Podcasts about eleventh circuit

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

It's been another remarkable stretch in the world of courtrooms where Donald Trump's legal battles have made headlines across the country. Here we go right to what's happened for Donald Trump in the past few days and right up to this moment, September 28, 2025.Just days ago, the Supreme Court issued an order in Trump v. Slaughter—this case is all about Trump's removal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause earlier in the year. That's significant because it challenged an almost century-old precedent from the Supreme Court's decision in Humphrey's Executor, which restricts a president's ability to remove FTC commissioners unless there's proven inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. President Trump didn't claim any of those grounds, just policy differences. A federal judge had ordered Slaughter to be reinstated. The lower court's ruling was then stayed by the Supreme Court. The justices decided, in a 6-3 vote, that Trump's action could stand, at least for now, while the case moves forward. They ordered the parties to prepare for oral arguments this December. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a dissent, pointing to the statutory protection Congress gave FTC commissioners and warning about threats to the independence of agencies like this. The implications could be dramatic if the Court ends up narrowing or overturning the protection set in 1935, potentially reshaping not just the FTC but other independent agencies.Meanwhile, Trump's legal schedule remains packed with deadlines and developments. In the D.C. election interference case, Trump has been filing motions on presidential immunity and on dismissing charges using a slew of statutory arguments. Most deadlines for pretrial filings have been put on pause until October 24, as Judge Tanya Chutkan, who returned to jurisdiction after the Supreme Court's ruling on immunity, issued a scheduling order. The battle continues over whether Trump should be shielded from prosecution for acts taken while in office. These are questions the courts are wrestling with right now, and will be through the end of this year.In Florida, the classified documents case has advanced after Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the superseding indictment, arguing that the appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith was unlawful. The government appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and now both sides are filing briefs, with friends of the court chiming in too. Oral arguments and decisions from that appeal could affect the timeline for any trial, or even its scope.Trump is also tangled up in New York—with appeals on last year's civil fraud judgment and the criminal conviction, where Justice Juan Merchan is now weighing a motion to set aside the jury's verdict, citing presidential immunity in light of the Supreme Court's recent guidance. A decision is expected from Justice Merchan in November.In Georgia, Trump and his codefendants are pushing appeals about disqualifying District Attorney Fani Willis, and all those appeals will be heard together, with oral arguments scheduled soon at the Court of Appeals.There has even been a class action suit filed by groups like the ACLU and NAACP, following a Supreme Court decision in CASA v. Trump, challenging aspects of the Trump administration's policy actions.As you can hear, it's a legal whirlwind that touches multiple corners of the country and asks fundamental questions about presidential power, agency independence, and the limits of the law. Come back next week for more, and thanks again for tuning in. 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

Listeners, the whirlwind of legal action surrounding Donald Trump has barely slowed as we move through September 2025. Just days ago, the Supreme Court made headlines yet again by stepping directly into a case involving Trump and the removal protections of Federal Trade Commission members. On September 22, Chief Justice John Roberts granted Trump's application for a stay, effectively pausing the District Court's order from July and elevating the matter to a landmark petition for certiorari before judgment. That means the Justices will be reviewing, arguably for the first time at this stage, whether statutory removal protections for FTC officials breach the separation of powers—and even whether Humphrey's Executor, the historic 1935 case defining those powers, may be overturned. The case will be heard in December and has already sparked dissent from Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, who sharply criticized the immediate empowerment of the President to discharge a sitting FTC member.But that Supreme Court drama is just one thread. The past several weeks have been thick with new filings, deadline jockeying, and complicated appeals spanning federal and state courts. The Master Calendar, as continually updated by Just Security, lays out an intense series of deadlines. October alone promises major swings in several pivotal criminal and civil cases. Trump's legal team is preparing filings for challenges in the D.C. election interference case, with supplemental motions and redaction objections, arguing—once again—about the boundaries of presidential immunity. The government, meanwhile, is sharpening its own responses, aiming to block or overturn Trump's renewed bids to avoid prosecution under immunity doctrines.New York is also in the spotlight. Trump's appeal from Judge Alvin Hellerstein's rejection of his attempt to move the criminal case out of Manhattan is due by October 14. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has been relentless, and Trump is fighting tooth-and-nail to keep his hearings away from local courts, banking on the hope that federal judges might prove more favorable.And in Georgia, things are just as fiery. Mark Meadows, Trump's former Chief of Staff, has petitioned the Supreme Court after the Eleventh Circuit dashed his hopes of moving his own criminal case out of state to the federal level. Trump, alongside other defendants, is also challenging Judge McAfee's decision not to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis—expect oral arguments on that tangled issue in early December before the Georgia Court of Appeals.Behind the scenes, the fallout from that major Supreme Court presidential immunity decision in August is still echoing. Judge Tanya Chutkan in D.C. now holds jurisdiction once again. All pretrial deadlines are stayed through late October, pushing the calendar further into the campaign season and setting up a tense winter for Trump, his attorneys, and prosecutors alike.With appeals stacking up—on everything from the funding and appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith in Florida to the consolidated appeals in the New York civil fraud case brought by Attorney General Letitia James—the months ahead are set to be a constitutional reckoning that could redefine not only Trump's fate, but the boundaries of presidential authority and accountability in America.Thank you for tuning in today. Come back next week for more of the latest legal developments—this has been a Quiet Please production. 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

