Podcasts about equal protection

We're back — maybe getting a little too scheduled — with one opinion on the docket: West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, where the Court held that states may limit girls' and women's sports teams to biological sex without violation Equal Protection or Title IX. First, though, Will collects on a two-year-old prediction when the Court grants Jouppi v. Alaska, an Institute for Justice case about a five-figure airplane forfeited over a six-pack of beer. On the main event, we work through how the opinions are written (no pronouns, no "Lindsay"), what the litigants' Title IX concession did to the case, and whether there is any such thing as an as-applied equal protection challenge. Will makes a big-swing prediction about transgender status and heightened scrutiny, and we ask whether the Court's reasoning can be squared with VMI and the anti-stereotyping cases. Along the way: fencepost problems, Magneto's powers, Magic: The Gathering's crossover-IP wars, scrawny men, and Justice Kavanaugh's ode to the championship trophy.Highlights[00:00:21] Opening: continuing the roll, "starting to get a little scheduled," and record-setting season ambitions[00:02:05] Summer interim-docket check-in: a new SG filing on mail-in voting; still no rehearing petition in the birthright-citizenship case[00:03:23] Filing-day counting and the classic fencepost problem[00:04:50] Will doesn't condone violence, Dan; UFC, violent video games, and Dungeons & Dragons[00:07:46] The prediction workflow pays off: Will called the IJ excessive-fines cert push back in May 2024 (Culley)[00:08:05] Cert granted in Jouppi v. Alaska: a 5-figure aircraft forfeited over a 6-pack of beer[00:09:58] Scorecard methodology: easy predictions, Magneto clauses, and a slugging-percentage proposal[00:12:51] Dan's good news: Constitutional Rights in General Private Law, accepted at Harvard Law Review[00:13:32] The main event: West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox — states can keep transgender athletes off girls' and women's teams[00:15:25] How the opinions are written: no pronouns, and the majority never says "Lindsay"[00:18:44] The Thomas concurrence: suspect class, "biological men and boys who identify as girls," and the Josef Pieper abuse-of-language quote[00:21:49] Title IX: the statutory text, the litigants' concession, and what the dissents are trying to preserve[00:29:39] The Equal Protection Clause: Skrmetti, two kinds of anti-trans laws, and Will's big-swing prediction on heightened scrutiny[00:35:29] VMI's inherent differences, bathrooms, and the anti-stereotyping mainstays (Craig v. Boren)[00:43:33] Is there such a thing as an as-applied equal protection challenge? Footnotes 7 and 9, scrawny men, and Nguyen[00:52:35] The Ninth Circuit's dropped thread: Idaho's invasive verification testing and the cis-woman plaintiff[00:54:41] Justice Kavanaugh, the sports justice: the championship-trophy passage and Flood v. Kuhn lore[00:56:52] The flip side: does Title IX sometimes require excluding transgender athletes? Dueling predictions[01:00:30] Why this isn't Bostock: Gorsuch, formalism, and a contested Indian-law analogy[01:02:49] Sign-off — and a preemptive accusation that Will will game the scorecard by refusing to recordRelevant linksCasesWest Virginia v. B.P.J. / Little v. Hecox — slip opinionJouppi v. Alaska — Institute for Justice case pageCulley v. MarshallUnited States v. SkrmettiUnited States v. Virginia (VMI)Nguyen v. INSFlood v. KuhnCommentary & articlesD'Onfro & Epps, "The Fourth Amendment and General Law" — the Yale Law Journal predecessor to the new Harvard Law Review piece announced on the showOtherDivided Argument, "Originalism Hulk" — the back-catalogue episode whose new custom cover art comes up in the Marvel tangent

These days, AI is everywhere, and it's increasingly hard to separate the gains from the slop. With that in mind, we're re-releasing my conversation with Stanford Law professor Daniel Ho on the future of AI and the law. When we look for applications where AI can deliver measurable benefit, the legal profession stands out, both for its potential gains in efficiency and equity, and for how much is at stake if we get it wrong. Dan's research — from using AI to identify racist property covenants buried in county deed records, to mapping obsolete regulations that waste thousands of hours of government time — shows what's possible when the technology is applied with rigor and purpose. If you're curious about how AI can serve both justice and good governance, this one is well worth another listen. Have a question for Russ? Send it our way in writing or via voice memo, and it might be featured on an upcoming episode. Please introduce yourself, let us know where you're listening from, and share your question. You can send questions to thefutureofeverything@stanford.edu. Episode Reference Links: Stanford Profile: Dan Ho Connect With Us: Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything Website Connect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / Mastodon Connect with School of Engineering >>> Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / Facebook Chapters: (00:00:00) Introduction Russ Altman introduces guest Dan Ho, a professor of law, political science, and computer science at Stanford University. (00:02:19) Path into Legal AI How Ho's background shaped his interest in law, and technology. (00:03:35) What Lawyers Do What makes law a complex domain for AI. (00:05:28) Legal Hallucinations When AI  performs well and when it fails.  (00:07:52) Searching Legal Records in California How AI can help identify outdated, harmful, or legally important material. (00:10:28) Scaling Redaction How a model accelerated a process that overwhelmed county recorder offices. (00:13:04) Legal Reform at Scale How AI has supported legal reform by scanning massive bodies of law. (00:15:02) STARA & The City of San Francisco How AI was used to go through San Francisco's code and clean up reporting. (00:20:53) Outdated Obligations How “regulatory sludge” takes the time & resources of the public service (00:25:02) Open vs. Closed AI The differences and associated risks of the different AI systems. (00:30:58) Legal Chatbots Why legal chatbots are promising but risky. (00:33:42) Conclusion Connect With Us:Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything WebsiteConnect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / MastodonConnect with School of Engineering >>>Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / Facebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In a decision filled with hypotheticals, the Supreme Court has ruled it is constitutional to bar transgender girls and women from playing on school sports teams that match their gender identity. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – We all want to be treated justly, to have the laws equally applied. Well, not all of us, because there are some who seem to think they are more equal than others. While the Constitution does include an Equal Protection Clause, it's only in the Fourteenth Amendment and only applies to the states. The idea of equal protection, though, runs...

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – We all want to be treated justly, to have the laws equally applied. Well, not all of us, because there are some who seem to think they are more equal than others. While the Constitution does include an Equal Protection Clause, it's only in the Fourteenth Amendment and only applies to the states. The idea of equal protection, though, runs...

Lambda Legal's non-binary and transgender rights project director Sasha Buchert helped fashion Becky Pepper-Jackson's Title IX and Equal Protection arguments for the U.S. Supreme Court. She explains how the case evolved from the legislative process to litigation, the broader political environment that led to the recent trans sports bans, and how this ruling will impact the future (interviewed by Jeb Backe). And in NewsWrap: LGBTQ+ foster children in the U.S. won't be protected from unsupportive families anymore, trans-positive soccer star Megan Rapinoe cries foul after being ejected from a World Cup ad, there's a flag on a play by Reform UK, a lesbian couple in Botswana is fighting for marriage equality and Madison Square Garden is WIRED for “risky” guests (reported this week by Chris Wilson and Joe Boehnlein). Featured Speakers: Botswana marriage equality plaintiff Bonolo Selelo, Lambda Legal's Sasha Buchert. Credits: Associate Producer/Host Lucia Chappelle, News writer/Feature producer Jeb Backe, NewsWrap reporters Chris Wilson and Joe Boehnlein. Music: Against Me! and Kim Wilson All this on the July 20, 2026 Edition of This Way Out!

