Podcasts about eleventh circuit

The Justice Department disregarded the Crime Victims' Rights Act by secretly negotiating Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement without consulting the girls and young women its own investigators had identified as victims. Federal prosecutors not only failed to tell them that Epstein was bargaining his way out of federal charges, but continued sending communications suggesting that the investigation remained active after the agreement had already been signed. The deal ended the federal investigation in South Florida, protected Epstein from federal prosecution there and extended immunity to several potential co-conspirators, all while those most directly affected were deliberately kept outside the process. A federal judge later concluded that prosecutors had violated the victims' CVRA rights by concealing the agreement and misleading them about the status of the case.The injustice was never meaningfully rectified. Years of litigation produced no rescission of the non-prosecution agreement, no renewed South Florida prosecution under the original case and no effective legal remedy for the survivors whose rights had been denied. In 2021, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the CVRA did not authorize victims to bring a standalone lawsuit before federal criminal charges had been filed, effectively leaving them without a judicial mechanism to enforce the rights the government had ignored. The Justice Department's internal review criticized former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's judgment but found no professional misconduct, imposed no serious accountability and merely promised that the episode would inform future victim-rights practices. By the time Epstein was federally charged in New York in 2019, the original violation had already accomplished its purpose: he had received years of freedom, the South Florida deal remained intact and the survivors never received the remedy that the CVRA was supposed to guarantee.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Justice Department disregarded the Crime Victims' Rights Act by secretly negotiating Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement without consulting the girls and young women its own investigators had identified as victims. Federal prosecutors not only failed to tell them that Epstein was bargaining his way out of federal charges, but continued sending communications suggesting that the investigation remained active after the agreement had already been signed. The deal ended the federal investigation in South Florida, protected Epstein from federal prosecution there and extended immunity to several potential co-conspirators, all while those most directly affected were deliberately kept outside the process. A federal judge later concluded that prosecutors had violated the victims' CVRA rights by concealing the agreement and misleading them about the status of the case.The injustice was never meaningfully rectified. Years of litigation produced no rescission of the non-prosecution agreement, no renewed South Florida prosecution under the original case and no effective legal remedy for the survivors whose rights had been denied. In 2021, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the CVRA did not authorize victims to bring a standalone lawsuit before federal criminal charges had been filed, effectively leaving them without a judicial mechanism to enforce the rights the government had ignored. The Justice Department's internal review criticized former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's judgment but found no professional misconduct, imposed no serious accountability and merely promised that the episode would inform future victim-rights practices. By the time Epstein was federally charged in New York in 2019, the original violation had already accomplished its purpose: he had received years of freedom, the South Florida deal remained intact and the survivors never received the remedy that the CVRA was supposed to guarantee.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

And a new ranking of top law schools. ------ Above the Law's Top 50 Law School rankings are out and a new school tops the list. But a number of other high prestige law schools have slipped out of the top 10... and it's mostly a matter of cost. Meanwhile, we have two federal judges out of control. Judge Ryan Nelson faces misdemeanor criminal charges over a parking lot altercation, which would be a bad look for a federal judge, but not nearly as egregious as his parking job. And we have more on the Eleanor Ross drama, after her initial "apology letters" went public and prompted the Eleventh Circuit to find a new opportunity to look the other way.

A federal judge carried on a two-year affair with a high-ranking law enforcement officer by having sex in chambers and lying about it to investigators. The Eleventh Circuit responded with a private reprimand, concealing the judge's identity. But the judges didn't think through their anonymization strategy nearly well enough and AI cracked the case in minutes, revealing Judge Eleanor Ross of the Northern District of Georgia. Meanwhile, in lawyer ethics, a bar complaint in New York focuses on Todd Blanche, citing the ruling out of Tennessee finding a presumptively vindictive prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. And down in Florida, the scores of former judges and other professionals behind the complaint against Pam Bondi -- that Florida previously punted, claiming that it couldn't investigate a sitting Attorney General -- renewed the call, noting that Bondi may be many things, but she's definitely not the Attorney General anymore. Subscribe to Above the Law - Thinking Like a Lawyer: https://play.megaphone.fm/lpff6i7nq9wlb-pkdudwtw Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Free Speech: May Florida ban minors from attending drag shows? - Argued: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 15:51:6 EDT

A federal judge carried on a two-year affair with a high-ranking law enforcement officer by having sex in chambers and lying about it to investigators. The Eleventh Circuit responded with a private reprimand, concealing the judge's identity. But the judges didn't think through their anonymization strategy nearly well enough and AI cracked the case in minutes, revealing Judge Eleanor Ross of the Northern District of Georgia. Meanwhile, in lawyer ethics, a bar complaint in New York focuses on Todd Blanche, citing the ruling out of Tennessee finding a presumptively vindictive prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. And down in Florida, the scores of former judges and other professionals behind the complaint against Pam Bondi -- that Florida previously punted, claiming that it couldn't investigate a sitting Attorney General -- renewed the call, noting that Bondi may be many things, but she's definitely not the Attorney General anymore.

