Podcasts about Equal Protection Clause

[01:11:09 – 01:16:00] — Constitutional Crisis: Legislative Nullification of Federal Power Discussion of Tennessee and Louisiana bills that would criminalize enforcement of federal laws like gun control and vaccine mandates, framing the actions as a peaceful constitutional counter to federal overreach.[01:17:08 – 01:20:37] — Weaponized Climate Fear and Legalized Geoengineering Critique of climate change panic as a tool of control, highlighting federal legalization of atmospheric geoengineering and environmental manipulation without public consent.[01:24:19 – 01:26:52] — Rebranding the Police State for the Right Warns that the police state is being rebranded to appeal to conservatives using the border crisis as a Trojan horse for total surveillance and military-style control.[01:27:47 – 01:30:34] — Theater of Impeachment and Manufactured Outrage Describes calls for Biden's impeachment as a scripted distraction with no real consequences, likening it to WWE politics where both parties serve the same agenda.[01:44:14 – 01:48:07] — Breaking Trump's Psychological Hold on the Right Analyzes how Trump's narrative control has become a psychological barrier preventing conservatives from opposing tyranny, even as he pushes policies like red flag laws and mass surveillance.[02:59:00 – 03:00:57] — Disillusionment with Trump's Broken Promises Expresses frustration over Trump's failure to deliver on anti-war and anti-surveillance promises, likening the betrayal to the recurring Charlie Brown football gag.[03:20:13 – 03:24:32] — 14th Amendment, Transgender Rulings, and Legal Consistency Discusses recent Supreme Court support for Tennessee's ban on child gender transitions, arguing the Equal Protection Clause requires applying child-protection laws equally, including to unborn children.[03:36:15 – 03:40:27] — Trump, Powell, and the Inflation Game Breaks down how Trump's push for lower interest rates is tied to refinancing government debt and trade optics, warning this would inflate the money supply and worsen economic instability.[03:42:02 – 03:45:19] — US-Backed Atrocities in Gaza Covers antiwar.com's report on dozens of Palestinians killed by Israeli airstrikes, including children, and emphasizes US complicity in the suffering through funding and military support.[03:47:44 – 03:52:11] — Trump's Immigration Enforcement and Constitutional Overreach Criticizes the Trump administration's immigration raids, calling them unconstitutional, coercive, and akin to quota-driven Soviet enforcement schemes.[03:56:12 – 03:58:48] — Constitutional Breakdown of Federal Immigration Power Explains Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution to argue that the federal government has no authority to police immigration without explicit state invitations, and likens Trump's actions to George Washington's unconstitutional Whiskey Rebellion suppression. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

[01:11:09 – 01:16:00] — Constitutional Crisis: Legislative Nullification of Federal Power Discussion of Tennessee and Louisiana bills that would criminalize enforcement of federal laws like gun control and vaccine mandates, framing the actions as a peaceful constitutional counter to federal overreach.[01:17:08 – 01:20:37] — Weaponized Climate Fear and Legalized Geoengineering Critique of climate change panic as a tool of control, highlighting federal legalization of atmospheric geoengineering and environmental manipulation without public consent.[01:24:19 – 01:26:52] — Rebranding the Police State for the Right Warns that the police state is being rebranded to appeal to conservatives using the border crisis as a Trojan horse for total surveillance and military-style control.[01:27:47 – 01:30:34] — Theater of Impeachment and Manufactured Outrage Describes calls for Biden's impeachment as a scripted distraction with no real consequences, likening it to WWE politics where both parties serve the same agenda.[01:44:14 – 01:48:07] — Breaking Trump's Psychological Hold on the Right Analyzes how Trump's narrative control has become a psychological barrier preventing conservatives from opposing tyranny, even as he pushes policies like red flag laws and mass surveillance.[02:59:00 – 03:00:57] — Disillusionment with Trump's Broken Promises Expresses frustration over Trump's failure to deliver on anti-war and anti-surveillance promises, likening the betrayal to the recurring Charlie Brown football gag.[03:20:13 – 03:24:32] — 14th Amendment, Transgender Rulings, and Legal Consistency Discusses recent Supreme Court support for Tennessee's ban on child gender transitions, arguing the Equal Protection Clause requires applying child-protection laws equally, including to unborn children.[03:36:15 – 03:40:27] — Trump, Powell, and the Inflation Game Breaks down how Trump's push for lower interest rates is tied to refinancing government debt and trade optics, warning this would inflate the money supply and worsen economic instability.[03:42:02 – 03:45:19] — US-Backed Atrocities in Gaza Covers antiwar.com's report on dozens of Palestinians killed by Israeli airstrikes, including children, and emphasizes US complicity in the suffering through funding and military support.[03:47:44 – 03:52:11] — Trump's Immigration Enforcement and Constitutional Overreach Criticizes the Trump administration's immigration raids, calling them unconstitutional, coercive, and akin to quota-driven Soviet enforcement schemes.[03:56:12 – 03:58:48] — Constitutional Breakdown of Federal Immigration Power Explains Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution to argue that the federal government has no authority to police immigration without explicit state invitations, and likens Trump's actions to George Washington's unconstitutional Whiskey Rebellion suppression. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

In the last several years, numerous minors who identify as transgender have undergone surgery and other medical procedures to mirror common physical features of the opposite sex.In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity. Individuals, joined by the United States, brought suit against Tennessee. They alleged that a ban on “gender affirming care” violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Due Process Clause’s “substantive” component gives parents a right to demand medical interventions for their children, even if a state has found them to be unproven and risky.On June 18th, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute

This Day in Legal History: JuneteenthOn this day in legal history, June 19, 1865, Union Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, and issued General Order No. 3, announcing that all enslaved people in Texas were free. This day, now known as Juneteenth, marked the effective end of slavery in the United States—coming more than two years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. The delay was due in large part to the limited presence of Union troops in Texas to enforce the proclamation.Granger's announcement informed Texas residents that “all slaves are free,” a declaration that redefined the legal and social landscape of the state and solidified the federal government's authority over the Confederacy's last holdout. While the Emancipation Proclamation had declared freedom for slaves in Confederate states, it did not immediately end slavery everywhere, nor did it provide enforcement mechanisms beyond Union military power. Juneteenth represents the day when emancipation finally reached the furthest corners of the Confederacy through legal and military authority.In the years following, Juneteenth became a symbol of African American freedom and resilience, celebrated with community gatherings, education, and reflection. Texas made Juneteenth a state holiday in 1980, the first state to do so. On June 17, 2021, it became a federal holiday when President Joe Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act into law. The legal significance of Juneteenth lies in its embodiment of both the promise and the delay of justice, highlighting the gap between the law's proclamation and its realization.A conservative legal group, Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP), has sued the Michigan Law Review and its affiliated leadership, claiming that its member selection process illegally favors women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ applicants. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the complaint alleges that personal statements and holistic review metrics are evaluated using race and sex preferences, violating both federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The group contends that conservative students, especially those associated with the Federalist Society, are excluded from review committees due to their presumed opposition to the practice.FASORP is backed by attorney Jonathan Mitchell and America First Legal, led by former Trump official Stephen Miller. The organization has brought similar legal challenges against NYU and Northwestern, and its suit aligns with broader attacks on diversity policies at elite institutions. It seeks an injunction, damages, and court oversight of a revised selection process for the journal, along with a halt to federal funding until changes are made.The group claims violations of Title VI and Title IX, as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Equal Protection Clause. The review's five-part selection process—including essays and grades—has no fixed evaluation formula, which FASORP argues opens the door to discriminatory discretion. Judge Judith E. Levy is assigned to the case.Conservative Group Accuses Michigan Law Review of Selection BiasA federal judge in Texas has struck down a Biden administration rule aimed at protecting the privacy of patients seeking abortions and gender-affirming care. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) overstepped its authority when it adopted the rule, which barred healthcare providers and insurers from disclosing information about legal abortions to state law enforcement. The decision halts enforcement of the rule nationwide.Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, argued that HHS lacked explicit congressional approval to implement heightened protections for procedures viewed as politically sensitive. The rule was introduced in 2024 following the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade, as part of the Biden administration's efforts to defend reproductive healthcare access.The lawsuit was brought by Texas physician Carmen Purl, represented by the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which claimed the rule misused privacy laws unrelated to abortion or gender identity. Previously, Kacsmaryk had temporarily blocked enforcement of the rule against Purl, but this week's decision broadens that to all states.HHS has not responded publicly to the ruling, and a separate legal challenge to the same rule remains active in another Texas federal court. The case underscores ongoing tensions between federal privacy regulations and state-level abortion restrictions in the post-Roe legal environment.US judge invalidates Biden rule protecting privacy for abortions | ReutersXlear, a hygiene product company, has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), challenging the agency's authority to require “substantiation” for product claims under its false advertising rules. The suit, filed in federal court in Utah, follows the FTC's recent decision to drop a case it had pursued since 2021, which alleged that Xlear falsely advertised its saline nasal spray as a COVID-19 prevention and treatment product.Xlear argues that the FTC is exceeding its legal mandate by demanding scientific backing for advertising claims, stating that the FTC Act does not explicitly authorize such a requirement. The company's legal team is leaning on the 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limited the deference courts must give to federal agencies when interpreting statutes—a significant departure from the longstanding Chevron doctrine.The company seeks a court ruling that merely making claims without substantiation does not violate FTC rules. Xlear has also criticized the agency for engaging in what it calls “vexatious litigation,” claiming it spent over $3 million defending itself before the FTC abandoned its lawsuit without explanation.The FTC has not yet commented or made a court appearance in this new case. The challenge could set important precedent on the scope of agency power over advertising standards in the wake of the Supreme Court's shift on judicial deference.Lawsuit challenges FTC authority over 'unsubstantiated' advertising claims | ReutersA federal judge in Rhode Island signaled skepticism toward the Trump administration's attempt to tie federal transportation funding to state cooperation with immigration enforcement. During a hearing, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell questioned whether U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy had legal authority to impose immigration-related conditions on grants meant for infrastructure projects. McConnell, an Obama appointee, challenged the relevance of immigration enforcement to the Transportation Department's mission, drawing a parallel to whether the department could also withhold funds based on abortion laws.The case involves 20 Democratic-led states opposing the April 24 directive, which conditions billions in infrastructure grants on compliance with federal immigration law, including cooperation with ICE. The states argue the requirement is unconstitutional, vague, and attempts to coerce state governments into enforcing federal immigration policy without clear legislative authorization.Justice Department lawyers defended the policy as aligned with national safety concerns, but struggled under McConnell's probing. He noted that the administration's broad language and public stance on sanctuary jurisdictions could not be ignored and appeared to support the states' argument that the directive lacks clarity and statutory grounding.The judge is expected to issue a ruling by Friday, before the states' grant application deadline. This lawsuit is part of a broader legal and political battle as Trump pushes sanctuary cities and states to aid in mass deportations.US judge skeptical of Trump plan tying states' transportation funds to immigration | 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

In this emergency episode, Chase Strangio of the ACLU joins the pod to talk about today's decision in United States v. Skrmetti. Then, Kate, Leah, and Melissa dive deep into the opinion, the various flavors of awful found in the concurrences from the majority, and what this decision might mean more broadly for the future of sex-based discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

In the Middle East, Iran's Supreme Leader has rejected President Trump's call for an unconditional surrender, as deadly exchanges between Israel and Iran continue. Speaking today, President Trump said Iran had reached out and proposed coming to the White House for talks—but added that it's “very late” for that. He also warned that the U.S. “may or may not” launch a military strike against Iran.The Supreme Court on Monday, in a 6–3 decision, upheld Tennessee's ban on so-called gender-affirming care for minors. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the law banning puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors does not violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The ruling aligns with the Trump administration's earlier rollback of protections for transgender individuals.The Federal Reserve has unanimously voted to keep interest rates steady at 4.25%. Fed officials still project two rate cuts before the end of the year, while President Trump continues to push for rates “two points lower.”