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

My week swept me from courtrooms to breaking news alerts, and each day Donald Trump's legal drama pulled me in deeper. Let's start with some of the most pivotal moments—because lately, every time Trump's name drops, a courtroom somewhere is waiting.The most dominating event on my radar was the rolling calendar of hearings stemming from the Washington, D.C. election interference case, officially known as United States v. Donald J. Trump. This case has been at the heart of debates over presidential immunity and the actions Trump took surrounding the 2020 election. After the Supreme Court's decision in Trump's presidential immunity appeal earlier this year, the case was sent back to the D.C. Circuit, with Judge Tanya Chutkan regaining jurisdiction. And believe me, every motion and hearing since has been dissected. The big focus has been on Trump's attempt to dismiss charges based on presidential immunity, with both sides trading arguments fast and furiously. According to the continually updated master calendar by Just Security, the pretrial deadlines remain largely frozen as the court sorts out immunity questions and related motions, with critical filings scheduled just weeks after what would have been the peak of election season.Yet the courtroom fireworks stretch way beyond D.C. In Florida, Trump's classified documents case—technically the Mar-a-Lago documents case—took a surprising twist over the summer when Judge Aileen Cannon granted his motion to dismiss the superseding indictment. The government reacted immediately, filing an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, setting up more rounds of legal jousting later this year. The real point of contention here is whether Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment and funding were lawful, and as those appellate briefs keep rolling in, everyone is watching for signals about how federal judge and jury might ultimately interpret this high-stakes issue.Meanwhile, in New York, Trump's team has moved aggressively to appeal decisions from both the civil fraud and criminal election interference cases. Justice Juan Merchan, overseeing the state-level case on alleged hush money payments, is expected to issue a decision on Trump's motion to overturn his guilty verdicts based on the outcome of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling. That moment, scheduled for just after November, could reshape not only the verdict but also set a precedent for the role of presidential immunity in state prosecutions.Add to that fresh moves in Georgia, where Trump and several codefendants continue to appeal a ruling refusing to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Oral arguments in that dispute are on the horizon too—always a reminder of how quickly these parallel proceedings can shift.It's clear that as 2025 draws on, Trump's legal fate is being shaped court by court, appeal by appeal, all of it unfolding in real time. Thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more updates. 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

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

State attorneys general are turning up the heat on Big Tech. Last week, 27 AGs filed an amicus brief urging the Eleventh Circuit to uphold Florida's law restricting social media access for children, framing the measure as content-neutral and necessary to protect youth mental health. Days later, 44 AGs sent a joint NAAG letter to leading AI companies warning them to safeguard children from exploitation and inappropriate content, making clear they will use every enforcement tool available. For legal, compliance, and marketing teams, these actions underscore the growing regulatory focus on online platforms, addictive features, and AI-driven risks. Companies in the tech, digital media, and AI sectors should expect heightened scrutiny and prepare for aggressive, coordinated enforcement. Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Paul L. Singer, Abigail Stempson, Beth Bolen Chun and Andrea deLorimier.

