Podcasts about equal protection

Lecture One introduces foundational concepts in Constitutional Law, addressing federalism, separation of powers, and core individual rights (Due Process, Equal Protection, and the Commerce Clause). It explains federalism's distribution of authority between federal and state governments, highlighting key Supreme Court cases like McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden. It also discusses the essential separation of powers principle, reinforced by landmark decisions such as Marbury v. Madison. Critical individual rights are examined, specifically procedural and substantive due process rights, equal protection standards, and the extensive interpretation of the Commerce Clause through landmark cases.The lecture also covers fundamental professional responsibility topics guided by the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, focusing on conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and attorney-client privilege. It emphasizes the ethical duties and obligations attorneys have toward their clients and the legal system. The lecture concludes with practical preparation strategies for the MBE and introduces structured methods for writing effective MEE essays, including sample questions and essay analyses.Key Takeaways:Constitutional Law:Federalism: Federal government powers are enumerated explicitly; states hold reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment.Separation of Powers: Legislative, executive, and judicial branches have distinct roles to prevent abuses of power.Due Process: Protects individuals from unfair government deprivation of life, liberty, or property.Equal Protection: Requires equal governmental treatment and scrutiny standards to evaluate discrimination.Commerce Clause: Grants broad authority to Congress over activities significantly affecting interstate commerce.Professional Responsibility:ABA Model Rules: Set ethical standards for legal practice; adopted widely by state bar associations.Conflicts of Interest: Attorneys must avoid or mitigate conflicts that impair professional judgment or client interests.Confidentiality: Lawyers have an expansive duty to protect client information, with limited exceptions.Attorney-Client Privilege: Specifically safeguards confidential communications meant to secure legal advice.Exam Preparation:Regularly practice MBE-style questions to build accuracy and analytical skills.Employ the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) method systematically for MEE essays.Understand ethical dilemmas deeply to clearly articulate duties in professional responsibility essays.These key concepts form the foundation for your continued bar exam preparation.

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia, striking down state laws that banned interracial marriage. The case arose when Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Loving, a Black and Indigenous woman, were sentenced to a year in prison for marrying each other in Washington, D.C., then returning to their home in Virginia, which criminalized interracial unions under its Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The couple's challenge to their conviction eventually reached the nation's highest court.In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the Court, stated that the freedom to marry is a “vital personal right,” and restricting that freedom on the basis of race was “directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The Court emphasized that classifications based solely on race are “odious to a free people” and cannot stand.The decision invalidated laws in 16 states that still prohibited interracial marriage at the time, cementing Loving v. Virginia as a major victory in the civil rights movement. It not only reinforced the constitutional commitment to racial equality but also laid critical groundwork for later decisions involving personal liberty, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2015.A U.S. federal judge ruled that the Trump administration cannot detain Columbia University student and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil based on U.S. foreign policy concerns. The decision, issued by Judge Michael Farbiarz in Newark, found that using a rarely applied immigration law to justify Khalil's detention violated his free speech rights. Khalil, whose green card was revoked in March, has been in detention since then and was the first foreign student arrested amid the pro-Palestinian campus protests following the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel.The court found that Khalil was suffering irreparable harm due to the damage to his career and the chilling effect on his speech. While the ruling bars Khalil's deportation under the foreign policy provision, it does not require his immediate release, allowing the administration until Friday to appeal. Khalil's wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, urged his immediate return to their home in New York, where she cares for their newborn son.Neither the State Department nor the Justice Department commented. The case reflects tensions over U.S. responses to student activism amid global political conflicts, particularly as Trump-era policies are used to target protesters. The foreign policy provision invoked allows deportation of non-citizens if their presence is seen as harmful to U.S. interests, but the court found it unconstitutional in this case.US foreign policy no basis to detain Columbia protester Khalil, judge rules | ReutersCalifornia is taking the Trump administration to court over the deployment of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles amid escalating protests against President Donald Trump's immigration policies. Approximately 700 Marines are set to join 4,000 National Guard troops to support federal agents and protect government property, sparking backlash from state officials who argue the move is illegal and inflammatory. California Governor Gavin Newsom, along with other state and local leaders, contends the deployment violates the state's rights and unnecessarily escalates tensions.The protests, which began in response to a wave of immigration raids, have spread to cities including New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., and are expected to intensify with over 1,800 demonstrations planned for the weekend. Demonstrators in Los Angeles have largely remained peaceful, though incidents of violence and aggressive police responses have been reported. A federal judge in San Francisco will hear arguments Thursday as California seeks a restraining order to halt the military's law enforcement involvement.The Marines have completed crowd control and de-escalation training but are operating under Title 10 of U.S. law, which authorizes limited military involvement in civilian matters. They are permitted to detain individuals interfering with federal duties but are not supposed to engage in regular policing. Trump defended the deployment, calling it essential to maintaining order, while critics, including national Democrats, have called it a dangerous overreach.Marines prepare for Los Angeles deployment as protests spread across USA group of current and former female athletes is appealing the NCAA's $2.8 billion antitrust settlement, arguing that the deal violates Title IX by disproportionately compensating male athletes. Approved by a federal judge on June 6, the settlement allocates 90% of back pay damages to men, largely benefiting football and basketball players. The objectors, represented by attorney John Clune, argue this breakdown reflects a $1.1 billion miscalculation and discriminates against women in violation of federal law.The appeal, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is the first formal challenge to a settlement touted as a major victory for student-athletes. Clune said the agreement lacks meaningful support for women's sports, including basketball and Olympic disciplines, and warned that schools are already discussing cutting programs as a result of the deal's financial structure.Critics of the appeal, including settlement attorney Jeffrey Kessler, claim the Title IX objection is misplaced in an antitrust case and will delay compensation for over 100,000 athletes. Still, the challenge raises questions about gender equity in how the NCAA compensates athletes for past name, image, and likeness (NIL) restrictions.While the total settlement amount isn't being disputed, the appeal could impact future policies around compensation, roster limits, and salary caps. The NCAA says it's continuing with implementation, but the appeal introduces legal uncertainty into an already complex shift in college athletics.NCAA $2.8 Billion Deal Gets Appealed Over Title IX Issues (1)Donald Trump's legal team is attempting to fast-track an appeal of his New York felony conviction by moving the case toward the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump was convicted in Manhattan on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, marking the first time a former or current president has been found guilty of a felony. His attorneys returned to court this week to argue the state case should be shifted to federal jurisdiction.They contend that Trump's actions were connected to his official duties as president and thus should be handled in federal court, where they believe he might receive a more favorable legal environment. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is currently weighing the request, which Trump hopes will pave the way for a rapid review by the Supreme Court.The legal maneuvering is part of a broader strategy to challenge the legitimacy of the New York state trial and delay sentencing or any other consequences. Trump maintains that the case is politically motivated and that the charges are being used to interfere with his political agenda.Trump Seeks Quick Path to Supreme Court in Hush Money Appeal (1) 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 lecture provides an overview of crucial constitutional rights within the realm of criminal procedure, extending from the moment an individual faces charges through potential post-conviction challenges. It details Sixth Amendment trial guarantees, including the rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, confrontation of witnesses, and compulsory process. The lecture then addresses the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy, explaining when it attaches and relevant doctrines like the same-elements test and dual sovereignty. Furthermore, it covers the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection considerations, particularly as they relate to sentencing and prosecution, before discussing the right to counsel at trial and on appeal. Finally, the lecture explores the avenues and limitations of post-conviction remedies, such as habeas corpus.SummaryThis lecture series on Criminal Procedure delves into the essential rights and protections afforded to defendants under the U.S. Constitution. It covers the Sixth Amendment's trial rights, the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy protections, and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection guarantees. The discussion also highlights the importance of the right to counsel, post-conviction remedies, and emerging issues in criminal law, providing a comprehensive overview of the principles that govern the criminal justice system.TakeawaysThe Sixth Amendment guarantees a fair trial through various rights.Double jeopardy prevents multiple prosecutions for the same offense.Due process includes both procedural and substantive protections.The right to counsel is fundamental for a fair trial.Post-conviction remedies allow for challenging convictions.Emerging technologies pose new challenges to criminal procedure.The Equal Protection Clause ensures non-discriminatory enforcement of laws.The right to an impartial jury is crucial for justice.Procedural default can block federal review of claims.New evidence can lead to claims of actual innocence in court.Sound Bites"The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial.""Due process ensures fair procedures in adjudication.""Access to counsel is essential for a fair trial."Criminal Procedure, Trial Rights, Double Jeopardy, Due Process, Equal Protection, Right to Counsel, Post-Conviction Remedies, Legal Standards, Criminal Justice Reform