This Day in Legal History: Georgia v. McCollumOn June 18, 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992), holding that criminal defendants cannot use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of race. This decision extended the logic of Batson v. Kentucky—which barred prosecutors from racially discriminatory jury strikes—to defense attorneys, ensuring both sides are bound by the Equal Protection Clause. The case involved white defendants in Georgia who sought to remove Black jurors, prompting the state to challenge the defense's strikes as racially biased.The Court, in a 7–2 opinion written by Justice Blackmun, reasoned that racial discrimination in jury selection, regardless of the source, undermines public confidence in the justice system and the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. It emphasized that the courtroom is not a private forum and that all participants—prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges—must adhere to constitutional principles.Importantly, the decision addressed the state action requirement, acknowledging that while defense attorneys are not state actors in the traditional sense, their participation in the jury selection process is conducted under judicial supervision and is thus attributable to the state. This broadened the scope of equal protection enforcement in criminal proceedings.The ruling was a major step toward eradicating racial bias in the judicial process, reinforcing that justice must not only be impartial but also be perceived as such. By holding defense attorneys to the same standard as prosecutors, the Court ensured that the integrity of jury selection is preserved across the board. The decision also highlighted the evolving understanding of the judiciary's role in preventing systemic discrimination, even in adversarial settings.Georgia v. McCollum remains a critical precedent in both constitutional law and criminal procedure, illustrating the Court's commitment to fairness in one of the most fundamental aspects of the legal system—trial by jury.U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick expanded a prior injunction, blocking the Trump administration's passport policy that restricted transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals from obtaining passports reflecting their gender identity. Kobick found that the State Department's revised policy—mandating passports list only “biological” sex at birth—likely violated the Fifth Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sex and reflecting irrational bias.Initially, the injunction applied only to six plaintiffs, but Kobick's ruling now grants class-action status, halting enforcement of the policy nationwide. The policy stems from an executive order signed by Trump after returning to office in January 2025, directing all federal agencies to recognize only two sexes and abandon the gender marker flexibility introduced under the Biden administration in 2022.The ruling marks a legal setback for the administration's effort to reimpose binary sex classifications across federal documents. The ACLU, representing the plaintiffs, called it a critical win for transgender rights. The White House condemned the ruling as judicial overreach. The broader case remains ongoing.US judge blocks Trump passport policy targeting transgender people | ReutersEducational toy company Learning Resources petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its challenge to President Donald Trump's tariffs before lower court appeals conclude. The company argues that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs is unconstitutional and economically damaging, citing a May 29 district court ruling that found the tariffs illegal. That decision, however, is currently stayed pending appeal.Learning Resources' CEO, Rick Woldenberg, warned that delaying Supreme Court review could cost American businesses up to $150 billion due to ongoing tariff-related costs. He described the tariffs as a hidden tax and accused the government of forcing importers to act as involuntary tax collectors.Two federal courts have already ruled against Trump's interpretation of IEEPA, a law historically used for targeted sanctions, not general trade policy. The administration defends the tariffs as a legal response to national emergencies like trade imbalances and drug trafficking, though critics say the justification is legally thin and economically harmful.While rare, the Supreme Court has expedited cases of national significance in the past, such as Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. A key appeals court hearing on Trump's tariff authority is scheduled for July 31.Small business seeks early Supreme Court review of Trump's tariffs | ReutersA federal judge has also temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a new Department of Defense policy that would cap indirect cost reimbursements to universities at 15%. The move came in response to a lawsuit filed by 12 research institutions—including MIT and Johns Hopkins—as well as major academic associations. These groups argued that the cap violated existing federal regulations and congressional intent.The Department of Defense had framed the policy as a cost-saving measure, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claiming it could save up to $900 million annually. However, universities rely on indirect cost reimbursements to fund infrastructure, staff, and equipment that support research across multiple projects—not just the ones directly funded.The ruling by Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee, mirrors earlier judicial blocks of similar funding cuts proposed by the NIH and Department of Energy. A hearing is scheduled for July 2 to determine whether a longer-term injunction should be issued. The case highlights growing legal resistance to the administration's broader push to reduce federal spending on scientific research.US judge blocks Defense Department from slashing federal research funding | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors in a 6–3 decision that sets a national precedent and effectively greenlights similar restrictions in over 20 states. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the law neither classifies based on sex nor targets transgender status, and thus only required rational basis review—not heightened constitutional scrutiny. The Court accepted Tennessee's framing of the law as neutral and medically cautious, not discriminatory, citing European health policy shifts and purported uncertainty around gender-affirming care as justification.Critics, including the Court's liberal bloc, argued the law does in fact discriminate based on sex and gender identity by banning medical treatment only when it aims to affirm a transgender identity. Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, emphasized that the law's language and application plainly hinge on a minor's “sex as assigned at birth,” drawing troubling parallels to older jurisprudence that permitted covert forms of discrimination under the guise of neutrality.The ruling marks a major rollback of legal protections for transgender youth, ignoring years of precedent that increasingly recognized transgender identity as a constitutionally protected status. By lowering the scrutiny threshold and deferring to legislative “uncertainty,” the Court provided a road map for states to restrict gender-affirming care through general, non-explicitly discriminatory language. The majority's refusal to engage with medical consensus or the real-world impact on transgender youth reveals a troubling judicial posture: one that values legislative deference over individual rights, even when the stakes include physical and psychological harm to a vulnerable group.Supreme Court Upholds Curbs on Treatment for Transgender Minors This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this wide-ranging conversation, Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito discusses the principles that guide his judicial philosophy. From his majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson to his views on originalism, precedent, and the role of the courts in American democracy, Alito offers a candid defense of the Constitution as a fixed and enduring document. He explores the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, the limits of judicial power, and the tensions surrounding race-conscious policies. Justice Alito also reflects on the practical realities of the Court and the deeper meaning of constitutional interpretation, speaking with clarity, conviction, and with an eye toward the long view of American jurisprudence. Recorded on June 6, 2025.

This educational text, presented as a lecture, aims to prepare students for the bar exam by covering essential legal topics. It explores core concepts of Constitutional Law, focusing on federalism, the separation of powers, and individual rights such as due process and equal protection, referencing significant court cases. The lecture also provides an overview of Professional Responsibility, outlining ethical obligations for lawyers based on the ABA Model Rules, including conflicts of interest and confidentiality. Finally, it offers guidance on preparing for the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) and Multistate Essay Examination (MEE) with sample questions and essay structures.The legislative branch's primary function is to make laws.The executive branch can check the legislative branch by using a Presidential Veto to reject laws passed by the legislature.The Equal Protection Clause is an invaluable tool for groups that experience discrimination and states that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.One standard of review mentioned is Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny, or Rational Basis Review.The Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government or denied to state governments to the states or the people, emphasizing state sovereignty.Powers typically reserved for the states include education, public health, safety, transportation, and welfare, often referred to as "police powers."Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review.Congress has directed Justices to comply with financial reporting requirements and limitations on the receipt of gifts and outside earned income.The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a lawyer and their client that relate to seeking legal advice or services.The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client.

This Day in Legal History: Colegrove v. GreenOn June 10, 1946, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Colegrove v. Green, upholding an Illinois congressional districting scheme that created dramatically uneven district populations. The plaintiffs argued the map diluted votes by packing more people into some districts than others, violating principles of equal representation. However, the Court, in a plurality opinion by Justice Felix Frankfurter, declined to intervene. Frankfurter emphasized that districting was a “political question” and not within the judiciary's purview to resolve.This ruling effectively insulated redistricting practices from federal judicial review and left voters in malapportioned districts without a constitutional remedy. Frankfurter's view was rooted in judicial restraint, warning against courts becoming embroiled in “political thickets.” But critics argued that this deference allowed entrenched political interests to ignore population shifts and disenfranchise urban voters.The decision stood until 1962, when the Court reversed course in Baker v. Carr. There, the justices held that federal courts could indeed hear redistricting cases under the Equal Protection Clause, ushering in the “one person, one vote” era. Colegrove thus marked the high-water mark of the political question doctrine's use in avoiding electoral oversight—a stance the Court ultimately abandoned.Mexico's antitrust regulator is poised to issue a ruling by June 17 on whether Google engaged in monopolistic practices in the country's digital advertising market. If found guilty, the tech giant could face a fine amounting to 8% of its annual Mexican revenue—potentially one of the largest ever imposed by the agency. The case began in 2020 and moved into a trial phase last year, with a key hearing held on May 20. Mexican regulators claim Google built an illegal monopoly, and has obtained financial data from the Mexican tax authority as part of its investigation.Google, which hasn't disclosed Mexico-specific revenue but reported $20.4 billion for the broader “other Americas” region in 2024, could seek an injunction to delay the ruling pending judicial review. This would parallel similar antitrust issues the company faces in the U.S., where courts have ruled against its dominance in search and advertising technologies.Adding to tensions, President Claudia Sheinbaum has sued Google for renaming the Gulf of Mexico to “Gulf of America” for U.S. users—a move she claims Google had no authority to make. The long-standing antitrust case has drawn political attention, with lawmakers urging Mexican officials to act.Google in Mexico faces major potential fine as antitrust ruling nears | ReutersTexas has taken a meaningful first step toward curbing abuse in its affordable housing tax system with HB 21, but the new law leaves major gaps that developers could still exploit. Signed by Governor Greg Abbott, HB 21 aims to end long-term tax breaks for projects that offer little true affordability. However, the bill's reliance on “area median income” (AMI) to define affordability creates a loophole: in wealthy areas, rent set at 80% of AMI can be as high as typical market rates, making the term “affordable” misleading.The law requires that half of all units be reserved for “low-income” tenants, but without adjusting for local wage realities, this standard fails to address the needs of those most burdened by housing costs. Worse still, enforcement is delayed—audits may take years, and there is no mechanism to reclaim tax benefits already received by developers who fall out of compliance. This makes upfront compliance optional in practice, not mandatory.While HB 21 mandates parity in amenities between market-rate and affordable units, this provision seems symbolic without robust inspection. The lack of a tax credit clawback—something present in federal programs like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit—further weakens accountability.The bill's structure could dissuade honest developers, who face unclear or burdensome requirements, while allowing bad actors to benefit before facing any scrutiny. Texas risks ending exploitative deals without fostering enough viable new ones, exacerbating its housing shortage.Texas Housing Law Addresses Problem but Creates Major LoopholesAs the push for government efficiency grows, the IRS is considering using artificial intelligence to identify noncompliant taxpayers based on past audit outcomes. While this might sound like a smart upgrade, history offers a sobering warning. The Netherlands tried something similar, using AI to spot fraud in childcare benefits, and it ended in a national scandal—the algorithm disproportionately targeted minority families, human reviewers failed to intervene, and the fallout brought down the government.A recent Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report suggests the IRS could “leverage examination results” to improve case selection algorithms. But this raises red flags. IRS audit history isn't neutral. A 2023 joint study by Stanford and the Treasury Department found that Black taxpayers were audited up to 4.7 times more than others, especially when claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit. That disparity likely came from algorithmic choices aimed at efficiency, not fairness.If the IRS trains AI on this unfiltered historical data, it risks cementing and expanding past biases into future audits. AI could be a powerful tool—but only if accompanied by key safeguards. First, training data must be rigorously reviewed to eliminate bias. Second, model decisions must be transparent so we understand how and why certain cases are flagged. And third, human reviewers must be actively trained and authorized to question and override algorithmic decisions.Week in Insights: TIGTA's AI Ambitions Risk Rerun of Dutch Fiasco 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

