-eyed analysis of the final raft of decisions. Slate Plus members can also sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business as part of our live online audience, July 10 at noon EDT. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to 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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Serwer's piece documents the Trump administration's explicitly race-based statements about Haitian immigrants, including claims they all have AIDS, eat household pets, are genetically predisposed to crime, and are poisoning the blood of the country. Samuel Alito's majority opinion declined to repeat any of those statements, substituting his own race-neutral explanations for what they might have meant instead. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent noted that the evidence was plain to see in statements the majority and even Trump's own lawyers could not bring themselves to repeat. The article brings in legal scholars including Guy-Uriel Charles of Harvard Law, who describes the ruling as setting up an impossible burden for plaintiffs, Anderson Francois of Georgetown, who notes that the administration now needs only a plausible pretext to discriminate while Black plaintiffs need proof no amount of evidence will satisfy, and Melissa Murray of NYU, who calls this a colorblind constitution the architects of Jim Crow would love. Serwer also traces Alito's selective application of intent, showing he is perfectly willing to read racial motive into policies when white people could be perceived as the victims, as in his 2009 Ricci v. DeStefano opinion, but refuses to do so here. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB
Haitian plaintiffs did raise exactly that claim, arguing that Trump's decision to strip their TPS was motivated by racial animus and citing Trump and administration officials' own racist statements about Haitian immigrants. Alito's response in the majority opinion was that because Trump expresses hostility toward immigrants broadly, his actions cannot be considered racially motivated. Hawk points out that this reasoning ignores Trump's own documented statements about countries populated by Black and brown people, and the fact that of approximately 6,500 refugees admitted to the United States in 2025, all but three were white South Africans. Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent that the evidence from Trump's own statements made clear the TPS revocation targeting Haitian immigrants was driven by race and racial animus, and that those statements were so egregious Alito did not quote or cite them in the majority opinion. Hawk connects this ruling to the court's recent dismantling of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the resulting race to redraw congressional maps across Confederate states, arguing that together these decisions represent a court that has become an instrument of white supremacy and authoritarian consolidation of executive power. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB
June 25, 2026; 4pm: Nicolle Wallace and guests discuss the Supreme Court's decision to upend the asylum system as we know it. In a 6-3 decision, with the 3 liberal justices dissenting, the court decided to let Donald Trump functionally end temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of refugees from Haiti and Syria. Later, Nicolle covers a major win for voting rights just ahead of the upcoming midterm elections. For more, follow us on Instagram @deadlinewh To listen to this show and other MS NOW podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. For more from Nicolle, follow and download her podcast, “The Best People with Nicolle Wallace,” wherever you get your podcasts.To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
This Day in Legal History: Shelby County v. HolderOn this day in legal history, June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Shelby County v. Holder, a major case on the future of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In a 5–4 decision, the Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Act, which contained the formula used to decide which states and local governments were subject to federal oversight before changing their voting laws. That oversight system, known as preclearance, had required covered jurisdictions to get approval from the federal government before making changes to election rules. The purpose of preclearance was to stop discriminatory voting practices before they could affect an election. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, concluding that the coverage formula was based on outdated data and no longer reflected current conditions.The Court did not strike down preclearance itself, but without a valid coverage formula, the preclearance system was largely left without practical effect. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Ginsburg argued that Congress had created a strong record showing that voting discrimination still existed and that the law remained necessary. Her dissent included the now-famous warning that throwing out preclearance because it had worked was like “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” The decision had immediate consequences because several states that had previously been covered by the formula moved forward with voting-law changes soon after the ruling. Supporters of the decision viewed it as a limit on outdated federal control over state election systems. Critics saw it as a major weakening of one of the most effective civil-rights laws in American history. The case remains central to modern debates over voting access, election administration, federalism, and Congress's power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment.A federal judge has rejected the Trump administration's attempt to force New Jersey cities to comply with federal immigration enforcement demands. The ruling is a major victory for sanctuary cities and immigrants' rights advocates. Here's the context: Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities. These cities typically instruct their police departments not to ask people about immigration status during routine stops, and they decline to detain people solely based on federal immigration requests (called “detainer requests”) unless there's a warrant signed by a judge.The Trump administration argued that sanctuary city policies undermine immigration enforcement and violate federal law. The administration sued, claiming cities cannot refuse to cooperate with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). New Jersey cities argued they have the right to set their own police practices and that cooperating with federal immigration enforcement diverts local police resources from public safety priorities. They also pointed out that when police are seen as working with immigration authorities, immigrant communities become afraid to report crimes or cooperate with law enforcement, which makes the entire community less safe.Local police have limited resources. A city police officer has to decide whether to use their time investigating a robbery or helping federal immigration agents deport someone. Local communities have a right to prioritize local public safety. Moreover, if immigrant families fear that any contact with police will result in deportation, they won't report crimes, won't testify as witnesses, and crime will increase. The federal judge agreed with New Jersey. The court