This Day in Legal History: United States v. Carolene Products Co. DecidedOn April 25, 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, a seemingly mundane case about a federal law banning the interstate shipment of “filled milk.” But beneath its surface lay one of the most consequential footnotes in American constitutional history. The Court upheld the statute under a rational basis review, affirming Congress's authority to regulate economic activity. However, in Footnote Four of the majority opinion, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone proposed a bold and lasting idea: not all legislation should be treated equally when it comes to judicial review.Stone suggested that while economic regulations would generally be upheld if they had a rational basis, laws that appeared to conflict with specific constitutional prohibitions or aimed at "discrete and insular minorities" might require stricter scrutiny. This footnote planted the seed for what would become the modern system of tiered judicial scrutiny—rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny—used to assess the constitutionality of laws under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.Though Footnote Four was not binding, it became one of the most cited and influential passages in constitutional law. It signaled a shift away from the Lochner-era deference to economic liberty and toward more robust judicial protection of civil rights and liberties. The idea that courts have a special role in protecting politically powerless groups fundamentally shaped later decisions in cases involving racial discrimination, free speech, and voting rights.In this way, a case about dairy regulation became a cornerstone of modern constitutional doctrine. Carolene Products illustrates how even minor legal disputes can produce major legal revolutions—one footnote at a time.In a rare display of bipartisan unity, the U.S. government is making significant legal advances against Big Tech, with Meta and Google facing tough antitrust scrutiny in simultaneous court cases. In separate proceedings in a Washington federal courthouse, the FTC is attempting to break up Meta, while the DOJ is pressing Google over illegal monopoly practices, including deals to pre-install its AI on smartphones. These efforts reflect years of legal groundwork laid across both the Trump and Biden administrations, showing that concerns over Big Tech's power and influence transcend party lines—even if the motivations differ. While Democrats emphasize market concentration and data control, Republicans have focused on censorship and political bias. Despite court momentum, legislative action remains stalled, hindered by political polarization and disagreements over broader issues like content moderation and China policy. The bipartisan front could fracture as political dynamics shift, especially with Trump signaling a more cooperative stance toward tech companies–or at least a willingness to extract rents from them.Meta, Google Hammered in Court in Sign of Rare Left-Right Unity - BloombergThe American Bar Association (ABA) laid off over 300 employees after the Trump administration cut $69 million in federal grant funding, according to a new lawsuit filed by the ABA against the Department of Justice. The organization alleges the cuts were politically motivated retaliation for its support of diversity initiatives and criticism of the administration. The terminated grants had funded legal aid programs for domestic violence victims and immigrants, as well as global rule of law initiatives. The layoffs affected about a third of the ABA's staff, including workers in its South Texas ProBar program and international legal development projects. The DOJ ended the grants shortly after barring its attorneys from participating in ABA events. The ABA is being represented by Democracy Forward in the suit, which also names Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche as defendants.ABA Lays Off 300 Employees, Blaming Trump Grant Funding Cuts (1)Richard Lawson, the lawyer defending President Trump's executive orders targeting law firms, has faced repeated courtroom defeats while offering vague, evasive answers under judicial questioning. In four separate cases, courts have temporarily blocked Trump's orders, which aimed to punish firms like Perkins Coie and WilmerHale for their roles in legal actions against him by revoking security clearances and threatening government contracts. Judges have openly criticized the orders as retaliatory and politically motivated. Despite this, Lawson has often appeared alone in court, prompting speculation that even the Justice Department is reluctant to back the arguments he's tasked with presenting. His vague responses and visible discomfort have drawn scrutiny, especially given his political ties to Attorney General Pam Bondi and his role at the pro-Trump America First Policy Institute. While some law firms have settled by agreeing to large pro bono commitments, others are pushing forward in court, where permanent injunctions against the executive orders now seem likely.Trump Attorney for Big Law Attacks Says Little as Losses Rack UpIn a piece for Forbes earlier this week, I argue that the state and local tax (SALT) deduction is fundamentally flawed and difficult to defend. Though often framed as a benefit to the middle class or a protection against double taxation, the deduction overwhelmingly favors wealthy households and creates inequities in the federal tax system. It allows states to impose high taxes without facing full political accountability, effectively outsourcing part of the cost to the federal government. The 2017 cap of $10,000 was a step in the right direction, and data shows that repealing it would benefit primarily the top 20% of earners—not typical working families. Unlike other personal expenses like rent or groceries, which aren't deductible, SALT gets special treatment without clear justification. If we care about fairness, progressivity, and honest budgeting, it's time to seriously consider scrapping the deduction altogether.Reconsidering The SALT Deduction: Is It Defensible?This week's closing theme is the final section of Finlandia, Op. 26, by the Finnish composer Jean Sibelius, performed here in its piano version. Composed in 1899 during a time of intense political censorship and rising nationalist sentiment, Finlandia was Sibelius's defiant musical response to Russian oppression. The tone poem was originally part of a series of historical tableaux performed as a protest against censorship, with Finlandia serving as the rousing finale.While the early passages of Finlandia are turbulent and stormy—meant to evoke struggle—the final section is a striking contrast: serene, solemn, and deeply moving. This lyrical closing, often referred to as the Finlandia Hymn, became an unofficial anthem of Finnish resistance and later a national symbol of unity and perseverance. In this week's selection, we hear a solo piano arrangement that strips the music to its essence, allowing the melody's dignity and quiet strength to shine through.Sibelius once said, “Music begins where the possibilities of language end,” and in Finlandia's final moments, words do indeed fall away. What remains is a profound expression of hope and resilience—qualities that have made this music resonate far beyond Finland's borders. Though Sibelius composed in the late Romantic tradition, his voice is unmistakably his own: direct, elemental, and rooted in the landscape and soul of his homeland.As we close out the week, let Finlandia remind us that even in times of turbulence, grace and resolve can still find their voice. 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

Louisiana's congressional districts, which it redrew following the 2020 census, currently sit in a state of legal uncertainty.The map initially only had one majority-black district. However, following a 2022 case called Robinson v. Ardoin (later Laundry), which held that it violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana re-drew the map to include two majority-black congressional districts.In January 2024, a different set of plaintiffs sued alleging the new map violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. A 2-1 panel agreed the new map violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and enjoined the new map. Given the timing, the case briefly went up to the Supreme Court which granted an emergency application for stay, citing Purcell v. Gonzalez. That allowed the 2022 map to be used for the 2024 elections.Now the case is before the Supreme Court again, this time with a range of issues for the court to address including: (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court is still sitting on its (tiny) hands, but trial judges are holding strong against the Trump administration's assault on the rule of law. We'll talk about the pushback to Trump's anti-trans executive orders, his assault on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the effort to ensure that the Dear Leader can fire watchdogs at will. Plus subscribers get a deep dive on trial judges attempting to SCOTUS-proof their rulings to protect trans kids.   Links:   Dellinger v. Bessent [District Court Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69624836/dellinger-v-bessent   Dellinger v. Bessent [SCOTUS Docket] https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a790.html   National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69624423/national-treasury-employees-union-v-vought/    Jones v. Bondi  [Docket via Court Listener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277335   Washington v. Trump [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69620657/state-of-washington-v-trump/   PFLAG v. Trump [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69614668/pflag-inc-v-donald-j-trump/   Seila Law v. CFPB [SCOTUS Opinion] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-7_new_bq7d.pdf   Corporate Transparency Act, 31 USC § 5336 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5336   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