John Maytham speaks to Audrey Johnson, Executive in the Employment practice at ENS, about a landmark Labour Court judgment confirming that workplace sexual harassment protections apply equally to male employees and the obligations employers have when handling such complaints. Presenter John Maytham is an actor and author-turned-talk radio veteran and seasoned journalist. His show serves a round-up of local and international news coupled with the latest in business, sport, traffic and weather. The host’s eclectic interests mean the program often surprises the audience with intriguing book reviews and inspiring interviews profiling artists. A daily highlight is Rapid Fire, just after 5:30pm. CapeTalk fans call in, to stump the presenter with their general knowledge questions. Another firm favourite is the humorous Thursday crossing with award-winning journalist Rebecca Davis, called “Plan B”. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Afternoon Drive with John Maytham Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 15:00 and 18:00 (SA Time) to Afternoon Drive with John Maytham broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/BSFy4Cn or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/n8nWt4x Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode highlights an often-missed story: the Declaration of Independence didn't just shape the U.S. Constitution—it directly shaped state constitutions, many of which echo its natural-rights language more explicitly than the federal charter. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick argues that reading state constitutional provisions through the Declaration can strengthen enforceable limits on government power. The conversation reframes the Declaration from anniversary rhetoric into a practical interpretive tool in living state constitutional law. Bolick traces a two-way influence between the Declaration and early state charters, pointing to founding-era texts like Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights as a roadmap for Jefferson's phrasing—and noting that later state constitutions continued to incorporate Declaration principles such as equality, popular sovereignty, and inalienable rights. He then connects those ideas to modern doctrine, arguing that state courts can treat natural-rights provisions as meaningful constraints (or interpretive “prisms”) rather than mere preambles, with recent state supreme court decisions illustrating how the Declaration's ideals can translate into concrete protections today. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters: [00:00:26] Chapter 1 — McConnell's framing: the “hidden” constitutional story in state charters The host introduces how state constitutions borrow explicitly from the Declaration and why that matters for modern rights protection. [00:05:59] Chapter 2 — Bolick's thesis: an “enduring symbiosis” between the Declaration and state constitutions Bolick argues the Declaration's influence on state constitutional text and interpretation is deeper and more direct than its influence on the U.S. Constitution. [00:10:46] Chapter 3 — Origins and transmission: Virginia's 1776 rights language and state constitution “laboratories” Bolick explains the two-way borrowing between early state constitutions and the Declaration, including George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights. [00:27:57] Chapter 4 — From principles to doctrine: natural-rights clauses as enforceable limits (with cases) Bolick lays out how courts have used natural-rights provisions as substantive protections or interpretive tools, citing key state cases and modern disputes. [00:46:34] Chapter 5 — Ford's recorded response + Bolick rebuttal: state power, natural rights, and the limits of the frame Ford praises state constitutionalism but complicates the natural-rights narrative; Bolick responds, emphasizing both self-government and enforceable individual rights. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On July 9, 1868, the 14th Amendment was ratified, establishing birthright citizenship, due process and equal protection under the law. The landmark Reconstruction-era amendment remains one of the Constitution's most significant guarantees of civil rights and legal equality. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We sit down with Wes Fuller of End Abortion Now to introduce our pro-life audience to the growing abortion abolitionist movement. What exactly is abortion abolitionism, and how does it differ from the incremental pro-life strategies many of us have supported for years? Wes unpacks the biblical call for the abolition of abortion through equal protection under the law. #AbortionAbolitionism #EndAbortionNow #ProLife #EqualProtection #ChristianWorldview All The Things #230 Season 8, Episode 10

We sit down with Wes Fuller of End Abortion Now to introduce our pro-life audience to the growing abortion abolitionist movement. What exactly is abortion abolitionism, and how does it differ from the incremental pro-life strategies many of us have supported for years? Wes unpacks the biblical call for the abolition of abortion through equal protection under the law. #AbortionAbolitionism #EndAbortionNow #ProLife #EqualProtection #ChristianWorldview All The Things #230 Season 8, Episode 10

»

The entirely illegitimate SCOTUS bugged out till October today, but not before barely keeping the 14th Amendment on life support while trashing its Equal Protection clause in regard to the tiniest and most vulnerable majority in the entire country. Ahistorical members of the multimillionaire ForProfit Media declared a "win," when it really wasn't. Fascists never stop attacking. 

The Supreme Court just ruled on Title IX and transgender athletes in women's sports — and Chicks on the Right is breaking it down live, just an hour after the decision dropped. Joined by Jennifer Sey, CEO and founder of XX-XY Athletics, we unpack the bundled Idaho and West Virginia cases, what the 9-0 Title IX ruling and 6-3 Equal Protection split actually mean, and why this is being called a win — but not the final word.Jen explains why the ruling only protects the 27 states that already have laws on the books, while the remaining 23 states (including Colorado, California, and New York) can keep allowing biological males to compete in girls' sports. We dig into her work leading a successful Colorado ballot initiative, why this issue can't be solved state-by-state for elite athletes competing across state lines, and why she believes the country needs national legislation.The conversation also covers the feminist divide on trans inclusion in sports, reactions to Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinions, mainstream media coverage of the ruling, and two AI-generated videos imagining how blue-state governors and Title IX itself might respond.Jen's mission at XX-XY Athletics: putting the focus back on girls!Follow XX-XY Athletics: xxxyathletics.comFollow Jennifer Sey on Twitter/X: @JenniferSeySubscribe and stay tuned for new episodes every weekday!Follow us here for more daily clips, updates, and commentary:YoutubeFacebookInstagramTikTokXLocalsMore InfoWebsite

Blanche v. Lau, No. 25-429 (U.S. June 23, 2026)applicant for admission; returning LPR; parole Mullin v. Doe (Miot), No. 25-1083 (U.S. June 25, 2026)TPS; jurisdiction; determination; termination; preliminary relief; equal protection   Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, No. 25-5 (U.S. June 25, 2026)canon against surplusage; presumption against extraterritoriality Garcia Corrales v. Blanche, No. 24-6467 (9th Cir. June 24, 2026)motion to reopen dismissal for untimely appeal; mailing delay; new evidence; motion to reconsider not only way to challenge dismissal Hayles v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 24-10516 (11th Cir. June 22, 2026)petition for review CAT; FARO; Riley; frivolous PFR; jurisdiction; brief cannot cure jurisdictional deficient PFR Matter of P-A-C-, 29 I&N Dec. 708 (BIA 2026)discretionary denial of asylum where withholding of removal granted; multiple DUIs; fraud as negative discretionary factor for asylumImmigrants' List Matter of T-A-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 2026)ACA pretermitting asylum application; collateral relief; pending I-130 Matter of Best, 29 I&N Dec. 723 (BIA 2026)extreme hardship; § 212(h) waiver; discretion; arrests and convictions Matter of C-L-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 726 (BIA 2026)M-A-M- safeguards; qualified representative; refusal to sell drugs; mental health claims in Honduras Matter of G-L-C-, 29 I&N Dec. 717 (BIA 2026)drug delivery and particularly serious crime; N-A-M- element one; nature of the offense; Penn. Cons. Stat. § 780-113(a)(30); transgender women in Jamaica; United Kingdom's Home Office reportsKurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.eimmigration"Immigration law software you'll love to use."get.eimmigration.com/IRP Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Click me!Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATION:Email: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerSupport the show

We're in triage mode as the Court clears its end-of-term backlog. We run through the week's opinion dump before focusing on two cases that look unrelated but turn on the same question: when may a state rewrite background property law to limit a constitutional right? In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court strikes down Hawaii's rule requiring a property owner's express consent before a firearm may be carried onto otherwise-public premises. Then to Pung v. Isabella County, a takings case asking whether a homeowner whose property is sold for back taxes is owed only the sale proceeds or full fair-market value. Along the way: a theory about a Landor v. Louisiana flip, the week's run of 6-3 conservative wins, and a short detour into the perils of teaching Federal Courts.Key Topics[00:00:00] - Triage mode: recording June 25 amid the end-of-term opinion dump[00:01:29] - What's still outstanding — and the campaign-finance case's standing problem[00:03:56] - The Landor "flip" theory: did Justice Jackson lose the majority to Justice Gorsuch?[00:06:40] - Thursday's decisions: Monsanto v. Durnell (FIFRA), two immigration wins, Wolford v. Lopez[00:08:58] - Counting the week's seven 6-3 conservative wins; the Hemani surprise[00:12:57] - The throughline: when may a state redefine property to evade a constitutional right?[00:18:35] - Wolford v. Lopez: Hawaii's "express consent" gun rule after Bruen[00:20:42] - The Bruen framework — step one vs. step two, and the free-speech analogy[00:26:57] - The change vs. the outlier: uniformity and Hawaii's sensitive-places list[00:30:49] - Alito's historical analogues: poaching laws and the Black Codes[00:33:34] - Jackson's dissent: race, Equal Protection, and how non-mechanical Bruen really is[00:38:59] - Caetano, the Ramos v. Louisiana callback, and Alito on racist origins[00:41:21] - Barrett's concurrence, Kagan's narrower path, and the rejected "spirit of aloha"[00:48:23] - Pung v. Isabella County: tax sales, takings, and "just compensation"[00:51:45] - Thomas's historical turn on tax-sale rules, and the fairness backstop[00:55:45] - Sign-offRelevant LinksSupreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Divided Argument podcast: https://www.dividedargument.com/Transcripts: https://www.dividedargument.com/transcriptsCommentary blog: https://blog.dividedargument.com/Merchandise: https://store.dividedargument.com/New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdfTyler v. Hennepin County: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_q86b.pdfRamos v. Louisiana: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_j4el.pdf