found that cities have the authority to set their own police practices and cannot be forced to participate in federal immigration enforcement, particularly when federal authorities can get judicial warrants if they believe someone should be detained.The ruling protects sanctuary city policies This decision affirms that local communities can set their own law enforcement priorities and aren't required to become extensions of federal immigration enforcement. It recognizes that immigrants are part of communities and that community safety depends on immigrants trusting local police. The ruling will likely inspire other sanctuary jurisdictions to defend their policies against federal challenges. It represents a significant pushback against the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement agenda.Judge tosses Trump administration's challenge to New Jersey cities' ‘sanctuary' policies | ReutersNew Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled that police departments cannot keep their use of facial recognition technology entirely secret. The decision represents a significant victory for transparency in law enforcement. Here's what happened: Police departments have increasingly used facial recognition software to identify suspects by comparing surveillance video or photos to databases of mugshots and driver's license photos. The technology can help solve crimes, but it also raises serious concerns about accuracy, bias, and privacy. Civil liberties groups have argued that if police use facial recognition to investigate people, the public and defendants have a right to know about it.Transparency is especially important because facial recognition technology has known accuracy problems, particularly when identifying people of color. If a police department relies on facial recognition to identify a suspect, and that technology is biased or inaccurate, the defendant needs to know that to challenge the evidence in court. New Jersey police departments had been claiming that their use of facial recognition was a “trade secret” or “law enforcement technique” that they could keep secret. The New Jersey Supreme Court said no.If the government uses technology to investigate you, you have a constitutional right to know about it and to challenge it. You can't mount a proper defense if you don't know what evidence was used to identify you or how reliable that evidence is.The court found that transparency about police use of facial recognition is essential to the defendant's right to a fair trial and to public accountability. Facial recognition technology is too important and too prone to error for police to keep its use secret. This ruling sets a precedent that police departments cannot hide behind “trade secrets” to avoid disclosing their investigative methods. It opens the door to litigation challenging facial recognition evidence on grounds of accuracy and bias. It also signals that courts recognize the dangers of artificial intelligence and surveillance technology and will require transparency and accountability around their use.New Jersey court limits secrecy around police use of facial recognition tools | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to provide a detailed explanation for covering a mural at the Kennedy Center that depicts civil rights imagery and historical figures. The ruling centers on questions of censorship, government power, and artistic freedom.The Kennedy Center, a performing arts venue in Washington, D.C., displays a mural that includes imagery related to the civil rights movement and depicts various historical and cultural figures. The Trump administration decided to cover the mural with tarps, presumably because it objected to the political or social messaging of the artwork. Civil liberties groups and artists sued, arguing that covering the mural violated the First Amendment by suppressing speech and political expression. The Trump administration claimed it had legitimate reasons for covering the mural, though it didn't initially specify what those reasons were. The federal judge said the government cannot simply cover up art without explaining why.The First Amendment protects people's right to speak and express themselves, including through art. When the government covers up art or speech, it's engaging in “prior restraint”—stopping speech before it happens. Courts are extremely skeptical of prior restraint because the whole point of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from censoring expression it dislikes. The government has to have a very good reason to suppress speech, and it has to be transparent about its reasons. The Kennedy Center mural at issue appears to have been covered by the administration for political reasons—it objected to the message. That's exactly the kind of censorship the First Amendment is designed to prevent. The judge's order requires the administration to explain its reasoning, which will allow the court to evaluate whether the government's stated reasons are legitimate or whether this is simply political censorship.This ruling protects artistic expression and prevents the government from secretly censoring art it dislikes. It affirms that the Kennedy Center's mural is protected speech, not just decoration. It also sends a message that when the government restricts speech or expression, it must be transparent and justify its actions in court. The case reflects broader concerns about executive power and the limits of what a president can do to suppress expression, art, or speech that the administration objects to.US judge orders Trump administration to explain tarp obscuring Kennedy Center facade | 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
As the Supreme Court's term winds down, with some notable cases still to be decided, we take a behind the scenes look at the Supreme Court and how it operates with SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur. Her new book on the topic is titled "Last Branch Standing." In part two of our discussion, we talk to Sarah Isgur about the power of Chief Justice John Roberts, the personalities and influence of the other justices, and her relationship with Justice Elena Kagan, who was dean of Harvard Law School when Isgur was a student and chapter president of the Federalist Society there. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
As the Supreme Court's term winds down, with some notable cases still to be decided, we take a behind the scenes look at the Supreme Court and how it operates with SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur (IHS-ger). Her new book on the topic is titled "Last Branch Standing." In part two of our discussion, we talk to Sarah Isgur about the power of Chief Justice John Roberts, the personalities and influence of the other justices, and her relationship with Justice Elena Kagan, who was dean of Harvard Law School when Isgur was a student and chapter president of the Federalist Society there. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia DecidedOn this day in 1967, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia striking down Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and, with it, the anti-miscegenation statutes that sixteen states still had on the books. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the Court. The case had come up from a county courthouse in Caroline County, Virginia, where Richard Loving, a white bricklayer, and Mildred Jeter, a Black and Native American woman, had been arrested in their bedroom in the middle of the night in 1958 by a sheriff acting on an anonymous tip — they had been married in the District of Columbia and returned home to Virginia, where their marriage was a felony. The Lovings pleaded guilty, accepted suspended sentences on the condition that they leave the state for twenty-five years, and lived in exile in Washington until Mildred wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy that landed eventually with the ACLU, which took the case.The Supreme Court's opinion did two things at once. It held that Virginia's statute violated the Equal Protection Clause because it drew an explicit racial classification with no legitimate state purpose beyond preserving “White Supremacy” — the Court used the phrase the Virginia statute itself had used — and it held that the statute violated the Due Process Clause because the freedom to marry is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” That second holding, the marriage-as-fundamental-right strand, is the through-line that runs from Loving to Zablocki v. Redhail in 1978, to Turner v. Safley in 1987, to Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 — every one of those decisions cites Loving and treats it as the foundational case. Whether the Court's substantive due process marriage doctrine survives the next decade is, as we discussed earlier this week, one of the open questions in American constitutional law. But Loving itself remains intact, and on June 12, 1967, the Court said something it had not said cleanly before: that the right to marry is the kind of liberty interest the Constitution actually protects.The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the Second Circuit in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd., holding 6-3 that the Investment Company Act of 1940 does not give private parties a cause of action to seek rescission of fund bylaws or other contractual terms. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority. The dispute came out of a campaign by Boaz Weinstein's Saba Capital against eleven closed-end funds — funds that, under Maryland's Control Share Acquisition Act, had adopted bylaws limiting the voting power of any shareholder who accumulated a disproportionate stake without the consent of other shareholders. Saba sued under Section 47(b) of the ICA, which makes contracts that violate the Act unenforceable, and the Second Circuit held that Section 47(b) implied a private right to rescind the bylaws.The Court told the Second Circuit to look harder at the modern implied-cause-of-action doctrine, which since Alexander v. Sandoval in 2001 has been hostile to inferring private rights of action that Congress did not write into the statute. The opinion reads as a continuation of that line: the ICA's enforcement structure is committed to the SEC, not to private plaintiffs, and Section 47(b) is a defense against contracts the SEC has already determined to be unlawful, not an offensive cause of action. The dissent, by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that this is a misreading of Section 47(b)'s text and that the majority is gratuitously narrowing the enforcement of the federal securities laws. The practical impact is significant. Activist investors who had been pushing closed-end funds to convert to open-end form, or to alter investment strategies, lose a federal-court tool they had been using; the funds themselves and their independent directors gain a meaningful structural defense. Expect the next round of activist campaigns to move to state-court fiduciary-duty theories instead.US Supreme Court rules against private suits brought under key securities law | US NewsThe Court on Thursday also decided Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., vacating the Fifth Circuit 9-0 in an opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The case is small in its facts and large in its doctrine. Thomas Keathley filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2019 and failed to disclose, on his schedule of assets, a personal-injury claim he later brought against a construction company over a truck accident. The Fifth Circuit barred the personal-injury suit on judicial-estoppel grounds — the longstanding equitable doctrine that prevents a party from taking one position in one proceeding and a contradictory position in another — using a three-factor test under which a debtor's mere knowledge of the facts plus a motive to conceal was enough to bar the later claim.The Supreme Court said no.To determine whether the omission was inadvertent or mistaken for judicial-estoppel purposes, the Court held, the lower courts must look to the totality of the circumstances, not just to whether the debtor knew of the facts and had a motive. The doctrinal interest of the case lies in two concurrences. Justice Sotomayor, concurring, wrote that judicial estoppel should likely never apply in an open bankruptcy case at all — the trustee can simply amend the schedule and pursue the claim for the estate, which solves the problem judicial estoppel was invented to address. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, went further and questioned whether federal courts have any inherent authority to apply judicial estoppel as a freestanding doctrine, period — a position that, if it ever gets five votes, would unwind a doctrine that has been part of American practice since the 1850s. None of that is the holding. But the votes to revisit one of the duller corners of equitable estoppel are now visibly on the table.Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. | SCOTUSblogThe third unanimous decision of the day was Abouammo v. United States, in which the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and vacated the obstruction-of-an-FBI-investigation conviction of Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee whose underlying case was one of the more striking Saudi-Arabia infiltration prosecutions of the last decade. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion. The facts are simple and the constitutional point cleaner than the facts. Abouammo, while working at Twitter's San Francisco office in 2014 and 2015, accessed and passed on confidential user information about Saudi dissidents to a Saudi official, in exchange for a $42,000 watch and $200,000 in wire transfers. The FBI eventually came to interview him at his home in Seattle, where he had moved by 2018, and during those interviews he created and emailed agents a fake invoice intended to make the wire transfers look like a legitimate consulting fee. The Justice Department charged the obstruction count along with foreign-agent and wire-fraud counts in the Northern District of California, and a San Francisco jury convicted him on all of them.The Supreme Court held that the obstruction count belonged in the Western District of Washington, not California, because the act of creating and sending the false invoice — the only act that supported the obstruction charge — happened entirely in Seattle. Article III's venue clause and the Sixth Amendment's vicinage requirement together do not let the government try a defendant in a state where no element of the charged offense occurred, no matter how convenient the prosecution. The obstruction conviction is vacated. The foreign-agent and wire-fraud convictions, which had different venue facts and were not before the Court, stand. Abouammo will not walk free. But the prosecution will need to decide whether to retry the obstruction count in Seattle, and the case is now a clean precedent that the venue clause has real teeth in a multi-district federal investigation.US Supreme Court overturns ex-Twitter employee's obstruction conviction in Saudi spy case | US News 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