The 1898 supreme court case called United States vs. Wong Kim Ark had affected enforcement of the Chinese Exclusion Act, because the court found that people born in the U.S. to Chinese parents were U.S. citizens. Research: Graber, Mark A. "United States v. Wong Kim Ark." American Governance, edited by Stephen Schechter, et al., vol. 5, Macmillan Reference USA, 2016, pp. 228-230. Gale In Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3629100710/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=73795502. Accessed 22 Jan. 2025. "United States v. Wong Kim Ark." Gale U.S. History Online Collection, Gale, 2024. Gale In Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EXXRWP999307394/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=c225358c. Accessed 22 Jan. 2025. "United States v. Wong Kim Ark." Great American Court Cases, edited by Mark Mikula and L. Mpho Mabunda, vol. 3: Equal Protection and Family Law, Gale, 1999. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ2303200443/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=01ef8726. Accessed 22 Jan. 2025. Zietlow, Rebecca E. "Fourteenth Amendment: Citizenship Clause." American Governance, edited by Stephen Schechter, et al., vol. 2, Macmillan Reference USA, 2016, pp. 248-251. Gale In Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3629100269/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=5c43018e. Accessed 22 Jan. 2025. Rosenbloom, Rachel E. “Birthright Citizenship Has Been Challenged Before.” Time. 1/15/2025. https://time.com/7204970/birthright-citizenship-test-cases/ Bomboy, Scott. “Updated: The birthright citizenship question and the Constitution.” National Constitution Center. 1/21/2025. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/revisiting-the-birthright-citizenship-question-and-the-constitution Cabrera-Lomelí, Carlos. “A 129-Year-Old San Francisco Lawsuit Could Stop Trump From Ending Birthright Citizenship.” KQED. 1/21/2025. https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship Abdelfatah, Rund et al. “By Accident of Birth.” Throughline. NPR. 6/9/2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/06/1103291268/by-accident-of-birth Dhillon, Hardeep. “How the Fight for Birthright Citizenship Shaped the History of Asian American Families.” Smithsonian. 3/27/2023. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-the-fight-for-birthright-citizenship-reshaped-asian-american-families-180981866/ Frost, Amanda. “Birthright Citizens and Paper Sons.” The American Scholar. 1/18/2021. https://theamericanscholar.org/birthright-citizens-and-paper-sons/ Moore, Robert. “He won a landmark citizenship case at the US Supreme Court. El Paso tried to deport him anyway.” El Paso Matters. 7/4/2022. https://elpasomatters.org/2022/07/04/wong-kim-ark-vs-united-states-history-immigration-supreme-court/ Frost, Amanda. “’By Accident of Birth’: The Battle over Birthright Citizenship After United States v. Wong Kim Ark.” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/7583 Berger, Bethany. “Birthright Citizenship on Trial: Elk v. Wilkins and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.” Articles and Papers. 378. 2016. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_papers/378 National Archives Catalog. “In the matter of Wong Kim Ark for a writ of habeas corpus.” https://catalog.archives.gov/id/296026 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Host: Noah Parrish, Gender Justice Communications Director Guests:  Sara Jane Baldwin, Gender Justice Senior Staff Attorney Paula Schaefer, Advocate for Minnesota Juvenile Justice Reform Meagan McIntyre, Gender Justice 2024 legal intern In this conversation on The Gender Justice Brief, we shine a light on an issue that doesn't get nearly enough attention: the unequal protection of girls in Minnesota's juvenile justice system. This episode was inspired by a keynote address Gender Justice Senior Staff Attorney Sara Jane Baldwin gave at the annual conference of Minnesota's Advisory Task Force for Justice-Involved Women and Girls, “Beyond the Bars: Partnering with Girls for Meaningful Justice Reform.” Our guests walk us through the history of Minnesota's juvenile justice system, explore the systemic inequities girls face today, and discuss how the proposed Equal Rights Amendment could address some of these injustices. Note: This is the final episode of the season for the podcast. We are taking a break as we focus on the work ahead in 2025. Subscribers will receive notifications of any new episodes recorded in the future. Visit the "Gender Justice" Website ⁠here⁠ and "Unrestrict Minnesota" ⁠here⁠. The GJB is produced by Michael at ⁠www.501MediaGroup.com⁠

Criminal law expert and Stanford Law Professor David Sklansky joins Pam Karlan to discuss his book Criminal Justice in Divided America: Police, Punishment, and the Future of Our Democracy, published in January. In this episode, they explore what he sees as the failures of America's criminal justice system—from overly harsh sentences and prosecutorial abuses to the under-utilization of the jury system—that don't just harm individuals, but erode the very foundations of democratic governance. They also examine the rise and fall of community policing, the role of mental health in police encounters, and the impact of jury service on civic engagement, offering insights into how criminal justice shapes political and social landscapes while proposing steps toward reform.Sklansky, a former federal prosecutor, teaches and writes about policing, prosecution, criminal law and the law of evidence at Stanford Law, where he is also the faculty co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:David Sklansky >>> Stanford Law pageCriminal Justice in Divided America, Police, Punishment, and the Future of Our Democracy >>> Stanford Lawyer magazine online feature(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Criminal Justice and the Erosion of DemocracyPam Karlan welcomes professor David Sklansky and explains the link between the crises of criminal justice and democracy, discussing how failures in criminal law and policy have undermined democratic values. The conversation touches on racial disparities, equal protection, and how the criminal justice system has contributed to public distrust in government institutions.(00:05:15) Chapter 2: Policing and PolarizationKarlan and Sklansky delve into the historical role of policing in fueling political polarization, particularly during the rise of crime as a central political issue in the late 20th century. Sklansky highlights the impact of police abuse on public confidence, the Republican Party's pivot toward tough-on-crime policies, and how bipartisan approaches to policing briefly improved public trust.(00:09:12) Chapter 3: The Rise and Fall of Community PolicingThe discussion focuses on community policing as a promising reform effort that ultimately fell short. Sklansky critiques its limited engagement with younger residents and those affected by police violence. He explains how the movement's failure to address systemic issues, like excessive police violence, eroded its credibility and relevance in modern reform conversations.(00:14:15) Chapter 4: Guns, Policing, and Mental Health CrisesThe discussion explores the connection between America's lax gun laws and police killings, highlighting the role of training and the unique challenges posed by mental health crises. Sklansky addresses the need for better collaboration between police and other services while emphasizing the importance of proper training in de-escalation.(00:19:00) Chapter 5: Small Police Departments and Training ChallengesKarlan and Sklansky examine the implications of having too many decentralized police departments in the U.S. They discuss issues like poor training, rehiring problematic officers, and the proliferation of SWAT teams. Sklansky offers insights on potential reforms and the influence of state and federal coordination in improving policing.(00:21:32) Chapter 6: The Role of Juries in DemocracyKarlan and Sklansky delve into the jury system as a cornerstone of democracy, discussing its impact on civic engagement, cross-sectional representation, and public trust. They highlight the need for systemic changes to improve accessibility, fair cross-section representation, and community participation in jury duty.

The U.S. Constitution establishes the framework of the federal government and divides power among three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, empowering the judiciary to strike down unconstitutional laws. Federalism divides power between the federal government and the states. The federal government has enumerated powers, while states retain reserved powers. The Supremacy Clause resolves conflicts between state and federal law, with federal law being supreme. The Separation of Powers doctrine outlines the powers and responsibilities of each branch of government, with checks and balances to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. Key cases illustrate the evolution and interpretation of these powers over time. Individual rights, including First Amendment freedoms, Due Process, and Equal Protection, are protected by the Constitution. Landmark Supreme Court cases have shaped the interpretation and application of these rights, balancing individual liberties with government interests. The lectures emphasize the importance of understanding these constitutional concepts for success on the bar exam and in legal practice.

Constitutional Law Lecture 3 - Individual Rights and Landmark Cases I. Introduction: Core Principles of Individual Rights Foundation: Individual rights, which are protected by the US Constitution, are designed to protect citizens from government overreach and uphold democratic values. The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments and judicial interpretations embody these rights. Dynamic and Evolving: This area of law is presented as dynamic, requiring an understanding of its historical development, the balance between liberty and governmental interests, and the precedent set by landmark Supreme Court decisions. Key Themes: The lecture focuses on three primary areas: First Amendment Freedoms (free speech, freedom of the press, and religious freedom); Due Process and Equal Protection (the 14th Amendment, procedural and substantive due process, and equal protection under the law); and Landmark Supreme Court Cases (pivotal decisions that have shaped the interpretation and application of individual rights). Practical Importance: Understanding these rights is deemed crucial for both bar exam success and effective legal practice, given their intersection with numerous aspects of society. II. Part One: First Amendment Freedoms A. Free Speech Core Principle: The First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas, share information, and challenge authority without undue government interference. This right is not absolute and is subject to limitations. Protected Speech:Content-Based Regulation: Subject to strict scrutiny where the government must show a "compelling state interest" and that the regulation is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that interest. This high standard ensures that such restrictions are rare. Categories of Protected Speech: Political Speech: The most rigorously protected form of expression, encompassing protests, campaign endorsements, and government criticism. Symbolic Speech: Non-verbal communication (e.g., flag burning, wearing symbolic clothing) is protected when conveying a clear message. Example: Texas v. Johnson. Hate Speech: Remains protected unless it incites violence or constitutes a true threat. Unprotected Speech: Certain categories of speech are unprotected due to harmful effects or lack of social value. Obscenity: Speech that appeals to prurient interests, lacks serious artistic, literary, or scientific value, and violates community standards. Example: Miller v. California. Fighting Words: Speech intended to provoke immediate violence or breach the peace. Example: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action: Speech that encourages illegal activity and poses an imminent threat. Example: Brandenburg v. Ohio. **Brandenburg Test (1969):**The speech must be "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "likely to incite or produce such action." This test significantly expanded free speech protection, moving focus from abstract advocacy to concrete threats. Implications: The Brandenburg standard has influenced contemporary debates about online speech, protests, and incendiary rhetoric. It underscores the tension between free speech and the harms posed by speech. B. Freedom of Religion Dual Protection: The First Amendment protects religious freedom through two key provisions: Establishment Clause: Prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another. It promotes a separation of church and state and religious neutrality. **Lemon Test (Lemon v. Kurtzman):**The government action must have a secular purpose, its primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. Free Exercise Clause: Protects individuals from government actions that substantially burden their religious practices. It guarantees the right to worship or abstain from religion freely.