Is the pro-life movement the same as the abortion abolitionist movement? No — and the difference matters.In this episode of Calibrate Conversations, Brady Cone sits down with constitutional attorney Bradley Pierce, president of the Foundation to Abolish Abortion and Abolish Abortion Texas, to discuss why Christians should support the abolition of abortion and equal protection for preborn children.Bradley explains how abortion abolitionism differs from the mainstream pro-life movement, why many pro-life laws still fall short, and why equal protection is both a biblical and legal issue. Brady and Bradley also discuss justice, mercy, repentance, the role of pregnancy resource centers, and what Christians can do to faithfully protect life.At Calibrate Ministries, we agree with Bradley that Christians must pursue biblical justice without partiality while also extending mercy and gospel hope to those who repent.Learn more about Bradley and his work here:Website: https://faa.life/Website: https://abolishabortiontx.org/Timestamps:00:00 — Introducing Constitutional Attorney Bradley Pierce01:56 — Why Abortion Matters to Biblical Sexuality03:59 — How Bradley Became an Abolitionist07:14 — Equal Protection and Impartial Justice08:39 — Why Abolitionists Reject Blanket Immunity10:31 — Toxic Empathy and the Abortion Debate17:18 — Why Laws Are Meant to Deter Evil20:19 — Justice and Mercy Can Work Together28:28 — The Problem with Pro-Life Incrementalism34:34 — The Texas GOP Fight for Equal ProtectionWatch more from Calibrate Ministries:calibrateministries.comJoin us weekly as we strive help people embrace God's standard for sexuality! Other ways to listen:https://linktr.ee/calibrateconversations#Abolitionism #BradleyPierce #Abortion 

When Jesse Ridgway and his wife publicly shared their decision to abort their child after a Down syndrome diagnosis, the internet erupted with outrage.But does this controversy reveal a much bigger problem?In this episode, we examine the deeper issues behind the headlines: abortion, equal protection, the divide between the pro-life and abolitionist movements, and whether our laws should treat unborn children the same as every other human being.This conversation isn't about internet drama. It's about justice, compassion, truth, and the value of every human life.Timestamps:00:00 Jesse Ridgway Sparks National Debate01:17 Why This Story Hit So Hard02:12 The Divide Between Pro-Life and Abolitionism02:48 Has the Pro-Life Movement Failed?03:55 Can Society Function Without Justice?05:07 Why Government Has a God-Given Role05:33 Justice, Mercy, and Changed Hearts06:23 Why Compassion Isn't Enough07:03 Should Christians Call Abortion Murder?08:09 The Case for Equal Protection Laws08:45 Why Criminalization Is So Controversial09:20 What Christians Should Do NextJoin us weekly as we strive help people embrace God's standard for sexuality! Other ways to listen:https://linktr.ee/calibrateconversations#Abortion #ProLife #JesseRidgeway #ChristianPodcast #Abolitionism #EqualProtection #BiblicalTruth

Send us Fan MailThe ballot gets crowded fast, but our decision-making stays simple: we vote from conviction, not vibes. Dr. Robert Jackson sits down with his daughter, Hannah Miller, to share our South Carolina primary election endorsements and the standards we use when friends call asking, “Who do I vote for?” We do not claim you must vote our way, but we do believe clarity helps, especially when candidates sound similar until you look at what they actually commit to.We start with the issue we treat as the non-negotiable foundation for every race: pro-life policy and the sanctity of life. We explain why that is not a shallow “single issue” approach, and why leaders who stand firm there often show the same backbone on budgets, corruption, and cultural pressure. From the governor's race to the attorney general contest and the US Senate matchup, we talk through specific signals we watch for, including the Equal Protection pledge, support for Senate 1095, and whether someone is willing to take heat without hiding behind softer language.We also bring the conversation home to Spartanburg County politics, including the county council chair race and the fallout from the data center fight. We discuss why many residents feel unheard, how local power networks shape decisions, and what accountability should look like when hundreds of people show up asking questions.If you want a values-driven South Carolina voter guide rooted in biblical principles, listen through and weigh our reasoning. Subscribe, share this with a friend who is still undecided, and leave a review so more people can find the show.Support the showhttps://www.jacksonfamilyministry.comhttps://bobslone.com/home/podcast-production/

How is it that Christ was "MADE unto us wisdom" and how does that affect our understanding of wisdom when it comes to political issues? Today, David uses 17th century theologian John Owen to help us understand the "why" and "how" of wisdom, and then applies that to the published political counsel of long-time pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf against enacting legislation to indict abortive mothers for felony murder, championed by the Foundation to Abolish Abortion (FAA) and Christian podcaster, Seth Gruber.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pro-life luminaries Scott Klusendorf and Seth Gruber find themselves on opposite sides of the "Equal Protection" debate. Their respective arguments (and recent articles) leave us with a lot to consider. Does justice demand that we prosecute mothers for the crime of abortion, or does wisdom demand that we take the victories we can get? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit abort73.substack.com

-Our newest sponsor is Dominion Wealth Strategists! -Get the NAD treatment Jeff is on, go to Ion Layer and put “IONAPOLOGIA” into the coupon code and get $100 off your first three months! -Check out Amtac Blades and use code APOLOGIA in the check out for 5% off!  -You can get in touch with Heritage Defense and use coupon code “APOLOGIA” to get your first month free!  -For some Presip Blend Coffee Check out our Store.  -Check out the Ezra Institute

Tahiyrah Ali Free Chaz BunchI was 16 at the time of the arrest, held on half a million dollar bond, tried, convicted, sentenced and now struggling each day to understand what it is to live a life as a regular human being upon this Earth. There are many reasons that my case has not captured media attention, one being, I am not on “Death Row,” and do not meet the urgency criteria necessary to draw that spark of public attention. However, the sensationalism aspect has always been there, with the right reporting. Due to the fact that my case is only 16 years old, as if that is not long enough time for being in prison for a crime, I'm innocent of. One day is too long, but due to no significant injustice whereby the dramatic effect of our legal system's failure would invoke the participation of those working inside the system to assist in exonerating me I believe with your help I can receive the justice envisioned by the U.S. Constitution.On the day of my arrest, the threatening physical strength of the Mahoning County, Youngstown, Ohio detectives and police department resulted in the actual culprit, who admitted to every element of the crime, thus cutting a deal for partial immunity to implicate me as a co-conspirator and ultimately the principle perpetrator. Coupled with the prosecutorial misconduct of the state's attorney to manipulate witnesses and manufacture testimonies that procured a prejudice, bias, and partial trial that put me at a detrimental disadvantage. This is just a diminutive part perpetrated by the acting dignitaries surrounding my case, court proceedings and trial. During the course of my trial my constitutional rights were clearly violated with no one to fight for me and being illiterate didn't help. I was denied Due Process of the Law, Equal Protection of the Fifth Amendment and Effective Assistance of Counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, which ultimately resulted in the deprivation of my constitutional entitlement to a fair trial. I have been denied justice as it appears in the minds of the average citizen, and I believe that with media exposure and public awareness and support my case can again rise to the level of scrutiny. And that justice can prevail in the grand scheme of justice as is conceived in the minds of most American.https://freechazbunch.wordpress.com/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