This Day in Legal History: The National Defense Act of 1916On this day in 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the National Defense Act, the law that quietly built the legal scaffolding for how the United States deploys soldiers, both abroad and at home, for the next century-plus. The Act roughly tripled the size of the regular Army, formally created the National Guard as a federalized reserve force out of the patchwork of state militias that had existed since the founding, and established the Reserve Officers' Training Corps at colleges and universities. The legal hook is the dual-status structure that the Act created and that we still use today: the National Guard belongs simultaneously to its state and to the federal government, normally takes orders from the governor, but can be “federalized” by the President under specific statutory authorities and pulled out of state command for federal missions. That structure has driven a long line of constitutional fights about the limits of presidential authority to call up the Guard, about whether and when the Insurrection Act applies, and about how the Posse Comitatus Act constrains the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement. June 3 is not a day most people associate with American military law, but the 1916 statute is doing quiet work behind every modern headline about troops at a border, troops in a city, or troops in a hurricane.The Eleventh Circuit on Tuesday handed down a ruling that strips hip-hop group 2 Live Crew of the copyrights it thought it had successfully clawed back to five of its albums, including “As Nasty as They Wanna Be,” because one member's bankruptcy from the 1990s swept his future termination rights into the bankruptcy estate. Federal copyright law has a wonderfully democratic provision in Section 203: an author who signed away a copyright can, 35 years later, send a termination notice and take it back, regardless of what the original contract said. The catch the Eleventh Circuit identified is Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, which scoops up almost everything you own into the bankruptcy estate when you file — including, the court said, the right to send that termination notice years later, even though the right cannot be sold or contracted away in any other context. The practical consequence for 2 Live Crew is that member Mark Ross, who performed as Brother Marquis, had unwittingly transferred his future termination interests to his bankruptcy trustee when he filed Chapter 7 years earlier, so when the group's heirs and surviving members later tried to take the copyrights back from Lil' Joe Records in 2020, they were one vote short of the majority the statute requires. The case, Lil' Joe Records v. Christopher Won Jr. et al., No. 24-13978, is described in the opinion as “a question of first impression at the intersection of copyright and bankruptcy” — which is lawyer-speak for “we just made up the rule, and now it's the rule.” Expect every copyright-termination case where any author has ever filed for bankruptcy to cite this decision for the next decade.11th Circ. Reverses 2 Live Crew's Copyright Clawback Win | Law360President Trump on Tuesday quietly signed a finalized version of the AI cybersecurity executive order that he had abruptly scrapped during a planned signing ceremony on May 21, and the final version is notably narrower than the one that was on the table a month ago. The new order asks Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and other federal agencies to design a voluntary framework under which developers of so-called frontier AI models — the largest and most general-purpose systems — would share their models with the federal government for up to 30 days before public release so the government can scan for security vulnerabilities. The legal posture is worth pausing on: this is a voluntary framework, not a regulation, which means it lives in the same constitutional space as a chamber-of-commerce best-practices document rather than as a binding rule subject to APA notice and comment. That structure is partly a workaround for the fact that there is no federal statute giving any agency authority to mandate pre-release safety testing of AI models, and partly a response to industry pressure: Trump explained on May 21 that he scrapped the earlier 90-day version because he thought it could be “a blocker” to U.S. leadership in AI. Whether developers actually opt in is the open question, and the order is structured so that participation will likely depend on a mix of national-security pressure, federal procurement leverage, and quiet diplomacy with the major labs. Expect the first real fight to be over what counts as a “frontier” model, and who decides.Finalized Trump Order Seeks Early Cyber Tests Of AI Models | Law360The U.S. Senate on Tuesday confirmed Katie Lane to be a federal district judge in Montana, making her the first judicial nominee of Trump's second term to be confirmed despite a “not qualified” rating from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. The ABA's role here is informal but historically important: since 1953 the Standing Committee has rated federal judicial nominees as “well qualified,” “qualified,” or “not qualified” based on professional competence, integrity, and judicial temperament, and the rating has carried real weight with senators of both parties — until it didn't. The Trump administration formally cut ties with the ABA review process during the first term, on the theory that the ABA's ratings reflected an ideological bias against conservative nominees, and the second administration has been even more open about ignoring “not qualified” ratings as a matter of policy. The legal stakes of this are modest in any individual case — a “not qualified” judge serves the same lifetime appointment with the same constitutional power as a “well qualified” one — but cumulatively the practice changes the relationship between the bar and the bench in a way that is hard to undo, and it nudges the federal judiciary in a direction that depends almost entirely on the political branches' definitions of professional fitness. Lane, who is now confirmed, will join the District of Montana, a small but busy bench. Watch this space: there are several more nominees in the pipeline with similar ratings.US Senate confirms Trump judicial nominee deemed ‘not qualified' by ABA | 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThe ‘Broadview Six' case was one of the Trump administration's prominent prosecutions of anti-ICE protesters. Federal prosecutors in Chicago brought felony charges to fanfare, then curiously dropped them, keeping only misdemeanor counts. Now we know why: they engaged in egregious misconduct to obtain the felony indictments, which they then sought to conceal from the judge, who is not amused.For all subscribers, we discuss that and US Attorney Andrew Boutros, who issued a weird memo promising reform, and the news that his office is apparently running a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, examining whether she lied in a deposition hundreds of miles from Chicago.For paying subscribers (upgrade your subscription now at serioustrouble.show) this week, there's also:* Kilmar Abrego Garcia's big and unusual win on vindictive prosecution, which is already inspiring the Southern Poverty Law Center.* A sordid case involving an Eleventh Circuit judge whose sofa cushion required forensic testing after clerks asserted she was noisily carrying on an affair in chambers.* A free speech win for West Point faculty.* An interesting new insider trading case involving Polymarket.* A probably-too-clever motion attacking the “anti-weaponization fund,” and* More bad news for ex-JP Morgan banker Chirayu Rana.

In Bear Warriors United v. Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection the Eleventh Circuit is considering the question of whether the Endangered Species Act can hold states responsible for the harms of regulated private parties without running afoul of the Constitution's anti-commandeering doctrine.The Endangered Species Act prohibits anyone, including a state, from harming an endangered or threatened species. But threats to species are often driven by many small harms, which makes enforcement difficult. In Florida, manatee habitat is degraded by nitrogen released from septic tanks, none of which contributes substantially to the problem on their own. Bear Warriors United, an environmental group, sued Florida's Department of Environmental Protection alleging that it is liable for these harms as the regulator of septic tanks. A Florida district court agreed, ordering the state to prohibit new septic tanks in the watershed, to implement various conservation programs, and to maintain these policies unless and until a federal agency authorizes the state to change them.The anti-commandeering doctrine prohibits the federal government from "seeking to control or influence the manner in which States regulate private parties." But every court to have considered the question so far has held that enforcing the ESA against states for harms created by private permittees does not run afoul of the doctrine. Will the Eleventh Circuit be the first to go the other way?Join us as a panel of experts explore this conflict between anti-commandeering, preemption, and conservation. Featuring:Prof. William Snape, III, Director of the Program on Environmental and Energy Law, Assistant Dean of Adjunct Faculty Affairs, and Fellow in Environmental Law, American University Washington College of LawJonathan Wood, Vice President of Law and Policy, Property and Environment Research Center(Moderator) Prof. Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law, William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School