Constitutional Law Summary This document provides a summary of key Equal Protection and First Amendment principles. Equal Protection: The Fourteenth Amendment ensures equal legal treatment. The Supreme Court uses three levels of scrutiny to assess claims: strict scrutiny for suspect classifications (race, etc.), intermediate scrutiny for gender or legitimacy, and rational basis review for most other classifications. Race discrimination is generally invalid; gender discrimination requires a substantial relationship to an important government interest. First Amendment Freedoms: Protects speech, religion, assembly, and the press. Content-based speech restrictions face strict scrutiny, while content-neutral ones are less strict. Unprotected speech (e.g., incitement, obscenity) receives no protection. Public forums have strong speech protections. Freedom of religion includes the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Freedom of assembly allows peaceful gathering with potential content-neutral restrictions. Freedom of association protects group formation. Freedom of the press is similar to individual speech protections. Key Points for Bar Exam Analysis: Identifying the correct classification and level of scrutiny is crucial for Equal Protection. For the First Amendment, determining speech protection and regulation type is essential. Understanding these concepts is vital for the bar exam and legal practice. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Individual Rights and Due Process Under the Fourteenth Amendment Source: ConLaw Lecture 2 of 5: Individual Rights and Due Process Main Themes: The Fourteenth Amendment as a cornerstone of individual rights: The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, serves as a "second constitution" safeguarding individual rights against state actions. It guarantees fairness, equality, and liberty through its Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Due Process of Law: This clause mandates fair and legitimate government actions when impacting individual rights. It has both procedural (fair procedures like notice and hearing) and substantive (protection of fundamental rights regardless of procedures) aspects. Equal Protection of the Laws: This clause prohibits discrimination and ensures equal application of laws, playing a vital role in dismantling racial segregation, gender discrimination, and other inequalities. Incorporation Doctrine: This doctrine extends most Bill of Rights protections to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, ensuring consistent protection of fundamental freedoms across the nation. Fundamental Rights: Certain rights, considered essential to liberty and justice, are designated as "fundamental," requiring compelling justification for any government restriction. These include privacy, marriage and family, education, and voting rights. Most Important Ideas/Facts: Due Process Examples:Procedural: Gideon v. Wainwright (right to legal counsel) Substantive: Roe v. Wade (right to abortion as part of privacy) Equal Protection Examples:Brown v. Board of Education (desegregation of public schools) Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage) Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage) Incorporation Examples:Gitlow v. New York (First Amendment's free speech applicable to states) Mapp v. Ohio (Fourth Amendment's unreasonable search and seizure protection applied to states) Privacy Rights: The right to privacy, though not explicitly stated in the Constitution, is inferred from several amendments and their "penumbras." Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut (contraceptives) and Lawrence v. Texas (same-sex conduct) solidified this right. State Action Doctrine: This doctrine limits the application of constitutional rights to government actions, with exceptions for private entities performing public functions or heavily entangled with the state. Key Quotes: Fourteenth Amendment: "...one of the most important amendments...serving as a foundation for civil rights and liberties...aimed to protect the rights of formerly enslaved individuals and to extend the principles of liberty and equality to all citizens." Due Process Clause: "No state shall 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'" Equal Protection Clause: "No state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'" Fundamental Rights: "The Supreme Court has recognized certain rights as so essential to liberty and justice that they are considered 'fundamental rights.'" State Action Doctrine: "The state action requirement means that purely private conduct, even if discriminatory or unjust, may not be subject to constitutional challenge." Conclusion: This lecture underscores the Fourteenth Amendment's pivotal role in shaping individual rights and ensuring fair treatment by the state. Its principles, including due process, equal protection, and the incorporation doctrine, have led to landmark legal decisions that protect fundamental freedoms and strive for a more just and equitable society. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

In this episode of Main Street Matters, Elaine and Jordan discuss the work of the Pacific Legal Foundation with attorney Erin Wilcox. The conversation covers the foundation's mission to uphold equal protection under the law, particularly in public contracting and education. Erin shares insights into ongoing legal challenges against racial preferences in government contracts, specifically highlighting a case involving Aerospace Solutions in Texas. The discussion also touches on the implications of recent Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action and the impact of race-based policies in education. Main Street Matters is part of the Salem Podcast Network. For more visit JobCreatorsNetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Atlantic City Fire Department requires all personnel who respond to fires or other emergencies to follow the proper use of an air mask when exposed to hazardous air. To ensure a proper fit, employees are prohibited from growing facial hair that could interfere with the mask seal. Plaintiff, Pastor Alexander Smith requested a religious accommodation to wear a short beard, arguing that growing the beard was an exercise of his faith and that wearing the mask was not part of his technician role in the department. This request was denied, citing safety concerns, prompting Smith to pursue legal action, alleging First Amendment, Equal Protection, and Title VII violations. However, the District Court of New Jersey ruled in favor of the fire department. Together, the Harvard Religious Freedom Clinic and First Liberty Institute are appealing his case to the Third Circuit, with oral argument on October 30. Join Kayla Toney, who is arguing the case, and Katie Mahoney, Clinical Instructional Fellow at the Harvard Religious Freedom Clinic, as they break down the argument.Featuring:Kayla Toney, Associate Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Kathryn Mahoney, Clinical Instructional Fellow, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School

On the ballot this November is The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), to guarantee equality of rights under the law for all persons regardless of sex. To get more awareness around the amendment, Alyssa Talanker organized "A Night of Women" on September 21, 6-9 pm at the Lark Street Tavern in Albany. She spoke with Sina Basila Hickey about this event.