This episode breaks down the complex layers of the equal protection clause, revealing how courts evaluate government classifications and the tiers of scrutiny that determine constitutionality. Whether analyzing race, gender, or alienage, grasping this framework is essential for mastering constitutional law and excelling on the bar exam.Most legal battles over discrimination hinge on whether the government drew a line trying to treat groups differently — and whether that line passes strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis. But behind the scenes, the Supreme Court's doctrine is more a carefully engineered filtration system than a simple rulebook. In this episode, we peel back the layers of constitutional equality and expose how courts analyze classification, intent, and the subtle mechanisms that can both protect and undermine fairness.You'll discover how the Court's three-tiered scrutiny system operates as an industrial filtration plant, where laws must pass through increasingly fine screens—race and national origin face the strictest filter, gender and illegitimacy fall into a middle tier, and almost everything else gets a pass if it's rationally related to a legitimate purpose. We break down how these filters are triggered, who bears the burden of proof, and the key distinctions that can make or break a case.Most importantly, you'll learn why the Supreme Court insists on proving discriminatory intent—highlighting the dangers of relying solely on statistical disparities. We examine landmark cases like Yick Wo, Washington v. Davis, and Romer v. Evans, illustrating how the doctrine's focus on intent aims to prevent the entire regulatory infrastructure from unraveling under the weight of statistical impact alone. Plus, we reveal the subtle tension between protecting systemic inequalities and safeguarding individual rights, and how the “alienage” exception upends standard rules when it comes to non-citizens and government power.This episode cuts through complexity to give you a clear framework: from identifying classifications to applying the correct level of scrutiny and navigating exceptions like the political function doctrine. Whether you're prepping for the bar exam or analyzing real-world policies, mastering this filtration system empowers you to diagnose constitutional issues with mathematical precision. Expect insights, practical tactics, and a deep understanding of how the most fundamental equality principles shape American law—and how they can be expertly applied in any case.Perfect for law students, litigators, or anyone eager to see how the Constitution's equal protection guarantee functions behind the scenes. If you want to understand the machinery that keeps systemic inequality in check—or allows it to persist—this episode is your ultimate guide.

Greg Cunningham joins Scott Klusendorf to argue that equal protection bills are fundamentally flawed in two ways. First, knowledge of first trimester realities are not widely discussed in our culture today. Second, that the culture is ready for abortion seekers to be pursued with murder charges. The pro-life movement cannot legislate its way out of this crisis but must instead prioritize educating the public through clear imagery that reveals the undeniable humanity of the baby early in pregnancy. Join them to learn how to educate our way out of this crisis!Visit erf.science for the videos Gregg brought to the episode.Search See Baby Grow on your app store to turn your phone into an education tool for life.Be sure to subscribe to The Case for Life Podcast on iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, or your favorite podcast app so you never miss a single episode.Follow Scott Klusendorf on Rumble, Youtube, Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter to be kept up to date on everything God is doing through my pro-life work.Sign up for Pro-Life 101: 7 Days to Confident Engagement: https://scottklusendorf.com/prolife101/Book me for an event or partner with Life Training Institute as a donor at https://prolifetraining.com.#life #prolife #abortion #baby #babies #women #shoutyourabortion #prolifeeducation #abortionrights #righttolife #healthcare #babieslivesmatter #abortionishealthcare #plannedparenthood

Can federal agents enter your home without a judge's signature? And if they can't… why do so many people believe they can? In this episode, Justin Yentes sits down with attorney Joey Hamby and former law enforcement officer Matt Browning to examine immigration enforcement through a constitutional lens. Instead of debating politics, the panel focuses on what the law says, breaking down the difference between administrative and judicial warrants, the constitutional protections of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and how due process is applied during civil immigration enforcement. Through lived experience and case law the discussion explores how constitutional protections apply to homes, how consent can change the legal landscape, and why the difference between civil immigration enforcement and criminal law enforcement matters more than most people realize. Key Topics The difference between administrative warrants and judicial warrants How the Fourth Amendment protects homes and effects Due process language that applies to “persons,” not just citizens The role of local law enforcement vs. federal immigration authorities How political narratives often obscure the legal framework This episode is for anyone trying to understand immigration enforcement beyond the headlines and what the Constitution says about government authority and individual rights. It challenges assumptions from both sides of the political spectrum. The law surrounding immigration enforcement, due process, and federal authority is far more nuanced than the public conversation often allows. Be sure to follow the show and subscribe to the YouTube channel so you never miss an update! Follow Justin Yentes: @truthbefoundpodcast  Link to Justin's agency, AIA: https://azprivateinvestigator.com/    Follow Joey Hamby: https://attorneysforfreedom.com/teammember/joey-hamby/ Follow Matt Browning: https://www.instagram.com/matsonbrowning/ Buy Matt's book: https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-hate-next-door-undercover-within-the-new-face-of-white-supremacy-matson-browning/964fba3e77e39704?affiliate=1713&ean=9781728276632&next=t&singleFormat=true The Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ Fourth Amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/ Fifth Amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/ 14th Amendment – Due Process & Equal Protection: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

UNBIASED University is in session! While Jordan is on maternity leave, she's breaking down the most critical aspects of the United States government — the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the three branches of the federal government, presidential elections, the evolution of political parties, and more. In this episode of UNBIASED Politics, we examine the evolution of the Equal Protection Clause and how it became one of the most powerful tools in constitutional law. Originally adopted as part of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War, equal protection was intended to safeguard newly freed enslaved people from discriminatory state laws. But over time, its reach expanded far beyond its original context. We trace how the Supreme Court moved from upholding segregation to striking it down, how the modern system of judicial scrutiny developed, and how courts today evaluate laws that treat groups differently. From race and gender classifications to broader questions about fairness and government power, this episode provides a clear, nonpartisan look at how the meaning of equal protection has evolved and why it continues to shape some of the most significant legal debates in the country. Intro (0:00) The Basics of Equal Protection (3:18) Suspect and Quasi-Suspect Classes; Levels of Judicial Review (7:02) Fundamental Rights and Judicial Review (~20:52) Discriminatory Impact vs. Discriminatory Intent (~23:08) Piecing Everything Together (~27:28) Most Notable Equal Protection Cases at the Supreme Court (~29:08) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠⁠. ⁠⁠Watch⁠⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Equal Protection For The Unborn: Rep. Jody Barrett Talks About His Bill That Closes A Loophole In Tennessee Law Where Certain Laws Do Not Apply To People Who Are Still In The WombIn this interview with The Tennessee Conservative's Olivia Lupia, Tennessee State Representative Jody Barrett (R-Dickson-District 69) explains his bill HB0570 (House Bill 0570).  HB0570, a first of its kind bill in Tennessee,  grants the same protections for the unborn that every other citizen has.