DOCKET ALERTS: Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on the stolen documents case must remain sealed forever in perpetuity. Kouri Richins goes on trial for murdering her husband in Utah. She's not being charged for writing a terrible children's book about dealing with grief over the loss of a parent … but maybe she should be? The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, allowed Louisiana to require the display of the Ten Commandments in every classroom statewide. The law had been blocked, but the Court decided that no one had been injured yet, so the case is unripe. Elon Musk is being sued for securities fraud in California. But they can't seat a jury because everyone hates him. MAIN SHOW: It's all about tariffs. We break down the Supreme Court's Learning Resources v. Trump, and explain why dragging this case out for a year ensures chaos as importers try to recoup money they've already paid. And we'll talk about Trump's plan to impose new illegal tariffs based on a gross misinterpretation of yet another internal statute. The opinion is particularly contentious, revealing the justices' angry, internal feuding over the future of the court. And subscribers will get a deep dive into the origins of this conflict, reaching back to Justice Kagan's famous 2015 "Antonin Scalia Lecture Series" lecture at Harvard Law School and extending through Justice Jackson's concurrence in Learning Resources. US v. Trump [stolen documents case] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump Kouri Richins Warrant https://www.scribd.com/document/654496602/Kouri-Richins-Warrant Contempt for Musk clouds jury selection in Twitter takeover trial https://www.courthousenews.com/contempt-for-musk-clouds-jury-selection-in-twitter-takeover-trial/ Roake v. Brumley [Fifth Circuit Ten Commandments] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.221848/gov.uscourts.ca5.221848.389.1.pdf Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump [tariffs case] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf Congressional Research Service, "Congressional and Presidential Authority to Impose Import Tariffs" https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48435/R48435.1.pdf Elena Kagan "Antonin Scalia Lecture Series," Harvard Law School (2015) [via YouTube] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpEtszFT0Tg Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod
More To The Story: The Voting Rights Act is widely considered one of the most effective laws in prohibiting racial discrimination in voting. One of its key provisions has long allowed states to take race into account when drawing voting maps to ensure that nonwhite voters have electoral power. But earlier this year, the Supreme Court narrowed that provision. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan described the court's decision as the “now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.” “The notion that everyone deserves equal access to the ballot, that everyone deserves equal access to elections, that one person ought to mean one vote, and that there ought to be some measure of political equality has never really sat well with the political right in this country,” says Jamelle Bouie, a political columnist for the New York Times. On this week's More To The Story, Bouie and host Al Letson talk about how the Voting Rights Act has been defanged by the Supreme Court, why the Democratic Party is made up of “a bunch of weenies,” and why he believes the country is experiencing a constitutional emergency.This is an update of an episode that originally aired in August 2025.Producer: Josh Sanburn | Editor: Kara McGuirk-Allison | Theme music: Fernando Arruda and Jim Briggs | Copy editor: Nikki Frick | Digital producer: Artis Curiskis | Deputy executive producer: Taki Telonidis | Executive producer: Brett Myers | Executive editor: James West | Host: Al LetsonListen: How Trump Exploits Working-Class Pain (More To The Story)Read: Republican Gerrymandering Schemes Target Minority Voters and Their Representatives (Mother Jones)Listen: Not All Votes Are Created Equal (Reveal)Read: The Nation's Landmark Voting Rights Law Just Turned 60. It May Not Survive Trump. (Mother Jones)Watch: Blame John Roberts for Destroying the Voting Rights Act (Mother Jones) Donate today at Revealnews.org/more Subscribe to our weekly newsletter at Revealnews.org/weekly Follow us on Instagram and Bluesky Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices
This one is different. No guest. Just me—and the truth I can't stop sitting with.The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is gone. Not weakened. Not under threat. Gone. The legal architecture that turned 7% Black voter registration in Mississippi into 60%—dismantled, decision by decision, by a Supreme Court that was never neutral and was never on our side.But that's not even the whole story. Because while the courts were killing the VRA, the Justice Department was being turned into a weapon. FBI agents raided a Black state senator's office mid-day—Fox News already on the scene—while allies under federal investigation had their evidence destroyed. Ballots from Fulton County are in federal custody. Arizona. Michigan. They are building the architecture of election interference before the midterms. In public. And most people don't even know it's happeningThis episode is about all of it. The Proud Boys as a militia. The Roberts Court as an antidemocratic enforcement mechanism. The Southern Strategy, sixty years old and running on steroids. And the organizing tradition—Ella Baker, Bayard Rustin, Hungary's opposition movement—that proves rigged maps can be beaten and stolen futures can be reclaimed.This is the class I didn't want to have to teach. But you need it. Pull up.SHOW NOTESThe death of the Voting Rights Act—Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Brnovich v. DNC (2021), and the April 29, 2026 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which Justice Elena Kagan called "all but a dead letter."The pardon of 1,500+ January 6th participants and the DOJ's move to vacate the seditious conspiracy convictions of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders.The FBI raid on Fulton County's election center, the subpoenas targeting Arizona and Michigan 2024 ballots, and what it means for the midterms.The mid-day FBI raid on Virginia State Senator Louise Lucas's office, with Fox News cameras already rolling—and not one charge filed.The two-tier justice system in plain sight: evidence destroyed for allies, prosecutions launched against opponents.Elie Mystal's proposal to add 20 justices to structurally change the Supreme Court's incentive for extremism.How Hungary's opposition built 208 local chapters and 50,000 poll watchers—and won a supermajority against a gerrymandered map.The Afrofuturist tradition of Ella Baker and Bayard Rustin as the organizing inheritance we carry forward.Black Power War Room — blackpowerwarroom.com National Black Justice Coalition — nbjc.org NBJC Equity Week — nbjc.orgBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/teach-the-babies-w-dr-david-j-johns--6173854/support.
