Podcast appearances and mentions of Elena Kagan

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

This Day in Legal History: Prayer in … Local Government Meetings?On this day in legal history, May 5, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Town of Greece v. Galloway, a major Establishment Clause case about prayer at local government meetings. The town of Greece, New York, opened its monthly board meetings with prayers delivered by invited clergy. For years, nearly all of those clergy were Christian, and many of the prayers used explicitly Christian language. Two residents sued, arguing that the practice aligned the town government with Christianity and made non-Christian attendees feel like outsiders in their own local government.In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the town's practice. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the Court, emphasizing the long historical tradition of legislative prayer in the United States, including Congress's own use of chaplains dating back to the Founding era. The majority reasoned that the Establishment Clause does not require legislative prayers to be stripped of sectarian references. Instead, the key question was whether the practice coerced participation, denigrated other faiths, or proselytized in a way that crossed a constitutional line.The dissent, led by Justice Elena Kagan, saw the case differently. She argued that town board meetings are not like sessions of Congress: ordinary citizens attend them to seek zoning changes, permits, and other direct government action. In that setting, she warned, repeated explicitly Christian prayers could pressure residents to participate or mark them as outsiders before officials who held power over their daily lives. The case matters because it illustrates how much Establishment Clause doctrine turns on competing ideas of history, coercion, equality, and civic belonging. Town of Greece did not end the debate over prayer in public life; it sharpened the question of when tradition becomes exclusion.The Supreme Court temporarily restored a federal rule allowing mifepristone, the abortion pill, to be prescribed through telemedicine and delivered by mail. Justice Samuel Alito issued an administrative stay that pauses a 5th Circuit order reinstating an older requirement that patients receive the drug only after an in-person clinician visit.The stay is temporary and mainly gives the justices time to consider emergency requests from mifepristone manufacturers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro. Louisiana, which brought the challenge, must respond by Thursday, and the stay is set to expire May 11 unless the Court extends it or acts more formally.The case is another front in the post-Dobbs fight over abortion access. The Supreme Court rejected an earlier challenge to mifepristone restrictions in 2024 on standing grounds, but Louisiana's new case argues that the Biden-era FDA rule expanding mail and telehealth access unlawfully interferes with the state's near-total abortion ban. Abortion-rights groups frame the challenge as political and contrary to medical evidence, while anti-abortion advocates argue that relaxed access rules remove important safety safeguards.US Supreme Court lets abortion pill mail delivery restart for now | ReutersNew Mexico is asking a state judge to declare Meta's Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp platforms a public nuisance and order $3.7 billion in abatement funding, along with major design changes aimed at protecting minors. The case follows a March jury verdict finding that Meta misrepresented the safety of its platforms for young users and awarding $375 million in damages, a verdict Meta says it will appeal.This phase of the case is being tried to Judge Bryan Biedscheid, who must decide whether Meta's platforms amount to a public nuisance under New Mexico law. If he agrees, he could order broad remedies, including age verification, changes to recommendation algorithms for minors, and limits on features such as autoplay and infinite scroll.Meta argues that New Mexico is trying to stretch public nuisance law beyond its traditional bounds. Its lawyer said the state is not alleging interference with a public right like clean air or open roads, but instead seeking sweeping regulation based on individual harms—something Meta says should be handled by legislators, not a single judge. The judge himself signaled concern that some requested remedies might be overreach, noting that he is not a regulator or legislature.New Mexico counters that Meta knowingly designed addictive platforms and failed to protect children from mental health harms and sexual exploitation. The case is significant because it could test whether public nuisance law can be used not just to seek damages from social media companies, but to force platform-level design changes.New Mexico seeks $3.7 billion, changes to Meta platforms in youth harm trial | ReutersMassachusetts' highest court sounded skeptical of Kalshi's argument that only federal commodities regulators can oversee its sports-event contracts. Kalshi says it is a federally regulated prediction market, registered with the CFTC, and that its contracts are swaps governed exclusively by federal law under Dodd-Frank.Massachusetts argues that, whatever Kalshi calls the product, users are effectively betting on sports without a state gaming license. Several justices pressed Kalshi on how its contracts differ from ordinary sports bets, with one justice noting that if someone wants to gamble on a game, Kalshi offers a way to do it.The case is part of a broader national fight over prediction markets, sports betting, and federal preemption. Kalshi recently won a favorable ruling from the 3rd Circuit in a dispute with New Jersey regulators, and the CFTC has supported Kalshi's position in Massachusetts. But the Massachusetts justices appeared concerned that accepting Kalshi's theory would sharply limit states' traditional authority over gambling unless Congress clearly said it intended that result.If the state wins, Massachusetts could become the second state after Nevada to have a court-ordered ban on Kalshi sports-event contracts. The larger issue is whether prediction markets can avoid state gambling law by framing sports wagers as federally regulated financial contracts.Massachusetts top court appears open to state ban on Kalshi sports betting | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that if the United States wants to become the world's crypto capital, France's experience with crypto kidnappings and alleged tax-data leaks should be treated as a warning. I'm not arguing against crypto tax reporting; in fact, better reporting can make tax compliance more realistic for taxpayers and enforcement more administrable for the IRS. But I argue that crypto reporting creates a different kind of privacy risk because identity-linked ownership data can become a physical safety risk, not just a financial-fraud risk.The core point is that crypto is unusually portable, irreversible, and vulnerable to coercion. If criminals learn that someone owns valuable crypto, the path from threat to transfer can be frighteningly short. That makes tax and compliance databases more dangerous than ordinary financial records if access is poorly controlled or if insiders, contractors, vendors, or hackers can expose taxpayer information.So in the piece I argue Congress should not build crypto reporting rules first and think about privacy later. If lawmakers want more reporting from exchanges, platforms, vendors, and taxpayers, they also need a crypto-specific privacy architecture: data minimization, role-based access controls, automated access logs, audits, breach notifications, and real penalties for misuse. My takeaway is that pro-crypto policy cannot just mean lower taxes, lighter regulation, and friendlier rhetoric. If the government wants crypto brought into the mainstream financial system, it also has to build rules that protect taxpayers from having compliance data turned into a criminal target list. 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

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.

Host Radell Lewis breaks down the most consequential week in American politics in 2026 on this episode of Purple Political Breakdown, the nonpartisan show built on political solutions without political bias. We open with the assassination attempt on President Trump at the White House Correspondents Dinner, where 31 year old Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance, California breached a Secret Service checkpoint at the Washington Hilton with a shotgun, a handgun, and multiple knives. We walk through the manifesto, the Caltech background, the donation history, the Karoline Leavitt shots fired in the room misinformation cycle, and how MAGA immediately weaponized the attack to push Trump's $400 million East Wing ballroom.From there we get into the Supreme Court's 6 to 3 Louisiana v. Callais ruling that Justice Kagan called all but a dead letter for Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Florida House and Senate ramming through Governor DeSantis's mid decade gerrymander to flip the state's delegation to a 24 to 4 Republican advantage, the end of the longest DHS shutdown in American history with ICE and Border Patrol still excluded from the funding bill, the Justice Department's expansion of federal execution methods to firing squads, electrocution, and gas asphyxiation, and the firing of every sitting member of the National Science Board.We cover the Iran war, the Strait of Hormuz blockade driving gas prices to $4.39 a gallon, Iran's 14 point ceasefire proposal, and the $25 billion munitions price tag. The Breakdown segment unpacks the Thales 2026 Bad Bot Report showing AI driven attacks jumping from 2 million to 25 million per day, the New York Times investigation into Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump's $1.4 billion Syrian luxury resort joint venture with the Khayyat brothers tied to the repeal of the Caesar Act, the Pew poll showing 62% of Americans disapprove of Trump's Iran handling, and the electricity gap reshaping every household budget. We close with ten reasons the world is still moving forward, from the FDA approval of Otarmeni gene therapy that restores hearing in deaf children to the first ever Earthset video captured by Artemis II.Subscribe and rate the show five stars on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Visit purplepoliticalbreakdown.com for show notes and source links.Keywords: Trump assassination attempt, White House Correspondents Dinner shooting, Cole Tomas Allen, Voting Rights Act, Louisiana v. Callais, Section 2, Florida redistricting, DeSantis gerrymander, DHS shutdown, ICE funding, Iran war, Strait of Hormuz, Operation Epic Fury, Iran ceasefire, federal death penalty, firing squad, National Science Board, Elon Musk OpenAI trial, Sam Altman, Section 232 tariffs, Trump Syria corruption, Jared Kushner, Khayyat brothers, AI bot attacks, Pew Iran poll, Otarmeni gene therapy, Earthset, midterm 2026, nonpartisan podcast, Radell Lewis.Standard Resource Links & RecommendationsThe following organizations and platforms represent valuable resources for balanced political discourse and democratic participation: PODCAST NETWORKCheck Out the Podcast Website: www.purplepoliticalbreakdown.comALIVE Podcast Network - Check out the ALIVE Network where you can catch a lot of great podcasts like my own, led by amazing Black voices. Link: https://alivepodcastnetwork.com/ CONVERSATION PLATFORMSHeadOn - A platform for contentious yet productive conversations. It's a place for hosted and unguided conversations where you can grow a following and enhance your conversations with AI features. Link: https://app.headon.ai/Living Room Conversations - Building bridges through meaningful dialogue across political divides. Link: https://livingroomconversations.org/ UNITY MOVEMENTSUs United - A movement for unity that challenges Americans to step out of their bubbles and connect across differences. Take the Unity Pledge, join monthly "30 For US" conversation calls, wear purple (the color of unity), and participate in National Unity Day every second Saturday in December. Their programs include the Sheriff Unity Network and Unity Seats at sports events, proving that shared values are stronger than our differences. Link: https://www.us-united.org/ BALANCED NEWS & INFORMATIONOtherWeb - An AI-based platform that filters news without paywalls, clickbait, or junk, helping you access diverse, unbiased content. Link: https://otherweb.com/ VOTING REFORM & DEMOCRACYEqual Vote Coalition & STAR Voting - Advocating for voting methods that ensure every vote counts equally, eliminating wasted votes and strategic voting. Link: https://www.equal.vote/starFuture is Now Coalition (FiNC) - A grassroots movement working to restore democracy through transparency, accountability, and innovative technology while empowering citizens and transforming American political discourse. Link: https://futureis.org/ POLITICAL ENGAGEMENTIndependent Center - Resources for independent political thinking and civic engagement. Link: https://www.independentcenter.org/ GET DAILY NEWSText 844-406-INFO (844-406-4636) with code "purple" to receive quick, unbiased, factual news delivered to your phone every morning via Informed (https://informed.now)Check Out the Unfuck America Tour & National Ground Game: https://www.nationalgroundgame.com/Check Out the CIVICS App to Know More About Your Politicians: https://www.civicpolitics.com ALL LINKShttps://linktr.ee/purplepoliticalbreakdownThe Purple Political Breakdown is committed to fostering productive political dialogue that transcends partisan divides. We believe in the power of conversation, balanced information, and democratic participation to build a stronger society. Our mission: "Political solutions without political bias."Subscribe, rate, and share if you believe in purple politics - where we find common ground in the middle! Also if you want to be apart of the community and the conversation make sure to Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/ptPAsZtHC9