Stay connected with us at americangroundradio.com, on Facebook, and Instagram. You're listening to American Ground Radio with Stephen Parr and Louis R. Avallone. This is the full show for February 19, 2026. 0:30 The United States Department of Justice has joined a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District over a policy that categorizes schools by race and ties funding, smaller class sizes, and enhanced programs to race. We break down what this “PHBAO” classification means, why attaching benefits based on race raises serious Equal Protection concerns, and how the 14th Amendment applies when government actors sort students by skin color. Is this equity… or is it government-sponsored discrimination under a new acronym? 9:30 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things You Need to Know. The Department of Transportation is ordering 550 truck driving schools across the country to close. It looks like the Chicago Bears are leaving Illinois for Indiana. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former Prince Andrew is being investigated for suspicion of misconduct in office. 12:30 Get Prodovite Plus from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 13:00 Representative Ilhan Omar is back in the headlines — sans apple cider viegar— but this time it’s what she said at a recent town hall that has people talking.Omar suggested Democrats don’t just want to abolish ICE — they’re prepared to dismantle the entire United States Department of Homeland Security. We unpack what that would actually mean, the political strategy behind it, and the bigger question: what does “law and order” mean in today’s America? 16:00 We got a question in for our American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burelson. If you could rub a magic lamp and get just one wish for America — what would it be? From the days of three-network news to today’s explosion of social media platforms like X, the Mamas reflect on how information — and misinformation — shapes division in our country. They talk about the pandemic years, shadow bans, competing narratives, and the challenge of figuring out what’s actually true in a world where everyone has a microphone. But the conversation goes deeper than media. It’s about friendships strained over politics, assumptions made about neighbors, and how quickly labels replace relationships. When did who you vote for become more important than who you are? And how do we get back to a place where disagreement doesn’t mean disdain? It’s an honest, heartfelt discussion about truth, unity, and loving people even when you don’t share their politics — a reminder that restoring America might start with a little more light… and a lot more grace. If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, AmericanGroundRadio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button. 23:00 New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani built his campaign on a simple, viral promise: only the “uber wealthy” would pay more. Not you. Not your neighbor. Just the fat cats, the yacht crowd, the so-called one percent. But now? The Mamdani is floating a nearly 10% property tax hike — and that doesn’t just land on penthouse owners. It hits homeowners, retirees on fixed incomes, small landlords, and yes, renters, because higher property taxes don’t stay put. They trickle down into higher rents and higher costs for everyone. So what happened to “only the wealthy will pay”? We dig into how big spending promises — free programs, expanded benefits, sweeping commitments — eventually collide with math. When the tax base shrinks and high earners relocate, who makes up the difference? 26:00 Colorado just lost its largest corporation. Palantir Technologies — the $300+ billion AI firm that moved from Silicon Valley to Denver in 2020 citing cultural differences with Big Tech — has now packed up again, relocating its headquarters to Miami. The move follows months of protests outside its Denver offices over its contracts with the Israeli military and federal agencies like ICE, along with growing regulatory pressure from Colorado’s new AI law. So why leave? And why Florida? We break down whether this is about taxes, regulation, activist pressure, or a broader shift as companies seek business-friendly, right-to-work states. As America’s economy evolves, Palantir’s exit raises a bigger question: which vision of governance will win the future of growth? 32:00 Get TrimROX from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 32:30 A tragic shooting at a Rhode Island ice rink is raising disturbing questions. Authorities say the gunman, Robert Dorgan, allegedly targeted his ex-wife, their son, and members of her family during a high school hockey game — and that this was not random, but deliberate. Reports indicate there had been long-standing family conflict, including disputes over his transgender identity and a divorce that followed. As more details emerge, the story becomes even more heartbreaking: a fractured family, mental health concerns, and a violent act that devastated multiple lives in a single moment. We examine what’s known about the case, the role family estrangement may have played, and the broader cultural tensions surrounding gender identity, media coverage, and mental health. Most importantly, we ask the difficult question: how do we recognize warning signs and prevent tragedies like this before they happen? 35:30 Sometimes the left tries so hard to make a point… that they end up making the conservative argument for us. Case in point: columnist Jill Filipovic recently argued that if gender-affirming surgeries for minors are banned, then all cosmetic surgeries for minors — nose jobs, breast augmentations, and the like — should be banned too (with exceptions for true medical necessity). Well… yes. We unpack how that statement actually reinforces a broader concern many conservatives have been raising: maybe we shouldn’t be encouraging cosmetic alterations for children at all. Maybe we shouldn’t be over-sexualizing teenagers. Maybe we shouldn’t be permanently altering bodies that haven’t fully developed. We also look at the cultural pressure to “fix” perfectly healthy bodies — from Hollywood cautionary tales like Jennifer Grey to today’s social media-driven beauty standards — and ask whether our society is sending young people the wrong message about identity and self-worth. At the heart of it all is a bigger question: instead of telling kids there’s something wrong with their bodies, should we be teaching them they were created with purpose and value just as they are? 39:30 Kansas lawmakers have drawn a clear line. After the legislature passed a bill defining sex in state law as biological sex at birth, Democratic Governor Laura Kelly vetoed it. Lawmakers responded by overriding her veto — and now the measure is officially the law in Kansas. To wrap up today's show we unpack the political showdown, the cultural debate behind it, and the broader question of identity in today’s America. We also reflect on a simple but powerful idea echoed by voices like Sophia Loren and Oscar Wilde: real confidence comes from being comfortable in your own skin. At the end of the day, the conversation turns to purpose, design, and the belief that we are not accidents — that we are created intentionally and with value. May your pursuit of happiness bring you joy. Articles Police asking Andrew's protection officers what 'they saw or heard' as part of Epstein files review AI giant Palantir moves its headquarters to Florida as tech company exodus continues Palantir, controversial data company tied to ICE, CIA, multiple countries' militaries, leaving Denver for Miami Goodbye, and Good Riddance: Palantir Technologies Has Left Denver INGERSOLL: No ‘Boob Jobs’ For 16-Year-Olds: The Latest Absurd Argument In Support Of Child Sex Changes See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this Crosspolitic episode recorded December of 2025, Toby and Gabe had the pleasure of welcoming Senator Brandon Shippy from the Idaho State Senate into the studio to talk about the issue of Idaho's legislative session and why Christians need to engage with the political process at the state level. Find more from Brandon Shippy here: X: @SenatorShippy ABOUT CROSSPOLITIC CrossPolitic exists to put Jesus over Politics and reclaim the public square through bold, joyful, biblically grounded media. We confront the chaos discipling America and build the next generation of Christian media infrastructure. Our mission is simple: all of Christ for all of media for all of America. Mainstream media is collapsing. Eighty-seven percent of journalists identify as progressive, and even many conservative outlets prioritize profit over principle. Meanwhile, billions of hours of digital content are discipling the world every day. CrossPolitic stands in that gap, producing courageous, entertaining, truth-filled media for households, churches, and leaders across the nation. TIMESTAMPS 0:00 Intro 2:00 State Affairs, Health, & Welfare 5:06 Shippy's Legislative Priorities 9:15 Parental Authority & Public School 12:50 Why Shippy Opposed Idaho School Choice 16:50 Refundable Tax Credits Explained 22:15 Idaho's Abortion Ballot Initiative 26:00 Equal protection & the right to life 30:10 Idaho code & abortion inconsistencies 33:00 Imago Dei and legislative authority 41:30 Is Incrementalism Biblical? 50:00 Smashmouth Incrementalism vs. Immediate Justice 58:00 Are Abortions Actually Decreasing? 59:30 Do Good Results Justify Imperfect Laws? 1:02:30 Outro Become a CrossPolitic Club Member Support the mission and unlock exclusive content, behind-the-scenes shows, and theology series. https://pubtv.flfnetwork.com/menu/checkout Subscribe & Share! Every like, comment, and share helps push Christian media back into the algorithm where it belongs. Join Us at Our Next National Conference Sign up for Fight Laugh Feast 2026: Holy Wars and lock in Early Bird pricing. https://tickets.flfnetwork.com/holy-wars-conference Follow CrossPolitic YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CROSSPOLITIC X: https://x.com/CrossPolitic Facebook: https://facebook.com/crosspolitic Instagram: https://instagram.com/crosspolitic Join our Email List: https://crosspolitic.com/ Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NRBTV, DirecTV, Dish, and everywhere podcasts are found.

In this Crosspolitic episode recorded December of 2025, Toby and Gabe had the pleasure of welcoming Senator Brandon Shippy from the Idaho State Senate into the studio to talk about the issue of Idaho's legislative session and why Christians need to engage with the political process at the state level. Find more from Brandon Shippy here: X: @SenatorShippy ABOUT CROSSPOLITIC CrossPolitic exists to put Jesus over Politics and reclaim the public square through bold, joyful, biblically grounded media. We confront the chaos discipling America and build the next generation of Christian media infrastructure. Our mission is simple: all of Christ for all of media for all of America. Mainstream media is collapsing. Eighty-seven percent of journalists identify as progressive, and even many conservative outlets prioritize profit over principle. Meanwhile, billions of hours of digital content are discipling the world every day. CrossPolitic stands in that gap, producing courageous, entertaining, truth-filled media for households, churches, and leaders across the nation. TIMESTAMPS 0:00 Intro 2:00 State Affairs, Health, & Welfare 5:06 Shippy's Legislative Priorities 9:15 Parental Authority & Public School 12:50 Why Shippy Opposed Idaho School Choice 16:50 Refundable Tax Credits Explained 22:15 Idaho's Abortion Ballot Initiative 26:00 Equal protection & the right to life 30:10 Idaho code & abortion inconsistencies 33:00 Imago Dei and legislative authority 41:30 Is Incrementalism Biblical? 50:00 Smashmouth Incrementalism vs. Immediate Justice 58:00 Are Abortions Actually Decreasing? 59:30 Do Good Results Justify Imperfect Laws? 1:02:30 Outro Become a CrossPolitic Club Member Support the mission and unlock exclusive content, behind-the-scenes shows, and theology series. https://pubtv.flfnetwork.com/menu/checkout Subscribe & Share! Every like, comment, and share helps push Christian media back into the algorithm where it belongs. Join Us at Our Next National Conference Sign up for Fight Laugh Feast 2026: Holy Wars and lock in Early Bird pricing. https://tickets.flfnetwork.com/holy-wars-conference Follow CrossPolitic YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CROSSPOLITIC X: https://x.com/CrossPolitic Facebook: https://facebook.com/crosspolitic Instagram: https://instagram.com/crosspolitic Join our Email List: https://crosspolitic.com/ Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NRBTV, DirecTV, Dish, and everywhere podcasts are found.