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...

Send us a textRoyce highlights two cases, one in his home state of Florida, where a sheriff and state attorney are fighting to keep a ban on open carry in place, and their reasoning glaringly proves their willful ignorance of the Constitution.Then, in Robinson v. U.S., the Eleventh Circuit, in total violation of the Bruen standard, upheld the federal restriction on SBRs without doing the required historical analysis required by the Bruen standard.  There is too much ignorance of the Constitution in high places, and that is utterly unacceptable.Support the showGiveSendGo | Unconstitutional 2A Prosecution of Tate Adamiak Askari Media GroupBuy Paul Eberle's book "Look at the Dirt"Paul Eberle (lookatthedirt.com)The Deadly Path: How Operation Fast & Furious and Bad Lawyers Armed Mexican Cartels: Forcelli, Peter J., MacGregor, Keelin, Murphy, Stephen: 9798888456491: Amazon.com: BooksVoice of the Blue (buzzsprout.com)

Courtney Wild, one of Jeffrey Epstein's underage victims, has waged a prolonged legal battle asserting that federal prosecutors violated her statutory rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act by secretly crafting a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) shielding Epstein and his co-conspirators without notifying or consulting her—her “right to confer” and be treated fairly were emphatically ignored. After the district court acknowledged the CVRA violation but declined to provide relief on jurisdictional grounds following Epstein's death, Wild pressed her case through the Eleventh Circuit. In a contentious en banc ruling, the court recognized the profound injustice yet held that the CVRA does not allow victims to enforce their rights via standalone legal action absent a formal criminal proceeding. Feeling thwarted by this interpretation, Wild and her attorneys petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this critical question of whether the CVRA's protections extend to pre‑charge, behind‑the‑scenes deals that effectively nullify accountability.Wild's Supreme Court petition presents what she and her legal team call a “now-or-never opportunity” for the Court to buttress victim protections and clarify that the government cannot clandestinely dispense with criminal accountability while ignoring victims entirely—especially when the accused wield immense wealth and influence. Without such reckoning, the Justice Department may continue negotiating secret deals that nullify the statutory rights Congress fought to grant crime victims. Despite the urgency and gravity of the case, the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the appeal—effectively allowing the Eleventh Circuit's restrictive interpretation to stand and signaling that victims in similar predicaments may remain legally powerless when prosecutors circumvent the formal charging process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victim seeks US Supreme Court review of prosecutors' secret deal - ABC News

Courtney Wild, one of Jeffrey Epstein's underage victims, has waged a prolonged legal battle asserting that federal prosecutors violated her statutory rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act by secretly crafting a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) shielding Epstein and his co-conspirators without notifying or consulting her—her “right to confer” and be treated fairly were emphatically ignored. After the district court acknowledged the CVRA violation but declined to provide relief on jurisdictional grounds following Epstein's death, Wild pressed her case through the Eleventh Circuit. In a contentious en banc ruling, the court recognized the profound injustice yet held that the CVRA does not allow victims to enforce their rights via standalone legal action absent a formal criminal proceeding. Feeling thwarted by this interpretation, Wild and her attorneys petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this critical question of whether the CVRA's protections extend to pre‑charge, behind‑the‑scenes deals that effectively nullify accountability.Wild's Supreme Court petition presents what she and her legal team call a “now-or-never opportunity” for the Court to buttress victim protections and clarify that the government cannot clandestinely dispense with criminal accountability while ignoring victims entirely—especially when the accused wield immense wealth and influence. Without such reckoning, the Justice Department may continue negotiating secret deals that nullify the statutory rights Congress fought to grant crime victims. Despite the urgency and gravity of the case, the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the appeal—effectively allowing the Eleventh Circuit's restrictive interpretation to stand and signaling that victims in similar predicaments may remain legally powerless when prosecutors circumvent the formal charging process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victim seeks US Supreme Court review of prosecutors' secret deal - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Courtney Wild, one of Jeffrey Epstein's underage victims, has waged a prolonged legal battle asserting that federal prosecutors violated her statutory rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act by secretly crafting a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) shielding Epstein and his co-conspirators without notifying or consulting her—her “right to confer” and be treated fairly were emphatically ignored. After the district court acknowledged the CVRA violation but declined to provide relief on jurisdictional grounds following Epstein's death, Wild pressed her case through the Eleventh Circuit. In a contentious en banc ruling, the court recognized the profound injustice yet held that the CVRA does not allow victims to enforce their rights via standalone legal action absent a formal criminal proceeding. Feeling thwarted by this interpretation, Wild and her attorneys petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this critical question of whether the CVRA's protections extend to pre‑charge, behind‑the‑scenes deals that effectively nullify accountability.Wild's Supreme Court petition presents what she and her legal team call a “now-or-never opportunity” for the Court to buttress victim protections and clarify that the government cannot clandestinely dispense with criminal accountability while ignoring victims entirely—especially when the accused wield immense wealth and influence. Without such reckoning, the Justice Department may continue negotiating secret deals that nullify the statutory rights Congress fought to grant crime victims. Despite the urgency and gravity of the case, the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the appeal—effectively allowing the Eleventh Circuit's restrictive interpretation to stand and signaling that victims in similar predicaments may remain legally powerless when prosecutors circumvent the formal charging process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victim seeks US Supreme Court review of prosecutors' secret deal - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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 News