Summary of Chapter 10: Equal Protection. Chapter 10 explores the application of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees that no person shall be denied "the equal protection of the laws." This chapter delves into how courts interpret and enforce this principle, focusing on different levels of judicial scrutiny, issues of discrimination, and the implementation of affirmative action across various classifications such as race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and age. 1. Levels of Scrutiny. The judiciary employs three main levels of scrutiny to assess whether a law or government action violates the Equal Protection Clause: Rational Basis Review: This is the most lenient standard, applied in cases that do not involve fundamental rights or suspect classifications. Laws are upheld if they are rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Intermediate Scrutiny: This is a more rigorous standard applied to cases involving gender discrimination or classifications based on legitimacy. Laws must be substantially related to an important government interest to be upheld. Strict Scrutiny: The most stringent standard, used in cases involving fundamental rights or suspect classifications like race or national origin. Laws must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. II. Discrimination and Affirmative Action. The chapter also discusses how the Equal Protection Clause addresses discrimination and the constitutionality of affirmative action policies: Race Discrimination: The courts apply strict scrutiny to any laws or policies that classify individuals based on race. Landmark cases like Brown v Board of Education and Loving v Virginia demonstrate how the courts have struck down laws that perpetuate racial inequality. Gender Discrimination: Gender-based classifications are subject to intermediate scrutiny. Significant cases such as Reed v Reed and United States v Virginia have shaped the legal landscape for gender equality. Affirmative Action: The chapter examines the contentious legal debates surrounding affirmative action, particularly in higher education and employment. Cases like Regents of the University of California v Bakke and Grutter v Bollinger illustrate the delicate balance the courts strike between remedying past discrimination and avoiding new forms of inequality. III. Equal Protection in Race, Gender, and Other Classifications. The chapter further explores how the Equal Protection Clause has been applied to various forms of discrimination: Race: Beyond the classic cases of racial segregation, the chapter discusses how the courts have dealt with affirmative action and racial classifications in education and employment. Gender: It examines the evolution of gender discrimination law and the impact of major Supreme Court decisions in advancing gender equality. Sexual Orientation: Recent advancements in LGBTQ+ rights are highlighted, with cases like Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges demonstrating the application of Equal Protection to sexual orientation. Disability and Age: The chapter discusses how the courts address discrimination based on disability and age, typically applying a more deferential standard but recognizing the importance of protecting vulnerable groups. Conclusion. Chapter 10 provides a comprehensive overview of the Equal Protection Clause and its critical role in promoting justice and equality. Through various levels of scrutiny, the judiciary ensures that laws and government actions do not arbitrarily or unjustly discriminate against individuals. The chapter underscores the ongoing challenges and debates surrounding affirmative action and the application of equal protection to various classifications, reflecting the evolving nature of civil rights in America. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 10: Equal Protection. Chapter 10 explores the application of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees that no person shall be denied "the equal protection of the laws." This chapter delves into how courts interpret and enforce this principle, focusing on different levels of judicial scrutiny, issues of discrimination, and the implementation of affirmative action across various classifications such as race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and age. 1. Levels of Scrutiny. The judiciary employs three main levels of scrutiny to assess whether a law or government action violates the Equal Protection Clause: Rational Basis Review: This is the most lenient standard, applied in cases that do not involve fundamental rights or suspect classifications. Laws are upheld if they are rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Intermediate Scrutiny: This is a more rigorous standard applied to cases involving gender discrimination or classifications based on legitimacy. Laws must be substantially related to an important government interest to be upheld. Strict Scrutiny: The most stringent standard, used in cases involving fundamental rights or suspect classifications like race or national origin. Laws must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. II. Discrimination and Affirmative Action. The chapter also discusses how the Equal Protection Clause addresses discrimination and the constitutionality of affirmative action policies: Race Discrimination: The courts apply strict scrutiny to any laws or policies that classify individuals based on race. Landmark cases like Brown v Board of Education and Loving v Virginia demonstrate how the courts have struck down laws that perpetuate racial inequality. Gender Discrimination: Gender-based classifications are subject to intermediate scrutiny. Significant cases such as Reed v Reed and United States v Virginia have shaped the legal landscape for gender equality. Affirmative Action: The chapter examines the contentious legal debates surrounding affirmative action, particularly in higher education and employment. Cases like Regents of the University of California v Bakke and Grutter v Bollinger illustrate the delicate balance the courts strike between remedying past discrimination and avoiding new forms of inequality. III. Equal Protection in Race, Gender, and Other Classifications. The chapter further explores how the Equal Protection Clause has been applied to various forms of discrimination: Race: Beyond the classic cases of racial segregation, the chapter discusses how the courts have dealt with affirmative action and racial classifications in education and employment. Gender: It examines the evolution of gender discrimination law and the impact of major Supreme Court decisions in advancing gender equality. Sexual Orientation: Recent advancements in LGBTQ+ rights are highlighted, with cases like Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges demonstrating the application of Equal Protection to sexual orientation. Disability and Age: The chapter discusses how the courts address discrimination based on disability and age, typically applying a more deferential standard but recognizing the importance of protecting vulnerable groups. Conclusion. Chapter 10 provides a comprehensive overview of the Equal Protection Clause and its critical role in promoting justice and equality. Through various levels of scrutiny, the judiciary ensures that laws and government actions do not arbitrarily or unjustly discriminate against individuals. The chapter underscores the ongoing challenges and debates surrounding affirmative action and the application of equal protection to various classifications, reflecting the evolving nature of civil rights in America. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Books about work ... GUEST Byron Borger ... owner, Hearts and Minds bookstore, Dallastown, PA. On her way to Africa ... GUEST Dr Amy Peeler ... assoc prof of New Testament at Wheaton College and assoc rector at St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Geneva, Ill ... author of “Women and the Gender of God. Equal Protection: our understanding has come a long way ... GUEST Bruce Antkowiak ... law professor at Saint Vincent College.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Fourteenth Amendment. Of all the amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the 14th is a big one. It's shaped all of our lives, whether we realize it or not: Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, Bush v. Gore, plus other Supreme Court cases that legalized same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, access to birth control — they've all been built on the back of the 14th. The amendment was ratified after the Civil War, and it's packed full of lofty phrases like due process, equal protection, and liberty. But what do those words really guarantee us? Today on Throughline's We the People: How the 14th Amendment has remade America — and how America has remade the 14th (Originally ran as The Fourteenth Amendment).Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Part 2 of SBM 2024 Series on DEI at YI Sharon. Sourcesheet is here

In this episode of Consider the Constitution, recorded close to the 2024 Juneteenth federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery, host Dr. Katie Crawford-Lackey interviews Dr. DeAnza Cook about the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) and their impact on the American justice system. Dr. Cook explains how the 13th Amendment abolished slavery but left a loophole allowing involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. This led to the disproportionate criminalization and incarceration of Black Americans during the Reconstruction era and beyond.The 14th and 15th Amendments aimed to address citizenship and voting rights for African Americans, but racial discrimination persisted. Black activists leveraged these amendments to challenge racist policing and punishment practices through the courts, protests, and self-defense. However, mass incarceration, which began in the late 20th century, continues to disproportionately affect people of color.Dr. Cook introduces the concept of "abolition democracy," which argues that the abolition of slavery was not enough to secure the rights and freedoms promised to Black Americans. She emphasizes the importance of restoring voting rights for those serving felony convictions and addressing de facto disenfranchisement in jails.The episode underscores the ongoing struggle for equal protection under the law and the need for collective action to pursue a more just and inclusive democracy, particularly as we reflect on the significance of Juneteenth.

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. VirginiaOn June 12, 1967, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the case of Loving v. Virginia, striking down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a Black woman, were married in Washington, D.C., in 1958 but were arrested upon their return to Virginia for violating the state's anti-miscegenation laws. The Lovings were convicted and sentenced to a year in prison, with the sentence suspended on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return together for 25 years. Challenging their conviction, the Lovings argued that Virginia's laws violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice Earl Warren, agreed with the Lovings. The Court held that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes were rooted in racial discrimination and served no legitimate purpose other than to maintain racial segregation. This decision effectively invalidated similar laws in 15 other states, affirming that marriage is a basic civil right that cannot be restricted by racial classifications. The Loving v. Virginia decision was a significant step forward in the civil rights movement, reinforcing the principle that all individuals are entitled to equal protection under the law.Paul Weiss has been aggressively recruiting top-tier mergers and acquisitions and private equity partners, hiring over 20 from prominent firms such as Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins. This hiring spree, focused mainly in London and New York, reflects a broader trend of escalating compensation for elite lawyers, with some earning over $20 million annually. To fund these high-profile hires, Paul Weiss revamped its partner pay system and adopted a "black box" approach, where pay details are kept confidential among partners. The firm also introduced a new tier of non-equity partners to retain senior attorneys without sharing profits.This strategy mirrors moves by other top firms like Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Davis Polk & Wardwell, which have adjusted their compensation structures to remain competitive. Paul Weiss's London office has notably expanded, recruiting high-profile partners from Kirkland to build a comprehensive practice there. The firm's longstanding relationship with Apollo Global Management continues to bolster its M&A and private equity profile. Despite lagging behind top deal advisors like Kirkland & Ellis and Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, Paul Weiss's aggressive hiring positions it well for future market share gains.The firm's recruitment efforts underscore the importance of attracting top legal talent to handle complex and lucrative deals, reflecting a fiercely competitive legal market.Paul Weiss Hiring Binge Shows Big Law's Dealmaker Recruiting WarPower grid technologies (GETs) have gained traction recently as a way to integrate more renewable energy and meet increasing power demands without building new transmission lines. Historically, US electric utilities preferred constructing new lines because they offer guaranteed returns and are seen as less risky, despite the high consumer costs and long timelines associated with them. However, grid congestion in 2022 raised consumer bills by nearly $21 billion, pushing utilities to consider GETs. These technologies optimize existing infrastructure, offering significant cost savings and increased grid capacity.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's new rule requires regional grid planners to consider using GETs. Additionally, a White House meeting led to a federal-state initiative involving 21 states to upgrade 100,000 miles of transmission lines in five years. Studies indicate that implementing GETs could save billions annually and facilitate the connection of more clean energy projects.Despite their benefits, GETs face challenges due to the traditional utility business model that favors large capital investments. Some states like Minnesota and Virginia are now mandating GETs in resource planning and offering incentives. Vermont Electric Power Co. and AES Corp. are examples of utilities testing GETs, such as dynamic line ratings and valve technology, to improve efficiency and reliability. As utilities and technology providers collaborate more, the industry aims to reduce the need for new transmission lines and overcome the associated regulatory and logistical hurdles.Grid Upgrades Gain Favor to Meet Power Demands of AI, Clean TechOn June 11, 2024, Elon Musk moved to dismiss his lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman. The lawsuit, filed in February, accused OpenAI of deviating from its original mission to develop artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity. Musk's attorneys did not provide a reason for the dismissal, which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing Musk the option to refile later.Musk co-founded OpenAI but has since expressed dissatisfaction with its direction, particularly its focus on profitability following substantial investments from Microsoft. The lawsuit sought to compel OpenAI to release its research and technology to the public and prevent its use for financial gain.OpenAI countered that Musk's claims were baseless and motivated by his desire to compete with OpenAI through his own AI venture, xAI, which recently raised $6 billion in funding. The court was scheduled to hear OpenAI's motion to dismiss the case the day after Musk's withdrawal. Neither OpenAI nor Musk's legal representatives commented on the latest development.Elon Musk withdraws lawsuit against OpenAI | ReutersAdobe faced significant backlash over updates to its terms of use, which users feared allowed the company to seize intellectual property and use data to train AI models. The controversy highlighted the need for clear communication of legal terms, especially in the context of evolving technologies like generative AI. In response, Adobe pledged to revise its terms, explicitly stating it won't train AI models on cloud content, with new terms set to be issued on June 18.The uproar began after Adobe's February update, which included provisions for automated and manual review of user content to screen for illegal material. Users, notified in May, expressed concerns on social media, fearing their confidential content could be exploited. Adobe's general counsel, Dana Rao, emphasized that the language had long been part of Adobe's agreements and was essential for practical tasks like uploading content to the cloud.Industry experts noted that such terms are common among cloud service providers but acknowledged the heightened sensitivity among creatives towards potential misuse of their work for AI. Adobe's commitment to clearer, user-friendly legal terms aims to rebuild trust, recognizing the unique and personal relationship users have with its products. The incident underscores the importance of transparent communication and the need for companies to preemptively address user concerns in the AI era.Adobe Responds to AI Fears With Plans For Updated Legal TermsJohnson & Johnson has agreed to a $700 million settlement with 42 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., resolving an investigation into the marketing of its talc-based products, which were allegedly linked to cancer. The settlement, announced on June 11, 2024, addresses accusations that J&J misled consumers about the safety of its talc products. While J&J did not admit any wrongdoing, it continues to assert that its products are safe and asbestos-free.This settlement, led by Florida, North Carolina, and Texas, marks a significant step in consumer product safety, according to Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody. Despite the settlement, J&J still faces tens of thousands of lawsuits related to its talc products, primarily from women with ovarian cancer and some with mesothelioma. As of March 31, approximately 61,490 individuals were suing the company.J&J ceased the global sale of talc-based baby powder last year, opting for corn starch instead. The company has made several attempts to resolve the litigation, including two failed efforts to use bankruptcy to manage its talc liabilities. On May 1, J&J proposed a $6.48 billion settlement to resolve most of the litigation through a third bankruptcy filing and has allocated an $11 billion reserve for talc liabilities. Erik Haas, J&J's worldwide vice president of litigation, stated that the company is pursuing various strategies to achieve a comprehensive resolution of the litigation.Johnson & Johnson reaches $700 million talc settlement with US states | 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