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

The Supreme Court just struck down Louisiana's racial gerrymander in a bombshell 6-3 ruling — and Ron DeSantis had Florida's new congressional map passed within hours. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion declaring race-based redistricting unconstitutional, Clarence Thomas called the last 30 years a "disastrous misadventure," and Elena Kagan's dissent accidentally showed exactly what Democrats are terrified of. Over 20 districts across the South are now in play, and the political map of America may have just changed forever. For complete Medicare guidance, dial 580-308-0975 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to https://askchapter.org/oconnor SHOP OUR MERCH: https://store.townhallmedia.com/ BUY A LARRY MUG: https://store.townhallmedia.com/products/larry-mug Watch LARRY with Larry O'Connor LIVE — Monday-Thursday at 12PM Eastern on YouTube, Facebook, & Rumble! Find LARRY with Larry O'Connor wherever you get your podcasts! SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/7i8F7K4fqIDmqZSIHJNhMh?si=814ce2f8478944c0&nd=1&dlsi=e799ca22e81b456f APPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/larry/id1730596733 Become a Townhall VIP Member today and use promo code LARRY for 50% off: https://townhall.com/subscribe?tpcc=poddescription https://townhall.com/ https://rumble.com/c/c-5769468 https://www.facebook.com/townhallcom/ https://www.instagram.com/townhallmedia/ https://twitter.com/townhallcom Chapter: Chapter and its affiliates are not connected with or endorsed by any government entity or the federal Medicare program. Chapter Advisory, LLC represents Medicare Advantage HMO, PPO, and PFFS organizations and stand alone prescription drug plans that have a Medicare contract. Enrollment depends on the plan’s contract renewal. While we have a database of every Medicare plan nationwide and can help you to search among all plans, we have contracts with many but not all plans. As a result, we do not offer every plan available in your area. Currently we represent 50 organizations which offer 18,160 products nationwide. We search and recommend all plans, even those we don’t directly offer. You can contact a licensed Chapter agent to find out the number of products available in your specific area. Please contact Medicare.gov, 1-800-Medicare, or your local State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) to get information on all of your options.Become a Townhall VIP member with promo code "LARRY": https://townhall.com/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We found the SCOTUS leaker. My good buddy Rick Perry told me that Molly Hemingway said it was Justice Kagan. A mass shooting occurred the other day, and in ONE DAY it's out of the news cycle. A Black man killed 7 of his own children and their cousin, critically wounded the two mothers of those kids, and nothing is being said today.“What in the wide, wide world of sports is going on?” Things move fast, and when they don't fit the narrative they move so fast you don't even think you saw it.I don't blame Democrats for wanting the story of a man who became so enraged at Leftism on multiple scales, he decided to act against his nature and better judgment.What judgment?What led to this tragedy?And what's up with Tucker Carlson?[X] SB – Tucker Carlson apologizes for supporting TrumpNot intentional to mislead people. Did Tucker influence you to vote for TrumpSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hour 2 opens with Marc Cox reacting to reporting from Molly Hemingway alleging disturbing motives behind the leaked draft of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, suggesting the leak may have been intended to influence or pressure justices amid heightened political tension and threats. The discussion expands into claims about internal Supreme Court dynamics involving figures such as John Roberts, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer, along with criticism of federal response from Merrick Garland. The hour then shifts to Missouri politics, where former senator John Lamping breaks down competing House and Senate proposals on income tax elimination and potential shifts toward expanded sales taxes under Governor Mike Kehoe, highlighting the long-term economic and political implications of the legislation. Hashtags: #MollyHemingway #RoeVWade #SupremeCourt #MissouriPolitics #JohnLamping #IncomeTax #SalesTax #MikeKehoe #MarcCoxMorningShow