-Carson condemns media outlets like CNN and ABC for downplaying violence and misrepresenting facts, accusing them of standing in front of "burning buildings" to call protests peaceful. -Colonel John Mills, a retired DoD official, appears on the Newsmax hotline, discussing the Equal Protection Clause and accusing California leaders of prioritizing illegal votes over citizen safety. Today's podcast is sponsored by : BIRCH GOLD - Protect and grow your retirement savings with gold. Text ROB to 98 98 98 for your FREE information kit! INCOGNI by ExpressVPN – Protect your personal data and get less SPAM calls and emails! Get 60% off your first year at http://incogni.com and use promo code CARSON To call in and speak with Rob Carson live on the show, dial 1-800-922-6680 between the hours of 12 Noon and 3:00 pm Eastern Time Monday through Friday…E-mail Rob Carson at : RobCarsonShow@gmail.com Musical parodies provided by Jim Gossett (www.patreon.com/JimGossettComedy) Listen to Newsmax LIVE and see our entire podcast lineup at http://Newsmax.com/Listen Make the switch to NEWSMAX today! Get your 15 day free trial of NEWSMAX+ at http://NewsmaxPlus.com Looking for NEWSMAX caps, tees, mugs & more? Check out the Newsmax merchandise shop at : http://nws.mx/shop Follow NEWSMAX on Social Media:  -Facebook: http://nws.mx/FB  -X/Twitter: http://nws.mx/twitter -Instagram: http://nws.mx/IG -YouTube: https://youtube.com/NewsmaxTV -Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/NewsmaxTV -TRUTH Social: https://truthsocial.com/@NEWSMAX -GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/newsmax -Threads: http://threads.net/@NEWSMAX  -Telegram: http://t.me/newsmax  -BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/newsmax.com -Parler: http://app.parler.com/newsmax Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Henderson v. United States DecidedOn June 5, 1950, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816 (1950), a significant civil rights ruling concerning racial segregation in interstate transportation. Elmer W. Henderson, an African American passenger, had been denied equal dining services on a train operated by the Southern Railway Company under a policy that enforced segregation. Although a dining car had a partition supposedly to accommodate Black passengers, in practice Henderson was often unable to access equivalent service due to timing and seat availability.The case reached the Supreme Court after the Interstate Commerce Commission failed to provide meaningful relief. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Fred Vinson, the Court held that the railway's practices violated the Interstate Commerce Act, particularly its provision requiring carriers to provide equal treatment and avoid undue prejudice. Importantly, the Court based its reasoning not on constitutional grounds (such as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment), but on statutory interpretation, finding that the carrier's conduct constituted an unjust and unreasonable discrimination.This ruling marked an early and important step toward dismantling legally sanctioned segregation in public accommodations, prefiguring later landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Although not framed as a constitutional equal protection case, Henderson nonetheless contributed to the legal groundwork of the civil rights movement and challenged the legitimacy of the “separate but equal” doctrine in practical terms.SAP, Europe's largest software company, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a decision that revived an antitrust lawsuit brought by its competitor, Teradata. The case centers on allegations that SAP unlawfully tied its business-planning applications to a required purchase of its own database software, which competes with Teradata's products. SAP argues that such software integration benefits consumers and constitutes healthy competition, not anti-competitive conduct.The lawsuit was initially filed by California-based Teradata in 2018 after the companies ended a joint venture. SAP had prevailed in the lower court, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision in December, stating a jury should decide the case. SAP's petition criticizes the appellate court's reliance on a version of the “per se rule,” under which the conduct is presumed illegal without a detailed analysis. Instead, SAP advocates for applying the more nuanced “rule of reason” standard, which considers both competitive harms and justifications.SAP also claims the ruling conflicts with how a different federal appeals court treated a similar antitrust issue in the historic Microsoft case. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear the case.This case hinges on the concept of “tying,” where a company conditions the sale of one product on the purchase of another, potentially stifling competition. It's significant because whether courts apply a strict “per se” rule or the more flexible “rule of reason” can dramatically affect the outcome in such antitrust disputes.Tech giant SAP asks US Supreme Court to reconsider rival's antitrust win | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C., has dismissed a lawsuit filed by three Democratic Party committees accusing President Donald Trump of trying to undermine the independence of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled that the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee failed to demonstrate any “concrete and imminent injury” necessary to sustain a legal challenge.The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, contested an executive order issued by Trump that aimed to increase White House control over independent federal agencies, including the FEC. The order stated that the legal views of the president and the attorney general would be “controlling” for federal employees and prohibited them from expressing opposing positions. Democrats claimed this language threatened the FEC's independence and could deter campaign planning.Judge Ali, however, noted that administration lawyers had assured the court that the executive order would not be used to interfere with the FEC's decision-making. He also found the plaintiffs' concerns too speculative, emphasizing that the Supreme Court requires a demonstrated change in the relationship with the agency in question, which the plaintiffs had not shown.The judge's decision hinged on the plaintiffs' lack of standing, a fundamental requirement in federal court. To proceed with a lawsuit, plaintiffs must show a specific, actual, or imminent injury caused by the defendant. In this case, speculative harm and vague concerns about agency behavior were insufficient. This principle helps prevent courts from weighing in on political disputes where no direct harm can be proven.Trump defeats Democrats' lawsuit over election commission independenceThe Trump administration is pursuing a new $25 million contract to allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to conduct DNA testing on families facing deportation. The goal, according to ICE, is to verify family relationships—but critics warn the program could lead to unnecessary family separations, especially in cases involving non-biological caregivers like godparents. Civil rights advocates also raise concerns that the DNA data could be misused for unrelated criminal investigations and stored indefinitely.The contract was initially awarded in May to SNA International, a firm specializing in forensic identification. However, Bode Cellmark Forensics filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office, arguing the contract wasn't competitively bid. ICE subsequently issued a stop-work order on the contract pending resolution of the protest, with a decision expected by September 2.This is not ICE's first attempt at rapid DNA testing. A similar program began in 2019 during Trump's first term to detect alleged “fraudulent” parent-child relationships, often targeting migrant families. Though handed over to Customs and Border Protection in 2021, the Biden administration ended it in 2023. Reports since then have highlighted issues with consent, with some migrants mistaking DNA swabs for COVID-19 tests or feeling coerced into participation under threat of legal consequences.Privacy advocates argue that such widespread collection of genetic data lacks transparency and oversight. The Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology recently sued the Department of Homeland Security for failing to provide records on how DNA samples from migrants are collected and stored.The revived DNA testing raises key legal questions about informed consent and the scope of data use by federal agencies. When individuals are unaware of what they're consenting to—or coerced into it—the practice may violate federal standards for ethical data collection, especially under the Privacy Act and due process protections.ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson previews the Supreme Court's most anticipated pending cases as the term nears its end. She highlights upcoming decisions on nationwide injunctions, Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, evolving standards in discrimination lawsuits, and major cases involving religious exemptions and parental rights in education. Jessica offers her predictions and insight on how these rulings could shape the law and impact daily life, setting the stage for a dramatic finale to the Supreme Court term.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Nationwide Injunctions – Trump v. Washington/New Jersey/California: This case tackles whether federal district courts can issue nationwide injunctions blocking federal policies, as opposed to limiting decisions to just the plaintiffs in the case. The backdrop is Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, which attempts to limit who qualifies as a citizen by birth.Transgender Rights and Equal Protection – Skrmetti: The Court is considering whether Tennessee's ban on certain gender-affirming treatments for minors violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The predicted outcome is that the Court may allow such state restrictions, but notes there could be future challenges regarding parental rights under a different part of the Fourteenth Amendment.Religious Objections in Public Schools – Parental Opt-Outs for LGBTQ-Inclusive Curriculum: A Maryland case considers if public schools must offer opt-outs for parents whose religious beliefs conflict with LGBTQ-inclusive materials and lessons. The prediction: the Court may require such opt-outs under the Free Exercise Clause, but will need to write the opinion carefully to avoid overly broad exemptions.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica

What would you say if I told you the reason we circumcise our boys is not about preventing UTIs - - - but to prevent masturbation?   I know. WHAT?!   It's historically accurate that the circumcision movement in the U.S. was aggressively promoted in the late 1800s by Dr. John Harvey Kellogg—yes, the cereal guy —to curb masturbation. Kellogg believed that removing the foreskin - which contains over 20,000 specialized nerve endings - to permanently expose the glans, which then becomes scarred, calloused, and desensitized, would reduce sexual pleasure and therefore discourage what he saw as immoral behavior.    They're literally cutting off what many consider the male equivalent of "the G-Spot."   Yes - it's uncomfortable to talk about the sexual implications of a procedure performed on infants, but every adult male was once an infant - and it gets deeply personal for adult men when they learn what they lost without consent because their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents were lied to.   This episode is personal for me. In 2008, I blindly handed over my newborn son for this "routine" procedure. Saying that now saddens my soul. I grew up in the Midwest. Circumcision is "normal." It's heart-wrenching to know THAT'S IT - cosmetic normalcy and smoke-and-mirror, for-profit, pseudo"science." That's why we do it - a cultural blind spot.   The AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS even SAYS there's NO SUBSTANTIAL HEALTH BENEFIT.    I heard my brand new baby boy's torturous screams as they performed - without anesthesia - this truly barbaric procedure billed to insurance as “circumcision.” It changed me. This became a truth I had to tell.   My guest is Eric Clopper, an attorney and former employee of Harvard University. Eric gained international attention with his viral lecture, "Sex & Circumcision: An American Love Story," performed at Harvard in 2018. It cost him his job, but created a platform to expose the cultural, religious, and medical forces keeping parents in the dark.   Through his legal practice, The Clopper Law Firm, P.C., and as the founding president of Intact Global, Eric challenges the constitutionality of laws permitting male genital cutting while prohibiting female genital mutilation, arguing that such laws violate the Equal Protection Clause.   Featured Presentation Sex & Circumcision: An American Love Story by Eric Clopper Watch it on VIMEO WARNING: CONTAINS ADULT LANGUAGE, DISTURBING CONCEPTS, AND GRAPHIC IMAGES Note: Galatians 5:6 says, "For when we place our faith in Christ Jesus, there is no benefit in being circumcised or being uncircumcised. What is important is faith expressing itself in love." College Humor Short Video: "The Real Reason You're Circumcised" *MUST WATCH! Intact Global The Clopper Law Firm, P.C. Email: eric@clopper.law   Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma by Ronald Goldman, PhD Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America by Leonard B. Glick The Ridged Band of the Foreskin by Dr. John R. Taylor   Nutritional Therapy Practitioner Virtual Open House   Thank you for reading, listening, and sharing. This conversation isn't easy - and it isn't about blame or shame. It's about waking up to truth.   Good news: Change is happening. Circumcision rates in the U.S. have dropped to below 55% today—and even lower in some regions. Your son or grandson won't be alone. Being intact is becoming the new normal. The fear of being “different” or bullied in a locker room is fading fast as many parents are choosing to protect wholeness over conformity.   It takes some serious testicular fortitude to be the dad willing to say, “My son doesn't have to look like me.” - That's how healing begins. That's how cycles end.   I'm so thankful you're here. May this conversation stay with you—not as judgment, but as clarity. Not as fear, but as freedom.   With so much love, empathy, and hope,   —Jamie