This Day in Legal History: 27th AmendmentOn May 19, 1992, the 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution was officially published in the Federal Register, ending one of the longest and oddest ratification stories in American legal history. The amendment provides that any law changing the compensation of members of Congress cannot take effect until after an election for the House of Representatives has taken place. Put more simply, Congress may vote to change its own pay, but it cannot make that change immediate. The rule gives voters a chance to respond before the pay change takes effect.What makes the 27th Amendment unusual is not only what it says, but how long it took to become law. It was originally proposed by James Madison in 1789 as part of the same set of amendments that produced the Bill of Rights. Most of those amendments were ratified quickly, but this one lingered for more than two centuries. Because Congress had not set a ratification deadline, the amendment remained legally available for state approval. In the 1980s, a renewed ratification campaign helped bring it back to public attention. Michigan became the 38th state to ratify it in May 1992, giving it the three-fourths approval required by Article V of the Constitution.The amendment's publication in the Federal Register on May 19 marked the formal public recognition that it had become part of the Constitution. Its ratification raised a serious legal question about whether an amendment proposed in the 18th century could still be valid in the 20th century. The answer, at least for amendments without a deadline, was yes. The 27th Amendment stands as a reminder that constitutional change can move slowly, sometimes across generations, and still become binding law.The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about whether Title IX's protections against sex discrimination in federally funded education programs extend to employees, including college professors and coaches. The case was brought by former Augusta University professor Thomas Crowther and former Georgia Tech women's basketball coach MaChelle Joseph, both of whom lost their jobs after workplace-conduct investigations. Crowther claimed Augusta University retaliated against him and discriminated against him based on sex after it suspended him and declined to renew his contract. Joseph argued that Georgia Tech fired her in retaliation for her complaints about unequal treatment of women's athletics and female athletes. Their cases reached the Eleventh Circuit together, where the court ruled that Title IX clearly protects students, but that its application to employees is less certain. That ruling placed the Eleventh Circuit on one side of a broader circuit split.The Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits have taken a narrower view of Title IX employment claims, while the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have allowed employees to bring certain Title IX claims. The solicitor general agreed with the Eleventh Circuit's narrower reading but urged the Supreme Court to take the case because lower courts are divided. The case gives the justices a chance to decide whether professors, coaches, and other school employees can use Title IX directly to sue for workplace sex discrimination or retaliation.High Court To Examine Title IX Protections For Coaches, Profs - Law360A New York state judge partially granted Luigi Mangione's request to keep certain evidence out of his upcoming murder trial. Mangione is accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel in December 2024 and has pleaded not guilty. Justice Gregory Carro ruled that police unlawfully searched Mangione's backpack during his arrest in Pennsylvania without a warrant. Because of that, some items found during the first search, including a loaded handgun magazine, a cellphone, and a computer chip, will be suppressed. But the judge allowed other evidence from a later police-station search of the backpack, including a gun, silencer, USB drive, and red notebook.Carro also rejected Mangione's effort to suppress his initial statements to police, finding that they were not obtained through an illegal interrogation. The ruling gives the defense a partial win, but prosecutors say they still have substantial evidence tying Mangione to the shooting, including DNA, fingerprints, video footage, and other items. Mangione's state trial is scheduled to begin on September 8 and is expected to last about six weeks. He also faces separate federal charges, though earlier rulings in that case removed the possibility of the death penalty.Judge grants accused CEO killer Mangione's bid to suppress evidence due to unlawful search | ReutersState lawmakers have rejected dozens of anti-vaccine bills backed by Make America Healthy Again supporters, showing limits to the movement's influence in state legislatures. The bills sought to roll back or end policies such as school vaccination requirements, but public health groups and medical associations mounted successful opposition campaigns. Groups including American Families for Vaccines and the American Academy of Pediatrics argued that vaccine mandates remain broadly supported and are important for public health. Their strategy focused especially on Republican-controlled states, where advocates used polling and personal appeals to persuade lawmakers that opposing vaccines could be both medically risky and politically unpopular. Anti-vaccine proposals increased this year because MAHA-aligned groups coordinated efforts across multiple states. Still, bills failed in places including Idaho, West Virginia, Tennessee, South Dakota, Florida, and Iowa. The debate is unfolding as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, has taken steps against mandatory immunization policies, though some changes have been paused in litigation. Both sides expect the issue to continue, with anti-vaccine advocates encouraged by hearings and organizing momentum, while public health advocates say more legislation is likely to appear in future sessions.US states reject anti-vaccine bills as public health groups fight MAHA | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that a federal gas tax holiday would be a poor answer to rising gas prices because it would do little for household affordability while further weakening transportation funding. Gas prices are being driven by forces Congress cannot easily fix by statute, including conflict involving Iran and instability around the Strait of Hormuz.Lawmakers are nevertheless showing bipartisan interest in suspending the federal gas tax, including President Donald Trump, Sen. Josh Hawley, and House Speaker Mike Johnson. The political appeal is clear because gas prices are highly visible and give lawmakers a simple way to say they are responding to voters' economic pain. But the federal gas tax has been frozen at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993, even as infrastructure costs have continued to rise. Suspending it would take revenue away from the Highway Trust Fund, which helps pay for highways, roads, bridges, and mass transit.The column argues that Congress should separate the problem of household hardship from the problem of transportation finance. Instead of cutting the gas tax, lawmakers could provide targeted help through refundable credits, direct payments, commuter assistance, or flexible transportation support for low- and moderate-income households.If Congress insists on a gas tax holiday, it should at least pair it with an immediate dedicated backfill and longer-term reforms such as indexing the gas tax to inflation, adopting mileage-based fees, or modernizing road-use charges. The larger point is that high gas prices are real, but a gas tax holiday is a badly targeted discount financed by a transportation system that is already financially strained. 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

Happy Monday, everybody! On today's episode, Eva chatted with Judge Andrea Wolfson of Florida's Eleventh Circuit. We had a wonderful conversation about Judge Wolfson's long tenure in criminal law, as well as her insights about the challenges approaching the legal field today. We hope you enjoy this episode and see you soon for another :)

Voting Rights: Do voters have standing to challenge the accuracy of a State's voter rolls under the National Voter Registration Act? - Argued: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 12:21:45 EDT

Civil Rights: May Georgia decline to cover gender affirming care for prisoners? - Argued: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 12:19:35 EDT

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell | 04/27/26 | Docket #: 24-1068 24-1068 MONSANTO CO. V. DURNELL DECISION BELOW: 707 S.W.3d 828 GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT PREEMPTS A LABEL- BASED FAILURE-TO-WARN CLAIM WHERE EPA HAS NOT REQUIRED THE WARNING. CERT. GRANTED 1/16/2026 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA'') creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme governing the use, sale, and labeling of pesticides. The Act preempts any state "requirement[] for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under" FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. §136v(b). For decades, EPA has exercised its authority under FIFRA to find that Monsanto's Roundup product line and its active ingredient, glyphosate, do not cause cancer in humans. Consistent with that understanding, EPA has repeatedly approved Roundup's label without a cancer warning. FIFRA prohibits Monsanto from making any substantive change to an EPA-approved label unless it first obtains EPA's permission. Respondent is one of more than 100,000 plaintiffs across the country that nonetheless seek to hold Monsanto liable for not warning users that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, causes cancer. The federal courts of appeals and state appellate courts are divided over whether FIFRA preempts such claims. The Third Circuit has held that it does. In the decision below, the Missouri Court of Appeals joined the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits and state appellate courts in California and Oregon in holding that it does not. The question presented is: Whether FIFRA preempts a state-law failure-to- warn claim where EPA has repeatedly concluded that the warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product without EPA approval. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: ED112410

First Amendment: May Florida require schools to remove library books containing "sexual conduct"? - Argued: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 10:52:59 EDT

Environmental: Must the immigration facility "Alligator Alcatraz" undergo federal environmental review before construction? - Argued: Tue, 07 Apr 2026 15:55:35 EDT

Courtney Wild, one of the dozens of women victimized by Jeffrey Epstein, brought a bold claim: when the federal government secretly negotiated a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein in 2007, prosecutors deprived her and others of rights guaranteed under the CVRA — specifically, the right to confer with government lawyers and be treated fairly. She argued they were kept in the dark and misled about why there was no federal prosecution. Wild's case was trying to force accountability for those abuses of process, not just the underlying horrorsBut in a deeply disappointing outcome, Wild lost in court. In April 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the CVRA does not allow a victim to bring a freestanding lawsuit when there's no preexisting criminal prosecution. Since Epstein was never federally charged in those earlier negotiations, there was no “proceeding” in which her rights under the CVRA had been triggered. The Supreme Court later declined to hear her petition, letting the decision stand. Wild's legal argument was powerful, but the statutes — as currently written and interpreted — didn't give victims a path to enforce their CVRA rights under those particular circumstances.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Immigration: May the Trump Administration categorically bar parole for non-citizens who did not lawfully cross the border? - Argued: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 11:39:33 EDT

Free Speech: Did Snapchat unlawfully market itself as a safe product for minors? - Argued: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 17:2:1 EDT

Free Speech: May a State require social media providers to require identify verification of their users? - Argued: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 16:59:34 EDT

Free Speech: May Florida ban minors from establishing social media accounts? - Argued: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 16:57:57 EDT