Mary and Andrew recognize it's been a doozy of a week. Starting with the continued fallout from the Supreme Court's Louisiana v. Callais decision, they focus on how much the 6-3 ruling has opened the floodgates for other states like Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida and Texas to pursue similar redistricting efforts. The Justices even allowed Alabama to move forward with re-drawing their congressional maps, despite prior determinations of intentional racial discrimination in the state. Mary and Andrew juxtapose this new landscape with last week's redistricting decision in Virginia, as Democrats submit an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on that ruling. In addition, a Fulton County decision came in allowing the Justice Department to hold onto the 2020 ballots seized in the FBI's January raid. Plus, the co-hosts unpack the latest from Trump's retribution efforts as James Comey's criminal trial date is set. But in an uplifting end to a rough week, the pair highlight Senator Mark Kelly's argument before the DC Circuit in his case against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over his participation in a video reminding military members of their duty not to obey unlawful orders. This podcast is also available on YouTube at ms.now/mainjustice. Further reading: Here is the Just Security piece on Senator Mark Kelly's case: Lessons from the Pentagon's Empty Case Against Mark Kelly Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Historian and New York Times bestselling author Jemar Tisby joins Mark Labberton to confront the Supreme Court's 6–3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which has eviscerated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and reopened the door to racial gerrymandering across the South. Recorded in the immediate aftermath, the conversation traces the long arc from the Three-Fifths Clause and Dred Scott through Selma to this hour. "This has landed in the black community harder and heavier than a lot of what we've seen during the Trump administration." In this episode with Mark Labberton, Tisby reflects on the history of black disenfranchisement, the cynicism of colorblind jurisprudence, and what remains of multiracial democracy in America. Together they discuss how the legal architecture of Jim Crow reemerges under neutral language, John Roberts's decades-long campaign against the Voting Rights Act, Justice Kagan's umbrella analogy, the suspension of Louisiana's primary, the black church's response, and why this midterm may be the country's last political chance. Episode Highlights "This has landed in the black community harder and heavier than a lot of what we've seen during the Trump administration, and that's saying a lot." "It boggles the mind that folks sitting on the highest court in the land who have been to all these Ivy League schools, have literally decades of experience, can get it so wrong and stand so arrogantly on such faulty reasoning." "Colorblindness only works if you're starting from a level playing field." "These are not good-faith actors, not people wanting a representative democracy, but people wanting to consolidate power, which we call minority rule." "If you can't win on the merits of what you believe, then you have to rig the system so that no one can get you out of office." About Jemar Tisby Jemar Tisby is a New York Times bestselling author, historian, speaker, and professor of history at Simmons College of Kentucky, a historically black college in Louisville. He holds a BA from the University of Notre Dame, an MDiv from Reformed Theological Seminary, and a PhD in history from the University of Mississippi, where he studied race, religion, and social movements in the twentieth century. He is the founder of The Witness, Inc., a black Christian collective, and the author of The Color of Compromise, How to Fight Racism, and The Spirit of Justice: True Stories of Faith, Race, and Resistance. His commentary appears on CNN and in The Atlantic, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, and he writes Footnotes, a top-ranked history publication on Substack. Helpful Links and Resources Jemar Tisby's website: https://jemartisby.com Footnotes by Jemar Tisby (Substack): https://jemartisby.substack.com The Spirit of Justice: True Stories of Faith, Race, and Resistance (most recent book): https://jemartisby.com/the-spirit-of-justice/ The Color of Compromise: The Truth About the American Church's Complicity in Racism (bestseller): https://www.zondervan.com/9780310113607/the-color-of-compromise/ How to Fight Racism: https://www.harpercollins.com/products/how-to-fight-racism-jemar-tisby The Justice Briefing podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/footnotes-with-dr-jemar-tisby/id1460240056 Louisiana v. Callais, opinion of the Court (April 29, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf Elie Mystal, "The Supreme Court Has Completed Its Quest to Kill the Voting Rights Act," The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-demolishes-voting-rights-act/ "Sing Out, March On"—Joshuah Campbell's tribute to John Lewis, Harvard 2018 Commencement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=mKNRXQemxWQ NAACP Legal Defense Fund—Louisiana v. Callais case page: https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/louisiana-v-callais/ Brennan Center for Justice—Louisiana v. Callais: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/louisiana-v-callais Show Notes Why this conversation now: the SCOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act last week News breaking through a group text of lawyers, organizers, clergy, nonprofit leaders "This has landed in the black community harder and heavier than a lot of what we've seen during the Trump administration." John Lewis, SNCC, and the march from Selma to Montgomery A baton hard enough to crack the skull, the hardest bone in the body "It boggles the mind that folks sitting on the highest court in the land…can get it so wrong and stand so arrogantly on such faulty reasoning." Allen Temple Baptist in Oakland—watermelons, bubbles, and jelly beans on a Sunday morning The Three-Fifths Clause and the architecture of representation Dred Scott v. Sandford—"property can't sue" Reconstruction