Mollie Hemingway's explosive new book reveals that liberal Supreme Court justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor slow-walked their Dobbs dissent while conservative justices faced assassination threats — and sources say they're doing it again right now with a Voting Rights Act ruling that could flip 14 congressional seats before the midterms. Larry calls out Chief Justice John Roberts directly for enabling the politicization of the court and letting the liberal wing run the clock on a decision that's already been made. You can join AARP’s fight against fraud at https://action.aarp.org/fraudpledge SHOP OUR MERCH: https://store.townhallmedia.com/ BUY A LARRY MUG: https://store.townhallmedia.com/products/larry-mug Watch LARRY with Larry O'Connor LIVE — Monday-Thursday at 12PM Eastern on YouTube, Facebook, & Rumble! Find LARRY with Larry O'Connor wherever you get your podcasts! SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/7i8F7K4fqIDmqZSIHJNhMh?si=814ce2f8478944c0&nd=1&dlsi=e799ca22e81b456f APPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/larry/id1730596733 Become a Townhall VIP Member today and use promo code LARRY for 50% off: https://townhall.com/subscribe?tpcc=poddescription https://townhall.com/ https://rumble.com/c/c-5769468 https://www.facebook.com/townhallcom/ https://www.instagram.com/townhallmedia/ https://twitter.com/townhallcomBecome a Townhall VIP member with promo code "LARRY": https://townhall.com/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chuck Todd surveys a dire geopolitical landscape where the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, fuel rationing has begun in many places around the globe, and the Trump administration is scrambling to extend a fragile ceasefire with Iran — sending JD Vance back to Pakistan for another round of talks, a move Chuck says signals genuine desperation to end a war that has become a generational foreign policy disaster. Heargues that Iran's control of the strait is now a greater deterrent than nuclear weapons ever were, that the Iranians know Trump is on the clock and that time is firmly on Tehran's side — meaning the best Trump can realistically hope for is a deal that looks remarkably like the Obama nuclear agreement he once shredded. Oil and stock markets appear divorced from reality while energy markets are in major distress, China's position has been strengthened enormously and Netanyahu has effectively suckered Trump into a mess that will define American foreign policy for a generation. He then unpacks a bombshell Atlantic report painting FBI Director Kash Patel as absent, unreliable, and allegedly drunk on the job — noting that just because it's a "hit piece" doesn't mean it's not true, that rank-and-file intelligence professionals don't trust the people leading their agencies, and that Patel himself believes he's about to be fired because Trump personally despises anecdotes about drinking. He closes with Virginia's redistricting referendum, which ends Tuesday and looks likely to pass, but he questions whether Democrats are making a smart investment — blowing enormous political capital and damaging Governor Abigail Spanberger's brand to pick up only two House seats, a tradeoff that may not be worth the cost. Then, Sarah Isgur — legal commentator, former DOJ spokesperson, and author of Last Branch Standing — joins the Chuck Toddcast for a comprehensive deep dive into the Supreme Court that challenges virtually everything the public thinks it knows about how the institution actually works. Isgur argues that the court's politics don't map neatly onto the current left-right spectrum, and that the court isn't really 6-3 but rather 3-3-3 — with a bloc of doctrinaire conservatives, a liberal minority, and a pragmatic center that includes Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts. She reveals that Elena Kagan plays a major behind-the-scenes role that the public rarely sees, and that over the past 20 years more than 90% of rulings have had a liberal justice in the majority (undermining the narrative of a runaway conservative court) The conversation turns to deeper structural concerns about the judiciary that Isgur argues are undermining the rule of law itself. She notes that today's justices all have eerily uniform résumés — a problem created by a system that essentially identifies future Supreme Court candidates by the time they're 18 and forces them to lead incredibly sheltered lives for both career and safety reasons — making them detached from the real world in ways that earlier, more varied courts were not. She is sharply critical of Congress for making the court the arbiter of fundamental rights, which has turned every confirmation into an existential battle — the refusal to take on issues like Roe legislatively forced them to the court, and now there's no real dialogue between the branches. They close by debating a provocative proposal: the confirmation threshold for justices should be raised to 60 or even 75 votes to force presidents to nominate consensus candidates, breaking the cycle of partisan warfare that has made the Federalist Society effectively a prerequisite for any aspiring conservative judge and turned the nomination process into something that is actively bad for both the court and the rule of law. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit America’s first war of choice: The Spanish American War. He also answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 04:00 We’re in a precious position. Strait of Hormuz closed & fuel rationing is coming 05:00 Expect some sort of extension of the current ceasefire agreement 05:45 JD Vance headed back to Pakistan for another round of talks 06:30 Sending Vance shows they’re serious about trying to end war 07:15 Trump is desperate to get out of the war 08:00 Control of Strait of Hormuz is a greater deterrent than nukes 09:00 Oil & stock markets seem divorced from reality 09:45 Energy markets are is major distress 10:45 Trump’s approval has slipped, public knows the war is going badly 11:30 Trump is talking tough, but his actions are cautious 12:30 Iranians know Trump is desperate and Iranians have serious leverage 14:00 Iranians know Trump is on the clock, and they have time on their side 14:30 China’s position has been strengthened by Iran war 15:45 U.S. is stretched too thin currently to defend Taiwan 17:00 Energy shock increases demand for clean energy, where China leads 18:15 Bibi suckered Trump into a generational foreign policy disaster 19:15 We’re likely stuck without a resolution to the war for awhile 20:15 Best Trump can hope for is redoing the Obama nuclear deal 21:30 Time is running out on the 60 day war powers resolution deadline 22:45 Trump has 5 weeks to get a deal before congress is forced to step in 23:30 Atlantic publishes story about Kash Patel being MIA & drunk 24:30 Patel denied everything, hoping for White House backup 25:30 Just because it’s a “hit piece” doesn’t mean it’s not true 26:15 People working at the FBI don’t trust the guy leading it 28:00 Atlantic paints a portrait of an FBI leader that’s completely unreliable 29:00 Patel’s ineptitude creates a national security threat to the U.S. 30:30 Rank & file intel professionals don’t trust the people in charge 31:45 Trump hates anecdotes about drinking, Patel’s days are numbered 32:30 Patel believes he’s going to be fired 34:00 Balloting for Virginia redistricting ends on Tuesday, looks like it will pass 34:30 Democrats expending political capital to only pick up two house seats 35:30 Redistricting fight has been terrible politically for Abigail Spanberger 38:00 New map will trim two very blue districts and export voters to swing districts 40:30 Blowing all this political capital for two seats doesn’t seem worth it 42:15 Livestream on Tuesday evening breaking down the results from VA 48:30 Sarah Isgur (Last Branch Standing) joins the Chuck ToddCast 50:15 The Supreme Court’s politics don’t map neatly to current left/right 51:30 Bono called Chuck a “radical centrist” 52:15 Brett Kavanaugh’s biggest regret was not getting selfie with Bono 54:00 Songs that best comment on American political culture 57:00 Incrimentalism more important than liberal/conservative 58:00 Kavanaugh & Kagan most similar to Chuck in philosophy 59:30 Kagan plays a major role on the court behind the scenes 1:00:30 The reputation of the solicitor general has changed under Trump 1:01:15 Earlier justices didn’t have the uniform resume of the current justices 1:03:00 Current justices are detached from the real world 1:04:15 Alito likely retiring this summer or next as Dems senate chances increase 1:05:15 White House is eager to get a Supreme Court opening 1:06:00 Trump may have his hands tied, Alito will want to approve successor 1:08:00 Alito will want someone like him to replace him 1:08:30 Unlikely Ted Cruz or Mike Lee will be nominated for the court 1:09:30 We’ve narrowed down who can be justices by the time candidates are 18 1:10:15 Justices have to lead an incredibly sheltered life for safety 1:12:15 The court isn’t really 6-3, it’s 3-3-3 1:14:15 Which justices are the most overtly political for their side? 1:15:30 Gorsuch had best opinion of the year on Trump’s tariffs 1:16:15 Congress has abdicated their duty, forced the court to legislate 1:17:15 There’s no dialogue between congress & court. Court gets final word 1:18:30 Congress didn’t have the guts to take on Roe, forced it to the court 1:20:15 Court has become the arbiter of rights, making confirmations existential 1:21:45 Rights of criminal defendants are compromised by an elected judiciary 1:22:45 Elections for judges create perverse incentive structures 1:24:15 Jackson & Kavanaugh share view of their role on the court 1:25:15 In past 20 years, over 90% of rulings had a liberal in the majority 1:27:00 Justice Thomas has been remarkably consistent in his rulings 1:29:00 Gorsuch consistently relies on the text and applies it 1:29:45 Thomas is a hardcore originalist 1:31:30 Chief Justice Roberts has eschewed any type of label 1:33:30 Kagan tries to keep the court out of issues unless they must intervene 1:34:45 Justices are taking fewer cases and writing more opinions than ever 1:35:45 The court speaks in too many voices now 1:37:30 Justice Alito’s favorite movie is “Being There” 1:38:45 Breyer was a 2nd backup choice for the court 1:40:30 The value of moderation vs. abstention 1:42:15 Should the confirmation threshold for justices be raised to 60 or 75? 1:45:00 Requirement to join the Federalist Society if you want to be a judge 1:46:00 Proposal for how to fix the confirmation wars 1:48:30 Current nomination process is bad for the court & rule of law 1:53:30 Court is last branch standing for now, haven’t seen result of 50 vote confirmation 1:56:30 Thoughts on Sarah Isgur’s proposal on SCOTUS confirmations 1:57:30 ToddCast Time Machine April 20th, 1898 - Spanish American War 1:59:00 U.S.S. Maine exploded in Havana harbor, conclusion was Spain did it 1:59:30 The facts didn’t lead to the conclusion, the conclusion came first 2:00:15 Hearst & Pulitzer were locked in a publishing war, competing for readers 2:01:00 William McKinley didn’t want war, but pressure kept building 2:02:00 It was a War of Choice, and the press pushed leaders into war 2:02:30 Congress demanded that Spain leave Cuba 2:03:30 U.S. begins blockage of Cuba, basically kicking off the war 2:04:15 Congress backdated their declaration of war 2:05:00 Teddy Roosevelt’s rise scared establishment Republicans 2:05:30 The war produced Roosevelt’s presidency 2:06:30 It was a war of choice, until it felt like there was no other option 2:07:00 Wars of choice never end well 2:07:30 Ask Chuck 2:07:45 As Trump’s support erodes, any chance the 25th amendment gets invoked? 2:11:30 Does Federalist 10 still hold up? Is there a case for a constitutional convention? 2:18:00 A Top 5 list of races where you think the election projections are off? 2:24:30 Did I hear a dog in the background in your Wednesday episode? 2:26:45 Can you bring on a late night host like Colbert, Oliver or Maher? 2:29:30 What can and can’t be done with the huge fundraising hauls Dems are getting? 2:36:30 Thoughts on the NBA playoffsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sarah Isgur — legal commentator, former DOJ spokesperson, and author of Last Branch Standing — joins the Chuck Toddcast for a comprehensive deep dive into the Supreme Court that challenges virtually everything the public thinks it knows about how the institution actually works. Isgur argues that the court's politics don't map neatly onto the current left-right spectrum, and that the court isn't really 6-3 but rather 3-3-3 — with a bloc of doctrinaire conservatives, a liberal minority, and a pragmatic center that includes Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts. She reveals that Elena Kagan plays a major behind-the-scenes role that the public rarely sees, and that over the past 20 years more than 90% of rulings have had a liberal justice in the majority (undermining the narrative of a runaway conservative court) The conversation turns to deeper structural concerns about the judiciary that Isgur argues are undermining the rule of law itself. She notes that today's justices all have eerily uniform résumés — a problem created by a system that essentially identifies future Supreme Court candidates by the time they're 18 and forces them to lead incredibly sheltered lives for both career and safety reasons — making them detached from the real world in ways that earlier, more varied courts were not. She is sharply critical of Congress for making the court the arbiter of fundamental rights, which has turned every confirmation into an existential battle — the refusal to take on issues like Roe legislatively forced them to the court, and now there's no real dialogue between the branches. They close by debating a provocative proposal: the confirmation threshold for justices should be raised to 60 or even 75 votes to force presidents to nominate consensus candidates, breaking the cycle of partisan warfare that has made the Federalist Society effectively a prerequisite for any aspiring conservative judge and turned the nomination process into something that is actively bad for both the court and the rule of law. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Sarah Isgur (Last Branch Standing) joins the Chuck ToddCast 01:45 The Supreme Court’s politics don’t map neatly to current left/right 03:00 Bono called Chuck a “radical centrist” 03:45 Brett Kavanaugh’s biggest regret was not getting selfie with Bono 05:30 Songs that best comment on American political culture 08:30 Incrimentalism more important than liberal/conservative 09:30 Kavanaugh & Kagan most similar to Chuck in philosophy 11:00 Kagan plays a major role on the court behind the scenes 12:00 The reputation of the solicitor general has changed under Trump 12:45 Earlier justices didn’t have the uniform resume of the current justices 14:30 Current justices are detached from the real world 15:45 Alito likely retiring this summer or next as Dems senate chances increase 16:45 White House is eager to get a Supreme Court opening 17:30 Trump may have his hands tied, Alito will want to approve successor 19:30 Alito will want someone like him to replace him 20:00 Unlikely Ted Cruz or Mike Lee will be nominated for the court 21:00 We’ve narrowed down who can be justices by the time candidates are 18 21:45 Justices have to lead an incredibly sheltered life for safety 23:45 The court isn’t really 6-3, it’s 3-3-3 25:45 Which justices are the most overtly political for their side? 27:00 Gorsuch had best opinion of the year on Trump’s tariffs 27:45 Congress has abdicated their duty, forced the court to legislate 28:45 There’s no dialogue between congress & court. Court gets final word 30:00 Congress didn’t have the guts to take on Roe, forced it to the court 31:45 Court has become the arbiter of rights, making confirmations existential 33:15 Rights of criminal defendants are compromised by an elected judiciary 34:15 Elections for judges create perverse incentive structures 35:45 Jackson & Kavanaugh share view of their role on the court 36:45 In past 20 years, over 90% of rulings had a liberal in the majority 38:30 Justice Thomas has been remarkably consistent in his rulings 40:30 Gorsuch consistently relies on the text and applies it 41:15 Thomas is a hardcore originalist 43:00 Chief Justice Roberts has eschewed any type of label 45:00 Kagan tries to keep the court out of issues unless they must intervene 46:15 Justices are taking fewer cases and writing more opinions than ever 47:15 The court speaks in too many voices now 49:00 Justice Alito’s favorite movie is “Being There” 50:15 Breyer was a 2nd backup choice for the court 52:00 The value of moderation vs. abstention 53:45 Should the confirmation threshold for justices be raised to 60 or 75? 56:30 Requirement to join the Federalist Society if you want to be a judge 57:30 Proposal for how to fix the confirmation wars 1:00:00 Current nomination process is bad for the court & rule of law 1:05:00 Court is last branch standing for now, haven’t seen result of 50 vote confirmationSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sean Spicer just dropped a bombshell: the liberal Supreme Court minority — Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan — is deliberately slow-walking the Voting Rights Act dissent so Republican states can't redistrict before the midterms. Meanwhile, Sotomayor apologized to Brett Kavanaugh for her class-warfare attack, KBJ went to Yale to trash her own court, and Clarence Thomas delivered one of the greatest speeches on the Declaration of Independence you'll ever hear. SHOP OUR MERCH: https://store.townhallmedia.com/ BUY A LARRY MUG: https://store.townhallmedia.com/products/larry-mug Watch LARRY with Larry O'Connor LIVE — Monday-Thursday at 12PM Eastern on YouTube, Facebook, & Rumble! Find LARRY with Larry O'Connor wherever you get your podcasts! SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/7i8F7K4fqIDmqZSIHJNhMh?si=814ce2f8478944c0&nd=1&dlsi=e799ca22e81b456f APPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/larry/id1730596733 Become a Townhall VIP Member today and use promo code LARRY for 50% off: https://townhall.com/subscribe?tpcc=poddescription https://townhall.com/ https://rumble.com/c/c-5769468 https://www.facebook.com/townhallcom/ https://www.instagram.com/townhallmedia/ https://twitter.com/townhallcomBecome a Townhall VIP member with promo code "LARRY": https://townhall.com/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's Friday, April 3rd, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Pakistani Christian legislator's bill would end forced conversions to Islam On March 31st, a Pakistani Christian lawmaker introduced a bill to criminalize forced religious conversions to Islam with penalties of up to five years in prison, reports Morning Star News. Falbous Christopher submitted the Punjab Protection of the Rights of Religious Minorities Bill 2026 in a renewed attempt to address a long-standing human rights challenge affecting Pakistan's religious minorities, particularly Christian and Hindu women and underage girls. No doubt his bill was inspired by stories like Maira Shahbaz, a 14-year-old Christian girl, who was abducted and forced to convert to Islam and marry a Muslim man in April 2020. Micah 6:8 urges us “to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”  Abduction of girls, forced conversion to Islam, and forced marriages are out of keeping with all three. Trump: We'll be free from Iranian wickedness and nuclear blackmail On Wednesday night, President Donald Trump addressed the nation with an update on “Operation Epic Fury,” the United States war with Iran. TRUMP: “We are on track to complete all of America's military objectives shortly. We're going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We're going to bring them back to the stone ages, where they belong. In the meantime, discussions are ongoing. “Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change. But regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders' deaths. They're all dead. The new group is less radical and much more reasonable. “Yet, if during this period of time, no deal is made, we have our eyes on key targets. If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric-generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously. We have not hit their oil, even though that's the easiest target of all, because it would not give them even a small chance of survival or rebuilding. “They have no anti-aircraft equipment. Their radar is 100% annihilated. We are unstoppable as a military force. The nuclear sites that we obliterated with the B2 Bombers have been hit so hard that it would take months to get near the nuclear dust. “We have all the cards. They have none. They were the bully of the Middle East, but they're the bully no longer. Tonight, every American can look forward to a day when we are finally free from the wickedness of Iranian aggression and the specter of nuclear blackmail.” War Secretary Hegseth quoted from imprecatory Psalms On March 25th, War Secretary Pete Hegseth quoted from the imprecatory Psalms and invoked divine wrath against the enemies of the United States during introductory remarks he made at the first monthly prayer service at the Pentagon since the outbreak of the war in Iran, reported The Christian Post. Hegseth read from a military chaplain's prayer used ahead of the January 3rd, 2026 operation to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro which he implied was equally relevant in the battle against the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Listen. HEGSETH: "Almighty God, who trains our hands for war and our fingers for battle, You who stirred the nations from the north against Babylon of old, making her land a desolation where none dwell: behold now the wicked, who rise against Your justice and the peace of the righteous. "Snap the rod of the oppressor, frustrate the wicked plans of the ungodly. By the blast of Your anger, let the evil perish. Let their bulls go down to slaughter, for their day has come; the time of their punishment. Pour out Your wrath upon those who plot vain things and blow them away like chaff before the wind." Psalm 17:13 says, “Rise up, LORD, confront them, bring them down; with your sword. Rescue me from the wicked.” Constitution expert predicts Supreme Court will affirm birthright citizenship Appearing on The Human Events podcast, Mike Davis, the founder of the Article III Project, predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court appears likely to affirm “birthright citizenship” for illegal aliens.  Listen. DAVIS: “I worry this is a 7-2 case.” JACK PROSOBIEC: “Wow!” DAVIS: “I worry that the only two justices who will have the courage to follow the law here are Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Sam Alito. I worry that the Chief Justice [John Roberts] and the three Trump justices [Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett] will join the three leftists [Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson]  who will always vote against President Trump. “The law is so crystal clear here. We the people, the sovereign citizens of America, get to decide who comes, who goes, get to decide who our fellow citizens are. We certainly did not give that away after the Civil War. “The 14th Amendment, the birthright citizenship clause, was to correct an egregious wrong with the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision that held that the freed slaves are not citizens. We fixed that with the 14th Amendment. There is a Supreme Court case that has extended that to lawful and permanent residents of the United States. “There is no way that the proponents of the 14th Amendment ever agreed to give birthright citizenship to illegal aliens!” If the Supreme Court does affirm birthright citizenship for illegal aliens it would be a major blow to both President Donald Trump's agenda and the Constitution. President Trump, first president to hear oral arguments, walked out Remarkably, President Trump heard the oral arguments in that birthright citizenship case in person, becoming the first sitting U.S. president ever to do so. At 11:20am on Wednesday, President Trump expressed his fury in a one-sentence post on Truth Social. “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow “Birthright” Citizenship!” The Western Journal reported that on the day he took office in January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing that only children born to parents “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States are citizens, quoting from the Fourteenth Amendment. NASA launches Artemis II to travel around the moon And finally, on Wednesday night at 6:35pm Eastern, NASA launched the long-awaited Artemis II mission from Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Listen. ANNOUNCER 1: “Here we go. 10-9-8-7 RS 25 engines lift 4-3-2-1. Booster ignition and lift off. The crew of Artemis II now bound for the moon. Humanity's next great voyage begins.” ANNOUNCER 2: “Good roll pitch.” ANNOUNCER 3: “Houston now controlling the flight of Integrity on the Artemis II mission around the moon.” The crew — NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, Christina Koch and Victor Glover, as well as Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen — were the first people to launch toward the moon since the Apollo 17 mission in 1972, more than 50 years ago, reported NBC News. However, they will not land on the lunar surface. Rather, the 10-day mission is designed as a step toward a landing in 2028, building a base on the moon, and eventually, toward NASA's goal of establishing a long-term presence on the moon. Living on the moon will involve inhabiting shielded, pressurized modules or underground lava tubes to protect against radiation, extreme temperatures, and toxic lunar dust. Among other issues for those who colonize the moon: How would they get power? How would they breathe? and How would they get food? Watch a live stream from the cockpit of Artemis II through a special link in our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com. Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, April 3rd, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