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching courtrooms turn into the main stage of American politics, but here we are on March 15, 2026, and the trials involving Donald Trump are heating up like a pressure cooker about to blow. Picture this: I'm sipping my morning coffee in my Washington, D.C. apartment, scrolling through updates on the federal election interference case in U.S. District Court under Judge Tanya Chutkan. Just last week, Trump's lawyers, John Lauro and Todd Blanche, doubled down on their wild push for an April 2026 trial date, arguing that the 11.5 million pages of discovery from Special Counsel Jack Smith's team—stacked up, they say, taller than eight Washington Monuments—demand at least two and a half years to review. According to Politico reports from the filings, they claim it's only fair since prosecutors had that long to build the case against Trump for his alleged conspiracies to subvert the 2020 election results, from fake electors to pressuring state officials like in Georgia.But hold on—prosecutors aren't buying it. Molly Gaston from Smith's office fired back in a Courthouse News Service brief, calling the defense's math ridiculous. She pointed out that 65% of those documents were already public or duplicates, including stuff from the National Archives, Trump's own Truth Social posts, and the House January 6 Select Committee transcripts. They front-loaded the key evidence, she said, with another 615,000 pages dropped over the weekend, 20% from Trump's own entities. No way this justifies kicking the trial into the next presidential term, they argue, especially since Trump knows most of this from the Jan. 6 hearings. Judge Chutkan, the no-nonsense Obama appointee, has warned Trump against inflammatory Truth Social rants that could taint the jury pool in D.C., hinting she'll speed things up if he keeps it up.Meanwhile, across the circuits, Trump's legal calendar is a nightmare. JustSecurity's master calendar shows deadlines piling up: In the Georgia RICO case, Fulton County DA Fani Willis is battling appeals over disqualifying her, with oral arguments wrapping last December before the Georgia Court of Appeals. Trump's team appealed Judge Scott McAfee's ruling allowing Willis to stay on, but whispers say it's dragging. Up in New York, the hush money case with DA Alvin Bragg—tied to Stormy Daniels payments—faced delays, but a federal appeals court shot down Trump's second removal bid to SDNY Judge Alvin Hellerstein. And don't get me started on the civil fronts: E. Jean Carroll's defamation suits, where juries already hit Trump with nearly $90 million in verdicts, now ping-ponging through the Second Circuit.Over in Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon's May 2024 classified docs trial got tossed on appeal, but Smith's team is pushing back in the Eleventh Circuit. Even the Supreme Court docket for 2026, as ABC News outlines, teases executive power clashes that could ripple into Trump's orbit, like limits on presidential immunity post his earlier motions. YouTube legal recaps from channels like those covering his "three court losses in three days" back in October 2024 feel like ancient history now, but they set the tone—Trump's delay tactics aiming for a potential 2025 White House return to pardon or dismiss federal charges, though state cases like Georgia and New York are bulletproof.It's exhausting, listeners, watching this unfold from my couch, wondering if justice will outpace politics. The stakes? The soul of our elections. Thank you for tuning in, 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

Hunter v. United States | 03/03/26 | Docket #: 24-1063 24-1063 HUNTER V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 5003582 CERT. GRANTED 10/10/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: This Court has recognized that "no appeal waiver serves as an absolute bar to all appellate claims." Garza v. Idaho , 586 U.S. 232, 238 (2019). But the Court has "ma[de] no statement ... on what particular exceptions [to appeal waivers] may be required." Id . at 238-39 & n.6. In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed its precedent, holding that there are only two grounds on which defendants who sign general appeal waivers may challenge their sentence on appeal: (1) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) claims that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. The Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits adopt a similarly narrow view of the exceptions to general appeal waivers. In stark conflict, the First, Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits permit defendants who sign general appeal waivers to raise a broad range of constitutional challenges to their sentences beyond the limited exceptions recognized by the Fifth Circuit and the other courts on its side of the circuit split. The Fifth Circuit below also reaffirmed its precedent holding that an appeal waiver applies even when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object to that advice. Although other circuits agree with the Fifth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit squarely holds otherwise, releasing defendants from appeal waivers in identical circumstances. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. 2. Whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-20211

Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises | 02/23/26 | Docket #: 24-983 24-983 HAVANA DOCKS CORP. V. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES DECISION BELOW: 119 F.4th 1276 CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: The LIBERTAD Act is an essential pillar of United States foreign policy toward Cuba's hostile and anti-American regime. Title III of that Act creates a private right of action for United States nationals who have a claim to property confiscated by that regime against persons who traffic in that property. 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1). The Act specifies that such trafficking "undermines the foreign policy of the United States" by, among other things, "provid[ing] badly needed financial benefit" to the Cuban regime. Id . § 6081(6). The question presented here applies in every case brought under Title III, and will determine whether that provision continues to advance U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba: whether a plaintiff must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim (as the statute requires), or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world "as if there had been no expropriation" (as the divided Eleventh Circuit panel held below). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-10151, 23-10171

Civil Procedure: When are hotels liable for human trafficking by their guests? - Argued: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 10:40:31 EDT

International Law: Is Chiquita responsible for aiding and abetting paramilitary violence in Colombia? - Argued: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 10:38:10 EDT

From July 16, 2024: On July 15, Judge Cannon granted former President Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith for the alleged mishandling of classified documents. She found that Smith was appointed as a special counsel in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.In a live podcast recording, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes talked to Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett, Legal Fellow and Courts Correspondent Anna Bower, Senior Editors Alan Rozenshtein and Quinta Jurecic, and Columbia Law professor Michel Paradis about Judge Cannon's decision, what Special Counsel Jack Smith may do next, how the Eleventh Circuit may rule on an appeal, how Justice Thomas's immunity concurrence plays a role, and more.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

In a ruling on July 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the Southern District of Florida denied the Trump administration's bid to unseal grand jury transcripts from the 2005 and 2007 federal investigations into Jeffrey Epstein. She concluded that the Justice Department failed to present any legal exception allowing disclosure, such as a judicial proceeding or prosecutorial misconduct claim. The court emphasized that “the law does not permit disclosure” absent those narrow exceptions, and declared that “the court's hands are tied” under the Eleventh Circuit's strict grand jury secrecy rules.This denial marks the first judicial response to the administration's attempt to release previously sealed materials amid mounting political pressure. The transcripts in question derive from Epstein's early federal probes initiated by the U.S. Attorney's Office in West Palm Beach—not his later indictments. Meanwhile, similar unsealing requests for grand jury materials in Manhattan, tied to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, remain pending and subject to review under different, less rigid legal standards.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge rejects effort to unseal Epstein grand jury records in Florida | AP NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Administrative Law: Do the qui tam provisions of the Federal Claims Act unlawfully delegate Executive power to private individuals? - Argued: Fri, 12 Dec 2025 17:54:54 EDT

In this episode, co-host Gregory Bombard joins Jordan to discuss a fascinating case from the Eleventh Circuit, originating from a sunken 16th century French warship and a dispute over artifact excavation 450 years later.

Hamm v. Smith | 12/10/25 | Docket #: 24-872 24-872 HAMM, COMMISSIONER AL DOC V. SMITH DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 4793028 THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER AND HOW COURTS MAY CONSIDER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF MULTIPLE IQ SCORES IN ASSESSING AN ATKINS CLAIM. CERT. GRANTED 6/6/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Like most States, Alabama requires that offenders prove an IQ of 70 or less to satisfy the intellectual-functioning prong of Atkins v. Virginia . This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests. There is no way to conclude from these five numbers that Smith's true IQ is likely to be 70 or below. So the courts below required Smith to prove only that his IQ " could be " 70 and required the State to bring evidence "strong enough" to "foreclose" and "rule out the possibility" of intellectual disability. The first question presented is: 1. Whether, under a proper application of Atkins , a State can require a claimant to prove an IQ of 70 or less by a preponderance of the evidence. Evaluating multiple IQ scores is "complicated," and "this Court has not specified how" to do it. In the State's view, five scores are more accurate than one, and there are ways to account for that fact. The courts below disagree. The district court relied on Smith's 72 ± 3 to find that his IQ "could be" 69. On remand, the Eleventh Circuit's "holistic approach" asked whether Smith had scores of "about" 75 or less. Counting four out of five scores between 72 and 75, the court found "consistent evidence" that Smith "may" qualify as mildly disabled. Thus, the court "followed the law's requirement," in its view, to "move on" to Smith's adaptive deficits. The second question presented is: 2. Whether courts evaluating multiple IQ scores must find that every valid score of "about" 75 or less supports an Atkins claim. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-14519