Amendments: 13th, 14th, 15th—birthright citizenship newly under threat Jim Crow's neutral codes: poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses Voting Rights Act of 1965 as the culmination of the civil rights movement Edmund Pettus Bridge—Bloody Sunday going viral in its day LBJ signs the bill with Rosa Parks and MLK in the room Elie Mystal in The Nation: gerrymandering with plausible deniability—https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-demolishes-voting-rights-act/ Shelby County v. Holder, 2013—preclearance gutted Roberts's tautology—stop discriminating to stop discrimination "Colorblindness only works if you're starting from a level playing field." Cast and umbrella analogies for premature dismantling of civil rights remedies Plaintiff Bert Callais's January 6 ties; Louisiana's roughly one-third black population Governor Jeff Landry's emergency order suspends Louisiana's May primary mid-election "These are not good faith actors…people wanting to consolidate power, which we call minority rule." "If you can't win on the merits of what you believe, then you have to rig the system so that no one can get you out of office." The activism horizon—courts, churches, voter registration, midterm turnout, NAACP, LDF, Brennan Center The last political chance before competitive authoritarianism #VotingRightsAct #JemarTisby #LouisianaVCallais #SCOTUS #CivilRights #BlackChurch #FaithAndJustice #SelmaToMontgomery #Democracy #MarkLabberton Production Credits Conversing is produced and distributed in partnership with Comment magazine and Fuller Seminary.
The Court's latest Voting Rights Act decision, Louisiana v. Callais, narrows Section 2 in a way that could reshape redistricting, weaken majority-minority districts, and intensify the fight over how race and partisanship interact in elections. We unpack what the Court said, what it quietly overruled, and why the reasoning matters far beyond Louisiana.We walk through the statutory text, the long-running collision between the Voting Rights Act and the Court's racial gerrymandering cases, and the practical consequences for future election-law litigation. Along the way, we debate whether this is best understood as a textual decision, a constitutional avoidance move, or a major shift in how the Court treats political power and racial representation.The conversation also covers the Court's emergency procedural move after judgment, Justice Kagan's forceful dissent, and the broader question of whether the decision is likely to help one party more than the other in the short run. The result is a sharp, candid look at one of the term's most consequential rulingsKey Topics[00:00:20] - Introduction to the episode and SCOTUS Blog partnership update[00:03:06] - Brief Supreme Court news: mifepristone litigation and shadow-docket timing[00:05:20] - Louisiana v. Callais and why the case is a major Voting Rights Act decision[00:11:35] - Voting Rights Act history: Section 2, Section 5, and Shelby County[00:13:39] - The collision course between racial gerrymandering doctrine and Section 2[00:16:17] - Allen v. Milligan and how the Court shifted course[00:21:21] - Procedural background of the Louisiana map challenge[00:23:02] - Is the decision constitutional, statutory, or both?[00:24:28] - Section 2's text and the 1982 amendments[00:29:14] - The Court's reading of “less opportunity” and the role of partisanship[00:41:46] - How the majority treats Allen v. Milligan and prior precedent[00:43:06] - Constitutional avoidance and the Section 5 enforcement-power question[00:46:28] - The Court's “updated” Gingles framework and why that matters[00:52:29] - Likely effects on majority-minority districts and partisan gerrymandering[00:54:25] - Justice Kagan's dissent and the Court's broader democracy critique[00:56:04] - The post-judgment timing dispute and Justice Jackson's separate dissent[00:58:55] - Final assessment of the decision and its likely consequencesRelevant LinksRick Pildes's post on the decision: https://democracyproject.org/posts/supreme-court%E2%80%99s-gutting-of-voting-provision-was-long-time-comingTravis Crum Amicus Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-109/373625/20250903201226237_2025.09.03%20Callais%20Crum%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
Mary and Andrew begin this week by highlighting another questionable indictment of former FBI Director James Comey over a photo of seashells that he posted on Instagram. The indictment alleges that a “reasonable person” would interpret that the shells in the picture, arranged to spell out “86 47,” represent “a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.” Then, a win for Director Comey's daughter Maurene, after a federal judge cleared the path for her wrongful termination suit against the Trump administration to proceed. Next, Mary and Andrew analyze the latest filings by the Southern Poverty Law Center and why whistleblowers are flagging their concern that the recent indictment was rushed. And before wrapping up, they break down the Supreme Court's consequential ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which effectively hollows out the last remnants of the Voting Rights Act by striking down a redistricting effort that was aiming to ensure an equal opportunity for representation in the state. This podcast is also available on YouTube at ms.now/mainjustice. Further reading: Here is the SCOTUS 6-3 decision: Louisiana v. Callais Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito argued that Louisiana illegally used race to create a second Black-majority district. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote “the court's decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity.” Illinois Governor JB Pritzker called the decision “voter suppression that will silence Black and brown voters.” The NAACP called it a “devastating blow” to the Voting Rights Act. In the Loop discusses the potential local and national impact of the decision with today's panel: Stevie Valles, executive director, Chicago Votes; Karen Freeman-Wilson, president and CEO, Chicago Urban League; Chika Okafor, assistant professor of law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. For a full archive of In the Loop interviews, head over to wbez.org/intheloop.