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.

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-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

President Trump signs three new executive orders at an AI summit in Washington and announces a bold action plan to sustain America's global dominance in artificial intelligence. Earlier today, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also spoke about her office's recent findings on the 2016 election during a White House press briefing.A federal judge in Florida today denied the Justice Department's request to unseal grand jury transcripts related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, citing the Eleventh Circuit's grand jury secrecy law. The denial follows a request from the Trump administration to release the transcripts.Bryan Kohberger, the 30-year-old man who pleaded guilty on July 2 to the November 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students, has been sentenced to four consecutive life terms in prison. Before the sentencing, several family members of the victims spoke emotionally about the anguish they've endured.

This episode was originally published on The Murder Sheet's main feed on July 4, 2025.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 Alabama, Idaho, Missouri, and Ohio, as well as nation-wide, across the United States of America. Associated Press's reporting on the murders of Idaho firefighters John Morrison and Frank Harwood and the wounding of David Tysdal: https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2025/07/01/idaho-ambush-suspect-wess-roley/Fox 11's reporting on the murders of Idaho firefighters John Morrison and Frank Harwood and the wounding of David Tysdal: https://fox11online.com/news/local/neenah-high-school-alum-among-firefighters-killed-in-idaho-ambush-frank-harwood-wisconsin-coeur-dalene-kootenai-county-battalion-john-morrison-wess-roley-brush-fire-dave-tysdalThe Spokesman-Review's reporting on the murders of Idaho firefighters John Morrison and Frank Harwood and the wounding of David Tysdal: https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/jun/30/suspect-in-idaho-firefighter-killings-identified-a/Fox News's report on the charges against Jordan Willis and Ivory Carson in the deaths of Ricky Johnson, David Harrington, and Clayton McGeeney: https://www.foxnews.com/us/kansas-city-chiefs-fans-deaths-prosecutors-seek-tougher-chargesUSA Today's report on the charges against Jordan Willis and Ivory Carson in the deaths of Ricky Johnson, David Harrington, and Clayton McGeeney:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/06/27/kansas-city-chiefs-fans-death-murder-charge/84387725007/People's report on the charges against Jordan Willis and Ivory Carson in the deaths of Ricky Johnson, David Harrington, and Clayton McGeeney: https://people.com/why-chiefs-fans-friend-is-now-charged-with-murder-exclusive-quotes-11763812The Sandusky Register's report on the case of true crime podcaster Ashli Ford and her attorney: https://sanduskyregister.com/news/595034/attorney-switches-sides/The Sandusky Register's report on the case of true crime podcaster Ashli Ford: https://sanduskyregister.com/news/594351/state-opposes-podcasters-motion/The Norwalk Reflector's report on the case of true crime podcaster Ashli Ford: https://norwalkreflector.com/news/589011/podcaster-takes-witness-stand/The opinion on the Michael Sockwell case in the murder of Isaiah Harris the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202313321.pdfWSFA's reporting on the Michael Sockwell case in the murder of Isaiah Harris: https://www.wsfa.com/2025/07/01/alabama-death-row-inmate-convicted-murder-for-hire-granted-retrial-after-3-decades/NPR's report on falling murder rates: https://www.npr.org/2025/06/30/nx-s1-5448852/murders-down-nationwide-covidPre-order 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.