This episode of Justice Above All examines how the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and how today's legal arguments decontextualize the Amendment's historical context in which it was ratified—during Reconstruction, to secure full citizenship and legal equality for formerly enslaved Black people.  Today, multiple Supreme Court decisions reflect an inaccurate and ahistorical reading of the Reconstruction Amendments—the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth—which were enacted to dismantle the legacy of slavery and secure full citizenship and equal protection under the law for all people of African descent.Today's host is Karla McKanders, Director of the Thurgood Marshall Institute. She is in conversation with the following guests: - Lynne Adrine: Alumna, Ludlow Elementary School and President, LKA Strategies- Joel Motley: Civil and human rights advocate, filmmaker, and the son of Constance Baker Motle- Kenji Yoshino: Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law, NYU School of Law and Faculty Director, Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and BelongingFor more information on this episode, please visit https://tminstituteldf.org/brown-v-board-ii-fourteenth-amendment-myth-of-neutrality/.This episode was produced by Jakiyah Bradley and Lauren O'Neil. It was hosted by Karla McKanders. Resonate Recordings edited the episode.If you enjoyed this episode please consider leaving a review and helping others find it! To keep up with the work of LDF please visit our website at www.naacpldf.org and follow us on social media at @naacp_ldf. To keep up with the work of the Thurgood Marshall Institute, please visit our website at www.tminstituteldf.org and follow us on Twitter at @tmi_ldf.

In two weeks, on Tuesday, New Jersey voters will determine which candidates for governor will appear on the ballot in November. Last year, former President Donald Trump came within six percent of winning the Garden State, highlighting its shift toward the right. Former New Jersey Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli joins the Rundown to discuss his decision to run for governor again after losing to Governor Phil Murphy (D) in 2021. It has been nearly two years since a Supreme Court decision ended affirmative action in college admissions. Some may remember the prominent cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina in which a 6-3 decision found that affirmative action violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley has written a book analyzing the historical context for race considerations in school admissions in his book, The Affirmative Action Myth: Why Blacks Don't Need Racial Preferences to Succeed. Riley joins the podcast to share some key lessons from his book. Plus, commentary from co-founder of the 'Mom Wars" newsletter and podcast, Bethany Mandel. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In two weeks, on Tuesday, New Jersey voters will determine which candidates for governor will appear on the ballot in November. Last year, former President Donald Trump came within six percent of winning the Garden State, highlighting its shift toward the right. Former New Jersey Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli joins the Rundown to discuss his decision to run for governor again after losing to Governor Phil Murphy (D) in 2021. It has been nearly two years since a Supreme Court decision ended affirmative action in college admissions. Some may remember the prominent cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina in which a 6-3 decision found that affirmative action violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley has written a book analyzing the historical context for race considerations in school admissions in his book, The Affirmative Action Myth: Why Blacks Don't Need Racial Preferences to Succeed. Riley joins the podcast to share some key lessons from his book. Plus, commentary from co-founder of the 'Mom Wars" newsletter and podcast, Bethany Mandel. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In two weeks, on Tuesday, New Jersey voters will determine which candidates for governor will appear on the ballot in November. Last year, former President Donald Trump came within six percent of winning the Garden State, highlighting its shift toward the right. Former New Jersey Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli joins the Rundown to discuss his decision to run for governor again after losing to Governor Phil Murphy (D) in 2021. It has been nearly two years since a Supreme Court decision ended affirmative action in college admissions. Some may remember the prominent cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina in which a 6-3 decision found that affirmative action violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley has written a book analyzing the historical context for race considerations in school admissions in his book, The Affirmative Action Myth: Why Blacks Don't Need Racial Preferences to Succeed. Riley joins the podcast to share some key lessons from his book. Plus, commentary from co-founder of the 'Mom Wars" newsletter and podcast, Bethany Mandel. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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:  MLK AssassinatedOn April 4, 1968, civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated while standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. King had traveled to Memphis to support striking sanitation workers, emphasizing his ongoing commitment to economic justice alongside racial equality. His death sent shockwaves through the United States, triggering riots in more than 100 cities and accelerating the passage of key civil rights legislation.King was a central figure in the American civil rights movement, having led campaigns against segregation, voter suppression, and economic inequality. His advocacy relied heavily on nonviolent protest and legal strategies that tested the limits of constitutional protections and federal civil rights enforcement. The assassination drew intense public scrutiny to the federal government's role in protecting civil rights activists.James Earl Ray, an escaped convict, was arrested and charged with King's murder. He pleaded guilty in 1969, avoiding a trial, but later recanted and sought to withdraw the plea. Controversy surrounding the investigation and conviction has persisted for decades, with some—including members of King's own family—questioning whether Ray acted alone or was part of a larger conspiracy.King's assassination directly influenced the U.S. Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited housing discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin. The legislation had faced significant resistance before King's death but was passed just days afterward. His assassination also galvanized greater federal attention to civil rights enforcement under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.A group of 12 Republican-led states, including Texas, Florida, and Missouri, has asked 20 major U.S. law firms to provide documentation on their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The request, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, seeks to determine whether the firms' practices comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws. In a letter sent Thursday, the states referenced recent concerns raised by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which had previously asked the same firms for similar information.Paxton cited potential violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that some law firms may use hiring policies that prioritize race, sex, or other protected characteristics. He also pointed to possible state-level violations, including those related to deceptive trade practices. The letter specifically called out programs such as diversity fellowships and hiring goals aimed at increasing representation from historically marginalized groups.The states argue they have authority to investigate and enforce laws that prohibit employment discrimination, including policies that may inadvertently or intentionally favor individuals based on race or other traits. Firms named include top legal players like Kirkland & Ellis, Ropes & Gray, and Skadden, Arps.GOP-Led States Want 20 Law Firms to Disclose Their DEI PracticesRepublicans are considering a significant shift in tax policy by potentially introducing a new top tax bracket for individuals earning $1 million or more annually. The proposed rate, currently under discussion, would range from 39% to 40%, marking a departure from the party's longstanding resistance to tax increases. This idea is part of a broader effort to offset the cost of a multi-trillion dollar tax package being developed by Trump administration allies and Republican lawmakers.Also on the table is a return to the 39.6% top income tax rate previously enacted during the Obama administration, replacing the current 37% rate for high earners. The GOP aims to pass the new tax legislation within months, renewing provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act while incorporating new deductions and reforms to appeal to middle- and working-class voters.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has emphasized the urgency of making Trump's earlier tax cuts permanent and stabilizing markets following recent tariff announcements. The evolving plan reflects a broader ideological shift within the Republican Party toward more populist economic messaging.To help pay for the new tax measures, the proposal also includes eliminating the carried interest loophole used by hedge fund and private equity managers and expanding deductions such as those for car loan interest and tipped wages. Trump's campaign promises — including removing taxes on overtime pay and Social Security benefits — are being considered for inclusion as well.Republicans Debate Hiking Top Tax Rate to 40% For Millionaires - BloombergOver 300 law professors from top institutions, along with legal advocacy groups across the political spectrum, have filed court briefs supporting Perkins Coie in its lawsuit against an executive order issued by Trump. The order, signed on March 6, penalizes the law firm for its work with Hillary Clinton and its internal diversity policies by restricting its access to federal buildings, officials, and contracts. Professors from Yale, Harvard, and Stanford argued the order is unconstitutional and undermines the independence of the legal profession.Their brief warned that targeting a firm for political reasons threatens any lawyer or firm that chooses to oppose the president in court, calling the order a dangerous precedent. Advocacy groups such as the ACLU and the Cato Institute echoed that concern, labeling Trump's action an attack on the legal system and a threat to Americans' right to legal representation.The White House responded by defending the order as a lawful measure to align federal partnerships with the administration's policies, criticizing the lawsuit as an attempt to preserve "government perks." Meanwhile, the Justice Department has requested that a Washington federal judge dismiss the lawsuit. Other firms named in similar orders — Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — have also filed suits, while some, like Skadden Arps and Paul Weiss, have made agreements with the White House to avoid sanctions.Law professors, legal groups back Perkins Coie in lawsuit over Trump order | ReutersThis week's closing music comes from one of the most innovative and influential composers of the 20th century: Igor Stravinsky. Known for revolutionary works like The Rite of Spring and The Firebird, Stravinsky continually reinvented his style throughout his long career. Born in 1882 near St. Petersburg, Russia, and passing away on April 6, 1971, in New York City, Stravinsky's life spanned continents, world wars, and artistic upheavals. While he is best remembered for his large-scale ballets and orchestral works, he also composed for smaller forms, including a fascinating piece titled simply Tango.Composed in 1940, Tango marks Stravinsky's first original composition written entirely in the United States after his move from Europe. At the time, he was living in Hollywood and adapting to a new cultural and musical environment. The piece is short, dark, and rhythmically sharp—more brooding than danceable—and carries the flavor of the tango tradition filtered through Stravinsky's idiosyncratic, angular style. It was originally written for piano, though Stravinsky later orchestrated it.Tango reflects Stravinsky's interest in blending traditional forms with modernist dissonance and unpredictability. It's a brief but compelling listen that offers a very different side of a composer often associated with thunderous orchestras and ballet scandals. Its rhythmic complexity and stark character echo the uncertainties of the time it was written, just as World War II was escalating. The piece serves as a reminder that even in exile, Stravinsky continued to experiment, innovate, and absorb new influences. As we remember his death on April 6, Tango is a fitting close—wry, lean, and unmistakably Stravinsky.Without further ado, Igor Stravinsky's Tango — enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica examines a pivotal voting rights case before the Supreme Court concerning Louisiana's congressional district lines. The case touches on the conflict between the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Jessica reviews the legal arguments, reflects on past decisions like Shelby County, and explores the case's broader implications. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Voting Rights Act and Supreme Court Case: Jessica Levinson delves into a Supreme Court case concerning the Voting Rights Act, highlighting a challenge over Louisiana's congressional districting. The essential question is whether the state violated the Act by diluting voting power or violated the Fourteenth Amendment by using race excessively in district creation.Louisiana District Lines Controversy: After the census, Louisiana's district lines came under scrutiny for having only one majority minority district, leading to lawsuits. The state later redrew the map to include two majority minority districts, sparking a new suit from non-African American voters claiming the excessive use of race in drawing these lines.Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause: The tension between complying with the Voting Rights Act and the constraints of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause is a major theme. The conversation touches on recent affirmative action cases, emphasizing the court's perspective that race should not be the predominant factor.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica

After the Civil War, it took a century of protests, boycotts, demonstrations, and legal challenges to end the Jim Crow system of segregation and legal discrimination. Learn about the brave men, women, and children that risked their personal safety, and sometimes their lives, in the quest for Black Americans to achieve equal rights.