We Like Shooting Episode 640 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Midwest Industries, Die Free Co., Medical Gear Outfitters, Mitchell Defense, Rost Martin, and Swampfox Optics   Welcome to the We Like Shooting Show, episode 640! Our cast tonight is Jeremy Pozderac, Savage1r, Jon Patton, and me Shawn Herrin, welcome to the show!   - Gear Chat Nick - KRG Bravo Unplugged KRG Bravo Shawn - GLOCK Unveils Ergonomically Enhanced Generation 6 Models ## Key Points Summary Intro This summary captures the main takeaways from the Glock Gen 6 launch coverage featuring John from the Warrior Poet Society. The discussion centers on design changes, practical improvements, and shooting impressions, with notes on market timing and pricing. Sponsorships were not part of the core content. Center Key design changes and their practical impact - Grip and texture: The new texture sits between Gen 4 and RTF2; two backstraps including a palm swell are provided. The texture extends higher on both sides for a more secure hold, especially in hot conditions. - Ergonomics: Deeper trigger guard undercut reduces the “Glock knuckle” issue; the grip surface is larger, improving surface area for those with bigger hands; the grip shape swells in the midsection for a more natural wrap. - Controls: Deeper slide serrations, especially on top, enhance manipulation from either end of the slide. The ambidextrous slide release remains, and the pistol uses a single recoil spring (as in earlier generations) while retaining some material from the B-series. - Magwell and contour: The magwell is more flared; the overall contour resembles a topographic map, broadening the hand placement area and increasing leverage for a stronger grip. - Gas pedals and holster compatibility: Gas pedals are built into the frame on both sides with material reduced to protect compatibility with Gen 5 holsters; the goal is a functional improvement without forcing new holsters. - Optics and plates: The plate system is not MOS; it uses a polymer insert that sits lower on the slide and acts like a crush washer under tension. Footprints include Delta Point and RMR; optic-ready configuration remains, with some models rumored to feature polymer sights. - Sights and optics readiness: The factory setup is optics-ready, with some early photos showing polymer sight options. - Barrel and reliability: The Marksman barrel remains, but the extractor housing has been redesigned to be removable for easier maintenance and to reduce installation errors. - Handling and feel: The grip bite is strong but not overly tacky, enabling fast, controlled manipulations without the gun sticking to the hand. Models, availability, and pricing - US launch models: Gen 617 (with Glock 47 form factor), 19-length slide paired to a full-size grip (G45-like); overseas, Glock 49 appears as a variant. - Optics-ready configuration: All examples are MOS-ready or compatible, with plates included for common footprints. - Pricing and timing: MSRP is anticipated around $750; production units were slated to begin arriving in January, with possible earlier availability as information evolves. - Accessories and maintenance: An updated extractor housing system is highlighted as simplifying field maintenance and reducing failure risks due to improper screw length. User experience and feedback - Hand feel: The curved, swollen midsection improves leverage and comfort; the grip texture provides secure grip without excessive tackiness, avoiding slip during rapid manipulation. - Shooting impressions: A large, controlled sampling (nine pistols and thousands of rounds) yielded consistent ejection and reliable cycling during demonstrations; full independent testing will further validate reliability. - Community notes: Gen 5 users worried about slide-lock issues may benefit from deeper cuts and reinforced stops; modular grip options were not part of the initial rollout, though patent activity suggests ongoing development. Outro Takeaway: Gen 6 Glock delivers meaningful ergonomic and grip improvements, while maintaining optics readiness and reliability expectations. The US market rollout is aimed for January with a target MSRP near $750; overseas options include Glock 49. Next steps include comprehensive independent testing, longer-term reliability data, and broader real-world reviews. Stay tuned for updates, and consider price-alert subscriptions for stock and accessory availability. Shawn - Kinetic Development Group's Q4 Success and Future Growth Plans Kinetic Development Group (KDG) is experiencing significant growth, closing Q4 with strong increases in sales across various distribution channels, attributed to the demand for its firearm accessories. Looking ahead to 2026, KDG plans to introduce new products and enhance capabilities, which may impact the firearm accessory market by providing innovative solutions for shooters. Bullet Points Shawn - Steiner Optics Unveils Innovative ATLAS Aiming System Steiner Optics has launched the ATLAS, a compact multi-emitter aiming and illumination device aimed at military, law enforcement, and professional security users, as well as the commercial market. It features co-aligned emitters, user-friendly controls, and a durable design, positioned as a versatile tool for operational use. The introduction of the ATLAS may influence purchasing decisions within the gun community, particularly for those seeking advanced aiming systems. The MSRP begins at $4,024.99. Shawn - Taurus Raging Hunter: Now Available in .350 Legend Taurus has launched a new version of its Raging Hunter revolver series chambered in .350 Legend, catering to shooters seeking a revolver suitable for hunting with straight-walled cartridges. The new models feature barrel lengths of 10.5 and 14 inches, and include enhancements for recoil management and accessory compatibility. This addition expands options for hunters in areas with regulations favoring straight-walled cartridges, positioning the Raging Hunter to appeal to a broader market segment within the gun community.   Gun Fights Step right up for "Gun Fights," the high-octane segment hosted by Nick Lynch, where our cast members go head-to-head in a game show-style showdown! Each contestant tries to prove their gun knowledge dominance. It's a wild ride of bids, bluffs, and banter—who will come out on top? Tune in to find out! WLS is Lifestyle Hoover's Legal Rollercoaster ## Key Points Summary,**Intro**,This summary distills the latest developments surrounding Matt Hoover, the CRS Firearms creator, after a lengthy legal battle tied to the so-called “auto key card.” The focus is on the factual timeline, legal questions, and current status as Hoover emerges from federal prison into a halfway house. The material below omits sponsorship references and concentrates on the core events and implications for Hoover, his case, and ongoing appeals., ,**Centerpiece Facts & Timeline**,,- **Subject and backdrop**: Matt Hoover, known for the CRS Firearms YouTube channel, was linked to advertisements for the auto key card—a novelty item featuring a lightning-link-like etching intended to imply automatic-fire capability. The item did not function as advertised, and there is no evidence Hoover owned, sold, or manufactured machine guns or auto key cards.,- **Arrest and charge**: Despite the nonfunctional etching and absence of direct ownership or manufacturing activity, Hoover was arrested and charged with trafficking machine guns. The case connected him to Christopher Justin Irvin, the creator of the auto key card.,- **Sentencing dynamics**: The pre-sentencing report highlighted Hoover's clean criminal record and his role as the family's primary breadwinner, presenting a favorable background for leniency. Yet, prosecutors sought the maximum sentence, arguing aggressive measures despite the limited direct involvement in weapon manufacture or sales.,- **Contested assertions**: The government asserted extreme accusations, including a claim that Hoover married to prevent her testimony, despite Hoover and his wife sharing multiple children. These assertions drew skepticism and counter-arguments during proceedings and appellate discussions.,- **Gag order controversy**: The government attempted to impose gag orders on journalists covering the case. Those efforts were challenged and ultimately overturned, favoring press freedom and coverage of the proceedings.,- **Appeals process**: Hoover and Irvin both appealed their convictions to the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit heard the appeal in September, but no published decision had been issued at the time of reporting. The appellate discussion centers on evidentiary standards, the government's interpretation of the auto key card's legal status, and potential misapplications of trafficking statutes given the novelty item's nonfunctional nature.,- **Current status**: Hoover has been released from federal prison into a halfway house to serve the remainder of his sentence, effectively transitioning from confinement to supervised community-based placement. He is not at home, but he is no longer in a traditional prison setting. The case remains active on appeal, with the circuit court's decision pending.,- **Context and implications**: The broader implications touch on how prosecutors frame “trafficking” related to nonfunctional or novelty items, the evidentiary boundaries for associating creators with distributors, and the practical impact on families and communities tied to defendants in high-profile cases.,- **Public calls to action**: Viewers and supporters are encouraged to engage with ongoing legal debates, follow the Eleventh Circuit decision when released, and participate in related community discussions. Acknowledgment of the current status, while staying tuned for further updates,

And a shorter summer associate program. ----- While most of us celebrated Thanksgiving, some of Trump's phony U.S. Attorneys were the real turkeys. First, a conservative leaning panel of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the million dollar sanctions against Donald Trump and the parking garage lawyer he claims to have running the District of New Jersey. Then his Eastern District cosplaying prosecutor managed to lose not one, but two of the high profile revenge cases she brought. In other news, a major firm announced a new look summer associate program as it tries to deal with the law school recruiting free-for-all that everyone hates, yet no one seems able to do anything about.