This week has been another pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battles surrounding former President Donald Trump. Just days ago, in a Manhattan federal appeals court, Trump's legal team pressed forward with their latest attempt to overturn his criminal conviction in the New York State Supreme Court. That conviction, delivered last year, found Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records as part of the infamous hush money case involving adult film star Stormy Daniels. Even after receiving an unconditional discharge—which means Trump faces no fines, no prison time, and no other penalties, but the conviction remains on his record—he has remained adamant about his innocence, again insisting by video during sentencing back in January that he was “treated very, very unfairly” and vowing to appeal at every turn.The appeal now hinges on arguments that the case should have been moved to federal court, citing an older, rarely used law. Yet legal experts observing the proceedings have expressed skepticism, noting that the law Trump's attorneys are invoking is unlikely to sway the appellate judges. Indeed, the president was not present in the courtroom for Wednesday's hearing, letting his legal team take center stage. Meanwhile, journalists and court watchers filled the room, eager to catch any sign from the bench that might signal which way the judges are leaning.But New York is just one arena in Trump's legal battlefield. On the West Coast, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a key decision regarding Trump's control of the California National Guard. The court rejected Trump's sweeping claim that he, as president, could federalize the National Guard for any purpose and remain immune from judicial review. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who brought the challenge, publicly praised the court for affirming that the president is not above the law, though he expressed disappointment that Trump retains operational control of the Guard—for now.Meanwhile, the appeals process is just beginning for Trump's legal team in several other matters. In Florida, the classified documents case remains in limbo while the Eleventh Circuit prepares to hear the government's appeal after the trial judge dismissed the indictment on technical grounds. In New York, Trump's attorneys continue to fight the civil fraud judgment, with appeals consolidated and new briefs filed.The sense is palpable: every week, every decision, is now unfolding under intense public scrutiny. Trump's legal strategists are working overtime, filing appeals, challenging court orders, and pressing for dismissals—while prosecutors and state officials, from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to California Attorney General Rob Bonta, remain determined to hold the former president accountable. As of today, June 20, 2025, Trump's fight across multiple courts is far from over, with each day bringing new arguments, new rulings, and the possibility of even more dramatic developments on the horizon.

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

Today is May 16, 2025, and I've been closely tracking the flurry of courtroom drama surrounding Donald Trump. It's felt like headlines haven't had a break—just keeping up with the sheer amount of legal action attached to Trump's name is dizzying.One of the most heated developments happened in Florida, where Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trump's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment in the classified documents case. The government, not backing down, filed its notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals almost instantly. The briefing schedule is now underway, and the legal fight over whether Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment and funding were lawful is far from settled. The stakes here are significant, given how central these classified documents are to the larger question of presidential privilege and accountability.Meanwhile, in New York, Trump's legal team is navigating a different path. They've appealed both Justice Arthur Engoron's summary judgment from September 2023 and his final decision from February 2024 in the civil fraud case. New York Attorney General Letitia James moved to consolidate the appeals. Now, the Appellate Division, First Department, has ordered that all arguments will proceed together. The appeals center on whether Trump and his companies fraudulently inflated property values and other assets—an issue that has both civil and political consequences hanging in the balance.Georgia is another hot spot, especially with Mark Meadows petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court. He wants to move his state-level criminal case to federal court after the Eleventh Circuit denied his bid. Though this move didn't directly involve Trump, it's part of the wider universe of prosecutions linked to efforts to overturn the 2020 election.And back in Manhattan, Trump has once again attempted to lift his criminal prosecution by District Attorney Alvin Bragg into the federal courts. His latest filing for removal was rejected for being untimely, a setback he tried to counter by seeking Judge Alvin Hellerstein's permission—denied yet again. Now, Trump's team is appealing to the Second Circuit, with briefs due later this year.If all that weren't enough, just yesterday at the Supreme Court, the justices heard oral arguments in Trump v. CASA Inc. The dispute centers on birthright citizenship and the reach of executive power, stemming from an executive order Trump issued on his inauguration day this year. Multiple district courts have already blocked the order, and the Supreme Court will now weigh in, with implications for citizenship itself and, likely, for the 2024 campaign narrative.In every jurisdiction, from Florida to New York, Georgia to the highest court in the land, Donald Trump faces a legal calendar as relentless and high-stakes as any in American history. Each court date, each appeal, every ruling shapes not only Trump's personal future but America's ongoing clash over law, power, and politics.