In this Crosspolitic episode recorded December of 2025, Toby and Gabe had the pleasure of welcoming Senator Brandon Shippy from the Idaho State Senate into the studio to talk about the issue of Idaho's legislative session and why Christians need to engage with the political process at the state level. Find more from Brandon Shippy here: X: @SenatorShippy ABOUT CROSSPOLITIC CrossPolitic exists to put Jesus over Politics and reclaim the public square through bold, joyful, biblically grounded media. We confront the chaos discipling America and build the next generation of Christian media infrastructure. Our mission is simple: all of Christ for all of media for all of America. Mainstream media is collapsing. Eighty-seven percent of journalists identify as progressive, and even many conservative outlets prioritize profit over principle. Meanwhile, billions of hours of digital content are discipling the world every day. CrossPolitic stands in that gap, producing courageous, entertaining, truth-filled media for households, churches, and leaders across the nation. TIMESTAMPS 0:00 Intro 2:00 State Affairs, Health, & Welfare 5:06 Shippy's Legislative Priorities 9:15 Parental Authority & Public School 12:50 Why Shippy Opposed Idaho School Choice 16:50 Refundable Tax Credits Explained 22:15 Idaho's Abortion Ballot Initiative 26:00 Equal protection & the right to life 30:10 Idaho code & abortion inconsistencies 33:00 Imago Dei and legislative authority 41:30 Is Incrementalism Biblical? 50:00 Smashmouth Incrementalism vs. Immediate Justice 58:00 Are Abortions Actually Decreasing? 59:30 Do Good Results Justify Imperfect Laws? 1:02:30 Outro Become a CrossPolitic Club Member Support the mission and unlock exclusive content, behind-the-scenes shows, and theology series. https://pubtv.flfnetwork.com/menu/checkout Subscribe & Share! Every like, comment, and share helps push Christian media back into the algorithm where it belongs. Join Us at Our Next National Conference Sign up for Fight Laugh Feast 2026: Holy Wars and lock in Early Bird pricing. https://tickets.flfnetwork.com/holy-wars-conference Follow CrossPolitic YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CROSSPOLITIC X: https://x.com/CrossPolitic Facebook: https://facebook.com/crosspolitic Instagram: https://instagram.com/crosspolitic Join our Email List: https://crosspolitic.com/ Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NRBTV, DirecTV, Dish, and everywhere podcasts are found.

If the church remains silent, you do not have a polity, a people, a citizentry that is informed by the word of God. . .the church must speak the truth in love, not with arrogance, going back to the gospel of Christ saying there is a God in heaven who will forgive you, who will gladly reconcile you to Himself. In this episode of Spotlight, David Smith talks with two Illinois pastors about SB 3572, a bill that will abolish abortion in the Land of Lincoln.… Continue Reading

ABOUT THE EPISODEWhat is more sterilizing and depersonalizing than a simple pill? Sadly, in a post-Dobbs world, the abortion pill as been used to perpetuate the slaughter of children in states that have supposedly strict restrictions on the practice. Read as Senator Dusty Deevers explains how the Pro-life movement has been unable to answer the question of “abortion pills.”Resources to Click“Equal Protection or Bust: Why Abolitionists Have the Only Answer to the Abortion Pill Crisis” – Dusty Deevers“Abortion Trends Before and After Dobbs” – Karen Diep, Bryana Castillo Sanchez, Usha Ranji, and Alina Salganicoff“LifeNews Lies” – Foundation to Abolish AbortionStudents for Life Action X Post“Babies Unprotected: An Analysis of Self-Induced Abortion Numbers in States with “Bans”” – Foundation to Abolish AbortionABORTION is Still Legal in All 50 States – Abolitionists RisingEPIC Speech at Oklahoma Capitol by Abolitionist Pastor Dusty Deevers – Abolitionists Rising“Pro-Life Texas State Rep. Jeff Leach Delivers Death Sentence to 110,000 Preborn Human Beings” – James Silberman“An Open Letter to State Lawmakers from America's Leading Pro-Life Organizations”Oklahoma | SB 456 | Judiciary Committee Hearing (2025) – Foundation to Abolish AbortionTheme of the Month: Abolishing Abortion, Advocating for LifeGive to Support the Work

Exploring the Equal Protection Clause: From Historical Roots to AI ChallengesIn this episode the hosts tackle the complexities of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, a cornerstone of American constitutional law. The discussion begins with the significance of this clause, which serves as a critical tool for civil rights and has implications for various legal issues, from school segregation to marriage equality. The hosts emphasized the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding equal protection, particularly for law students preparing for exams. The conversation delves into the nuances of the clause, including the different tiers of scrutiny—strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis review—each with its own standards and implications for how laws are evaluated in terms of discrimination.The hosts explore the historical context of the Equal Protection Clause, its application to various classifications such as race, gender, and alienage, and the evolving nature of these legal interpretations in the face of modern challenges, including the rise of AI and algorithmic decision-making. The discussion highlights the tension between anti-classification and anti-subordination principles, particularly in the context of affirmative action and the implications of using algorithms that may inadvertently perpetuate discrimination. The episode concludes with a call to action for listeners to consider the future of equal protection in an era where discrimination may become less visible, raising critical questions about the relevance and adaptability of existing legal frameworks.The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment stands as a cornerstone of American constitutional law, shaping the landscape of civil rights from school segregation to marriage equality. In our latest podcast episode, we delve into this complex legal doctrine, unraveling its historical significance and examining its evolving role in today's world.The Historical FoundationThe 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was designed to address racial discrimination against newly freed slaves. Early cases like Strauder v. West Virginia set the stage for its application, striking down laws that blatantly discriminated based on race. Over time, the doctrine evolved, embracing the anti-classification principle, which demands that the government remain colorblind in its policies.Modern Implications and AI ParadoxAs we navigate the 21st century, the Equal Protection Clause faces new challenges, particularly in the realm of artificial intelligence and algorithms. The episode highlights the tension between anti-classification and anti-subordination principles, as AI systems inadvertently perpetuate societal biases. The paradox emerges when attempts to correct these biases trigger strict scrutiny, potentially stifling efforts to achieve equity.The Need for Legal EvolutionThe discussion underscores the urgent need for legal evolution to address the complexities of algorithmic bias. As discrimination becomes increasingly invisible, buried within code, the traditional legal frameworks may fall short. The question looms: will the courts adapt to this new reality, or will the doctrine remain tethered to its historical roots?The Equal Protection Clause remains a vital tool in the fight for civil rights, but its application must evolve to meet the challenges of our digital age. As we ponder the future of this doctrine, we invite you to join us in exploring these critical issues and their implications for the next generation of lawyers and judges.Subscribe now.Equal Protection Clause, 14th Amendment, constitutional law, civil rights, tiers of scrutiny, strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis review, discrimination, AI algorithmsEqual Protection Clause, 14th Amendment, constitutional law, civil rights, tiers of scrutiny, strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis review, discrimination