And a shorter summer associate program. ----- While most of us celebrated Thanksgiving, some of Trump's phony U.S. Attorneys were the real turkeys. First, a conservative leaning panel of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the million dollar sanctions against Donald Trump and the parking garage lawyer he claims to have running the District of New Jersey. Then his Eastern District cosplaying prosecutor managed to lose not one, but two of the high profile revenge cases she brought. In other news, a major firm announced a new look summer associate program as it tries to deal with the law school recruiting free-for-all that everyone hates, yet no one seems able to do anything about. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Anna Lange, an employee with the Houston County Sheriff’s Office, sought “male-to-female sex change surgery.” The county’s employer-provided health insurance policy covered some treatments for gender dysphoria, but it excluded drugs, services, and supplies for a “sex-change” (among other categories). Lange sued, claiming the policy discriminated based on sex and transgender status in violation of Title VII. The district court, affirmed by an Eleventh Circuit panel, held that the policy facially violated Title VII under Bostock v. Clayton County. On rehearing en banc, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the county’s policy, which drew a line between which treatments it covers, “is not facial discrimination based on protected status.”Lange v. Houston County, decided on September 9, 2025, is one of the first circuit court decisions to apply the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which held that Tennessee’s law prohibiting healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to transition a minor's gender did not discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Join Christopher Mills and Rachel Morrison for a discussion of Lange, its application of Skrmetti and Bostock, and its implications for Title VII and insurance coverage.Featuring:Christopher E. Mills, Principal, Spero Law LLC(Moderator) Rachel N. Morrison, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

This Day in Legal History: Gettysburg AddressOn November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, months after the blood-soaked Civil War battle that left over 50,000 dead or wounded. The speech nearly didn't make it—Lincoln's draft was reportedly misplaced during the train ride to Gettysburg, and he completed the final version just the night before the ceremony. The headliner that day was Edward Everett, a famed orator who delivered a two-hour address rich in historical detail and classical references. Lincoln followed with a two-minute speech of just 271 words.Drawing inspiration from Pericles' Funeral Oration in ancient Athens, Lincoln sought to elevate the sacrifices of Union soldiers into a reaffirmation of democratic ideals. He framed the war as a test of whether a nation “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” could endure. In his address, Lincoln humbly suggested that “the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,” asserting that the deeds of the fallen, not words, would be remembered by future generations.Afterward, Lincoln reportedly told his bodyguard, “that speech won't scour,” using a Midwestern farming phrase to express doubt about its impact. But Everett, recognizing its brilliance, wrote to Lincoln the next day to say that the president had accomplished in two minutes what he had failed to do in two hours. Indeed, Everett himself is now most famous for his connection to Lincoln's words. Though met with mixed reviews at the time, the speech has since eclipsed the Battle of Gettysburg itself in cultural memory and certainly legal significance.Lincoln's words at Gettysburg echoed something he had written five years earlier, after his defeat in the 1858 Illinois Senate race to Stephen Douglas. Reflecting on what seemed like the end of his political career, Lincoln wrote, “and though I now sink out of view, and shall be forgotten, I believe I have made some marks which will tell for the cause of civil liberty long after I am gone.” These words, penned just two years before he became president, speak to Lincoln's deep conviction that principles—not personal success—leave the most enduring legacy. The Gettysburg Address ultimately became one of those “marks,” still telling for the cause of civil liberty over 160 years later.The Gettysburg Address endures not just as a piece of oratory but as a touchstone of American constitutional values, echoing through the Fourteenth Amendment and generations of civil rights jurisprudence.A federal judge in Virginia will hear arguments from former FBI Director James Comey's legal team seeking dismissal of criminal charges against him, alleging the case was politically motivated by President Donald Trump's long-standing animosity. Comey's lawyers argue the prosecution is a form of “vindictive” retaliation for his public criticism of Trump, who has often called for Comey's prosecution since firing him in 2017. Comey, charged in September with making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation, has pleaded not guilty and is pursuing multiple avenues to have the case thrown out before trial.The hearing will also examine the controversial role of Lindsey Halligan, a former Trump personal lawyer with no prosecutorial background, appointed as interim U.S. Attorney overseeing the case. A separate judge is reviewing whether Halligan's appointment was lawful, while a magistrate judge recently flagged serious procedural concerns with how she handled the grand jury that indicted Comey. Prosecutors maintain that Trump's public statements and criticism of Comey do not meet the legal threshold for a vindictive prosecution claim and argue the charges are legitimate.Comey's case is part of a broader pattern, with other Trump critics, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and former national security adviser John Bolton, also facing charges following Trump's calls for retribution. Legal observers are closely watching whether courts will allow such prosecutions to proceed given the appearance of political targeting.US judge to weigh Trump's influence over case against ex-FBI chief Comey | ReutersCravath, Swaine & Moore has kicked off the 2025 year-end bonus season for major U.S. law firms by announcing associate bonuses of up to $140,000. According to an internal memo, standard year-end bonuses will range from $15,000 for first-year associates (on a pro-rated basis) to $115,000 for the most senior associates. Additionally, the firm will issue special bonuses between $6,000 and $25,000, aligning with bonus levels previously set by competitor Milbank.Cravath, long viewed as a market-setter in associate compensation, made the announcement on Tuesday, prompting at least one other major firm—Paul Hastings—to follow suit with matching payouts. These bonuses mirror those issued last year, maintaining pressure on peer firms to remain competitive in compensation.Currently, associates at top U.S. firms earn base salaries ranging from $225,000 to $435,000 depending on seniority. Firms often wait for Cravath to act before making their own compensation decisions. The announcement comes amid strong financial performance across the legal sector, with a surge in client demand—especially for transactional work—reported in the third quarter. Analysts suggest this demand positions firms for a profitable close to 2025.Cravath sets pace for US law firm bonuses, promising associates up to $140K | ReutersCravath Doles Out Associate Bonuses Ranging Up to $140,000 (2)The U.S. Senate is set to question Michael Selig, President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), with a focus on his views on cryptocurrency regulation and election betting markets. Selig, currently the chief counsel for the SEC's crypto task force and an adviser to Republican SEC chair Paul Atkins, has been an outspoken supporter of pro-crypto policies. In a recent social media post, he pledged to help make the U.S. the “Crypto Capital of the World.”Trump's administration has embraced the crypto sector, rolling back enforcement efforts and enacting a regulatory framework for stablecoins. The CFTC could gain expanded oversight powers under the proposed CLARITY Act, which passed the House in July and is now being reviewed by the Senate. That legislation aims to clarify when a digital asset is a commodity versus a security, a long-standing jurisdictional issue between the CFTC and the SEC.Selig's nomination follows the withdrawal of Trump's earlier pick, Brian Quintenz, who alleged his nomination was derailed by pressure from major crypto donors, the Winklevoss twins. Senators are expected to press Selig on his approach to inter-agency cooperation, how he would regulate crypto spot markets, and how the CFTC might handle politically sensitive areas like election betting. Currently, only one commissioner remains on the CFTC, Republican Caroline Pham, who is serving as acting chair and has signaled plans to step down once a new leader is confirmed.Senate to grill Trump's pick for CFTC head on crypto regulation | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on Tuesday that Donald Trump cannot revive his defamation lawsuit against CNN over its use of the term “Big Lie” to describe his false claims about the 2020 presidential election. Trump filed the suit in 2022, arguing that the phrase linked him to Nazi propaganda and unfairly compared him to Adolf Hitler. However, both the district court and the appeals court found that CNN's language constituted protected opinion, not provable falsehoods.The court emphasized that Trump failed to demonstrate that CNN's statements were factually false, which is a necessary element of a defamation claim. While Trump asserted that “Big Lie” was unambiguous and defamatory, the panel disagreed, finding the term inherently subjective and open to interpretation—particularly in political contexts. They noted that if politically charged terms like “fascist” are ambiguous, then “Big Lie,” which is facially apolitical, must be considered at least as ambiguous.Trump had also tried to compare CNN's interpretation of his actions to his own self-assessment, in which he saw himself as exercising constitutional rights. But the court held that differing views on Trump's conduct are subjective and not subject to clear proof. The district court's refusal to reconsider or allow Trump to amend the complaint was upheld, as he failed to present new evidence or show any legal error.The opinion was issued per curiam by Judges Adalberto Jordan, Kevin Newsom, and Elizabeth Branch.Trump Fails to Revive Defamation Suit Against CNN Over ‘Big Lie' This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In the majority ruling, the Eleventh Circuit denied Wild's petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (“CVRA”) does not permit a crime-victim to initiate a freestanding civil lawsuit seeking judicial enforcement of her CVRA rights when no criminal prosecution has been formally commenced against the defendant. The court reasoned that the statute's wording in § 3771(b)(1) ties a court's obligation to “ensure” victims' rights to “any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim,” and thus the rights trigger only once a “preexisting proceeding” exists. Because in this matter the federal government never filed charges or otherwise commenced criminal proceedings against Jeffrey Epstein in the relevant jurisdiction and context, the court held the CVRA simply was not triggered and Wild could not enforce her rights via stand-alone litigation.In his dissent, Judge Hull strongly disagreed, arguing that the plain language of §§ 3771(a)(5) and (a)(8) grants victims a “reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government” and a “right to be treated with fairness,” and that § 3771(d)(3) explicitly authorizes a motion for relief “if no prosecution is underway”—which, in his view, means the CVRA does create a judicial enforcement mechanism even pre-charge. Hull asserted the majority's interpretation imposes a judicially created requirement—i.e., that an indictment or formal prosecution must be pending—when no such prerequisite appears in the statute's text. He warned that the decision unduly favors wealthy defendants and government actors who avoid formal charges, leaving victims of pre-charge misconduct with no remedy. He would have held that Wild's rights attached pre-charge, were violated, and that she is entitled to seek judicial enforcement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the majority ruling, the Eleventh Circuit denied Wild's petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (“CVRA”) does not permit a crime-victim to initiate a freestanding civil lawsuit seeking judicial enforcement of her CVRA rights when no criminal prosecution has been formally commenced against the defendant. The court reasoned that the statute's wording in § 3771(b)(1) ties a court's obligation to “ensure” victims' rights to “any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim,” and thus the rights trigger only once a “preexisting proceeding” exists. Because in this matter the federal government never filed charges or otherwise commenced criminal proceedings against Jeffrey Epstein in the relevant jurisdiction and context, the court held the CVRA simply was not triggered and Wild could not enforce her rights via stand-alone litigation.In his dissent, Judge Hull strongly disagreed, arguing that the plain language of §§ 3771(a)(5) and (a)(8) grants victims a “reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government” and a “right to be treated with fairness,” and that § 3771(d)(3) explicitly authorizes a motion for relief “if no prosecution is underway”—which, in his view, means the CVRA does create a judicial enforcement mechanism even pre-charge. Hull asserted the majority's interpretation imposes a judicially created requirement—i.e., that an indictment or formal prosecution must be pending—when no such prerequisite appears in the statute's text. He warned that the decision unduly favors wealthy defendants and government actors who avoid formal charges, leaving victims of pre-charge misconduct with no remedy. He would have held that Wild's rights attached pre-charge, were violated, and that she is entitled to seek judicial enforcement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