With the passing of Justice David Souter, the legal establishment has lost one of its most honored members.  In this and our next episode, we pay tribute to the man and his work with the help of an amazing roster of his former clerks, friends, and colleagues.  We begin with Judge Kevin Newsom from the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the Dean of the Yale Law School, Heather Gerken, who share their experience working closely with the Justice on the Supreme Court, as well as his role in their lives that did and does inspire them.  Meanwhile, Akhil, who considered the Justice a good friend and role model, offers an in-depth look at various aspects of the Justice, including why a Justice who disagreed with Akhil on method and, in many cases, substance, nevertheless is regarded by him as one of the great Justices in American history.  In our next episode we will have more guests whom we will reveal in the discussion during this episode.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Fear of authoritarian targeting PFRs; Determined ex-PFRs can succeed remotely; Eleventh Circuit finds Alabama law overbroad; state must allow individualized review for parents’ rights; DOJ ends PREA funding, increases prison sexual abuse risks. [0:00] Intro[03:08] Could Trump Target PFRs? Exploring Fears and Reality[11:16] Navigating Parole Restrictions: Surviving Michigan's PFR Policies[18:10] Alabama’s Parenting Ban: When Rights...

In this episode, Jordan discusses a recent Fifth Circuit case that addressed trade secret identification and proof of misappropriation at trial, and an Eleventh Circuit case addressing whether and how trade secret misappropriation damages can be limited by contract.

Why is the Supreme Court making some of its most impactful decisions behind closed doors? In this episode, Robin Frazer Clark and Lester Tate welcome Professor Stephen Vladeck, author of the bestselling book The Shadow Docket, to discuss the rise of stealth rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. Learn why unsigned and unexplained decisions—affecting everything from immigration to abortion—are becoming more common and why every American should be paying attention.

This week, we're doing a deep dive into the history surrounding Americans under 21 buying guns. That's why we've got gun-rights lawyer Alan Beck on the show. He's currently representing a client who is fighting Hawaii's age restrictions. In the wake of the Eleventh Circuit upholding Florida's gun sales ban for those under 21 by pointing to how contract law limited the same age group's ability to buy guns, he researched the question. He argues the evidence contradicts the Eleventh Circuit's holding. He said rulings from the Founding Era suggest those under 21 couldn't enter into contracts for things that weren't necessities, but that was actually a pretty broad exception. He said most guns would have been considered necessities because they were needed to hunt, perform mandated militia service, and provide for general security. Beck also gave a working-lawyers view of the Supreme Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence and where it's headed. He described the details of his latest case at the High Court and what the cert application process is like. Special Guest: Alan Beck.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I recap the en banc Ninth Circuit's newest decision upholding California's ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds and its much-discussed video dissent from Judge Lawrence VanDyke. We also talk about a separate Ninth Circuit panel's ruling striking down Hawaii's unique restrictions on handgun sales. Finally, we cover a long awaited en banc Eleventh Circuit decision dealing with Florida's post-Parkland ban on gun sales to adults under the age of 21. Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utmsource=thereload&utmmedium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0125 Special Guest: Mike Willever.

Key Points: Arkansas is requiring public and charter schools to provide annual gun safety education to all students, with parental consent needed for hands-on training. The Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision in NRA v. Bondi upholding Florida’s ban on firearm sales to individuals aged 18-20 has been criticized for ignoring historical context and relevant laws. The […] The post This Week in Guns 457 – Big Federal Gun Law Updates & States Being Silly appeared first on Firearms Radio Network.