ABOUT THE EPISODEMany pro-life organizations are failing in their mission to save babies. But why? Ben Zeisloft sees not only a problem with the execution of pro-life bills and strategies, but understands them to be anemic half measures. Read on as Ben presents a case for abortion abolitionism as the answer to our nation's abortion epidemic.Resources to Click“A Case for Abolitionism: The Only Way to End Abortion in America” – Ben Zeisloft“How Pro-Life Leaders Betray the One Truth They Can't Afford to Compromise” – Ben Zeisloft“How the ERLC Works Against Ending Abortion” – Ben Zeisloft#WeCount Report, April 2022 to June 2025“An Open Letter to State Lawmakers from America's Leading Pro-Life Organizations”“Biblical Principles on Equal Protection of the Laws for Preborn Children” – Foundation to Abolish Abortion“Texas Pro-Life Bill Fails to Adequately Address Self-Induced Abortion Epidemic” – Bradley Pierce“A Case for Abortion Incrementalism” – David ClossonTheme of the Month: Abolishing Abortion, Advocating for LifeGive to Support the Work

with Brad Friedman & Desi Doyen

The United States Supreme Court reached a new level of absurdity—and the country watched it happen in real time. ⚖️ In this episode, we break down a stunning exchange that exposed a fundamental contradiction: refusing to define “woman” while simultaneously enforcing women's sports categories by law. From Justice Alito's sharp questioning to the ACLU's evasive answers, this conversation goes far beyond sports. It reveals an ideological system—one rooted in oppressor vs. oppressed class theory—that is reshaping law, culture, immigration policy, and even public safety.

What happens when the highest court in the land is asked to rule on something that “can't be defined”—yet is enforced by law anyway?

Identity politics have been merged into American law. This led to issues where race or gender were used to weigh guilt or innocence, and even the severity of punishment. But now, the Justice Department is rolling this back, and restoring what used to represent the principles of equal protection under the law.We'll discuss this topic and others, in this episode of Crossroads.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

This episode is presented by Create A Video – The US Department of Justice scrapped its "disparate impact" rule - ensuring that the Civil Rights Act is followed to prohibit actual discrimination. Plus, Senate Republicans plan to propose a healthcare reform bill to counter Democrats' plan to extend Obamacare subsidies for three more years. Subscribe to the podcast at: https://ThePetePod.com/ All the links to Pete's Prep are free: https://patreon.com/petekalinershow Media Bias Check: GroundNews promo code! Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.com Get exclusive content here!: https://thepetekalinershow.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Notes: https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.htmlUnderstanding Equal Protection: A Roadmap for Law StudentsThis conversation delves into the complexities of the Equal Protection Clause, exploring its historical context, the three tiers of scrutiny, and the nuances of applying these standards in legal analysis. The discussion emphasizes the importance of categorization, the rigorous demands of strict scrutiny, and the implications of remedial racial classifications. It also addresses the challenges posed by facially neutral laws and the frameworks used to prove discriminatory intent, providing a comprehensive roadmap for law students preparing for exams.Navigating the complexities of constitutional law can be daunting, especially when it comes to the Equal Protection Clause. This blog post aims to demystify the intricate frameworks and standards that govern equal protection analysis, providing law students with a structured approach to mastering this critical area of law.The Three-Tiered Framework: At the heart of equal protection analysis is the three-tiered framework of judicial review. This framework helps determine the level of scrutiny a court will apply to a law that classifies individuals based on characteristics such as race, gender, or age. Understanding these tiers—strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis review—is essential for any law student.Strict Scrutiny: The most rigorous standard, strict scrutiny, applies to laws that classify individuals based on race or national origin. Under this standard, the government must prove that the classification serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. This level of scrutiny is often described as "strict in theory, fatal in fact," as laws rarely survive this analysis.Intermediate Scrutiny: Intermediate scrutiny is applied to classifications based on gender and legitimacy. The government must demonstrate that the classification serves an important governmental interest and is substantially related to achieving that interest. This standard is less demanding than strict scrutiny but more rigorous than rational basis review.Rational Basis Review: The default standard, rational basis review, applies to all other classifications. Under this standard, the government only needs to show that the classification is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Laws are almost universally upheld under this deferential standard, except in cases where animus is the sole motivation.Mastering the equal protection framework is crucial for law students preparing for exams or the bar. By understanding the nuances of each tier and applying them to hypothetical scenarios, students can confidently tackle any equal protection question. As the legal landscape evolves, particularly with the rise of algorithmic decision-making, staying informed and adaptable is key to success.Subscribe Now: Stay updated with the latest insights and analysis on constitutional law by subscribing.TakeawaysThe Equal Protection Clause demands structural precision.Identifying classification is the first step in analysis.Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous standard applied to suspect classes.Intermediate scrutiny applies to gender and illegitimacy classifications.Rational basis review is the default standard for most classifications.Remedial racial classifications must show specific past discrimination.Rational basis with bite addresses laws motivated by animus.Facially neutral laws require proof of discriminatory intent to challenge.The Arlington Heights framework helps prove intent through circumstantial evidence.The McDonnell Douglas framework is used for individual discrimination claims.Equal Protection, 14th Amendment, Scrutiny Standards, Discrimination, Law School, Constitutional Law, Affirmative Action, Judicial Review, Legal Framework, Civil Rights

In this episode, host Sloan Simmons joins Title IX experts Sarah Fama and Sinead McDonough for a comprehensive discussion regarding the status of the law as it pertains to gender identity, students, and schools.  Topics covered include the current status of California and federal law and policy on point, as well as the wide-ranging scope of pending litigation poised to impact this area of school law. Show Notes & References 1:54 – Foundational cases impacting Title IX policy (Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) 140 S. Ct. 1731) (Client News Brief 50 - June 2020) 2:55 – Grabowski v. Arizona Board of Regents (9th Cir. 2023) 69 F.4th 1110 5:51 – Parents for Privacy vs. Barr (9th Cir. 2020) 949 F.3d 1210 (Client News Brief 40 - May 2020) 10:48 – Roe vs. Critchfield (9th Cir. 2025) 137 F.4th 912 (Client News Brief 14 - April 2025) 12:49 – Jones, et al. v. Critchfield, et al., Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-5413 13:44 – Regino vs. Blake (formerly Staley) (9th Cir. 2025) (Client News Brief 17 - April 2025) 14:57 – Assembly Bill (AB) 1266 20:00 – United States v. Skrmetti (2025) 605 U.S. 495 22:24 – The law in California 23:25 – CIF (California Interscholastic Federation) Rule 300D and Guidelines for Gender Identity Participation 24:36 – Interactions with federal law 25:56 – Executive Order (EO) 14168 (Client News Brief 12 - February 2025) 27:01 – Tennessee v. Cardona decision 28:29 – Dear Colleague letter - February 4, 2025 30:32 – Federal government's approach and reaction to CIF and AB 1266 (USDOE Press Releases: February 12, 2025; March 27, 2025; June 25, 2025) 34:00 – Related Supreme Court cases (Little v. Hecox, Case No. No. 24-38; West Virginia v. B.P.J., Case No. 24-43) 35:09 – T.S. et al. v. Riverside Unified School District et al., U.S.D.C., Central District of California, Case No. 5:24-cv-02480-SSS-SP, and order on motion to dismiss, (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2025) 2025 WL 2884416 36:25 – Protections for student privacy and their interactions with parental rights 39:22 – Mirabelli vs. Olson et al.¸U.S.D.C., Southern District of California, Case No. 3:23-cv-00768-BEN-VET 40:00 – The SAFETY Act (AB 1955) 44:13 – The dynamic between the federal government and California post-AB 1955 enactment (United States of America v. California Interscholastic Federation et al., U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 8:25-cv-01485-CV-JDE) 50:26 – Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, Case No. 25-77 52:19 – Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) 606 U.S. 522 (Listen to Episode 97 Mahmoud v. Taylor) (Client News Brief 28 - July 2025) 53:31 – Access to facilities 55:15 – Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board (4th Cir. 2020) 972 F.3d 586 56:06 – Million Dollar Question: Does Title IX protect individuals based on gender identity or not?   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