This episode of The Ron Show centers on one of the most consequential developments in Georgia politics: the appointment of Pete Skandalakis as the new prosecutor overseeing the Fulton County election interference case involving Donald Trump and multiple co-defendants. Ron and Georgia NOW News Director Alexis Young walk through what his appointment means, why so many prosecutors reportedly turned down the role, and how the eight-terabyte evidence load sets the stage for a complicated legal path forward. Ron and Alexis also examine the broader political environment surrounding the case, including the recent round of federal pardons issued to several figures tied to Trump. While those pardons have no bearing on state prosecutions, they add another layer to an already high-profile legal battle. They also discuss concerns about political pressure, prosecutorial discretion, and what Georgia law requires when reviewing evidence and making charging decisions.From there, the episode expands into other key news stories shaping Georgia and national politics. Ron covers the AI-generated deepfake circulated by Congressman Mike Collins' campaign, which used synthetic audio to imitate Senator John Ossoff. The segment outlines the ethical questions raised, the response from both parties, and how AI manipulation may impact campaign messaging in 2026 and beyond.The show also touches on the ongoing divide between Donald Trump and Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, recent reporting on misconduct by FBI Director Kash Patel, and the Eleventh Circuit's decision to uphold hate crime convictions in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery.Listeners get a clear, grounded overview of the week's major stories — with Alexis providing additional context from the Georgia NOW newsroom and Ron connecting the dots across statewide and national developments.Tune in to catch the Ron Show weekdays from 4-6pm Eastern time on Georgia NOW! Grab the app or listen online at heargeorgianow.com. #AlexisYoung #PeteSkandalakis #GeorgiaPolitics #FultonCountyCase #MikeCollins #JohnOssoff #AhmaudArbery #GAnews #HearGeorgiaNow #TheRonShow