Kimberly Atkins Stohr hosts #SistersInLaw to discuss the SCOTUS ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, looking at the history of district allocation, how it undermines the Voting Rights Act, the significance of Justice Kagan's dissent, and what it could mean for the country going forward. Then, the #Sisters explain the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, the legal definition of a true threat, and the protection the 1st Amendment affords political speech. They also review the criminal charges against the attempted presidential assassin at the White House Correspondents' Dinner and the ethics of using it as leverage for a White House ballroom.Remember to send in audio questions to SistersInLaw@politicon.com for the #Sisters to answer on their new companion podcast, SistersInLaw Sidebar! It airs Wednesdays wherever you normally get your podcasts!Get the brand new ReSIStance T-Shirt, Mini Tote, and other #SistersInLaw gear at politicon.com/merch! Additional #SistersInLaw ProjectsCheck out Jill's Politicon YouTube Show: Just The FactsCheck out Kim's Newsletter: The GavelJoyce's new book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable, is now available, and for a limited time, you have the exclusive opportunity to order a signed copy here. Barb is going on a book tour! You can also pre-order Barb's new book, The Fix. Her first book, Attack From Within, is now in paperback. Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on BlueskyGet your #SistersInLaw MERCH at politicon.com/merchWEBSITE & TRANSCRIPTEmail: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcastGet text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon. Mentioned By The #SistersPre-order Barb's new book, The Fix, and get tickets for her upcoming book tour!From Barb - What is a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in the Digital Age?From Barb - The second James Comey indictment is another DOJ embarrassmentSupport This Week's SponsorsPocket Hose: Text LAW to 64000 for your 2 free gifts with the purchase of any Pocket Hose Ballistic hose. By texting 64000, you agree to receive recurring automated marketing messages from Pocket Hose. Message frequency varies, and data rates may apply. Text STOP at any time to opt out. Text HELP for additional Information. No purchase required. Terms apply, available at http://PocketHose.com/termsOsea Malibu: Get a spring-worthy glow with 10% off your first order of clean beauty products from OSEA Malibu when you go to oseamalibu.com and use promo code: SISTERS10IQBar: Text SISTERS to 64000 to get 20% off all IQBAR products, plus FREE shipping. Messageand data rates may apply.HexClad:Find your forever cookware @hexclad and get 10% off at hexclad.com/SISTERS! #hexcladpartnerGet More From The #SistersInLawJoyce Vance: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Alabama Law | Civil Discourse Substack | MSNBC | Author of “Giving Up Is Unforgiveable”Jill Wine-Banks: Bluesky | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President | Just The Facts YouTubeKimberly Atkins Stohr: Bluesky | Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | The Gavel Newsletter | Justice By Design PodcastBarb McQuade: barbaramcquade.com | Bluesky | Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC | Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America
Sam Alito's majority opinion rewrites the Voting Rights Act to impose a race-neutral standard on a law that was explicitly and intentionally race-conscious — designed to protect Black voters from racial vote dilution and racially discriminatory gerrymandering. Legal scholar Rick Hasen of UCLA Law calls it possibly the worst Supreme Court decision in 100 years. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry has already announced he is canceling May primaries to redraw congressional maps and eliminate Black representation from the state's congressional delegation. Tennessee's Nashville district — carved up like a pizza to dilute Black and Democratic votes — is a preview of what comes next nationwide. The Voting Rights Act, last reauthorized by Congress with near-unanimous bipartisan support in 2006, no longer has teeth. Section 5 was gutted in 2013. Section 2 is gone now. What remains is a statute with no enforcement mechanism and no path to sue. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court struck down a 2024 Louisiana district map that created a second majority-Black voting district for use in future elections. In a 6-3 decision, the Court found that the Voting Rights Act did not authorize states the ability to create majority-minority voting districts. The ruling didn't overturn Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, but in the dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued that it had done so in all but deed. Leah Litman, host of Crooked Media's legal podcast Strict Scrutiny, joins the show to tell us what this means for the future of Black voters, redistricting, the midterms, and America.And in headlines, the House Armed Services Committee grills Secretary of War Pete Hegseth over his handling of the war with Iran, Jerome Powell isn't backing down in his feud with Trump, and a Japanese airport tries out baggage handling humanoid robots.Show Notes: Check out Strict Scrutiny – https://tinyurl.com/7dfbhmc5 Call Congress – 202-224-3121 Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/y4y2e9jy What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/ For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday
The MAGA 6 on the Supreme Court, just hours after dining on champagne with Trump at a state dinner, just fired the starter's pistol to the race to the bottom, as Red States scramble to remap their congressional districts to dilute black and other minority votes in the way congressional maps are drawn. Popok explains that in the new Callias decision, the MAGA 6 announce that racism and racial discrimination in voting is over (!?!), and have given permission in a 6-3 decision authored by Sam Alito to the states to eliminate black and minority congressional seats before the midterms, as Justice Kagan fires back with her poignant “cracked circle” hypothesis. Smalls: For a limited time, get 60% off your first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life, when you head to https://Smalls.com/LEGALAF. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Gay Conversion Therapy Clay Travis and Buck Sexton discuss the Supreme Court, focusing on an 8–1 ruling striking down Colorado’s ban on so‑called conversion therapy as unconstitutional. Clay and Buck sharply criticize Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who authored the lone dissent, accusing her of elevating ideology over constitutional law and confusing speech with medical conduct. They contrast her position with that of Justice Elena Kagan, whom they describe as a principled liberal jurist who nonetheless sided with the majority. The hosts argue that the decision underscores broader concerns about Biden‑era judicial appointments and long‑term consequences for constitutional jurisprudence. Get Married and Have Kids Conservative influencer Isabel Brown joins the show for an extended interview, describing her experience as a working mother, her reaction to being attacked by The View, and her belief that women are being misled by cultural and corporate messaging that prioritizes career over family at all costs. Brown argues that motherhood and marriage provide deeper fulfillment than professional status alone and pushes back on claims that women must choose between a career and children. She emphasizes that many successful women—from attorneys to entrepreneurs to government officials—balance both, and that family sacrifices are a normal and meaningful part of life. Throughout the interview, Hour 2 explores biological realities, fertility timelines, and the consequences of delayed childbearing. Clay, Buck, and Brown argue that women are often falsely reassured that having children later in life is effortless, when medical and demographic data suggest otherwise. They discuss declining fertility rates across the United States and Western nations, warning that population collapse poses long‑term economic and societal risks. Brown cites research showing that parenthood often leads to greater long‑term financial stability, increased savings, and more responsible life decisions. TX Rep. Chip Roy Congressman Chip Roy of Texas and NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman. The hour opens with market and geopolitical context, as Clay Travis and Buck Sexton note the stock market surging nearly 1,000 points amid signs that tensions with Iran are easing. They frame the rally as investor confidence that President Donald Trump’s strategy of sustained military pressure paired with diplomatic leverage is producing results without dragging the U.S. into a prolonged ground conflict. The first major interview of Hour 3 is with Congressman Chip Roy, who discusses Iran, U.S. energy security, and broader global geopolitics. Roy praises President Trump for weakening Iran’s conventional and nuclear capabilities while cautioning against a long‑term troop presence that could entangle the U.S. in another Middle East quagmire. He argues that Trump’s approach has forced adversaries and allies alike—including Europe, Russia, and China—to reassess their roles, particularly in maintaining open shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz. Roy emphasizes that the priority should remain destroying Iran’s offensive capacity while shifting responsibility to other nations to help enforce regional security. The conversation then pivots to DHS and TSA funding, with Roy sharply criticizing Senate Democrats for refusing to fully fund ICE and Border Patrol while placing TSA, the Coast Guard, and FEMA in political limbo. He explains that House Republicans sent a clear message by rejecting partial funding and insisting that all national security agencies be supported together. Roy applauds the Trump administration for temporarily stabilizing TSA operations—crediting the redeployment of ICE resources—and calls on the Senate to end its recess and finish the job. He characterizes Democratic tactics as reckless political gamesmanship that endangered travelers and frontline personnel. Historic NASA Launch An optimistic interview with NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman, ahead of the scheduled launch of Artemis II. Isaacman describes the mission as a historic milestone, sending astronauts farther and faster into deep space than ever before as a critical test before lunar landings resume later this decade. He lays out the broader vision of President Trump’s space policy: not just returning to the moon, but building a permanent lunar base, particularly near the moon’s south pole, to support long‑term exploration and prepare for eventual human missions to Mars. Isaacman explains how upcoming robotic landings, surface infrastructure development, power generation, and in‑situ resource utilization—such as harvesting water ice for fuel—will enable sustainable human presence beyond Earth. He details how breakthroughs driven by private‑sector innovation, particularly reusable rockets pioneered by SpaceX, have dramatically reduced launch costs, opening new scientific, commercial, and national‑security possibilities. The interview connects space exploration to everyday life, noting benefits ranging from global broadband access to advanced satellite imaging and defense capabilities. Isaacman estimates that a crewed mission to Mars could realistically occur within 10–20 years, once lunar operations validate the ability to produce fuel off‑world and ensure astronauts can return safely. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