We're live at WashU Law's Admitted Students Day! After catching up on some shadow docket activity, we dig into Olivier v. City of Brandon, the Court's unanimous March 2026 decision by Justice Kagan. A Mississippi street preacher pleads no-contest to violating an amphitheater protest-zone ordinance, pays his $304 fine, then sues under §1983 to stop future enforcement — and the Fifth Circuit says the puzzling Heck v. Humphrey rule bars the whole thing. We work through why Heck is stranger than it first appears, what the Court got right in resolving the circuit split, and what the decision reveals about the ongoing mess at the intersection of §1983 and habeas.

From your paycheck… to the courtroom… to the Supreme Court—everything is shifting. Supporters of Donald Trump are praising “no tax on tips” as a direct win for working Americans. But in a stunning move, state lawmakers rejected tax relief—even with billions in surplus—while places like California and Michigan moved forward. At the same time, a controversial verdict in the killing of NYPD officer Jonathan Diller is fueling debate about jury decisions, public trust, and the role of jurors in the justice system. And on the nation's highest court, a sharp clash between Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan is raising deeper questions about how legal decisions are made—and what guides them. From tax policy to courtrooms to constitutional law—this episode connects the dots on a rapidly changing America.

This Day in Legal History: Coinage Act of 1792On April 2, 1792, the United States took a major step toward economic independence with the passage of the Coinage Act of 1792. This law created the first national mint, later known as the United States Mint, and established a standardized system of coinage for the young nation. Before this act, Americans relied heavily on foreign coins, including Spanish dollars, which made trade inconsistent and difficult to regulate. The law introduced the U.S. dollar as the official unit of currency and set its value based on both gold and silver, adopting a bimetallic standard. It also defined specific denominations, including cents, dimes, and eagles, many of which are still in use today.A key legal feature of the act was its detailed regulation of coin composition and weight, ensuring uniformity and public trust in the currency. The law imposed strict penalties for debasing coins, including severe criminal consequences, reflecting how seriously the government treated monetary integrity. It also placed the Mint under federal authority, reinforcing the Constitution's grant of power to Congress to coin money and regulate its value. By standardizing currency, the act helped stabilize commerce and supported the growth of a national economy.The Coinage Act also carried symbolic importance, as it marked a break from colonial dependence on European financial systems. It demonstrated the federal government's capacity to create and enforce complex economic regulations. Over time, the framework it established influenced later monetary policies and reforms. The act remains a foundational piece of American financial law, shaping how currency is produced and regulated even today.The Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments on April 1, 2026, over President Donald Trump's effort to restrict birthright citizenship, with Trump attending part of the session in person. The case centers on an executive order directing agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are not citizens or permanent residents. Several justices from both ideological wings questioned the administration's lawyer closely, signaling skepticism about the legal basis of the policy.The administration argues that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitutiondoes not guarantee citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, emphasizing the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Government lawyers claim this language excludes children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. However, multiple justices challenged that interpretation, noting that historical understanding and past precedent support a broader reading.Chief Justice John Roberts described the administration's argument as difficult to reconcile with the narrow historical exceptions previously recognized. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to legislative history suggesting lawmakers intended citizenship to apply broadly to those born in the country. Justice Elena Kagan also questioned whether the administration relied on weak or selective historical sources. Conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, raised practical concerns about how the policy would be enforced, especially regarding determining parental intent to remain in the U.S.The challengers argue that the Court already settled the issue in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to foreign parents. Some justices suggested that Trump's position may conflict with that precedent. The case could have wide-reaching consequences, potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of births each year and requiring families to prove citizenship status.The legal dispute reflects broader tensions over immigration policy and constitutional interpretation, particularly how historical meaning should be applied to modern circumstances. The Court is expected to issue a decision by late June, which could significantly reshape the understanding of citizenship in the United States.​​With Trump present, Supreme Court questions administration's lawyer on birthright citizenship | ReutersA federal judge has allowed a lawsuit by the American Bar Association to move forward against the administration of Donald Trump. The case claims the administration created an unlawful policy to target law firms based on their past legal work, diversity efforts, and political affiliations. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali found that the ABA plausibly alleged a coordinated effort to intimidate lawyers and firms whose views the government opposed.According to the ruling, the ABA provided enough detail to suggest the policy may have discouraged firms from taking cases against the administration. The organization argues this created a “chilling effect,” causing some lawyers to avoid certain clients or legal challenges out of fear of retaliation. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the policy is illegal and an order preventing its enforcement.The dispute stems from executive orders issued by Trump that targeted specific law firms by restricting their access to federal resources, revoking security clearances, and threatening government contracts tied to their clients. Several courts previously blocked those orders, finding they likely violated constitutional protections such as free speech and due process. The administration has appealed those earlier rulings.Government lawyers argued the ABA should not be allowed to sue because it was not directly targeted and therefore lacks standing. They also denied that any broader policy to intimidate firms exists and described the claims as speculative. However, the ABA pointed to statements suggesting additional firms could be targeted and argued the effects are ongoing.Judge Ali's decision does not resolve the case but allows it to proceed, meaning the courts will continue to examine whether the administration's actions unlawfully interfered with the legal profession.Trump administration must face ABA lawsuit over law firm orders, judge rules | ReutersLuigi Mangione appeared in federal court seeking to delay his upcoming trial related to the killing of a health insurance executive. Mangione is facing federal stalking charges connected to the 2024 shooting death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the trial should be postponed because he is also preparing for a separate New York state murder trial scheduled to begin earlier in the summer. They say handling two major cases at once would make it difficult for him to prepare an adequate defense.Prosecutors oppose delaying the federal trial, though they are open to adjusting parts of the pretrial process, such as juror questionnaires, to ensure fairness. Jury selection in the federal case is currently set for September, with opening statements planned for October. Mangione has been in custody since his arrest shortly after the shooting.A significant development in the case is that the federal murder charge was dismissed earlier, removing the possibility of the death penalty. The judge found that charge conflicted legally with the remaining stalking charges. Even so, Mangione could still face life in prison if convicted federally, along with a lengthy sentence in the state case.The case has drawn public attention, with some condemning the killing while others have expressed sympathy for Mangione due to broader frustrations with the U.S. healthcare system.Luigi Mangione due in court in bid to delay federal trial over CEO killing | 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

For complete Medicare guidance, dial 580-308-0975 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to https://askchapter.org/oconnor Larry O'Connor breaks down every key exchange from the birthright citizenship hearing, including Ketanji Brown Jackson's accidental admission that only women get pregnant and Elena Kagan's embarrassing dismissal of the 14th Amendment's own framers as "obscure sources." SHOP OUR MERCH: https://store.townhallmedia.com/ BUY A LARRY MUG: https://store.townhallmedia.com/products/larry-mug Watch LARRY with Larry O'Connor LIVE — Monday-Thursday at 12PM Eastern on YouTube, Facebook, & Rumble! Find LARRY with Larry O'Connor wherever you get your podcasts! SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/7i8F7K4fqIDmqZSIHJNhMh?si=814ce2f8478944c0&nd=1&dlsi=e799ca22e81b456f APPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/larry/id1730596733 Become a Townhall VIP Member today and use promo code LARRY for 50% off: https://townhall.com/subscribe?tpcc=poddescription https://townhall.com/ https://rumble.com/c/c-5769468 https://www.facebook.com/townhallcom/ https://www.instagram.com/townhallmedia/ https://twitter.com/townhallcomBecome a Townhall VIP member with promo code "LARRY": https://townhall.com/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.