This Day in Legal History: Scottsboro Boys ArrestedOn this day in legal history, March 25, 1931, nine Black teenagers were arrested in Paint Rock, Alabama, accused of raping two white women aboard a freight train. The arrests set off one of the most infamous legal sagas of the 20th century, exposing the deep racial injustices of the Jim Crow South. The teens, later known as the Scottsboro Boys, were quickly indicted and tried in Scottsboro, Alabama. Just twelve days after their arrest, an all-white jury sentenced most of them to death in a series of rushed, chaotic trials marked by inadequate legal representation.Public outrage and national attention, particularly from Black communities and civil rights organizations, led to multiple appeals. In Powell v. Alabama (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the defendants' right to counsel had been violated, setting a precedent that effective legal representation is essential in capital cases. Later, in Norris v. Alabama(1935), the Court found that the systematic exclusion of Black jurors violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Despite these victories, the road to justice was long and uneven. Several of the Scottsboro Boys remained imprisoned for years, and none received a full measure of legal vindication during their lifetimes. Their ordeal became a powerful symbol of the racial bias embedded in the American legal system and spurred greater attention to the rights of defendants in criminal trials. The legacy of the case continues to influence debates over due process, racial discrimination, and criminal justice reform.At a U.S. appeals court hearing on March 24, 2025, Circuit Judge Patricia Millett sharply criticized the Trump administration's deportation of Venezuelan migrants, suggesting they were given fewer rights than Nazis who were removed under the same legal authority during World War II. The administration invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act—a rarely used law last applied to intern Axis nationals during WWII—to justify deporting alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua without immigration court rulings. The court is reviewing whether a temporary ban issued by Judge James Boasberg on such deportations should remain in place. Government attorneys argued that national security and executive authority over foreign affairs justify bypassing normal legal procedures.Family members and lawyers for deportees contest the gang allegations, saying they are based on flimsy evidence like tattoos. One deported man was a professional soccer coach whose tattoo referred to Real Madrid. Judge Millett questioned whether the deported migrants had any opportunity to dispute the gang labels before removal, calling the process rushed and opaque.The deportations, carried out on March 15, sent over 200 people to El Salvador, where they are being held in a high-security prison under a U.S.-funded deal. The ACLU claims the administration defied Boasberg's court order by speeding up removals to preempt judicial intervention. The government has since invoked the state secrets privilege to avoid disclosing further flight details. The case is now a flashpoint over presidential power, immigration enforcement, and judicial oversight, with the Supreme Court Chief Justice issuing a rare rebuke after Trump called for Boasberg's impeachment.Nazis were treated better than Venezuelans deported by Trump, judge says at hearing | ReutersOn March 24, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over Louisiana's congressional map, which increased the number of Black-majority districts from one to two. The case pits efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act against claims that the new map violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by relying too heavily on race. Louisiana officials defended the map, saying it was drawn to protect Republican incumbents rather than based on racial motives. They argued the redistricting was politically, not racially, driven—particularly to preserve the districts of House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise.Civil rights groups and Black voters countered that the map was a necessary remedy after a 2022 ruling found the prior version likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting strength. A 2024 lower court ruling blocked the updated map, saying race predominated in its design. The Supreme Court justices appeared divided, with liberal Justice Sotomayor skeptical that race had dominated the redistricting process, and conservative Chief Justice Roberts pointing to the odd shape of the second Black-majority district as potential evidence of racial gerrymandering.Justice Gorsuch challenged whether any consideration of race in map-drawing runs afoul of constitutional protections. The Court had previously allowed the new map to be used for the 2024 elections, but a final ruling is expected by June. The outcome could have broad implications for how states navigate the tension between addressing historic racial discrimination in voting and avoiding unconstitutional race-based districting.US Supreme Court wrestles with Louisiana electoral map with more Black-majority districts | ReutersThe Justice Department, under President Trump's direction, has launched an “immediate review” of law firms that have challenged his administration in court, wielding Rule 11 as a tool to pursue sanctions for allegedly frivolous litigation. The memo, issued March 21, empowers Attorney General Pam Bondi to target lawyers not just for recent cases, but for conduct going back eight years—reviving a rarely enforced mechanism that requires legal filings to be non-frivolous and not made for improper purposes. While legal experts note that courts are typically cautious about imposing Rule 11 sanctions, the administration's move is seen as a political shot across the bow of the legal profession.Trump has already threatened prominent firms with revoked security clearances and canceled federal contracts, but one firm, Paul Weiss, avoided penalties by agreeing to a $40 million pro bono commitment to Trump-aligned causes and an audit of its diversity programs. That deal, far from resolving the issue, may have signaled that capitulation invites more pressure. As anyone who's dealt with a bully could have predicted: surrender doesn't end the harassment—it encourages it. The only way to improve your position is to raise the cost of targeting you, yet many law firm leaders (and institutions of higher education, if we're being fair) seem to have missed that lesson the first time they encountered it.Now, those same leaders face the possibility of serious professional consequences for doing exactly what lawyers are supposed to do: advocate for clients and challenge government overreach. Trump's order also singles out individuals like Democratic elections attorney Marc Elias, whom the memo connects to the long-disputed Steele dossier, despite no formal wrongdoing. Critics warn that the DOJ's probe could evolve into a tool to intimidate or sideline legal opposition to Trump, reshaping the legal landscape by discouraging firms from representing those who stand against the administration.Legal scholars have labeled the move a dangerous politicization of Rule 11, pointing out that it essentially makes Bondi the judge and Trump the executioner. In weaponizing a procedural rule with ambiguous standards and rare enforcement, the administration isn't just threatening lawsuits—it's undermining the adversarial system that keeps government power in check.DOJ Launches 'Immediate Review' of Law Firms After Trump MemoCalifornia's new disclosure law on municipal corporate tax-sharing agreements is a welcome move toward transparency, but it's not enough to stop the ongoing drain of public revenue. For years, corporations have exploited the split in California's sales tax—where 1.25% goes to local jurisdictions—by striking deals with cities that offer kickbacks in exchange for routing sales through their borders. This has created a race to the bottom, with municipalities, especially smaller ones, effectively subsidizing some of the world's richest companies in hopes of boosting their own budgets. These deals don't create new economic activity; they just reshuffle where sales are counted and where tax dollars land.While the new law will finally shine a light on these practices starting in April, disclosure without action won't solve the problem. Cities will still have incentives to offer generous tax rebates, and many will rush to lock in long-term deals before limits are imposed. What we need is immediate legislative action to cap how much of their tax base cities can give away. A ceiling tied to a city's budget or economic profile would prevent reckless giveaways while preserving flexibility for true economic development.We should also require that any shared tax revenue be reinvested in local infrastructure or services, not handed over as corporate windfalls. Waiting for more data only gives cover to continue harmful deals that are already draining school, safety, and infrastructure funding. Policymakers don't need years of reports—they need the courage to stop the bleeding now.Transparency Alone Won't Fix California's Corporate Tax Drain This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for March 24, 2025US Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments March 24th in Louisiana v. Callais with Protections for Minority Voters Hanging in the BalanceThe U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments March 24th in Louisiana v. Callais, in one of the most important voting rights cases of the year.   Voting Rights Act rules allowing minority Americans to elect the candidate of their choice hang in the balance.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:American Democracy Minute - Majority-Minority Voting Districts Give Minority Voters a Fair Chance to Elect Proper Representation. The Equal Protection Clause is Now Being Used to Try to End ThemSCOTUS Blog - Effort to block second majority-Black district in Louisiana comes to Supreme CourtBrennan Center for Justice – Black Louisianians Fight in Court to Preserve Fair Voting MapU.S. Supreme Court – BRIEF OF ALABAMA AND 12 OTHER STATES American University Law Review  – (2024) The Twists and Turns of A Map that Captured National Attention – Robinson v. CallaisAmerican Redistricting Project - Louisiana v. Callais U.S. Supreme Court - Live Stream for Oral Arguments March 24, 10 AMGroups Taking Action:Power Coalition for Equity and Justice,  ACLU of LouisianaPlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #Louisiana #VoterSuppression #RacialGerrymandering #VotingRightsAct #SCOTUS #USSupremeCourt

SCOTUS is considering whether Tennessee's total ban on transgender medical care for minors violates the Equal Protection Clause, and Liz and Rebecca have some thoughts. They explain what the oral arguments last month revealed and what the stakes are for the real people who will be affected by the Court's decision.    Background Case page on SCOTUSblog Oral Arguments Transcript Senate Bill 1 NYT: "Opinion - The Supreme Court Just Showed Us What Contempt for Expertise Looks Like” SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court appears ready to uphold Tennessee ban on youth transgender care Cases Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) Loving v. Virginia (1967)   Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)   Submit your questions for the mailbag episode here!   Check us out on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and X. Our website, we-dissent.org, has more information as well as episode transcripts.

   Slam the Gavel podcast welcomes Agness Mccurry. She discussed how family court is in control and case fixing is going on. Federal Court was discussed  as well as Equal Protection Clause.To Reach Agness Mccurry: TikTok: @agnessmccurry555 or agnessmccurry@gmail.com****** Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryann*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyright infringement is subject to legal prosecution.Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court takes on a pivotal case challenging Tennessee's law that bans transgender youth from accessing gender-affirming healthcare, including hormone therapy and puberty blockers. Critics argue the law violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as these same treatments remain available to non-transgender youth for other medical reasons. But the Court's conservative majority stands poised to roll back access to this care. The question is, how far.