In the majority ruling, the Eleventh Circuit denied Wild's petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (“CVRA”) does not permit a crime-victim to initiate a freestanding civil lawsuit seeking judicial enforcement of her CVRA rights when no criminal prosecution has been formally commenced against the defendant. The court reasoned that the statute's wording in § 3771(b)(1) ties a court's obligation to “ensure” victims' rights to “any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim,” and thus the rights trigger only once a “preexisting proceeding” exists. Because in this matter the federal government never filed charges or otherwise commenced criminal proceedings against Jeffrey Epstein in the relevant jurisdiction and context, the court held the CVRA simply was not triggered and Wild could not enforce her rights via stand-alone litigation.In his dissent, Judge Hull strongly disagreed, arguing that the plain language of §§ 3771(a)(5) and (a)(8) grants victims a “reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government” and a “right to be treated with fairness,” and that § 3771(d)(3) explicitly authorizes a motion for relief “if no prosecution is underway”—which, in his view, means the CVRA does create a judicial enforcement mechanism even pre-charge. Hull asserted the majority's interpretation imposes a judicially created requirement—i.e., that an indictment or formal prosecution must be pending—when no such prerequisite appears in the statute's text. He warned that the decision unduly favors wealthy defendants and government actors who avoid formal charges, leaving victims of pre-charge misconduct with no remedy. He would have held that Wild's rights attached pre-charge, were violated, and that she is entitled to seek judicial enforcement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Today's West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy Podcast for our especially special Daily Special, Blue Moon Spirits Fridays, is now available on the Spreaker Player!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, the Eleventh Circuit smacked down Judge Aileen Cannon for her coverup of the Trump espionage report.Then, on the rest of the menu, OpenAI is facing seven lawsuits claiming ChatGPT drove people to suicide even when they had no prior mental health issues; Dozy Don and Crash Duffy have cancelled hundreds of air flights nationwide, leaving travelers scrambling for last second, alternate travel plans; and, Trump pardoned the former Tennessee House speaker and his former top aide in the state legislature just weeks after they were sentenced to prison on public corruption charges.After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where Honda's profit slips as Trump's tariffs take their toll on Japanese automakers; and, Serbian lawmakers passed a special law clearing the way for a real estate project financed by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, despite widespread public opposition and legal hurdles.All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appétit!The Netroots Radio Live Player​Keep Your Resistance Radio Beaming 24/7/365!“Structural linguistics is a bitterly divided and unhappy profession, and a large number of its practitioners spend many nights drowning their sorrows in Ouisghian Zodahs.” ― Douglas Adams "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe"Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/west-coast-cookbook-speakeasy--2802999/support.

My guest today is Bailey Sanders, a Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at Duke University. Her work examines how market competition can advance gender equality and the critical role of women's representation in law and politics. Her research bridges antitrust, constitutional law, and gender equity, and has appeared or is forthcoming in leading law reviews and peer-reviewed journals. She is also co-author of The Fundamental Voter: American Electoral Democracy, 1952–2020 (Oxford University Press, 2024).Sanders received her JD and PhD in Political Science from Duke University before clerking for Judge Gerald B. Tjoflat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and practicing in the antitrust group at McDermott Will & Emery in Washington, D.C. Most importantly, she was my student at Duke Law School during the height of Covid, and one of the few bright spots in my zoom day. She joins us today to discuss her paper, Religious Riders and the Sherman Act, forthcoming in the Michigan Law Review. This episode is co-hosted by UVA Law 2Ls Sari Mithal and Cindy Tran.Show NotesAbout Bailey SandersAbout Kim KrawiecAbout Sari MithalAbout Cindy TranSanders, Bailey, Religious Riders and the Sherman Act (January 01, 2024). Michigan Law Review, Forthcoming. Bailey Sanders, Barak Richman, and Kierra B. Jones, “Growing Market Power Among Catholic Hospitals Restrains Access to Reproductive Health Care”, American Progress (SEP 29, 2025)Bailey Sanders, “The Price of Fertility: Egg Donor Compensation in the United States Following Kamakahi v. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine,” Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy, Vol. 22 (2022)Kimberly D. Krawiec, Sunny Samaritans and Egomaniacs: Price-Fixing in the Gamete Market, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 72, No. 3, 2009. Kimberly D. Krawiec, Gametes: Commodification and The Fertility Industry, The Routledge Handbook of Commodification, Vida Panitch and Elodie Bertrand eds., 2023.

Immigration: May a State criminalize the entry into of an undocumented alien into the State? - Argued: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 8:49:49 EDT

Courtney Wild, one of the dozens of women victimized by Jeffrey Epstein, brought a bold claim: when the federal government secretly negotiated a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein in 2007, prosecutors deprived her and others of rights guaranteed under the CVRA — specifically, the right to confer with government lawyers and be treated fairly. She argued they were kept in the dark and misled about why there was no federal prosecution. Wild's case was trying to force accountability for those abuses of process, not just the underlying horrorsBut in a deeply disappointing outcome, Wild lost in court. In April 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the CVRA does not allow a victim to bring a freestanding lawsuit when there's no preexisting criminal prosecution. Since Epstein was never federally charged in those earlier negotiations, there was no “proceeding” in which her rights under the CVRA had been triggered. The Supreme Court later declined to hear her petition, letting the decision stand. Wild's legal argument was powerful, but the statutes — as currently written and interpreted — didn't give victims a path to enforce their CVRA rights under those particular circumstances.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Courtney Wild, one of the dozens of women victimized by Jeffrey Epstein, brought a bold claim: when the federal government secretly negotiated a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein in 2007, prosecutors deprived her and others of rights guaranteed under the CVRA — specifically, the right to confer with government lawyers and be treated fairly. She argued they were kept in the dark and misled about why there was no federal prosecution. Wild's case was trying to force accountability for those abuses of process, not just the underlying horrorsBut in a deeply disappointing outcome, Wild lost in court. In April 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the CVRA does not allow a victim to bring a freestanding lawsuit when there's no preexisting criminal prosecution. Since Epstein was never federally charged in those earlier negotiations, there was no “proceeding” in which her rights under the CVRA had been triggered. The Supreme Court later declined to hear her petition, letting the decision stand. Wild's legal argument was powerful, but the statutes — as currently written and interpreted — didn't give victims a path to enforce their CVRA rights under those particular circumstances.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Courtney Wild, one of the dozens of women victimized by Jeffrey Epstein, brought a bold claim: when the federal government secretly negotiated a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein in 2007, prosecutors deprived her and others of rights guaranteed under the CVRA — specifically, the right to confer with government lawyers and be treated fairly. She argued they were kept in the dark and misled about why there was no federal prosecution. Wild's case was trying to force accountability for those abuses of process, not just the underlying horrorsBut in a deeply disappointing outcome, Wild lost in court. In April 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the CVRA does not allow a victim to bring a freestanding lawsuit when there's no preexisting criminal prosecution. Since Epstein was never federally charged in those earlier negotiations, there was no “proceeding” in which her rights under the CVRA had been triggered. The Supreme Court later declined to hear her petition, letting the decision stand. Wild's legal argument was powerful, but the statutes — as currently written and interpreted — didn't give victims a path to enforce their CVRA rights under those particular circumstances.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

First Amendment: Is the sale of an AutoKeyCard, a template that can be used to make an AR-15 into an automatic rifle, protected by the First Amendment? - Argued: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 11:17:58 EDT

In an excerpt from this week's Insider episode, Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance discuss the Supreme Court ruling that loosened restrictions on immigration raids in Los Angeles, allowing ICE to make stops based on factors like ethnicity. In the full episode, Preet and Joyce break down: – A federal judge's ruling that President Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles was unlawful;  – A federal appeals court ruling, which, for the first time, struck down Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members; and – The Eleventh Circuit's decision to block a district court order to shut down the so-called “Alligator Alcatraz” detention center in the Florida Everglades. CAFE Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis.  Not an Insider? Now more than ever, it's critical to stay tuned. To join a community of reasoned voices in unreasonable times, become an Insider today. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast and other exclusive content. Head to cafe.com/insider or staytuned.substack.com/subscribe.  Subscribe to our YouTube channel.This podcast is brought to you by CAFE and Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On this episode of registry matters… we dig into the Eleventh Circuit's rare en banc turn on a parent's fundamental custody right—and what it suggests about judicial motives and possible hypocrisy; unpack why admitting conduct to probation officers or treatment providers can backfire, especially when it predates supervision; examine a Sixth Circuit clash over who...