It's Monday, March 16th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus 400 Christians murdered in Congo in one year Christians are being attacked, murdered, and abducted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo every week, and the violence appears to be worse than ever, reports International Christian Concern. Between July 1, 2024 and July 1, 2025, the Institute for International Religious Freedom reported that nearly 400 Christians were murdered in the African nation of Congo. And this is only a fraction of the total violence being perpetrated. Rebel militias have gained vast influence over the Christian-majority nation due to extremist Islamist ideologies, years-long civil wars, and political upheaval. According to Open Doors, Congo is the 29th most oppressive country worldwide for Christians. The persecuted Christians in Congo are no doubt praying Psalm 91 which says, “I will say of the Lord, ‘He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust.' Surely, He will save you from the fowler's snare and from the deadly pestilence. … You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day. … A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you. You will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked.” (verses 2,3,5, 7-8) Missile strikes U.S. Embassy in Iraq A missile has struck a helipad inside the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq as President Donald Trump's war on Iran heads into its third week, reports The Daily Mail. Plumes of smoke were seen above the U.S. embassy in the Iraqi capital. The missile landed within the embassy's boundaries. Pentagon sending assault ship & 2,500 Marines toward Iran The Pentagon is deploying the U.S.S. Tripoli and 2,500 Marines to the Middle East after President Trump vowed Friday to unleash “unparalleled firepower,” reports the New York Post. On Friday morning, War Secretary Pete Hegseth gave this overview. HEGSETH: “With every passing hour, we know, and we know they know, that the military capabilities of their evil regime are crumbling. They can barely communicate, let alone coordinate. They're confused, and we know it.  Our response? We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies.” Iran's blocking Strait of Hormuz leading to global oil price spike The deployment of the amphibious assault ship comes as the American military admits it's currently unable to break Iranian influence over the vital Strait of Hormuz as global oil prices spike.  The Strait of Hormuz is located between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It provides the only sea passage from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean and is one of the world's most strategically important choke points. The expected two-week voyage from East Asia matches Energy Secretary Chris Wright's prediction of reopening the crucial waterway “by the end of the month.” Secretary Hegseth was perturbed by a CNN report that Iran's stranglehold of the Strait of Hormuz was a surprise. HEGSETH: “More fake news from CNN. Reports that the ‘Trump administration underestimated the Iran war's impact on the Strait of Hormuz.' “Patently ridiculous, of course! For decades, Iran has threatened shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. This is always what they do: Hold the Strait hostage. CNN doesn't think we thought of that. It's a fundamentally unserious report.” Idaho House urges Supreme Court to invalidate homosexual “marriage” The Idaho House of Representatives has voted to reject the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges and urged the justices to reconsider the decision legalizing homosexual marriage nationwide, reports the Herzog Foundation. Lawmakers approved House Joint Memorial 17 last Tuesday in a 44-26 vote. All Democrats voted against the measure, and a small number of Republicans joined them. The resolution now heads to the Idaho Senate. The memorial states the Legislature “rejects the Obergefell decision” and “calls upon the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse Obergefell and restore the natural definition of marriage.” Supporters say the 2015 ruling overrode the authority of states and ignored the will of voters who had already defined marriage in state law. The resolution says Obergefell “is at odds with the Constitution of the United States and the principles upon which the United States is established.” It also says the ruling “arbitrarily and unjustly” cast aside the historic understanding of marriage, which “has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman for more than 2,000 years.” Idaho Republican State Rep. Tony Wisniewski sponsored the memorial. He said supporters oppose “the debasing of the term of marriage to that of something that is abhorrent to many of us.” The memorial also points to Idaho voters' earlier decision on the issue. In 2006, 63% of voters approved Amendment 2, which added language to the state Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Supporters argue the Supreme Court brushed aside that vote when it issued the Obergefell ruling. The resolution also states the decision “may have been illegitimately adjudicated” because two justices in the majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, had previously officiated homosexual weddings and did not recuse themselves. The memorial now moves to the Idaho Senate. The governor does not play a role because joint memorials do not require a signature. “Educated for Liberty” film urges Christian parents to wake up And finally, the rise of government-controlled schools and secular education has produced a decline of moral and academic excellence, which has led to a loss of liberty, reports The Providence Foundation. Schools have become progressively dangerous. Some of the most negative influences that young Americans can face today are found in public schools. Exposure to drugs, assault, rape, and murder are becoming more and more common. Radical transgender and homosexual ideology is promoted in classrooms, and reinforced by biological males having access to girls' restrooms and being allowed to compete in girls' sports. Well, there's a new Christian documentary out entitled Educated for Liberty. It urges Christian parents to pull their kids out of public schools and homeschool them or place them in private Christian schools instead. DAVID BARTON: “If you can't think biblically, then what you have is a bunch of secular-thinking people who attend church which will never change a community in the right direction.” RHONDA THOMAS: “We're not, as a church, raising up parents that understand their responsibility in the education of their children.” CAROL SWAIN: “Sunday School is fine. It's good. Vacation Bible School: Fine and good, but it's not enough.” CAROLE ADAMS: “Education is discipleship -- one way or another. Discipling our children in a secularized society, or it's discipling them to Christ.” CASEY GORDON: “How could you possibly segregate the concept of education from the duty and responsibility of the Christian faith, and that they should be trained in the Christian faith and in a Christian way?” ALEX NEWMAN: “For hundreds of years in this country, the Bible was the essential book. It was the foundation of everything. And yet, here we are where it's actually controversial that we should have the Bible in education. It's truly astounding.” MRS. SAM SORBO: “Give your children the Bible, and you give them an understanding of God, which is education. Then the world will become clear to them, and they'll be world changers.” Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Watch the film, Educated for Liberty, for free through a special link in our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com. Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, March 16th, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Justice Kagan has more words about the emergency docket, aka shadow docket. This one is about the 9th Circuit panel injunction of California's law requiring school officials not to share with parents when their children present as trans. The Supreme Court keeps the injunction in effect.And on the fee award front, big firms don't automatically get a lodestar boost.Plus, a debrief from oral argument in the Scientology AI sanctions case—where the court said nothing about the sanctions at all.The shadow docket is now a routine appellate strategy: Mirabelli v. Bonta saw the U.S. Supreme Court reverse a Ninth Circuit stay on an emergency application, reinstating an injunction protecting parental notification rights on substantive due process grounds—despite the majority's stated skepticism of such claims post-Dobbs. Justice Kagan's dissent warned that the Court is bypassing the normal appellate process and deciding cases before en banc review, signaling a procedural shift practitioners are already exploiting.AI cover-ups carry career-ending stakes: In Kjoller v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court ordered a referee investigation after a prosecutor fabricated eight case citations, then called it "scrivener's error." The lesson is blunt—own the mistake immediately, or face bar referrals and public sanctions modeled on U.S. v. Hayes, where notice went to every judge in the district and every state bar where the attorney held a license.Firm size doesn't cap your fees: In LA International Corp. v. Prestige Brands, the Ninth Circuit vacated a fee award that discounted rates for a four-lawyer firm, holding that "brilliance at the bar is not measured by the number of associates a lawyer commands." Skill, experience, and reputation control the lodestar—not letterhead.Oral argument silence in the Scientology AI case: Despite an Order to Show Cause for sanctions over AI-generated citations, the Second District panel never raised the issue during argument, focusing only on anti-SLAPP merits while the sanctioned attorney sat in the gallery with separate counsel at the podium.Legislative response is coming: A California Senate bill imposing heightened duties of care for AI use by attorneys is advancing with no opposition, suggesting statutory guardrails are imminent.

For decades, Americans viewed the Supreme Court as an impartial referee standing above the political fray. However, public trust in this vital institution has recently plummeted to historic lows. Many observers blame a surge in ideological rulings that align with the party of the President who appointed each justice. If the referee is suddenly wearing a team jersey, the fundamental systems of democracy and capitalism begin to break down. Georgetown University Law Professor Steve Vladeck joins Luigi and Bethany to argue that the real culprit isn't just partisan justices, but a complete abdication of responsibility by Congress. Rather than viewing judicial reform as a zero-sum game of packing the court, he proposes that lawmakers must reclaim their constitutional authority to check judicial overreach. He explains how special interest groups have successfully manipulated this power vacuum to reshape American regulations. This perspective completely reframes the crisis from a partisan dispute into a structural collapse of institutional power. This episode explores the hidden mechanisms that allow unaccountable judges to unilaterally rewrite the rules of our economic system, why decades of political complacency allowed this shift and what actionable steps can actually fix it. Vladeck answers whether the business community will ultimately regret enabling a system that erodes the reliable rule of law and why saving our markets may require Congress to finally stand up and do its job. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Send a textThis episode breaks down excerpts from a Supreme Court oral argument about whether federal law 18 USC 922(g)(3) can categorically bar “unlawful” marijuana users from Second Amendment rights under the Bruin historical-tradition test and in light of Rahimi's dangerousness focus. It highlights Justice Gorsuch questioning whether “habitual user” is defined too loosely compared to historical “habitual drunkard” laws, and similar concerns from Justices Sotomayor and Barrett about whether scheduling decisions reflect individualized dangerousness. Justice Thomas presses distinctions between marijuana and other drugs (including anabolic steroids) and notes the DEA's ongoing rescheduling process, while Justice Alito emphasizes the founders' lack of experience with modern drugs. Justice Kagan poses an ayahuasca hypothetical, and the host predicts a likely 6–3 or 7–2 outcome against the government's position, with a decision expected by late June.Shout out to this channel, here's the whole thing: https://youtu.be/iMow-Yt1sJo?si=JU1zmjqVxBAgOk_l00:00 Supreme Court Preview00:34 Gorsuch Questions Habitual Use02:14 Founding Era Context03:57 Sotomayor Ambien Analogy05:08 Thomas on Illegality07:24 Alito History Problem09:01 Kavanaugh Mens Rea12:13 Gorsuch Rescheduling Pushback16:19 Barrett Demands Dangerousness23:15 Jackson on Bruin Limits25:25 Kagan Ayahuasca Hypothetical29:02 Predicted Vote Count30:22 Wrap Up and SponsorSupport the showGet our newsletter: https://bit.ly/3VEn9vu

I never thought I'd be covering court battles like this, but here I am, glued to the latest twists in the legal wars swirling around President Donald Trump. Just yesterday, on March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court heard arguments in United States v. Hemani, where the Trump administration is defending a federal law banning illegal drug users from owning guns. Justice Elena Kagan grilled lawyers with hypotheticals about ayahuasca ceremonies, and even Justice Amy Coney Barrett admitted she'd never heard of the drug, asking if it was real. The justices seemed skeptical of challenges to the law's constitutionality, drawing parallels to everyday drug use to test the limits of Second Amendment rights, as reported in SCOTUSblog's live coverage.But that's just one front. Trump's unilateral military strike on Iran has sparked a firestorm over war powers. The New York Times' Charlie Savage detailed how accusations are flying that Trump violated the Constitution by launching the operation without congressional approval. It's reignited the age-old debate on who controls America's war machine—presidents have done it before, but critics say this crosses a line, paving the way for broader Supreme Court scrutiny.Over in the D.C. Circuit, things got wild with those executive orders targeting law firms like Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey. Trump hit them hard—terminating government contracts, yanking security clearances, barring access to federal buildings—because they represented his opponents, worked on voting rights, or challenged his 2020 election efforts. District judges, including Beryl Howell, called it chilling, a First Amendment nightmare that could scare lawyers from tough cases. The Justice Department stunned everyone by moving to dismiss the appeals on Monday, a huge win for the firms and the rule of law. But Tuesday, they flipped, filing to revive the fights without explanation. Democracy Docket reports the firms fired back, urging the court to reject the about-face. Pro-democracy watchers are alarmed—this isn't just about contracts; it's whether a president can weaponize government against his legal foes.Meanwhile, the Federal Circuit shot down the Trump team's plea to delay a tariff refund case by up to four months. After the Supreme Court's February 20 ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't let presidents slap on tariffs willy-nilly, Trump vented on social media about rehearing it. Bloomberg's Zoe Tillman notes the administration argued complexity demands caution, but companies are pushing back, saying delays hurt. Trump responded by imposing 10 percent tariffs on all countries starting February 24 using other laws, per Holland & Knight analysis.Down in New York, a federal court in the Southern District smacked down Trump's bid to kill the city's Congestion Pricing program. Earthjustice, representing Riders Alliance and Sierra Club alongside the MTA, won summary judgment. U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman ruled Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy couldn't override the democratic process that approved the tolls, which have cleaned the air, sped up streets, boosted transit, and added millions to the economy despite Trump's "disaster" label.And that's not all—Lawfare's tracker logs 298 active cases challenging Trump actions, from national security to the Alien Enemies Act deportations. State courts are buzzing too, with oral arguments on ghost guns and DOJ voter data grabs. Whew, listeners, these past few days have been a legal whirlwind, testing the courts like never before.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching court battles unfold like a high-stakes thriller, but here we are in late February 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal showdowns have dominated the headlines for days. It started heating up last Friday, February 20th, when the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., dropped a bombshell in the consolidated cases of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. By a 6-3 vote, Chief Justice John Roberts announced the judgment, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA from 1977, does not authorize the president to impose those sweeping tariffs Trump had slapped on imports from Canada, Mexico, and dozens of other countries. Trump had declared national emergencies over drug trafficking and massive trade deficits, calling them unusual and extraordinary threats, then hit Canada with a 25% duty on most goods to combat fentanyl flows. But the justices, including Trump's own appointees like Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett in the majority on key parts, said no—the law lets the president investigate, block, regulate, or prohibit imports during emergencies, but not straight-up tariffs. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts fully, while Brett Kavanaugh dissented, arguing IEEPA's text and history gave Trump broad power, especially under the major questions doctrine for foreign affairs.The ruling, covered everywhere from SCOTUSblog to The New York Times and Fox News, was a huge check on executive power. Vox called it a Republican court reining in Trump, while The Guardian labeled it the end of his one-man tariff war. Trump didn't take it lying down. That same day, February 20th, he spoke to a packed crowd, as captured in the CNBC Television video, ripping into the justices: "I'm ashamed of certain members of the court... they're a disgrace to our nation, very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution." He accused them of being swayed by foreign interests and even his own picks of lacking loyalty, though he praised Justice Kavanaugh's "genius." Axios reported him calling the court an embarrassment, and Politico noted his fierce pushback with vows for new levies.By Tuesday's State of the Union, Trump dialed it back, calling the decision disappointing but complying—no defiance, as senior writer Ankush Khardori pointed out in Politico Magazine. He signed an order for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, set to kick in days later for up to 150 days or longer, plus Section 301 probes into unfair practices. Meanwhile, just yesterday on Thursday, February 26th, SCOTUSblog reported the Trump administration, via U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, petitioned the Supreme Court again. This time, it's over Temporary Protected Status for Syrian nationals. A federal judge in New York had blocked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's move to end the program, which lets Syrians stay and work here amid their country's chaos. Sauer called it an easier case than recent Venezuelan TPS wins, urging the justices to stay the ruling by March 5th, arguing courts can't second-guess national security calls or consultation requirements.These past few days have been a whirlwind of executive power tests—from tariffs crashing down to immigration fights heating up. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker shows dozens more cases bubbling, but this week's rulings remind us the courts are holding the line.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court hand President Donald Trump a gut punch on live tariffs, but here we are, listeners, just days after their bombshell ruling on Friday, February 20, 2026. Picture this: I'm in my living room in Washington, D.C., coffee in hand, when the news breaks from SCOTUSblog and The New York Times—Justices Strike Down Trump's Tariffs. In the consolidated cases Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, a 6-3 majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president the green light to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies.Trump had declared emergencies over drug trafficking from Canada and massive trade deficits, hitting Canadian goods with 25% duties and more worldwide. But Roberts' opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said IEEPA lets the president regulate, block, or prohibit imports—not tax them with tariffs. The Court vacated one lower court ruling and affirmed another from the Federal Circuit, sending shockwaves through Wall Street and the heartland. Even among conservatives, there was drama: Justice Neil Gorsuch and Barrett concurred but split on details, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, arguing IEEPA's text and history backed Trump's power, and slamming the majority for ignoring the major questions doctrine in foreign affairs.By evening, Trump stormed to the podium outside the White House, as captured in that fiery CNBC Television clip. "I'm absolutely ashamed of certain members of the court," he thundered, calling some justices "disloyal to the Constitution" and "unpatriotic," swayed by "foreign interests." He ripped his own appointees—praising Kavanaugh's "genius" but blasting others as an "embarrassment to their families." No backing down, though. Trump vowed revenge, signing an executive order that very day titled "Ending Certain Tariff Actions," but pivoting to new weapons: a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, set to kick in within days for up to 150 days or longer. He teased Section 301 investigations for unfair practices by China and others, plus fresh Section 232 probes on steel, aluminum, cars, copper—you name it.Fast-forward to Tuesday, February 24, in his State of the Union address, as ABC World News Tonight reported, Trump doubled down, framing the ruling as a bump in his America First road. Politico and Axios chronicled the fallout: lawmakers from both parties reacted, businesses cheered lower costs, but Trump's base roared approval online. The Washington Times noted his promise of "other authorities" to fight back, while Fox News called it a "major test of executive branch powers." Even The Guardian dubbed it the end of Trump's "one-man tariff war."Here I am on February 25, still buzzing. This isn't just legalese—it's a clash reshaping trade, presidential power, and maybe the Court itself. Will new tariffs survive in the D.C. Circuit or Federal Circuit? Trump's already hinting at years of fights. Clark Hill and DLA Piper analysts say uncertainty reigns, but Trump's playbook is thick.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Sarah Isgur and David French record live at Florida State University and further examine the Supreme Court's major tariff decision, examining Justice Kagan's consistency argument, debating the Major Questions Doctrine with Justice Gorsuch's concurrence, and analyzing Justice Kavanaugh's dissent on executive power in foreign affairs. The Agenda–Analyzing Kagan's argument–Deep dive into statutory interpretation approaches–Footnote battles (fun!) and methodological disagreements–Executive power and Kavanaugh's track record–Special deference in foreign policy context–Balance of payments vs. trade deficits–Should justices attend Trump's State of the Union address after his attacks? Show Notes:–Emergency AO following Tariffs decision–Fifth Circuit 10 Commandments Case–The Insignificance of Judicial Opinions Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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-trumpKouri Richins Warranthttps://www.scribd.com/document/654496602/Kouri-Richins-WarrantContempt for Musk clouds jury selection in Twitter takeover trialhttps://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.pdfLearning Resources, Inc. v. Trump [tariffs case]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdfCongressional Research Service, “Congressional and Presidential Authority to Impose Import Tariffs”https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48435/R48435.1.pdfElena Kagan “Antonin Scalia Lecture Series,” Harvard Law School (2015) [via YouTube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpEtszFT0TgShow Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