Key Points: Arkansas is requiring public and charter schools to provide annual gun safety education to all students, with parental consent needed for hands-on training. The Eleventh Circuit's recent decision in NRA v. Bondi upholding Florida's ban on firearm sales to individuals aged 18-20 has been criticized for ignoring historical context and relevant laws. The Supreme Court heard arguments in Smith & Wesson Brands vs. Mexico, where Mexico's attempt to sue American gun manufacturers under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was met with skepticism from the justices.

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is a sweeping federal statute requiring individuals with significant interests in LLCs and other entities registered under state or tribal law to disclose personal information, unless explicitly exempt. This information is stored in a Treasury Department database maintained by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and accessible by the IRS, federal and foreign law enforcement, and intelligence agencies without court approval. (State authorities must obtain judicial authorization.) Affecting over 32 million entities, the CTA imposes severe penalties for noncompliance, including fines of up to $10,000 and imprisonment. Initially set to take effect on January 1, 2025, for pre-existing entities, the implementation timeline has been disrupted by legal challenges.Join us as we delve into the constitutional controversies surrounding the CTA. Our speaker, Prof. Thomas Lee, was the lead lawyer in NSBA v. Yellen, the first of the CTA lawsuits filed in the Northern District of Alabama in November 2022. The district court issued a permanent injunction on March 1, 2024, igniting a wave of similar lawsuits, including Texas Top Cop Shop, where a nationwide preliminary injunction was granted in May 2024.The Supreme Court is currently considering a stay application in Texas Top Cop Shop, and the Eleventh Circuit's decision on the government's appeal in NSBA v. Yellen remains pending. Prof. Lee will provide insights into these pivotal cases and their broader implications for federal regulatory authority and individual rights under the Constitution.Featuring: Prof. Thomas Lee, Leitner Family Professor of International Law; Director of Graduate and International Studies, Fordham University School of Law

Civil Rights: Can a health insurance provider be held liable under Title VII for denying coverage for gender-affirming care? - Argued: Thu, 06 Feb 2025 19:33:49 EDT

On January 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling which vacated the so-called ​“one-to-one” consent requirement for marketing calls and texts adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its implementing rules for the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In its ruling, the court held that the rule adopted by the FCC exceeded the agency's statutory authority because it conflicted with the plain meaning of ​“prior express consent” in the TCPA. Below we summarize the court's ruling and explain what it means for businesses going forward. https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/eleventh-circuit-vacates-tcpa-11-consent-rule Alysa Hutnik ahutnik@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8603 www.kelleydrye.com/people/alysa-z-hutnik Jenny Wainwright jwainwright@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8649 https://www.kelleydrye.com/people/jennifer-rodden-wainwright Hosted by Simone Roach Subscribe to the Ad Law Access blog - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe Subscribe to the Ad Law News Newsletter - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe View the Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center - www.kelleydrye.com/advertising-and-privacy-law Find all of our links here linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has vacated the FCC's "one-to-one" consent rule for marketing calls and texts, ruling that the agency exceeded its authority under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The decision eliminates stricter consent requirements that the FCC introduced in December 2023 to target lead generation practices. Key Takeaways: • 1:1 Consent Rule Overturned – The court ruled that consent does not have to be granted on a per-business basis. • FCC Exceeded Its Authority – The agency's attempt to redefine consent went beyond its legal power. • Immediate Business Impact – The previous TCPA consent rules remain in effect, but businesses should monitor carrier and platform responses. • Next Steps – The case is remanded to the FCC, but an appeal is unlikely. Read more: https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/eleventh-circuit-vacates-tcpa-11-consent-rule