Welcome back, wellness seekers, to the BH Sales Kennel Kelp Holistic Healing Hour. I'm your host, Grandpa Bill. Today, we're moving beyond physical vitality and diving into cognitive fitness—the deep, integrated strength of the mind.As many of you know, I've been a dedicated student of Dr. Anthony Metivier's Magnetic Memory Method for years. This isn't just about passing a test; it's about building a robust, resilient mind. I've recently been mentoring my granddaughter, Adah, a college freshman, and her latest challenge has proven to be the most profound holistic exercise we've done: The Backward Walk from Metivier's advanced curriculum.Before we even begin the walk, we must remember the lesson of Peter of Ravenna. He taught us that our memory structures—our Palaces—must be real, finished, and stable. Adah chose her quiet church. This isn't superstition; it's holistic architecture. If your environment is chaotic, your mind will be chaotic. Ravenna demands a stable, moderate space so the mind can be still.Adah built four stations for her Political Science class, encoding the clauses of the 14th Amendment using PAO and the Major System. The images are striking—a Roller Skater laughing on a tight rope for Equal Protection, and the Tin Man dancing on noodles for Citizenship. They stir the emotions, as Ravenna instructed.The problem with the Forward Walk (Station 1 to 4) is that it's easy. It's a habit. Your brain is only saying, "Okay, I remember Station 1, so I'll automatically look for 2." This creates a weak, linear chain. If you forget Station 3, the rest of the chain breaks.The Backward Walk—from the end to the beginning—is the ultimate cognitive diagnostic tool.When I ask Adah to go Backward to the Beginning of the Memory Palace, I'm forcing her mind to do three things, each with massive holistic benefits:Dismantle the Chain: It proves that every piece of knowledge is directly and independently anchored to its specific Place, not to the piece before it. This promotes a non-linear, resilient thinking pattern, which is crucial for problem-solving in life, not just academia.Test the Architecture: By reversing the process, we expose any weak links or "clutter" in the Memory Palace—the very chaos Ravenna warned us against. If Adah hesitates between the Altar Rail and the Baptismal Font, we know the place wasn't truly mastered, and we must revisit the station distance or imagery.Achieve Deep Presence: Dr. Metivier always stresses the three-breath pause at each station. In the reverse walk, this pause is non-negotiable. It forces deep active recall and anchors you squarely in the present moment, turning a memory exercise into a powerful form of meditation and mental centering.Holistic healing isn't just about avoiding disease; it's about achieving mastery and calm. When Adah successfully sprints backward—from the Roller Skater back to the Tin Man—she doesn't just feel relieved; she feels profound confidence. She knows the information is integrated into the core of her mind.This ability to command your own knowledge, to retrieve information from any angle under pressure, is the ultimate antidote to mental stress and anxiety. It's about being the director of your mental theatre, not just an audience member waiting for the play to start.So, I encourage you all to try this cognitive strength test in your own Palaces today. Choose three simple stations, encode three easy facts, and then go Backward to the Beginning. Feel the effort, feel the resistance, and then feel the immense reward of true, integrated knowledgeThank you for tuning in to the BH Sales Kennel Kelp Holistic Healing Hour. Until next time, stay grounded, stay magnetic, and keep those cognitive pathways clear.#TheBackwardWalk, #MetivierMethod, #PeterOfRavenna ,#CognitiveFitness ,#HolisticMemory, #GrandpaBill, #BHHealingHour, #MagneticMind,The Ravenna Foundation: Stability FirstThe Dissolution of Linear Thinking The Healing Power of Mastery

Send us a textJoin Boozy and the Certified Legal Layman, Alkali, as they record another live episode of Boozy's Legal Funhouse. This time, at Anthrocon 2025, the pair discuss the Pennsylvania case of Friends of Danny DeVito v. Wolf, wherein a conservative politician capitalizing on a liberal actor's name attempted to overturn the Governor's orders relating to the COVID-19 lockdowns in the Commonwealth by grossly misunderstanding the nature of police powers, statutory interpretation, Due Process, the First Amendment, and Equal Protection. Bonus: Did you know the King of England made this case possible in the first place?Case materials and InformationLegal Funhouse Theme by Status Ferret. Check out his stuff here!Support the showSupport Boozy and the show over on Patreon, Kofi, or maybe watch him at Twitch. You can read his writings and get updates about performances, releases, bonus material, and case materials at Lawyers & Liquor, his website. If you want to support Alkali, you can do that at his Twitch channel or on their Patreon!

Your favorite Buzzkill duo are back at it with hot takes, hot guests, and plenty of RAGE! What went down this week in Abobolandia? Well… let's just start with a win—Ken Paxton: 0 Texas abortion provider, Dr. Margaret Carpenter: 1. HUZZAH! Also, what happens in West Virginia certainly won't stay in West Virginia—we're laying out the latest terrible, horrible, no good, very bad decision curbing access to medication abortion from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in West Virginia *barf*. AND we're making some sense of the clear-as-swamp water Kentucky case that makes us wonder—what do frozen eggs have to do with the right to sue? GUEST ROLL CALL!Joining the Buzzkills this week is Chase Strangio, Co-Director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, to break down the intersections of abortion care and trans care, and how the media (NOT SCIENCE) has literally done all of the work in forming anti-trans bias. PLUS!!! Showing up to FBK with the palate cleanser we all need is the FABU and ICONIC actress and recording artist Peppermint! She's showing us what trans resilience and JOY truly look like, and how she finds the strength to keep fighting. Scared? Got questions about the continued assault on your reproductive rights? THE FBK LINES ARE OPEN! Just call or text (201) 574-7402, leave your questions or concerns, and Lizz and Moji will pick a few to address on the pod! Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu.  OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: Sign up for virtual 2025 OSA workshop on August 9th! You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to our past Operation Save Abortion pod series and Mifepristone Panel by clicking HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead IG: @LizzWinstead Bluesky: @LizzWinstead.bsky.socialMoji Alawode-El IG: @Mojilocks Bluesky: @Mojilocks.bsky.social SPECIAL GUESTS:Chase Strangio IG: @Chasestrangio Bluesky: @Chasestrangio.bsky.socialPeppermint IG: @Peppermint247 TikTok: @Therealpeppermint247 GUEST LINKS:WATCH: “Heightened Scrutiny” DocumentaryACLU Website IG: @ACLU_nationwide Bluesky: @ACLU.orgDONATE: The ACLU LGBTQ & HIV ProjectREAD: Andrea Gibson's PoetryWATCH: Enigma on HBOPeppermint's Documentary “A Deeper Love”Peppermint's WebsitePeppermint's LinktreePep & Hugh's Queer History 101 Book ClubREAD:  Transgender History by Susan StrykerREAD: Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents by Isabel WilkersonREAD: So Many Stars by Caro De RobertisREAD: Another Word for Love by Carvell Wallace NEWS DUMP:Respectful Treatment of Unborn Remains Act of 2025Republicans Propose National Ban on Flushing AbortionsNY County Official Refuses to Enforce Texas Sanction Against Doctor in Abortion CaseNew VA Law Prompts Walmart's Online Data Collection Pop-UpsJewish Woman's Challenge of Kentucky's Abortion Ban Gets Green Light From Appeals CourtWV Can Restrict Abortion Pill Access, Appeals Court Says EPISODE LINKS:ADOPT-A-CLINIC: Palmetto State Abortion Fund's WishlistBUY AAF MERCH!SIGN UP 8/9: Operation Save AbortionEMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist SHOULD I BE SCARED? Text or call us with the abortion news that is scaring you: (201) 574-7402 FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK Podcast Instagram ~ @AbortionFrontBluesky ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFront TALK TO THE CHARLEY BOT FOR ABOBO OPTIONS & RESOURCES HERE!PATREON HERE! Support our work, get exclusive merch and more! DONATE TO AAF HERE!ACTIVIST CALENDAR HERE!VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE!ADOPT-A-CLINIC HERE!EXPOSE FAKE CLINICS HERE!GET ABOBO PILLS FROM PLAN C PILLS HERE!When BS is poppin', we pop off!

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court voted 6–3 along ideological lines to uphold Tennessee's ban on certain treatments for transgender minors. The ruling rejected an argument brought by three transgender teens, their parents and a Memphis doctor that the law violates the Constitution's Equal Protection and discriminates on the basis of sex, which requires stricter scrutiny than the standard applied by a federal appeals court that previously upheld the law.Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: What do you think of health care for trans minors? Let us know!Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.