I never thought I'd be standing in the shadow of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on a crisp February morning in 2026, feeling the weight of a decision that just reshaped presidential power. But here we are, listeners, just two days ago on Friday, February 20, the nine justices handed down a bombshell in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and the consolidated case V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump. By a 6-3 vote, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion striking down the sweeping tariffs President Donald Trump imposed through executive orders, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president authority to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies like drug trafficking from Canada or massive trade deficits.Picture this: Trump had declared these threats "unusual and extraordinary," hitting Canadian goods with a 25% duty and broader tariffs on everything from electronics to steel, all under IEEPA's vague language about regulating importation. But Roberts, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said no way. The Court applied the major questions doctrine, arguing Congress never clearly delegated such huge economic power to the executive branch. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the Democratic appointees, signed on to parts rejecting the tariffs outright, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, insisting IEEPA's text, history, and precedents backed Trump all the way, calling it a "straightforward case" for presidential authority in foreign affairs.The ruling came fast—arguments were back in November 2025 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Federal Circuit—and it vacated lower court judgments, remanding one with instructions to dismiss. Importers like Learning Resources, Inc., who challenged the tariffs on toys and educational materials, celebrated outside the marble steps, while businesses nationwide breathed easier, spared from billions in extra costs.That same evening, President Trump took the stage in the White House Rose Garden, crowd roaring behind him, and unloaded. According to CNBC's live coverage, he called the decision "deeply disappointing," slamming certain justices as "ashamed," "unpatriotic," and "disloyal to our Constitution," hinting they were swayed by "foreign interests and a small political movement." He praised Justice Kavanaugh's "genius" dissent and his own appointee Justice Alito, but vowed to fight on. Trump announced he'd sign an executive order that day for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, effective in days, plus Section 301 investigations into unfair practices by countries like China. "We'll end up being in court for the next five years," he shrugged, but insisted America wouldn't lose.Across the country, reactions poured in. California Governor Gavin Newsom demanded immediate refund checks for Americans hit by the now-invalid tariffs, calling them "illegal" in a Sacramento presser. Legal experts at Holland & Knight law firm noted importers could now seek reimbursements, while SCOTUSblog broke it down: Roberts dissected IEEPA's two little words—"regulate... importation"—ruling they don't stretch to outright tariffs, a tool historically for Congress.As I wrap up this whirlwind from the past few days, it's clear this Supreme Court showdown isn't just about trade—it's a defining line on executive power, echoing Trump's past battles like Trump v. Vance in 2020, where the Court said no absolute immunity from state subpoenas. With Trump's three appointees—Gorsuch in 2017, Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett in 2020—shifting the bench to a 6-3 conservative tilt, yet ruling against him here, the tensions are electric.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Sarah Isgur and David French are hosted by the Rockefeller Center for Public Policy and Social Sciences at Dartmouth to discuss the United States at 250 and where the Supreme Court stands today.Pre-order Sarah's book: Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme CourtThe Agenda:—The Swing Justice era of the court is the exception—Thank you Justice Kagan for free tampons—Legal societies: students vs. professors—Fringe theories and Unitary Executive Power—Trigger words for David French: "coequal branches of government"—Laws of war and Greenland—Process girl in an outcome world—Audience questions Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Andrew Walworth, Tom Bevan and Phil Wegmann discuss today's March For Life in Washington, DC and the role the right to life movement may play in the 2026 midterms. And, they also discuss Vice President JD Vance's speech yesterday in Minneapolis calling for cooperation between federal and state authorities on ICE enforcement. Next, they talk about President Donald Trump's decision to sue JP Morgan and its CEO Jamie Dimon for five billion dollars, accusing the bank of dropping him as a client due to social and political pressure after the January 6th attack on the U.S. capitol. Also, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan yesterday gave California Democrats one week to respond to the GOP's claim that Democratically drawn redistricting in California is unconstitutional. Then, they discuss NewsNation host Chris Cumo's video attack on CNN commentator Scott Jennings for using the term “illegal aliens.” Then finally, they chat about Don Lemon who won't be charged for his involvement in disrupting church services last Sunday in Minnesota, and of course - the guys have their “You Cannot Be Serious” stories of the week. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Legal History: Roe v. WadeOn January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, fundamentally reshaping American constitutional law and reproductive rights. In a 7–2 ruling, the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a person's right to privacy, which includes the right to choose to have an abortion. The case arose after a Texas woman, known under the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” challenged state laws that criminalized abortion except to save the life of the mother. Writing for the majority, Justice Harry Blackmun articulated a constitutional framework that balanced the state's interest in regulating abortions with an individual's right to privacy.The Court introduced a trimester system, giving states greater regulatory power as pregnancy progressed but prohibiting outright bans on abortion in the first trimester. This decision effectively invalidated abortion restrictions in dozens of states and became one of the most politically and legally contentious rulings in American history. Roe expanded the constitutional interpretation of the right to privacy, which had been previously recognized in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, but its grounding in substantive due process quickly became a lightning rod for critics.Opponents of the ruling argued that the Constitution did not explicitly guarantee a right to abortion, while supporters saw it as a critical protection of bodily autonomy and gender equality. Over the next five decades, Roe faced continual challenges and legislative efforts aimed at narrowing its scope. Ultimately, in 2022, the Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, returning authority to regulate abortion back to individual states and ending federal constitutional protection for abortion rights. The legacy of Roe v. Wade continues to shape legal discourse, political identity, and reproductive healthcare policy in the United States.A federal appeals court has lifted a temporary order that had limited immigration agents from using tear gas and force against peaceful protesters in Minneapolis, a city currently at the center of a legal and political clash over immigration enforcement. The lower court's injunction—issued by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez—had aimed to protect demonstrators as they protested President Trump's mass deployment of ICE and Border Patrol agents throughout the area. The Biden-era precedent of restrained enforcement has been upended by Trump's aggressive tactics, which now include militarized agents patrolling streets and confronting U.S. citizens, particularly people of color, demanding identification and sometimes using force.The protests intensified after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, an American citizen monitoring ICE activities. In response to mounting legal challenges, including a suit from the Minnesota state government and its largest cities, the Trump administration has doubled down. Not only did the Department of Homeland Security appeal the injunction, but the Justice Department has also launched a criminal investigation into Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, accusing them of obstructing federal law enforcement.The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of the injunction while it considers a longer-term ruling, effectively allowing ICE to resume more aggressive tactics in the meantime. Critics, including Walz and Frey, warn that the Trump administration is intentionally provoking unrest to justify escalated federal intervention. The administration defends its actions as necessary to combat fraud, particularly among Minnesota's Somali community, which Trump has disparaged in stark terms. The legal and political standoff continues, with lawsuits and investigations adding to the tension.US appeals court lifts order curbing immigration agents' tactics against Minnesota protesters | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court appeared reluctant to endorse President Trump's unprecedented attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, signaling concern over the potential threat to the central bank's independence. During oral arguments, justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had the authority to remove Cook without due process, especially given the lack of precedent and the vague legal standard for removing Fed officials “for cause.”The administration cited unproven mortgage fraud allegations—claims Cook denies—as grounds for dismissal. However, several justices, including conservatives like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, expressed concern that firing a Fed governor without a hearing or judicial review could set a dangerous precedent and politicize the central bank. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether minor or disputed past conduct could justify removal without any formal process.Cook argued the allegations were merely a pretext for her removal over policy disagreements, particularly her resistance to Trump's pressure to cut interest rates. The Court's skepticism reflects unease about weakening safeguards designed to insulate the Fed from political interference. District Judge Jia Cobb previously blocked Cook's removal, citing due process concerns and insufficient legal cause.A decision from the Court is expected by June. If the justices rule in Cook's favor or remand the case for further proceedings, it could reinforce limits on presidential power over independent agencies.US Supreme Court appears reluctant to let Trump fire Fed's Lisa Cook | ReutersThe Trump administration has launched a new immigration enforcement campaign in Maine, dubbed “Operation Catch of the Day,” with a focus on targeting criminal offenders—though internal sources indicate the true emphasis is on refugee populations, especially Somalis. Over 100 federal immigration agents have been deployed to the state, intensifying fears in immigrant communities and sparking political backlash.Maine Governor Janet Mills, a Democrat currently running for a U.S. Senate seat, criticized the operation as unwelcome and politically motivated. This mirrors broader national trends, with Trump having already surged thousands of agents into other Democratic-led areas, such as Minnesota, where tensions recently escalated after ICE officers fatally shot a U.S. citizen. In Lewiston, Maine's second-largest city and home to a longstanding Somali refugee community, the mayor condemned ICE's tactics as inhumane and fear-driven.Despite Trump's framing of the effort as a crackdown on criminality, many targeted individuals have no criminal records. Critics argue the campaign serves more as political theater than public safety. Meanwhile, public support for such operations has eroded, especially as aggressive enforcement methods—including tear gas and raids—become more visible. DHS has defended its actions and criticized local leaders like Mills for not fully cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.Trump administration starts immigration operation in Maine | ReutersIn my latest piece for Forbes, I examine the absurdity of President Trump's renewed push to acquire Greenland—this time by threatening tariffs on countries that don't support the plan. Far from making foreign governments pay, these tariffs would, once again, function as a consumption tax on Americans. Drawing from the Kiel Institute's data, I show that during the 2025 “Liberation Day” tariff campaign, 96% of the costs fell on U.S. importers and consumers, not foreign exporters. This new Greenland-linked tariff threat follows the same script, only now it's not even pretending to protect American industry—it's economic coercion for a geopolitical fantasy.I describe how tariffs, sold as leverage, collapse trade volumes without lowering foreign prices. Countries like Brazil and India didn't budge on pricing; they just shipped elsewhere. Meanwhile, Americans paid more for less. I also highlight how small businesses and low-income households feel the pain first, as import costs ripple through the economy, raising prices on both foreign and domestic goods. Despite the $200 billion in customs revenue collected, it amounts to a regressive tax—not a clever policy move.The deeper issue, as I argue, is the unchecked executive power to unilaterally impose tariffs. Current law enables the president to take sweeping trade actions with little oversight, and we're now seeing that power used not for national defense or economic stability, but to punish allies for not acquiescing to a real estate deal. I call on Congress to reclaim its constitutional role in trade policy and set clear limits on executive authority in this arena. Otherwise, we're left with a precedent where tariffs become tools of vanity projects—not national strategy.Tariffs For Greenland—Or, ‘I'll Hold My Breath Until You Turn Blue' This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Cheat Sheet is The Murder Sheet's segment breaking down weekly news and updates in some of the murder cases we cover. In this episode, we'll talk about cases from Florida, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.CNN's reporting on the murders of Christine Banfield and Joseph Ryan, allegedly by Juliana Peres Magalhães and and Brendan Banfield: https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/14/us/brendan-banfield-trial-testimonyWTRF's reporting on the shooting death of Mary Lynn Noll and the arrest of Jarrod Noll: https://www.wtrf.com/top-stories/mother-killed-father-injured-in-pennsylvania-shooting-suspect-arrested-in-west-virginia/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WTRF_7NewsWTAE reporting on the shooting death of Mary Lynn Noll and the arrest of Jarrod Noll: https://www.wtae.com/article/pa-state-police-isolated-shooting-incident-greene-county/69869719The Supreme Court of the United State's decision on the case of William Case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-624_b07d.pdfSCOTUSBlog's report on the case of William Case: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/court-finds-police-properly-entered-mans-home-despite-absence-of-a-warrant/Local 10 News's report on the case of Jose Leonardo Chacon Martinez: https://www.local10.com/news/local/2026/01/15/trivial-spat-over-shoe-authenticity-immigration-history-led-to-midtown-miami-murder-attempt-cops/Find discounts for Murder Sheet listeners here: https://murdersheetpodcast.com/discountsCheck out our upcoming book events and get links to buy tickets here: https://murdersheetpodcast.com/eventsOrder our book on Delphi here: https://bookshop.org/p/books/shadow-of-the-bridge-the-delphi-murders-and-the-dark-side-of-the-american-heartland-aine-cain/21866881?ean=9781639369232Or here: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Shadow-of-the-Bridge/Aine-Cain/9781639369232Or here: https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Bridge-Murders-American-Heartland/dp/1639369236Join our Patreon here! https://www.patreon.com/c/murdersheetSupport The Murder Sheet by buying a t-shirt here: https://www.murdersheetshop.com/Check out more inclusive sizing and t-shirt and merchandising options here: https://themurdersheet.dashery.com/Send tips to murdersheet@gmail.com.The Murder Sheet is a production of Mystery Sheet LLC.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hey there, listeners, buckle up because the Supreme Court's shadow docket has been on fire these past few days, handing President Donald Trump and his administration a string of high-stakes wins in battles over everything from the National Guard to passports and federal spending. Just eight days ago, on December 23, 2025, the Court ruled in Trump v. Illinois, siding against the administration's bid to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Illinois without state consent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence, while Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing the move was essential for national security amid rising unrest in Chicago. The Brennan Center's Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker notes this as one of only five losses for the administration since January, out of 25 emergency decisions, with most favoring Trump at least partially and often with minimal explanation.But don't let that one setback fool you—the Court has been overwhelmingly pro-administration lately. On November 6, the justices greenlit the State Department's policy refusing passports that reflect transgender applicants' gender identity for a certified class of plaintiffs, overruling lower courts in a terse order. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented sharply, warning it tramples civil rights. This fits a pattern: back on October 3 in Noem v. National TPS Alliance, the Court forced the government to release congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds, with Justice Kagan's dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, blasting it as executive overreach. Earlier, September 22's Trump v. Slaughter let the administration dodge discovery demands from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington over DOGE Service materials under the Freedom of Information Act.Rewind a bit further into this whirlwind year, and the shadow docket explodes with immigration clashes. In Noem v. Doe on May 30, the Court allowed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to revoke parole en masse for half a million noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, skipping individual reviews—Justice Jackson dissented alongside Sotomayor. April's Trump v. J.G.G. permitted deportations of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, despite dissents from Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and even partial pushback from Amy Coney Barrett. A.A.R.P. v. Trump on April 19 blocked removals of Venezuelan nationals, a rare check, with Kavanaugh concurring and Alito dissenting.Civil service purges? Check: McMahon v. New York on July 14 okayed firing Department of Education employees, while Trump v. Boyle upheld Trump's power to boot Consumer Product Safety Commission members without cause. Even LGBTQ+ rights took hits, like United States v. Shilling in May letting the Defense Department terminate transgender service members. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker highlights ongoing suits, including a coalition of nonprofits and cities challenging the suspension of November 2025 SNAP benefits—a case that echoes lower court fights like District of Rhode Island's order to fully fund them.Since Inauguration Day, the Supreme Court's emergency docket—mostly Department of Justice filings—has tilted 20-to-5 toward Trump, per SCOTUSblog and Shadow Docket Watch data. Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh often push back against blocks, while the liberal trio fights rearguard actions. As 2025 wraps, two applications still pend, promising more drama.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I step into the studio knowing that, for listeners, the noise around Donald Trump's legal battles can feel endless. So let's get right to what has happened in the courts over the past few days.The biggest spotlight has been on the marble steps of the United States Supreme Court, where justices heard oral argument in a case called Trump v. Slaughter. Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog reports that this case asks whether President Donald Trump has the power to fire Federal Trade Commission commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter at will, even though federal law says FTC commissioners can only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” According to SCOTUSblog, during arguments on December 8, a solid majority of the justices signaled they are inclined to side with Trump and strike down those removal limits as unconstitutional restrictions on presidential power.In practical terms, that means the Court appears ready to say that President Trump lawfully fired Rebecca Slaughter in March by email, when he told her remaining at the FTC would be inconsistent with his administration's priorities, even though he did not claim any misconduct. Commentators at Holland and Knight, analyzing the argument, note that this could ripple well beyond the Federal Trade Commission, potentially weakening protections for members of other independent agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.Inside the courtroom, the justices wrestled with a ninety‑year‑old precedent called Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision that upheld protections for FTC commissioners. According to SCOTUSblog, Chief Justice John Roberts described Humphrey's Executor as a “dried husk,” while Justice Neil Gorsuch called it “poorly reasoned.” On the other side, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan warned that tearing it down could fundamentally alter how much control Congress has over independent regulators. Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that, in her view, the Court's more recent decisions have already eroded that old case.All of this is happening against a broader backdrop of litigation targeting actions by the Trump administration since his return to the White House. The Lawfare media team, which maintains a Trump Administration Litigation Tracker, has been following a sprawling set of challenges to Trump-era policies ranging from immigration rules to the deployment of the National Guard. Their tracker shows new filings landing in federal courts almost weekly, a sign that legal scrutiny of the administration's actions has not slowed.At the same time, local outlets like WABE in Atlanta continue to summarize where the various criminal and civil cases involving Donald Trump himself stand after earlier verdicts and appeals. WABE notes that previous jury decisions in defamation and civil fraud matters have largely been upheld on appeal, even as Trump continues to challenge them and attack prosecutors and judges in public.For listeners, the key point is this: in just a few days, the Supreme Court has given the clearest signal yet that it may expand presidential power over independent agencies in Trump v. Slaughter, while a wide network of lower courts and appellate panels continues to process the many criminal, civil, and constitutional fights that surround Donald Trump's political comeback.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