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Fourteenth Amendment - Its Impact on Civil Rights and Liberties. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, has profoundly influenced civil rights and liberties in America. Its broad and powerful language has provided the legal foundation for numerous landmark cases and legal protections, fundamentally transforming American society. The amendment contains several key clauses, each playing a critical role in shaping the legal landscape: Key Clauses. Citizenship Clause: Text: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Impact: This clause grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., overturning the Dred Scott decision and ensuring that all citizens are entitled to the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship. It has been central to debates about immigration and birthright citizenship. Privileges or Immunities Clause: Text: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Impact: Intended to protect citizens' rights against state infringement, though its scope was limited by the Slaughter-House Cases. It remains a potential basis for future legal arguments regarding federal and state relationships. Due Process Clause: Text: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Impact: Protects both procedural and substantive rights, ensuring fair procedures and safeguarding fundamental rights from government interference. It has been used to protect privacy, personal autonomy, and incorporate most of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. Equal Protection Clause: Text: "Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Impact: Requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people, serving as a cornerstone for many landmark civil rights decisions aimed at eliminating discrimination and ensuring equality. Key Applications and Impact. Challenging Segregation in Schools: Brown v Board of Education (1954): Declared that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause, leading to desegregation and advancing the Civil Rights Movement. Right to Privacy and Reproductive Rights: Roe v Wade (1973): Held that the Due Process Clause protects a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, establishing a framework for abortion rights and significantly impacting women's reproductive freedoms. Extending Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples: Obergefell v Hodges (2015): Ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, stating that denying this right violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, thus legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. Broader Implications and Influence. Beyond these landmark cases, the Fourteenth Amendment has played a crucial role in numerous other areas of civil rights and liberties: Racial Equality: Used to challenge discriminatory practices in housing, employment, and voting rights. Loving v Virginia (1967), which struck down laws banning interracial marriage, exemplifies its impact. Gender Equality: The Equal Protection Clause has been instrumental in advancing gender equality. Reed v Reed (1971) highlighted its role in combating gender discrimination. Disability Rights: The amendment has been pivotal in protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities, as seen in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Immigration and Citizenship: The Citizenship Clause affirms the rights of individuals born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' immigration status, shaping policies around birthright citizenship. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

The Fourteenth Amendment - Its Impact on Civil Rights and Liberties. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, has profoundly influenced civil rights and liberties in America. Its broad and powerful language has provided the legal foundation for numerous landmark cases and legal protections, fundamentally transforming American society. The amendment contains several key clauses, each playing a critical role in shaping the legal landscape: Key Clauses. Citizenship Clause: Text: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Impact: This clause grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., overturning the Dred Scott decision and ensuring that all citizens are entitled to the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship. It has been central to debates about immigration and birthright citizenship. Privileges or Immunities Clause: Text: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Impact: Intended to protect citizens' rights against state infringement, though its scope was limited by the Slaughter-House Cases. It remains a potential basis for future legal arguments regarding federal and state relationships. Due Process Clause: Text: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Impact: Protects both procedural and substantive rights, ensuring fair procedures and safeguarding fundamental rights from government interference. It has been used to protect privacy, personal autonomy, and incorporate most of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. Equal Protection Clause: Text: "Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Impact: Requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people, serving as a cornerstone for many landmark civil rights decisions aimed at eliminating discrimination and ensuring equality. Key Applications and Impact. Challenging Segregation in Schools: Brown v Board of Education (1954): Declared that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause, leading to desegregation and advancing the Civil Rights Movement. Right to Privacy and Reproductive Rights: Roe v Wade (1973): Held that the Due Process Clause protects a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, establishing a framework for abortion rights and significantly impacting women's reproductive freedoms. Extending Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples: Obergefell v Hodges (2015): Ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, stating that denying this right violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, thus legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. Broader Implications and Influence. Beyond these landmark cases, the Fourteenth Amendment has played a crucial role in numerous other areas of civil rights and liberties: Racial Equality: Used to challenge discriminatory practices in housing, employment, and voting rights. Loving v Virginia (1967), which struck down laws banning interracial marriage, exemplifies its impact. Gender Equality: The Equal Protection Clause has been instrumental in advancing gender equality. Reed v Reed (1971) highlighted its role in combating gender discrimination. Disability Rights: The amendment has been pivotal in protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities, as seen in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Immigration and Citizenship: The Citizenship Clause affirms the rights of individuals born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' immigration status, shaping policies around birthright citizenship. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

This week on the Mark Levin Show, Judge Juan Merchan is a crooked judge and was specifically appointed to handle this Trump NY case. Merchan has shredded the law and the rules of evidence, stomped all over due process, silenced Trump in most aspects of the case, and assumed jurisdiction over federal election law. The weight of precedent and the outrageous behavior of the prosecutors and Judge Merchan favor President Donald Trump. In Bush v. Gore, the United States Supreme Court interceded in the Florida Supreme Court's deliberations because that court was changing the Florida voting system on the fly, thereby violating the Equal Protection rights of Florida voters. The state court was establishing new standards for resolving a presidential election. The Trump NDA matter is a case that should have been dismissed, and corrupted by a crooked Judge Juan Merchan, a crooked prosecutor Alvin Bragg, and an overwhelmingly Democrat jury. This underscores the point that we must turn out in large numbers to win the election and put people who love our country in positions of power. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Donald J. Trump might be the most harassed person in the history of America when it comes to our Just-Us system. Trump's political enemies have used the force of government to undermine his liberty at every turn since August of 2016 when the Obama administration abused the FISA process to spy on the Trump Campaign. It seems to me he could appeal any of his cases to the Supreme Court by demonstrating that his right of Equal Protection under the law has been violated. Knowing Trump's reputation, it's not hard to see him suing New York when this is all finished up. MSNBC Breaking New - The Trump Verdict https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6OxyS3oi0&list=RDNSPYCSy28-2Jc&index=3 The Inteligence Agencies Can Get Back at You 6 Ways to Sunday - Chuck Shumer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OYyXv2l4-I Alan Dershowitz Interview on Times Radio in The U.K. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s0nMExVg80 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/seth-martin0/message