A Supreme Court case on medical care for transgender youth could have major ramifications – not only for children who have gender dysphoria and their families but also for how other statutes are reviewed under the Equal Protection Clause. In this episode, Amanda and Holly examine the oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, breaking down key moments in the heated courtroom exchanges, examining the specific constitutional question in this case, and discussing the broader implications of the possible ruling. While the specific question in this case involves the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and not the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, religion and religious arguments often loom large in cases that involve sexual orientation or gender identity.  SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The stakes of Skrmetti and the specific question presented For more on the atmosphere surrounding the case, read this piece from Mark Walsh for SCOTUSblog: Inside the Supreme Court arguments on transgender care Visit the website of the National Archives for more information on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.    Segment 2 (starting at 07:17): The heated oral arguments The U.S. Supreme Court heard U.S. v. Skrmetti on Dec. 4, 2024. The Supreme Court's website has links to listen to the oral arguments or read a transcript of the arguments. We played four clips from the courtroom: The opening argument of Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States (from 00:00:10 in the oral argument) A question and statement from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (from 01:41:25 in the oral argument) The opening argument of Matthew Rice, Solicitor General for the state of Tennessee (from at 01:45:26 in the oral argument) An exchange between Matthew Rice and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (from 02:10:17 in the oral argument) Holly mentioned the Bostock v. Clayton County decision from 2020, which interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Holly and Amanda discussed the decision in episode 17 of season 1, titled “A landmark case for LGTBQ rights: What's next for religious liberty?”   Segment 3 (starting 39:57): Thank you to our listeners  Our most-listened to episode in 2024 was episode 21 of season 5, titled “But … is it Christian nationalism?”  Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

Today David takes quotes from the arguments made last week by the U.S. Department of Justice to the United States Supreme Court explaining why it thinks the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause is violated by Tennessee's law prohibiting the use of medicine to treat a minor's gender dysphoria. His analysis of them will show why Christians must take the prevailing nihilistic cosmology and its application to law seriously.

Today David takes quotes from the arguments made last week by the U.S. Department of Justice to the United States Supreme Court explaining why it thinks the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause is violated by Tennessee's law prohibiting the use of medicine to treat a minor's gender dysphoria. His analysis of them will show why Christians must take the prevailing nihilistic cosmology and its application to law seriously.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the last several years, numerous minors who identify as transgender have undergone surgery and other medical procedures to mirror common physical features of the opposite sex.In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity. Individuals, joined by the United States, brought suit against Tennessee. They allege that a ban on “gender affirming care” violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Due Process Clause’s “substantive” component gives parents a right to demand medical interventions for their children, even if a state has found them to be unproven and risky.The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law. The Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari on June 24, 2024, on the question of whether and how the Equal Protection Clause interacts with Tennesse's law. Argument before the Court occurred on December 4, 2024.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

Today David takes quotes from the arguments made last week by the U.S. Department of Justice to the United States Supreme Court explaining why it thinks the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause is violated by Tennessee's law prohibiting the use of medicine to treat a minor's gender dysphoria. His analysis of them will show why Christians must take the prevailing nihilistic cosmology and its application to law seriously.

Sarah and David are joined by Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti to break down United States v. Skrmetti and what it might mean for the future of gender-transition treatment for minors. The Agenda: —How Skrmetti became an AG —United States v. Skrmetti —The Cass Review —The Gorsuch silence —The Equal Protection Clause's scope —TikTok ban —The flagship debate Show Notes: —Vanderbilt professor's amicus brief Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this week's episode, CQ Roll Call's Senior Legal Affairs Reporter Michael Macagnone joins Dan to discuss the SCOTUS case on on whether Tennessee's ban on transgender medical treatments for minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

This Day in Legal History: Florida Recount StayedOn December 9, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision to stay the recount of presidential election votes in Florida, a pivotal moment in one of the most controversial elections in American history. The recount had been ordered by the Florida Supreme Court after a contentious election between George W. Bush and Al Gore left the outcome hinging on Florida's 25 electoral votes. The Supreme Court's stay temporarily halted efforts to resolve disputes over "hanging chads" and other ballot irregularities in a highly scrutinized manual recount process. This pause set the stage for the landmark decision in Bush v. Gore three days later. On December 12, the Court ruled that the recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, effectively ending the process and cementing George W. Bush's victory. The Court's majority held that varying standards for counting votes across Florida counties were inherently unequal, and there was insufficient time to establish uniform procedures before the Electoral College deadline.The decision was deeply divisive, with the dissenting justices arguing that halting the recount undermined public confidence in the democratic process. Critics of the ruling contended that it set a dangerous precedent by involving the judiciary in the electoral process, while supporters claimed it ensured a timely resolution in an unprecedented situation. Ultimately, the ruling awarded Bush the presidency by a margin of just 537 votes in Florida.The case has since been a flashpoint for debates about judicial impartiality and election integrity. It underscored the significance of state-level election laws and highlighted vulnerabilities in the U.S. electoral system that continue to shape legal and political discourse today.A legal showdown involving Alex Jones' Infowars, Elon Musk's X Corp., and The Onion centers on the ownership and transfer of social media accounts in bankruptcy proceedings. Infowars is being sold to The Onion's parent company, Global Tetrahedron LLC, as part of Jones' bankruptcy to cover $1.4 billion in defamation judgments owed to Sandy Hook families. However, X Corp. has filed objections, asserting that it owns Infowars' accounts under its terms of service and has the right to control their transfer or use.The Onion's winning bid, supported by some Sandy Hook families who agreed to defer payments, is under scrutiny for its structure and fairness. Judge Christopher Lopez will decide whether X's claim to ownership under its terms of service—which prohibits account transfers without consent—supersedes the bankruptcy estate's right to sell interests in the accounts. X's lawyers argue that the accounts are licenses, not assets, and therefore cannot be transferred. This legal stance aligns with prior cases that emphasized the authority of social media companies' terms of use.This dispute highlights X's aggressive stance under Musk's leadership in asserting control over account transfers, even as it risks alienating users. The case also raises broader questions about the transferability of accounts on other platforms, like Gab and Truth Social, which may have similar restrictions. The outcome could set precedent in determining how social media accounts are treated in bankruptcy, a legal area still in its infancy.US judge weighs fate of the Onion's buyout of Infowars | ReutersMusk Flexes Muscle to Stop Infowars' X Account Sale to The OnionByteDance, the Chinese parent company of TikTok, and the app itself have requested a temporary halt to a U.S. law requiring ByteDance to divest TikTok by January 19, 2025, or face a ban. The companies filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, seeking relief while they petition for a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. They argue that the law would force TikTok, a major platform with over 170 million monthly U.S. users, to shut down just before a presidential inauguration.The divestment law, passed earlier in 2024, reflects ongoing concerns over national security risks linked to TikTok's ownership by a Chinese company. ByteDance contends the law undermines free speech and harms millions of American users and creators who rely on the platform for communication and income. The court's decision will determine whether the app remains operational during the Supreme Court review process.ByteDance, TikTok seek temporary halt to US crackdown law pending Supreme Court review | ReutersThe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has asserted supervisory authority over Google Payment Corp., a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., as part of expanding oversight of nonbank financial platforms. This decision could lead to regulatory exams, though it does not imply any misconduct by Google. The CFPB stated that Google Payment Corp. meets the legal criteria for supervision, citing potential consumer risks linked to remaining balances in discontinued Google Pay accounts.Google quickly filed a lawsuit challenging the CFPB's authority, calling the move an example of government overreach. The company argues that the U.S. version of its Google Pay peer-to-peer payment service no longer exists and has posed no risks to consumers. Google contends that the CFPB's decision is legally flawed and lacks justification. The case reflects ongoing tensions between tech companies and financial regulators as agencies like the CFPB increasingly focus on nonbank platforms. While the CFPB has been criticized for underusing its authority in this area, Google's response highlights concerns about regulatory overreach and its impact on innovation.CFPB Claims Supervision Over Google Unit, Which Promptly Sues 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

A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt Lash of the University of Richmond and David Gans of the Constitutional Accountability Center join Jeffrey Rosen to debate whether the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Resources: Kurt Lash, Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents, U.S. v. Skrmetti David Gans, Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner and Respondents in Support of Petitioner, U.S. v. Skrmetti  Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) Geduldig v. Aiello (1974) Loving v. Virginia (1967) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcasts@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

A case in which the Court will decide whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity,” violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Friday, November 29th, 2024Today, a special edition of the Daily Beans. I'll be going over David Corn's investigative reporting on Tulsi Gabbard, and a brief history of the Equal Rights Amendment from American Progress.Thank you BeamDreamThere's never been a better time to finally try Dream! Shop their Black Friday sale and get up to 50% off when you visit ShopBeam.com/DAILYBEANS and use the code DAILYBEANS at checkout! Stories:Tulsi Gabbard Keeps Starting Up PACs. Where Is the Money Going? (David Corn | Mother Jones)What Comes Next for the Equal Rights Amendment? (Isabela Salas-Betsch and Kate Kelly | The Center for American Progress)Guest: John Fugelsanghttps://www.johnfugelsang.com/tmehttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-john-fugelsang-podcast/id1464094232The Sexy Liberal Save The World Comedy Tourhttps://sexyliberal.com Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ 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/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Last year, the Supreme Court decided the cases of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Student for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (SFFA). The Court held that the admissions programs of Harvard and UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision has been interpreted broadly as outlawing race affirmative action in college and university admissions. However, in footnote 4 of the opinion, the Court indicated that its decision “does not address the issue” of race-based admissions programs at the military academies. Shortly after the release of SFFA, Students for Fair Admissions sued both West Point and the Naval Academy to directly challenge their admissions programs. This webinar will provide a litigation update in these cases and explore the ramifications of the exemption to the SFFA holding created by footnote 4 of the opinion.Featuring:John E. McGlothlin, Special Projects Officer, National Guard Bureau, Office of the Inspector General; Adjunct Professor, University of Maryland Global CampusJohn J. Park, Jr., General Counsel, Indigo Energy(Moderator) Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity

This Day in Legal History: Gong Lum v. RiceOn November 21, 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Gong Lum v. Rice, a landmark case concerning racial segregation in public education. The case arose when Martha Lum, a nine-year-old Chinese American girl, was denied entry to a school for white children in Mississippi. Local authorities directed her to attend a school designated for Black students under the state's racially segregated education system. Her father, Gong Lum, challenged the decision, arguing that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The Supreme Court, however, ruled unanimously that Mississippi's actions were constitutional. It extended the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) to include Asian Americans, thereby reinforcing the legality of segregated schools. The Court maintained that states had the authority to classify students by race and assign them to separate schools, as long as the facilities were deemed equal. This decision effectively placed Chinese Americans and other non-White groups under the same discriminatory segregation laws applied to African Americans in the Jim Crow South.The ruling was a significant blow to the Lum family and a stark reminder of the pervasive racial hierarchies embedded in U.S. law at the time. It also illustrated how the "separate but equal" doctrine legitimized widespread exclusion and inequality, beyond Black and White racial dynamics. The precedent set by Gong Lum v. Rice remained unchallenged for decades, contributing to the entrenchment of racially segregated education across the United States.This decision underscored the systemic nature of racial discrimination in early 20th-century America. It wasn't until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 that the Supreme Court overruled the doctrine of "separate but equal," marking a pivotal shift toward dismantling segregation in public education. Gong Lum v. Rice remains a critical case in the history of American civil rights law, reflecting the broader struggles of minority groups against institutionalized racism.The latest round of year-end bonuses at major law firms reflects a cautious approach to associate compensation as firms prioritize protecting partner profits amid rising revenues. Milbank LLP initiated the bonus announcements, offering payments up to $140,000, including special bonuses introduced earlier in the year. At least five firms have matched Milbank's bonus structure, with others expected to follow. However, the stagnant bonus scale, unchanged since 2021, indicates a broader effort to manage costs while maintaining profitability.This year, firms are separating special bonuses from regular ones to avoid setting new precedents for higher compensation scales. Recruiters note that Milbank's early announcements help attract associate attention, a valuable branding strategy. The firm's financial success, with $1.5 billion in gross revenue and over $5.1 million in profits per equity partner last year, underscores its robust position, even as it faces some high-profile departures and lateral hires.Despite the cautious bonus adjustments, top law firms are thriving. A Wells Fargo survey revealed a 15% revenue increase and a 25% net income rise among the 50 largest firms, driven by higher demand, productivity, and billing rates. Still, associate productivity has only slightly improved from record lows, and firms are increasingly focusing on partner-level recruitment to sustain profitability. Traditional leaders like Cravath remain influential in finalizing bonus decisions, reinforcing long-standing industry customs.Big Law Hedges Associate Bonuses to Protect Partner ProfitsIndian billionaire Gautam Adani has been charged by U.S. prosecutors in a $265 million bribery scheme involving payments to Indian officials to secure power contracts and develop India's largest solar power project. The indictment, which includes securities fraud and conspiracy charges, also implicates Adani's nephew, Sagar Adani, and former Adani Green Energy CEO Vneet Jaain. The scheme allegedly defrauded American investors by concealing corruption in financial materials for bond offerings, including one that raised $750 million in 2021.The U.S. has issued arrest warrants for Gautam and Sagar Adani, intending to involve foreign authorities under an extradition treaty with India. Adani's conglomerate, already under scrutiny after a critical report by Hindenburg Research in 2023, saw its market value plunge by $20 billion following the indictment. Adani Green Energy canceled a $600 million bond sale, and shares of Adani-related firms dropped sharply.Indian regulators, including SEBI, have yet to comment on the U.S. charges, while opposition parties in India demand further investigations into the group. The Adani Group denies the allegations and plans to challenge the charges, but the scandal has intensified scrutiny over the company's operations and political connections.Indian tycoon Gautam Adani charged in US over $265 million bribery scheme | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed sweeping measures to address what it calls Google's illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising. Prosecutors argue that Google must divest its Chrome browser, share search data with competitors, and potentially sell its Android operating system to restore competition. The proposals aim to dismantle Google's dominant market position, as it processes 90% of U.S. searches.Other recommendations include banning Google from exclusive agreements with device makers like Apple, ending its preference for its search engine on Chrome and Android, and restricting acquisitions of search rivals or AI products. A five-member technical committee would oversee compliance for up to a decade, with powers to review documents, interview staff, and inspect software code.Chrome and Android are central to Google's business, as they collect user data crucial for targeted advertising. Prosecutors claim these platforms unfairly entrench Google's dominance by limiting rivals' market access. The DOJ also proposes mandatory licensing of search results to competitors at low cost and unrestricted data-sharing unless privacy laws prevent it. Google opposes the measures, calling them government overreach that would harm consumers and innovation. A trial is scheduled for April 2025, during which Google can present alternative proposals. These measures could reshape the digital landscape and are being closely watched by competitors like DuckDuckGo, which supports the DOJ's initiatives.Google must divest Chrome to restore competition in online search, DOJ says | ReutersThe U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has finalized a rule to regulate major technology firms like Apple Inc. that offer digital wallets and payment apps. Companies processing more than 50 million U.S.-dollar transactions annually will now face oversight similar to banks. This rule significantly raises the initial threshold of 5 million transactions proposed last year. It empowers the CFPB to supervise these firms regularly, not just when legal violations occur, as digital payments become increasingly essential to consumers.CFPB Director Rohit Chopra emphasized that digital payments are now a necessity, warranting heightened oversight. The shift comes as digital wallet usage in the U.S. surged to 62% in 2023, up from 47% the previous year, with Apple Pay maintaining dominance in the sector.The new regulatory environment follows global scrutiny of tech firms. Apple recently agreed with European regulators to open its near-field communication technology to competitors, a notable change in its approach. Other firms, like PayPal, are also cooperating with the CFPB on compliance questions regarding digital wallet features.The rule, set to take effect 30 days after its publication, introduces a significant shift in how large tech firms are governed. However, it remains an open question how these regulations will fare under the Trump administration, given the potential for policy shifts in the new political climate.Apple Pay, Other Tech Firms Come Under CFPB Regulatory Oversight 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 Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Ends Bus SegregationOn November 13, 1956, the U.S. Supreme Court took a pivotal stand against racial segregation by refusing to hear the appeal in Browder v. Gayle, a landmark case challenging bus segregation laws in Alabama. This action upheld a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, which had declared state and local bus segregation laws unconstitutional. This legal victory effectively ended the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a 381-day protest sparked by Rosa Parks' arrest for refusing to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in Montgomery, Alabama.The boycott, organized by the Montgomery Improvement Association under the leadership of a young Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., had drawn national attention and served as a major catalyst for the Civil Rights Movement. By ruling against bus segregation, the Supreme Court struck down a long-standing component of Jim Crow laws in the South, emphasizing that enforced racial segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This decision marked a significant legal and moral victory, highlighting the role of the federal judiciary in upholding civil rights in the face of local and state resistance.The end of bus segregation had immediate impacts, enabling Black citizens to ride buses alongside white passengers without enforced separation. More broadly, it emboldened the Civil Rights Movement, inspiring additional challenges to racial discrimination and unequal treatment across the United States.Donald Trump's push for a loyal attorney general highlights his intention to reshape the Justice Department to align closely with his agenda, a move seen as a bid to consolidate power and settle scores. Trump's past frustration with Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, who he viewed as disloyal for permitting investigations against him, underscores his desire for an attorney general who will prioritize his directives, even if it undermines traditional Justice Department norms. Trump's team, led by conservative lawyer Mark Paoletta, is signaling that department employees must either support Trump's agenda or risk losing their positions, signaling a deep commitment to loyalty over impartiality.Trump has promised to prioritize mass deportations, pardon January 6 rioters, and aggressively pursue individuals and officials he believes have wronged him, including political figures like Joe Biden, prosecutors like Alvin Bragg, and past critics like Liz Cheney. Legal experts warn that this approach could undermine prosecutorial independence, a principle established after the Watergate scandal. Trump's transition team suggests a shift in priorities for the Justice Department, where cases involving immigration and religious freedom would take precedence over issues like police accountability and diversity programs.With the Supreme Court's recent ruling granting broad presidential immunity for official acts, Trump's power to leverage the Justice Department is greatly expanded. Critics, including attorney Bradley Moss, believe Trump is prepared to exploit these legal boundaries to fulfill his promises of “retribution.” The list of potential attorney general candidates includes loyalists like Andrew Bailey, Mike Lee, and Matthew Whitaker, hinting at Trump's intent to install officials willing to carry out his vision without hesitation.Trump seeks loyal attorney general | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments from Nvidia, which seeks to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit accusing it of misleading investors about the extent of its revenue dependence on cryptocurrency-related sales. The case, led by Swedish investment firm E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, claims Nvidia and CEO Jensen Huang made false statements in 2017-2018 that downplayed how much of the company's revenue growth stemmed from volatile crypto markets. When cryptocurrency profitability declined in 2018, Nvidia's revenue fell short of projections, leading to a stock price drop that hurt investors.The lawsuit initially dismissed by a federal judge was later revived by the 9th Circuit Court, which found the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that Nvidia's leadership knowingly or recklessly made misleading statements. Nvidia contends the plaintiffs have not met the high bar required under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which aims to limit frivolous securities lawsuits by requiring clear evidence of intentional misrepresentation.The Biden administration has sided with shareholders in this case, while Nvidia argues the lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. This case, along with a similar one involving Meta, could shape the legal threshold for private securities fraud cases, potentially making it harder for investors to sue companies for alleged misleading statements. Rulings on both cases are expected by the end of June.US Supreme Court to hear Nvidia bid to avoid securities fraud suit | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is debating how broadly to interpret what constitutes a "crime of violence" in a case involving mobster Salvatore Delligatti, who was convicted of attempted murder-for-hire. The legal question revolves around whether a crime can qualify as violent under federal law even when no physical force is directly used. Delligatti's case challenges a firearms statute that imposes a minimum five-year sentence for crimes involving “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.”The justices grappled with “absurd” hypotheticals to explore if a crime can be violent in nature without actual force, as the statute requires. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson highlighted a hypothetical involving a lifeguard refusing to save someone, pointing out that under the court's “categorical approach,” even passive omissions could be considered violent. Justice Elena Kagan noted the oddity of this approach since failing to act doesn't fit typical violent behavior but could theoretically fulfill the statute's requirement, even for murder.Delligatti's defense argues that attempted murder isn't always inherently violent, as some cases might involve indirect actions or omissions. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested the court could separate violent acts from omissions to avoid “absurdity.” Yet, the debate underscores the challenge: whether the law's strict categorization aligns with common-sense definitions of violent crimes, especially in cases involving complex, indirect criminal conduct like murder-for-hire.Mafia Case Tests Supreme Court on Crime of Violence Limits (1)Wealth managers are increasingly turning to strategies like the “tax-aware long-short” to help high-net-worth clients avoid taxes. This tax-loss harvesting approach involves holding one stock expected to appreciate long-term and another stock likely to decline in value short-term. When the anticipated loss occurs, the losing asset is sold to offset gains from the appreciating one, reducing taxable income and the overall tax bill. At the macro level, this strategy effectively shifts the tax burden from wealthy investors to average taxpayers and ultimately reduces public funds for essential services.The preferential treatment of long-term capital gains—taxed at up to 20%, compared to a 37% maximum for ordinary income—already favors investment income over wages. While this policy was intended to promote investment, its default high cost to public funds and the extensive tax planning that can be used to exploit it reveal systemic failures in the tax code. When tax professionals and investors go to such lengths to sidestep taxes, this reflects inefficiencies and inequities in tax policy.Addressing this issue requires substantial policy reforms. One solution would be to tax capital gains at the same rate as wages, removing the impetus to shift income into capital gains and thus increasing tax equity between ordinary income and investment income. While this might simplify the tax code and raise substantial revenue, it could discourage investment and lead to market volatility as investors bear more risk without tax-offset options.Another option is to tax unrealized gains, similar to property taxes which tax value without the need for realization, where gains are taxed at regular intervals even if the asset isn't sold. Under this approach, unrealized capital losses could offset unrealized gains during these set intervals, reducing opportunities for manipulative tax timing. This method would diminish the appeal of strategies like the long-short by minimizing the benefits of timing short-term losses against long-term gains. In sum, the effect of timing-based tax loss planning strategies would largely be blunted. On the polar opposite policy spectrum, lowering capital gains rates would reduce the financial incentive to hire advisors for complex tax avoidance strategies. Lowering rates might make it more cost effective for investors to pay taxes directly rather than invest in costly avoidance techniques.Ultimately, tax reform should prioritize policies that effectively generate revenue while minimizing the need for complex, resource-intensive planning.We Need a Better Way to Reduce Tax Avoidance and Enhance Equity 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

Mike Ferguson in the Morning 10-28-24 Samantha Romero, attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, talks about their lawsuit challenging race discrimination by the Minority Teachers of Illinois Scholarship Program.  (Springfield, IL) On Tuesday, October 22, 2024, Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER) challenging the race-based criteria used by the Illinois Student Assistance Corporation when awarding state-funded scholarships to future Illinois teachers. The Minority Teachers of Illinois Scholarship Program (MTI) awards scholarships of up to $7,500 per year for tuition, fees, commuter allowances, and room and board for up to four academic years of full-time college enrollment. With Illinois facing a severe teacher shortage, the MTI Scholarship Program is designed to encourage qualified Illinoisans to join the teacher ranks. Eligibility requirements are extensive. Students must meet residency, academic, and financial standards. In addition, eligibility for this scholarship is restricted to students who are from the state's preferred racial groups. “Illinois can offer assistance to young, aspiring teachers, but not when they exclude a significant number of applicants based on their skin color,” said PLF attorney Erin Wilcox. “The exclusion of non-minority applicants not only misses the mark on providing an equal opportunity for all future teachers, it violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.” Represented at no charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, AAER is fighting back with a federal equal protection challenge to restore equal treatment and educational opportunity for all students, regardless of race.  The case is AAER v. Pritzker and filed in the Central District of Illinois. Story here: https://pacificlegal.org/case/il-minority-scholarship-discrimination/ More articles from Samantha here: https://pacificlegal.org/staff/samantha-romero/ (https://pacificlegal.org/)     NewsTalkSTL website: https://newstalkstl.com/ Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/NewsTalkSTL Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/NewstalkSTL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NewsTalkSTL Livestream 24/7: bit.ly/NEWSTALKSTLSTREAMSSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mike Ferguson in the Morning 10-28-24 (6:05am) Tyler O'Neil, Managing Editor of The Daily Signal, talks about election integrity and possible delays in state election results on Nov. 5. His new book, "The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government," is due out Jan. 21, 2025. More info here: https://a.co/d/h63yLsT Check out Tyler's latest articles here: https://www.dailysignal.com/author/tyler-oneil/ (https://www.dailysignal.com/) (@Tyler2ONeil)   (6:20am) Election and campaign items from over the weekend.   (6:35am) Samantha Romero, attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, talks about their lawsuit challenging race discrimination by the Minority Teachers of Illinois Scholarship Program.  (Springfield, IL)  -- On Tuesday, October 22, 2024, Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER) challenging the race-based criteria used by the Illinois Student Assistance Corporation when awarding state-funded scholarships to future Illinois teachers. The Minority Teachers of Illinois Scholarship Program (MTI) awards scholarships of up to $7,500 per year for tuition, fees, commuter allowances, and room and board for up to four academic years of full-time college enrollment. With Illinois facing a severe teacher shortage, the MTI Scholarship Program is designed to encourage qualified Illinoisans to join the teacher ranks. Eligibility requirements are extensive. Students must meet residency, academic, and financial standards. In addition, eligibility for this scholarship is restricted to students who are from the state's preferred racial groups. “Illinois can offer assistance to young, aspiring teachers, but not when they exclude a significant number of applicants based on their skin color,” said PLF attorney Erin Wilcox. “The exclusion of non-minority applicants not only misses the mark on providing an equal opportunity for all future teachers, it violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.” Represented at no charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, AAER is fighting back with a federal equal protection challenge to restore equal treatment and educational opportunity for all students, regardless of race.  The case is AAER v. Pritzker and filed in the Central District of Illinois. Story here: https://pacificlegal.org/case/il-minority-scholarship-discrimination/ More articles from Samantha here: https://pacificlegal.org/staff/samantha-romero/ (https://pacificlegal.org/)                                       (6:50am) MORNING NEWS DUMP Both St. Louis County officials and Police are warning residents about property tax freeze signups that are not actually part of the county program. Story here: https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/page-warns-seniors-about-property-tax-freeze-sign-up-events/#:~:text=The%20county%20executive%20says%20his,sponsored%20by%20the%20county%20government. Kamala Harris appears at predominantly black church in Philadelphia. Story here: https://nypost.com/2024/10/28/us-news/harris-mocked-for-unveiling-new-accent-at-philadelphia-event-everything-about-this-woman-is-fake/ The local Chamber of Commerce in Clayton is closing. Story here: https://www.firstalert4.com/2024/10/25/clayton-chamber-commerce-close-november/ Trilby Lundberg says gas prices continue to edge downward. Story here: https://www.cspdailynews.com/fuels/oil-prices-dropped-calmer-middle-east-nerves Blues face the Senators in Ottawa tomorrow night at 6pm CT.    Game 3 of the Dodgers/Yankees World Series is tonight in New York City at 7:08pm CT. TV coverage on FOX. Dodgers lead the series 2 game to none.      NewsTalkSTL website: https://newstalkstl.com/ Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/NewsTalkSTL Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/NewstalkSTL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NewsTalkSTL Livestream 24/7: bit.ly/NEWSTALKSTLSTREAMSSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we dive into the key cases of the Supreme Court's 2024-2025 term. Jessica Levinson highlights an October 8th case on ghost guns and the ATF's regulatory powers, drawing parallels to a previous bump stock ruling. Additional cases discussed include the FDA's authority over flavored e-cigarettes, a Texas law's First Amendment challenges on adult age verification for online materials, and a lawsuit by the Mexican government against U.S. gun manufacturers. Jessica also previews potential cases related to post-election litigation and federal criminal charges against former President Trump.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1️⃣ Ghost Guns Case: The Supreme Court will hear a critical case regarding the regulation of ghost guns by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). The core issue is whether this regulation should be within the executive agency's power or if it requires new congressional legislation.2️⃣ Transgender Rights for Minors: A major case this term focuses on Tennessee's 2023 law prohibiting most gender-affirming medical treatments for minors. This case could set a precedent on how transgender status is viewed under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.3️⃣ FDA's Authority on E-Cigarettes: The court will evaluate the power of the FDA in regulating flavored e-cigarette products. The decision hinges on whether the FDA's actions were "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedures Act.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

Send us a textAt the end of the war, President Lincoln, through the establishment of certain stipulations for the Southern Rebels to be brought back into the Confederacy, made the Emancipation of the Slaves the Cornerstone of Reconstruction in the South. Through his determination and personality, Lincoln he had won the affections and popular support of the American people. Moreover, he took a conciliatory route to resolving the war so as to tamper down any vitriol and vengeance on both sides. This was indeed the most costly war in American history. It is clear that Lincoln was wise and prudent with every step he took and through his love of the people on both sides he wanted all Americans to heal from the conflict.Along with one of the most renowned orators in American history Frederick Douglas and a legacy of freedom fighting abolitionist since the first slaves were brought to the Americas, President Lincoln not only gave meaning to the humanitarian efforts to abolish slavery, he also set the precedent for the true founding of American democracy through the Three Reconstruction Amendments (1865-1870), the 13th abolition of slavery, 14th Equal Protection Clause for all US citizens, and 15th Amendment granting all citizens the right to vote. To this day we are still fighting for their realization not just politically but socially. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v President and Fellows of Harvard College. In this case, the court considered this issue: May institutions of higher education use race as a factor in admissions? If so, does Harvard College's and UNC's race-conscious admissions process violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The case was decided on June 29, 2023. The Supreme Court held that the Harvard and the UNC admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion. First, the Court concluded that Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) had organizational standing because it is a voluntary membership organization with identifiable members who support its mission and whom SFFA represents in good faith.  Second, while the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause was to ensure that laws apply equally to everyone, regardless of race, both the Supreme Court and the nation failed to uphold this principle, most notably in Plessy v Ferguson, which sanctioned “separate but equal” facilities. However, the landmark case Brown v Board of Education overturned this, and the equal protection principle has since expanded to various areas of life. Any exceptions to equal protection must satisfy “strict scrutiny”; that is, the government must show that the racial classification serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. In Regents of the University of California v Bakke, Justice Lewis Powell's opinion became the touchstone for evaluating the constitutionality of race-based admissions, reasoning that diversity in the student body could be a “compelling state interest,” but that race could only be used as a “plus” in admissions and not as a quota. In Grutter v Bollinger, the Court adopted Powell's viewpoint, while also setting limits to ensure race-based admissions did not result in stereotyping or harm to non-minority applicants, and stating that such race-based programs should eventually come to an end. Harvard's (and UNC's, in the consolidated case) race-based admissions systems fail to meet the strict scrutiny, non-stereotyping, and termination criteria established by Grutter and Bakke. Specifically, the universities could not demonstrate their compelling interests in a measurable way, failed to avoid racial stereotypes, and did not offer a logical endpoint for when race-based admissions would cease. As a result, the programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Court noted that nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh each wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined (except Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case against Harvard). The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

It's been a little over a year since the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action, the race-conscious policy that governed college admissions for decades. In the case, Asian students argued that Harvard and UNC admissions discriminated against them and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court agreed. Now, the enrollment numbers for the first year without affirmative action in charge are trickling in, and as predicted, Black and Hispanic numbers dropped while Asian acceptance rates went up. But that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: why do some demographics perform so much better than others academically? Here to help me unpack this week, AEI Fellow Ian Rowe! Follow Ian: https://x.com/IanVRowe

It's been a little over a year since the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action, the race-conscious policy that governed college admissions for decades. In the case, Asian students argued that Harvard and UNC admissions discriminated against them and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court agreed. Now, the enrollment numbers for the first year without affirmative action in charge are trickling in, and as predicted, Black and Hispanic numbers dropped while Asian acceptance rates went up. But that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: why do some demographics perform so much better than others academically? Here to help me unpack this week, AEI Fellow Ian Rowe! Follow Ian: https://x.com/IanVRowe

We discuss a new work titled "Toward Justice" which celebrates the Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution. It will be performed tomorrow (Tuesday) evening at the Civil War Museum in Kenosha. Julia Nowicki, a former attorney and judge, wrote the libretto for the work - and also plays cello in the Prairie String Quartet. Ben Woods, a talented young man who now works for the Kenosha Unified School District, is the work's narrator. We finish out the hour with an excerpt from a past interview with historian Donald C. White, talking about his book "Lincoln's Greatest Speech," a fascinating examination of his second inaugural (a portion of which is utilized in "Toward Justice.")

David Pozen is the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the author of the new book, “The Constitution of the War on Drugs,” which examines the relationship between the Constitution and drug prohibitions. He joined Jack Goldsmith to talk about the constitutional history of the war on drugs and why the drug war was not curbed by constitutional doctrines about personal autonomy, limits on the federal government's power, the Equal Protection Clause, or the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. They also talked about whether the political process is working with advancing decriminalization and how this impacts the constitutional dimension of the drug war.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.