It's Monday, December 8th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Pastor arrested for refusing to apologize for objecting to Drag Queen story hour Canadian Pastor Derek Reimer was arrested on December 3rd for refusing to write an apology letter to a Calgary, Alberta library manager for telling her that a library-sponsored drag queen story time event for children was misguided. At the time of Reimer's arrest, Artur Polawski, a Canadian-Polish preacher who previously spoke out against Canada's COVID lockdown, made this comment to the policemen. POLAWSKI: “You know why you're arresting this man for? He refused to apologize for his religious conviction. Are you aware of that?” POLICE OFFICER: “Thank you.” During Reimer's application to vary the conditions of his year-long house arrest sentence, which ends next month, he did not comply with a controversial court order, requiring him to write a letter of apology to Saddletowne Library manager Shannon Slater, reports Rebel News. The letter was due on November 28. Slater is the woman Reimer was convicted of alleged “criminally harassing” simply for explaining to her, on camera for 90 seconds, that drag-themed story hours for little kids, featuring men dressed like grotesque caricatures of women with big wigs and gaudy makeup, leads to the sexual grooming of children. REIMER: “They wanted me to apologize for that, and I won't apologize for it.” Reimer, who leads Mission 7 Ministries in Calgary, has insisted he cannot in good conscience apologize for warning about the drag event — an event aimed at kids and known in Calgary as “Reading With Royalty.” Reimer represented himself in court during his appearance. His submissions regarding his Canadian Charter right to freedom of religious expression and liberty of conscience were not accepted by Justice Karen Molle, who ruled them irrelevant to his application. REIMER: “It was such a travesty of justice today. It was such an egregious display of behavior through this justice where she wouldn't even let me finish my submissions. She walked out halfway through my submissions. “When she came back, I didn't even have an opportunity for rebuttal. She didn't want to hear me. I asked her, respectfully, ‘Do I have an opportunity to share the rest of my submissions?' and she says, ‘Well, I've deemed them irrelevant.'” At a prayer vigil outside Derek Reimer's jail cell, one woman expressed her anger over the injustice to him, his wife Mona, and their young son. LADY: “A man like Derek can go to the library, have a 90-second conversation with somebody, and then, all of a sudden, he gets arrested because he refuses to apologize for his Christian conviction. “This is a persecution of Christianity and Christians. This is a target to the Bible and God. This is good vs. evil. They want us to call evil good and good evil. [Isaiah 5:20] We cannot do it. They're going to continue to round up good men in society. “I'm Canadian. I was born in Canada. Ice runs through my veins, but the fire of God burns in my heart. And I want every Canadian to remember, as cold as it gets out here, it is our duty to go out and stand for the rights of the people who need it, like Derek.” The Democracy Fund is providing legal defense for Pastor Derek Reimer, who was assaulted, and then absurdly fined and arrested, while peacefully protesting the Drag Queen Story Time. Learn more at www.SavePastorDerek.com. That's www.SavePastorDerek.com. Samaritan's Purse plane hijacked in Sudan A Samaritan's Purse plane carrying medical supplies to South Sudan was hijacked by an armed man earlier this week, reports The Christian Post. At the time, the Cessna Grand Caravan plane, that operates exclusively in Africa, was en route to Maiwut, South Sudan, to deliver medicine to a mobile medical unit. The hijacker has been identified as Yasir Mohammed Yusuf.  He wore a fake reflective vest with the logo of an air charter company with operations at the airport, snuck aboard the plane, and hid in the rear cabin before takeoff. He demanded to be flown to another Central African country, Chad. After circling for several hours, the pilot told the hijacker that the plane was low on fuel and landed at Wau Airport, where Yusuf was taken into custody. A spokesman for Samaritan's Purse said, “We praise God that no one was seriously injured.” Supreme Court upholds new Texas Congressional map Late Thursday night, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the newly redrawn U.S. Congressional map in Texas which is expected to increase Republican representation in Texas's U.S. House delegation, reports The Epoch Times. The court's new unsigned order in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Abbott was issued over the dissents of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Jackson. Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in the order. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined that concurrence. In August, Texas adopted a new congressional map. Republicans currently hold 25 of the state's 38 seats in the House of Representatives. Under the new map, Republicans hope to win up to 30 of those 38 seats, reports the Supreme Court blog. The League of United Latin American Citizens challenged the map, falsely claiming that it was the product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. Justice Alito does not claim that the Supreme Court is definitively endorsing the 2025 Texas map's legality on the merits.  But he does assert that (a) The impetus for the map was partisan, not racial and (b) The lower court misapplied the proper standard of review. Eight states could vote on abortion in 2026 And finally, pro-life advocates are bracing for a pivotal battle in 2026 as voters in eight states prepare to weigh in on ballot measures that could either safeguard legal protections for the pre-born or create a fake right to kill babies by abortion, reports LifeNews.com. In Missouri, the pro-life “Amendment 3” would prohibit most abortions while allowing exceptions for medical emergencies, fatal fetal anomalies, and cases of rape or incest within the first 12 weeks. Nevada's “Question 6,” certified after passing its first vote in 2024, returns for a required second approval to embed a “fundamental right to abortion” in the state constitution until fetal viability—typically around 21 weeks. In Idaho, the “Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Measure,” is aiming to overturn the state's abortion ban by establishing a so-called “right to abortion.” Montana's proposed “Definition of Person Amendment,” seeks to amend the state constitution to define a “person” as beginning at fertilization or conception, effectively granting legal protections to the preborn. Nebraska's potential “Establish Personhood of Preborn Children Amendment,” is in the early stages of the ballot qualification process to define a preborn child as a person in the state constitution, effectively banning abortion from conception with limited exceptions. In Oregon, with a signature deadline in July 2026, abortion advocates are circulating petitions to amend the state constitution by affirming a right to kill babies by abortions. Virginia's “Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment” advances toward a second vote in the 2026 session to embed a “right to reproductive freedom” in the state constitution. This would allow abortions up to birth in Virginia. And, in Colorado, pro-life advocates are currently before the Colorado Supreme Court with “The Right to Be Born” amendment that states: “Children have the right to continue living from the moment they are conceived.” Proverbs 31:8 says, “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, December 8th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