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, President Trump calls in with his first comments after the first day of jury deliberation in NY. He explains that there has never been a judge who has been so conflicted. The prosecution has no case, there is no crime. He weighs in on Israel, Iran, and Biden's failed economy. Later, the weight of precedent and the outrageous behavior of the prosecutors and Judge Merchan favor President Donald Trump. In Bush v. Gore, the United States Supreme Court interceded in the Florida Supreme Court's deliberations because that court was changing the Florida voting system on the fly, thereby violating the Equal Protection rights of Florida voters. The state court was establishing new standards for resolving a presidential election. The Manhattan trial court has done worse in the farcical “hush-money” case. This state court could easily have avoided influencing and interfering with the federal presidential election merely by setting a later time for the case if the court actually believed it somehow had merit. After all, the state waited years to bring its case. If Trump is found guilty of any of the 34 charges, he should encourage his attorneys to seek an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court based, at least in significant part, on Bush v. Gore. Also, Biden is desperate to win Pennsylvania. He goes to Philly only when he needs the Black or Union votes. What has Biden done for Black people in his 50 years in D.C.? Nothing. He's done nothing for any community. Finally, Dave McCormick calls in to discuss his race against Sen Bob Casey, who is out of touch with Pennsylvania. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In April, an unprecedented lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of California challenging the state's death penalty statute as racially discriminatory and unconstitutional under the Equal Protection guarantees of the California Constitution. The filers which include the ACLU, LDF (Legal Defense Fund), and the Office of the State Public Defender on behalf of OSPD, Witness to Innocence, LatinoJustice PRLDEF (Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund), the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and Eva Paterson, co-founder of the Equal Justice Society, claim, “This is the first time a petition of this nature has been filed with the court.” “Numerous empirical studies by leading social science experts reveal troubling disparities: Black people are about five times more likely to be sentenced to death when compared to similarly situated non-Black defendants, while Latino people are at least three times more likely to be sentenced to death.” The 95-page complaint stated, “The parties agree that persistent and pervasive racial disparities infect California's death penalty system.” The Vanguard recently hosted a webinar to discuss this historic suit. Panelists: Avi Frey, Counsel from ACLU of Northern California Lisa Romo, Office of State Public Defender (OSPD) Morgan Zamora, prison advocacy coordinator at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Karen Munoz, from LatinoJustice Moderators: Madison Whittemore, Vanguard News Sophie Yoakum, Vanguard News

This week on Family Policy Matters, host Traci DeVette Griggs welcomes Carter Satterfield, a swimmer at Roanoke College, to discuss her experience swimming with a transgender-identifying male and how that prompted her to join the lawsuit against the NCAA.

On March 5, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas entered a declaratory judgment and nationwide injunction against the Minority Business Development Agency, preventing the agency from extending a federally-sponsored racial preference to groups seeking to access capital and government contracts. This case, Nuziard v. MBDA, expands upon last […]

On March 5, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas entered a declaratory judgment and nationwide injunction against the Minority Business Development Agency, preventing the agency from extending a federally-sponsored racial preference to groups seeking to access capital and government contracts. This case, Nuziard v. MBDA, expands upon last summer's Supreme Court ruling in SFFA v. Harvard, which struck down affirmative action in college admissions. Daniel Lennington of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, who litigated the case, discussed the case and its impact on the future of equality.

Tuesday, April 16th, 2024Today, jury selection is underway in the first criminal trial of a former president and current candidate in history; expelled Congressman George Santos talks about his fundraising efforts for his bid to run again; Justice Clarence Thomas is absent from the bench for arguments this week; Trump Media shares plunge again on the announcement to file additional shares; transgender veterans are suing the Department of Veterans Affairs; Trump files his response to Jack Smith with the Supreme Court in the immunity case; plus Allison and Dana deliver your good news. Our Guest:US House Rep. Dan Goldmanhttps://twitter.com/danielsgoldmanJustice Clarence Thomas misses Supreme Court arguments (NBC News)Trump stock tanks after announcing massive share sale (CNN)George Santos Explains Why He's Raised $0 for Return Congressional Bid (Daily Beast)Transgender veterans file 2nd lawsuit against VA for gender-affirming surgery coverage (NBC NEWS)Subscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote?utm_source=TwitterAG&utm_medium=creator_organic&utm_campaign=muellershewrote&utm_content=FollowMehttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://www.threads.net/@muellershewrotehttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsBlue Wave Postcard Movementhttps://shop.bluewavepostcards.orgUtah State Board of Educationhttps://www.schools.utah.govUpcoming Live Show Dateshttps://allisongill.com (for tickets and show dates)Sunday, June 2nd – Chicago IL – Schubas TavernFriday June 14th – Philadelphia PA – City WinerySaturday June 15th – New York NY – City WinerySunday June 16th – Boston MA – City WineryWednesday July 10th – Portland OR – Polaris Hall(with Dana!)Thursday July 11th – Seattle WA – The Triple Door(with Dana!)6/17/2024 Boston, MA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-Bos27/25/2024 Milwaukee, WI https://tinyurl.com/Beans-MKE7/28/2024 Nashville, TN - with Phil Williams https://tinyurl.com/Beans-Tenn7/31/2024 St. Louis, MO https://tinyurl.com/Beans-STL8/16/2024 Washington, DC - with Andy McCabe, Pete Strzok, Glenn Kirschner https://tinyurl.com/Beans-in-DC8/24/2024 San Francisco, CA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-SF Live Show Ticket Links:Chicago, IL https://tinyurl.com/Beans-ChiPhiladelphia, PA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-PhillyNew York, NY https://tinyurl.com/Beans-NYCBoston, MAhttps://tinyurl.com/Beans-Bos2Portland, ORhttps://tinyurl.com/Beans-PDXSeattle, WAhttps://tinyurl.com/Beans-SEA Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

In this episode, Neoshia Roemer, Associate Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law, discusses her article "Equity for American Indian Families," which will be published in the Minnesota Law Review. Roemer explains what the Indian Child Welfare Act does, why it was created, and how some people are using equal protection arguments in order to challenge its constitutionality. She explains why ICWA is so important for both children and tribes, and why the criticisms of it are so misguided. Roemer is on Twitter at @ProfNRoemer.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I read from equally to equator.     There's two kinds of solar time?! I'd need to spend a bit more time with this "Equation of time". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time     The word of the episode is "Equal Protection". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause     Theme music from Jonah Kraut https://jonahkraut.bandcamp.com/     Merchandising! https://www.teepublic.com/user/spejampar     "The Dictionary - Letter A" on YouTube   "The Dictionary - Letter B" on YouTube   "The Dictionary - Letter C" on YouTube   "The Dictionary - Letter D" on YouTube   "The Dictionary - Letter E" on YouTube     Featured in a Top 10 Dictionary Podcasts list! https://blog.feedspot.com/dictionary_podcasts/     Backwards Talking on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmIujMwEDbgZUexyR90jaTEEVmAYcCzuq     https://linktr.ee/spejampar dictionarypod@gmail.com https://www.facebook.com/thedictionarypod/ https://www.threads.net/@dictionarypod https://twitter.com/dictionarypod https://www.instagram.com/dictionarypod/ https://www.patreon.com/spejampar https://www.tiktok.com/@spejampar 917-727-5757

After disappointing election results in Ohio where abortion was enshrined as a right in the state constitution, I sit down with Austin Beigel, President of End Abortion Ohio, to discuss what went wrong and what other states can learn from Ohio's unsuccessful opposition to Issue 1. Austin Beigel first saw an image of what abortion looked like in 2013 and has been involved in anti-abortion activism ever since. He worked full-time in a pro-life ministry for years until he became an abortion Abolitionist after seeing the corrupt inner workings behind the Ohio Heartbeat Bill. He is now the President of End Abortion Ohio and lobbies for Equal Protection under the law for our preborn neighbors in this state. He is also running as a candidate for House District 73 in the Ohio House of Representatives. He lives with his wife, Maria, and their three children in Pickerington. Follow Austin on X: https://twitter.com/acbagel To support his campaign for State Representative: https://www.austinbeigel.com/ Subscribe to the YouTube Channel: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@GreatAwokening --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/great-awokening/support

A new MP3 sermon from Alpha and Omega Ministries is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: Jeff Durbin on Ohio and Equal Protection, Muhammad Hijab's Opening Presentation Subtitle: The Dividing Line 2023 Speaker: Dr. James White Broadcaster: Alpha and Omega Ministries Event: Podcast Date: 11/3/2023 Length: 94 min.

Jumbo edition of the program, basically two 45 minute segments. The first featured Jeff Durbin from his rental car in parts unknown talking with us about his work with End Abortion Now, the Ohio situation, the ERLC, and he and his wife adopting two premie baby girls. In the second I started playing Muhammad Hijab's opening comments from a 2018 debate on Trinity and Tawhid in hopes of helping folks be prepared to respond to Muslims in evangelistic settings. We will continue on future editions of the program. We hope to do two more programs this week, including another Radio Free Geneva. Make sure to download the A-O app so you will know when we will be on the air-

Jumbo edition of the program, basically two 45 minute segments. The first featured Jeff Durbin from his rental car in parts unknown talking with us about his work with End Abortion Now, the Ohio situation, the ERLC, and he and his wife adopting two premie baby girls. In the second I started playing Muhammad Hijab's opening comments from a 2018 debate on Trinity and Tawhid in hopes of helping folks be prepared to respond to Muslims in evangelistic settings. We will continue on future editions of the program. We hope to do two more programs this week, including another Radio Free Geneva. Make sure to download the A&O app so you will know when we will be on the air!