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do Florida S.B. 7072's content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment, and do the law's individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment? The case was decided on July 1, 2024. The Supreme Court held that The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded, because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to the Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion of the Court. Under precedents like Miami Herald v Tornillo, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v Public Utilities Commission, Turner Broadcasting v FCC, and Hurley v Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, when a private entity engages in expressive activity, including curating others' speech, government interference with that activity implicates the First Amendment. Specifically, the First Amendment protects entities engaged in expressive activities, including compiling and curating others' speech, from being forced to accommodate messages they prefer to exclude. This protection applies even when the compiler includes most items and excludes only a few. The government cannot justify interfering with a private speaker's editorial choices merely by claiming an interest in improving or balancing the marketplace of ideas. These principles likely apply to the content moderation practices of social media platforms like Facebook's News Feed, indicating that state laws regulating these practices may face significant First Amendment hurdles. However, this analysis may not apply to all of the laws' applications, so it is important for courts to conduct a thorough examination of the laws' full scope and their constitutional and unconstitutional applications in a proper facial challenge analysis. Texas's regulation of social media platforms' content moderation policies aims to alter the speech displayed on these platforms, reflecting the state's disapproval of the platforms' current content selection and moderation practices. However, under the First Amendment, Texas cannot impose its preferences on how private entities curate and present speech, as this would amount to government control over the expression of ideas. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority opinion in full and authored a separate concurrence. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority opinion in part and authored a separate concurrence. Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Civil Rights: May Florida prohibit "gender affirming care" for minors and restrict the provision of such care for adults? - Argued: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 14:43:51 EDT

Over the past four years, state attorneys general have brought many significant lawsuits against the Biden administration. From border enforcement and student loan forgiveness, to Title IX rules and environmental regulations, states have brought the executive branch into court over divisive legal questions. Some of these suits remain active. This panel of experts will recap the most notable cases of the past presidential term and discuss what the recent election could mean for the future.Featuring:Mr. T. Elliot Gaiser, Solicitor General, OhioMr. Eric Olson, Former Solicitor General of Colorado; Partner, Olson GrimsleyHon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General, TennesseeModerator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

It has been almost ten years since the advent of the ‘progressive prosecutor,’ local elected district attorneys and attorneys general throughout the country who ran on and then implemented a revolutionary new model of public prosecution. If states are the “laboratories of democracy” then there plainly has been a series of bold experiments testing the efficacy of this new model of law enforcement. Was it a success, or a failure? Has public safety and order been promoted, or jeopardized? Or is it all simply too soon to tell? Please join us as we present a panel of distinguished current and former elected officials, academics, and other experts in the field as they discuss all facets of these important questions of law, order, and the public interest.Featuring:Hon. John Creuzot, District Attorney, DallasProf. Carissa Byrne Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of LawMr. Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage FoundationHon. Ray Tierney, District Attorney, Suffolk County, New YorkModerator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Theories of nuisance, market-share, and consumer protection liability have become increasingly popular among plaintiffs who cannot trace an alleged harm to any specific defendant. Recently, states and local governments have sought to impose market-share liability on companies based on allegedly misleading statements (or silence) about the potential effects of their products. These cases raise difficult legal issues that remain underdeveloped because the risk of a crippling damages award often pressures companies to settle claims early in litigation.Featuring:Mr. Theodore J. Boutrous, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLPMr. Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLPMr. Oramel H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For ConsumersModerator: Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard was the most important decision on affirmative action in generations, banning preferential treatment based on race in higher education admissions. How are colleges and universities complying with SFFA? What else will be necessary in order to ensure compliance? What does the next generation of cases look like? Outside of higher education, what will be the effect of SFFA? Does it apply to employment and contracting? Does it apply to gender as well as race? What does it say about disparate impact?Featuring:Prof. Peter Arcidiacono, William Henry Glasson Professor of Economics, Duke UniversityProf. David Bernstein, University Professor of Law; Executive Director, Liberty & Law Center, George Mason University Prof. Kyle Rozema, Professor of Law, Co-Director of the JD/PhD Program and Academic Placement, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawProf. Sonja Starr, Julius Kreeger Professor of Law & Criminology, University of Chicago Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Lisa Branch, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Remove Judge Aileen Cannon! An amicus brief has just been filed with the Eleventh Circuit, calling on the appeals court to finally remove Judge Cannon from the Trump classified documents case — a step that Jack Smith did not explicitly ask for when he finally appealed her ludicrous dismissal of the Florida indictment. Noah Bookbinder, President for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, who authored the brief, joins Jessica Denson to explain why the standard is crystal clear for Cannon to be removed from the case on remand. Read CREW's brief in full here: https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/25-1-2024-09-03-Attachment-1.pdf Support Jessica Denson's legal fund here: http://thejessicadenson.com/donate Subscribe to Jessica's Youtube: https://youtube.com/@JessicaDenson07 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.