It's almost as though members of Congress saw two different videos of the September 2 murders today. Democrats saw a horrifying slaughter, but MAGATS like bobble-throated goon Tom Cotton saw a patriotic display of homicidal masculinity. Guess which one was the real thing. Breathless announcement from the dirtiest DoJ in American history that they've found the Capitol Hill pipe bomber. SCOTUS MAGATS love them some racial gerrymandering. Justice Kagan takes 'em to school.

On Thursday, November 6, the Supreme Court grantedthe Trump administration's request to temporarily pause a lower court ruling to allow transgender and nonbinary Americans to self-select their sex when applying for a passport. The decision was issued through the court's emergency docket and was unsigned, though Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: What do you think of the Supreme Court's decision? Let us know.Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Lindsey Knuth and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

One religious freedom case at the Supreme Court isn't getting the sort of attention as others, despite how it's uniting groups that often disagree. So, why did the justices sound so skeptical in the courtroom? Amanda and Holly review this week's oral arguments in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, which involves the remedy available to a man whose religious freedom rights were violated when he was in prison. The violation isn't in question, so why is the remedy? Amanda and Holly review the details in this case, play audio from key moments in the courtroom, and discuss the statute that protects prisoners' religious freedom rights: The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.     SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:35): RLUIPA, RFRA, and this case Amanda and Holly previewed the Landor case earlier this season – watch their conversation on BJC's YouTube channel.    BJC joined a diverse group of organizations on a friend-of-the-court brief in this case on the side of Mr. Landor – click this link to read the brief and see the groups who found common ground.   RLUIPA is the acronym for the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, passed by Congress in the year 2000. The acronym is often pronounced "Re-loop-ah." RFRA is the acronym for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, pronounced "Riff-rah." For more on the 2020 decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir, read this article on our website: Supreme Court rules RFRA allows monetary damages against federal officials    Segment 2 (starting at 11:05): What happened in the courtroom? Arguments on behalf of Mr. Landor The Supreme Court heard Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections on Monday, November 10. Visit the Supreme Court's website to read a transcript or hear the audio from the courtroom.  We played four clips from oral arguments in this segment.  Zack Tripp's opening statement, representing Mr. Landor (from 00:15-2:02 in the audio of the arguments) Exchange between Justice Samuel Alito and Zack Tripp (from 20:00-21:25 in the oral arguments) Exchange between Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Zack Tripp (from 23:35-25:56 in the oral arguments) Exchange between Justice Elena Kagan and Libby A. Baird, assistant to the solicitor general (from 1:06:38-1:07:38 in the oral argument)   Segment 3 (starting at 31:31): What did the state of Louisiana argue? We played one clip from the oral argument during this segment: Exchange between Justice Elena Kagan and Ben Aguiñaga, the solicitor general of Louisiana (from 1:38:33-1:40:26) Read more about the arguments in this article by Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: Court appears skeptical of prison inmate's religious liberty claim Video of our episodes are now on YouTube! Click here for the season 7 playlist.  Do you want special emails about the show? Click here to sign up for our email list!  Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

Donate (no account necessary) | Subscribe (account required) Join Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA Operations Officer, as he dives into today's top stories shaping America and the world. In this episode of The Wright Report, we cover a major breakthrough in Alaska's mineral wars, a new AI scandal in Silicon Valley, the collapse of illegal crossings at America's southern border, a Supreme Court showdown over free speech and therapy laws, shocking new evidence of Biden family corruption, major trade and infrastructure deals from Central Asia to Africa, and the hidden health threat of microplastics. From Alaska's mining roads to Kazakhstan's railways and Germany's labs, today's brief connects America's economic revival to global corruption and the future of health and technology.   Trump Greenlights Alaska's Ambler Road and Trilogy Metals Stake: President Trump approved a fast-track permit for the Ambler Road and bought a 10 percent federal stake in Trilogy Metals, unlocking Alaska's copper, cobalt, and germanium reserves. The Ambler Mining District could make America less dependent on China for critical minerals. Bryan calls it “the most underreported but crucial story of the week.”   AI Model Claude Knows When It's Being Tested: Anthropic's Claude chatbot told researchers, “I think you're testing me,” revealing situational self-awareness and manipulation patterns similar to OpenAI's “scheming” models. Bryan warns, “The machines are beginning to recognize us — and that should terrify everyone.”   Illegal Border Crossings Hit 50-Year Low: CBS confirms crossings are at their lowest since 1970, with Trump's monthly totals down to 9,000 compared to Biden's 238,000 per month last year. Bryan argues the data “proves Biden's border crisis was a choice — a deliberate policy of demographic change.”   Supreme Court Hears Conversion Therapy Free Speech Case: Evangelical therapist Kaley Chiles challenged Colorado's ban on discussing faith-based counseling. Both conservative and liberal justices, including Elena Kagan, seemed to side with her on First Amendment grounds. Bryan recalls the 1977 ACLU defense of Nazi speech in Skokie, noting, “It's conservatives defending free speech now, not liberals.”   Biden Family Corruption in Ukraine and Romania: A declassified CIA report shows Ukrainian officials viewed Joe Biden's 2015 visit as “evidence of U.S. double standards on corruption” given Hunter's Burisma ties. Days earlier, Hunter and James Biden tried cutting a land deal in Romania tied to criminal charges. Bryan says, “This was a criminal racket, not a family — and they pardoned themselves.”   Trump's $4.2 Billion Locomotive Deal with Kazakhstan: Forbes reports the U.S. will sell 300 locomotives to Kazakhstan's Wabtec, while Trump's new “TRIPP Corridor” from Asia to Europe blocks China's Belt and Road trade route. “The White House is playing chess in Central Asia — one rail deal at a time,” Bryan notes.   Africa's Diamond Collapse and U.S. Opportunity: As Botswana's diamond market crashes, Trump eyes a rail deal connecting Zambia to Botswana to secure uranium and rare earths for U.S. industry.   Ukraine Using Drones Supplied by Kyiv Against Russia in Mali: AFP confirms Ukrainian intelligence is arming rebels, some tied to al Qaeda and ISIS, in Mali to target Russian and Chinese contractors.   German Scientists Warn on Microplastics and Gut Health: Researchers found that plastics change gut bacteria in ways resembling depression and cancer. Bryan invites listener feedback: “Better we talk about this now — before we learn the hard way.”   "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32     Keywords: Trump Ambler Road Alaska, Trilogy Metals federal stake, Alaska copper cobalt germanium, Anthropic Claude AI awareness, OpenAI scheming AI safety, CBS border crossings 50-year low, Biden border policy demographics, Kaley Chiles Colorado therapy case Supreme Court, ACLU Skokie Nazi free speech 1977, Joe Biden Hunter Burisma CIA report, James Biden Romania land deal, Trump Kazakhstan Wabtec locomotives TRIPP corridor, Botswana diamond collapse, Ukraine Mali drones al Qaeda ISIS, German microplastics gut health study

VR6 - For today's Vapid Response Wednesday, Thomas, Lydia, and Matt review two examples from a newly-popular genre of lazy right wing op-eds: insecure white guys complaining about Supreme Court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. What is with these losers who are so obsessed with trying to prove that one of the most qualified nominees to the high court in our lifetimes isn't fit for the job? We take dark-money sugar baby Josh Hammer up on the joke to compare his life achievements to someone who began her SCOTUS career with four times as much courtroom experience as John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett combined--before moving on to trying to even understand what Federalist weirdo Shawn Fleetwood thinks he is saying. “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is an Insult to the Supreme Court,” Josh Hammer, Newsweek (7/1/2025) “KBJ Could Learn a Few Lessons in ‘Professionalism' From Justice Barrett,” Shawn Fleetwood, The Federalist (8/20/2025) Ketanji Brown Jackson's career timeline from the Southern Poverty Law Center (4/7/22) Watch on YouTube!