Jumbo edition of the program, basically two 45 minute segments. The first featured Jeff Durbin from his rental car in parts unknown talking with us about his work with End Abortion Now, the Ohio situation, the ERLC, and he and his wife adopting two premie baby girls. In the second I started playing Muhammad Hijab's opening comments from a 2018 debate on Trinity and Tawhid in hopes of helping folks be prepared to respond to Muslims in evangelistic settings. We will continue on future editions of the program. We hope to do two more programs this week, including another Radio Free Geneva. Make sure to download the A-O app so you will know when we will be on the air-

On October 1st, 2019, police responded to a wellness check request in a New Hampshire home, only to find a baffling scene. One man was dead, while another laid on the floor beside him, conscious but not responsive. No one could say what had happened or why – and unpredictable consequences rippled outward, culminating in a tragic outburst of violence during a wedding. Written by Angela Jorgensen, Executive Produced by Michael Ojibway.    Support Our Sponsors:  Rocket Money: Cancel unwanted subscriptions and manage your expenses the easy way by going to https://www.rocketmoney.com/invisible  Squarespace: Go to https://www.squarespace.com/choir for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch, use offer code “CHOIR” to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain!  Warby Parker: Try 5 pairs of glasses at home for free at https://warbyparker.com/choir    Visit Invisible Choir on the web:  Patreon - Invisible Choir Premium:  https://www.patreon.com/InvisibleChoir  Website:  https://www.invisiblechoir.com/  Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/InvisibleChoirPodcast/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/invisiblechoir/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/InvisibleChoir   Written/Audio Sources:  WATCH LIVE: Brandon Castiglione heads to trial for 2019 shooting death of pastor Father: Son, victim went shooting together | News | eagletribune.com Testimony reveals Londonderry man, Pelham pastor had religious relationship | News | eagletribune.com  Londonderry NH man sentenced to prison for killing pastor Man sentenced to 42 years in prison for 2019 death of New Hampshire pastor | AP News Brandon Castiglione sentenced to 42 years to life for killing pastor Man convicted of second-degree murder in 2019 death of New Hampshire pastor | AP News  Police: Man found praying, crying over murdered Pelham minister | Crime | unionleader.com Man convicted of second-degree murder in 2019 death of New Hampshire pastor Man sentenced to 42 years in prison for 2019 death of New Hampshire pastor | Lifestyle | berkshireeagle.com Sentencing set for Londonderry man convicted of murder | News | eagletribune.com Londonderry man found guilty of shooting, killing Pelham pastor | News | derrynews.com Londonderry man charged in minister's murder had drug history, records show | Crime | unionleader.com  Accused minister killer pleads not guilty; defense seeks documents in wedding shooting | Courts | unionleader.com Trial begins of man accused of killing pastor in Londonderry Londonderry man's murder trial set to begin in Brentwood | News | eagletribune.com The State of New Hampshire Indictment Man sentenced to 42 years in prison for 2019 death of N.H. pastor Londonderry Man Charged With Second-Degree Murder Trial Begins for Man Accused of Killing a Pastor in Londonderry - The Pulse of NH Man charged with second-degree murder in man's death in Londonderry Londonderry man charged in minister's murder had drug history, records show | Crime | unionleader.com AG releases autopsy results in Londonderry shooting | Manchester Ink Link 24-Year-Old Man Charged With Murder At Londonderry, NH Home - CBS Boston Man Held Without Bail in 2nd-Degree Murder of NH Minister – NBC Boston Shooting at New Hampshire wedding may be linked to minister's killing Sentencing set for Londonderry man convicted of murder | News | derrynews.com Murder trial scheduled for Brandon Castiglione Jurors find Brandon Castiglione guilty in shooting death of Luis Garcia Man convicted of fatally shooting New Hampshire pastor | Fox News Shooting at New Hampshire wedding may be linked to minister's killing New Hampshire wedding shooter may have been avenging late stepfather's murder, authorities say - ABC News Father of groom shares first-hand account of NH church shooting Valley News - Shooting suspect enters plea Man indicted in death of Pelham pastor | Local News | eagletribune.com N.H. Church Shooting Suspect Is The Stepson Of A Minister Killed Earlier This Month | WBUR News ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL “OUTSTANDING” DISCOVERY Authorities eye ties to church minister's Oct. 1 slaying – Boston Herald Pelham Church Shooting Suspect Stepson Of Slain Minister, More Charges Filed - CBS Boston Man in church shooting case pleads guilty to lawyer attack | AP News Statements made by man charged in NH church shooting thrown out Alleged Pelham church shooter describes a life of trauma – Lowell Sun Dale Holloway Sentenced To Prison For An Assault On His Lawyer | Londonderry, NH Patch Man in NH Church Shooting Case Plans to Use Insanity Defense – NECN Pelham, NH Church Shooting Suspect Charged With Attempted Murder - CBS Boston Accused gunman in NH church shooting had prior Massachusetts convictions 2 Shot at Wedding in New Hampshire Church, Police Say - The New York Times New Hampshire church shooting: The accused gunman is facing more charges, prosecutors say | CNN Motion for An Evidentiary Hearing and Court Order for Equal Protection of the Law; USCA XIV Mental illness and violence: Debunking myths, addressing realities Church community in shock after shooting during wedding Newspapers.com 13 October 2019 Newspapers.com 15 October 2019 Newspapers.com 23 October 2019 Newspapers.com 20 October 2019 Competency questioned as man accused of killing minister showed 'hyper-religious' behavior | Crime | unionleader.com MANIA AND “HYPER-RELIGIOSITY” - International Bipolar Foundation Religion and Mental Illness How we define hyper religious and what does that mean Inside My Manic Mind: Delusions and Hyper-Religiosity | Psychology Today Judge: Man accused of shooting Pelham pastor fit to stand trial | New Hampshire | eagletribune.com  State Rests in Minister Murder Trial, Defendant Will Decide If He Will Testify, Represent Himself Accused Pastor Killer's Attorney Claims Police 'Jumped to Conclusions' Accused Pastor Killer Found Mumbling, Trembling in Fetal Position after Murder: Police Sergeant   WATCH LIVE: Minister Murder Trial — Bible Disputes Turned Deadly — NH v. Brandon Castiglione Day Two WATCH LIVE: Minister Murder Trial — Bible Disputes Turned Deadly — NH v. Brandon Castiglione Day 3  'One Pistol, One Man': Opening Statements Begin in Trial of Man Accused of Killing Pastor ‘Brandon Castiglione Is Innocent': Defense Claims State Has Weak Case In Minister Murder Trial WATCH LIVE: Minister Murder Trial — Bible Disputes Turned Deadly — NH v. Brandon Castiglione Day 4  Jury Swiftly Convicts Brandon Castiglione Of Murdering New Hampshire Minister WATCH LIVE: Minister Murder Trial — Bible Disputes Turned Deadly — NH v. Brandon Castiglione Day One  Bride and bishop were shot by gunman who was tackled by wedding guests when he walked into New Hampshire church and opened fire in attack that police say 'does not seem random' VERDICT REACHED: Minister Murder Trial, Bible Disputes Turned Deadly — NH v. Brandon Castiglione Family shares story of deacon who helped tackle church shooting suspect  Accused Wedding Shooter Dale Holloway Outside Court: 'My Father Was Murdered'  NH Church Shooting Suspect's Violent Criminal History, Gang Ties – NBC Boston Accused NH church shooter Dale Holloway being sentenced in separate case 2 people shot when gunman opens fire during wedding at New Hampshire church 'Keep your faith' says pastor shot during wedding in New Hampshire Son of Pelham church shooting victim says father still in critical condition    Music & Sound Effect Sources Opening Track: “Stimuli” by Alec Slayne Closing Track: “Dreams of Us” by Bonnie Grace   Music & Sound Effect Sources All music and sound effects used with express permission under unlimited blanket license authority from Epidemic Sound ® and SoundStripe ®.  Individual sources are available via request at info@invisiblechoir.com See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, declaring admissions programs that consider race to be in violation of the 14th Amendment. Melissa, Kate, and Leah break down the Chief Justice's opinion, Justice Thomas's galling concurrence, and the brilliant dissents by Justice Jackson and Justice Sotomayor.Listen to our recap of the hours and hours of oral arguments in these cases: "Affirmative Action Reaction"Follow @CrookedMedia on Instagram and Twitter for more original content, host takeovers and other community events. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky