Podcasts about Equal Protection Clause

This Day in Legal History: Nineteenth Amendment CertifiedOn this day in legal history, August 26, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was formally certified by Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby, granting women the right to vote nationwide. The certification marked the culmination of a nearly century-long struggle led by suffragists like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and later Alice Paul and Ida B. Wells, who fought for political inclusion through protests, civil disobedience, and persistent lobbying. The amendment's ratification by Tennessee—by a single vote—on August 18, 1920, provided the necessary 36th state approval to satisfy constitutional requirements.The Nineteenth Amendment's language is deceptively simple: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged... on account of sex.” But its legal impact was profound, constitutionally guaranteeing the franchise to half the population that had long been excluded. The certification did not end all voting discrimination—many women of color, particularly Black and Native American women, continued to face racist barriers to the ballot—but it was a foundational legal step toward gender equality in civic life.August 26 is now recognized as Women's Equality Day, established by Congress in 1971, to honor the legal and political significance of the Nineteenth Amendment and to commemorate the broader fight for women's rights. The legal principle enshrined in the amendment echoes in later equality jurisprudence, forming part of the constitutional backdrop to cases involving gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.The Nineteenth Amendment also represented a rare moment when a constitutional change directly expanded democratic participation, in contrast to more procedural or structural amendments. It altered not just who could vote, but how lawmakers and courts would later consider the role of gender in public policy and civil rights. The amendment continues to serve as a legal and symbolic foundation for subsequent laws and cases advancing gender equity, including Title IX and the push for the Equal Rights Amendment.On August 26, the legal history of suffrage becomes not only a story of amendment certification, but of constitutional transformation through organized legal and political struggle.U.S. Senator Ron Wyden has called on Chief Justice John Roberts to initiate an independent investigation into the federal judiciary's cybersecurity practices, following a significant breach of the court system's electronic case management system. In a letter, Wyden urged Roberts to involve the National Academy of Sciences in reviewing both the recent and previous hacks—highlighting that foreign actors, possibly including Russia, exploited the same vulnerabilities in both incidents.Wyden criticized the system as outdated, insecure, and costly, noting this was the second major breach since 2020. He emphasized that sensitive data, including information on confidential informants and sealed case files, may have been compromised. The judiciary's handling of cybersecurity, Wyden argued, has repeatedly failed to meet the standards expected of institutions entrusted with highly sensitive information.The senator pointed out that despite years of warnings and expert recommendations, the judiciary has lagged in updating its technology. U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Scudder recently admitted in testimony that the case management system is obsolete and needs replacement. Wyden also noted that while executive branch agencies have been using multi-factor authentication since 2015, the judiciary will not implement it until the end of 2025.Wyden has long advocated for transparency and modernization in the court system, including efforts to make the PACER database free. His latest request underscores growing bipartisan concern over national security implications tied to the federal courts' digital infrastructure.US senator calls for independent review of federal judiciary cybersecurity | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration can move forward with a provision in its recent spending bill that bars Medicaid funding from going to abortion providers in Maine. The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Lance Walker—a Trump appointee—rejected a request by Maine Family Planning to block the provision, part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Congress in July. The organization argued the law unfairly targeted them and violated their constitutional rights, but the judge declined to intervene, emphasizing the law was a product of the democratic process.Walker acknowledged that the policy might be unwise but stressed it is not the judiciary's role to override legislative choices based on policy disagreements. Maine Family Planning, the state's largest reproductive healthcare provider, warned that the ruling could force clinic closures and reductions in care, impacting around 8,000 patients annually.The case is one of two major legal challenges to the law. A separate federal judge in Boston has temporarily blocked the same provision as it applies to Planned Parenthood nationwide, and that ruling is under appeal. The Maine case focused on how the law would impact two of the state's main abortion providers and argued it violated equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment by singling them out.Judge Walker, however, found that Congress has the authority to direct federal funds in ways consistent with its policy goals, including discouraging abortion—a procedure that is no longer protected as a constitutional right following the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.Trump administration can withhold Medicaid funding from Maine abortion providers, judge rules | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has moved to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, alleging she made false statements on mortgage applications—an accusation she denies. The unprecedented move, announced via Truth Social, sent financial markets into a brief stir, with long-term Treasury yields rising and the dollar dipping, reflecting concerns over the Fed's independence. Cook, appointed by President Biden and confirmed in 2022, has vowed not to resign and plans legal action, arguing that Trump lacks authority to remove her without proper cause.Trump claims Cook's conduct shows “gross negligence” and undermines trust in the Fed. However, under the Federal Reserve Act, governors can only be removed “for cause,” a standard historically interpreted to mean inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct while in office. Cook's alleged mortgage misstatements predate her time at the Fed, making the legal grounds for removal murky.This attempt follows months of Trump's public attacks on the Fed for keeping interest rates high. If successful, it would allow him to reshape the board with dovish policymakers more favorable to rate cuts. Critics, including Senator Elizabeth Warren and legal scholars, denounced the move as a political power grab and a threat to central bank independence.The Department of Justice may investigate Cook following a criminal referral, but no charges have been filed. Legal experts suggest the case could test the Supreme Court's recent statements on limits to presidential power over independent agencies. Meanwhile, Cook has reiterated her commitment to her role and refuses to step down amid what she calls political bullying.Trump Moves to Fire Fed's Cook, Setting Up Historic Legal FightAnd in my column this week, a story out of Utah. A small town in Utah, Wellington, is facing public backlash after proposing a 225% property tax hike—a dramatic response to years of avoiding smaller, routine tax increases. This financial crisis wasn't caused by a single year of overspending but rather by elected officials deferring necessary tax adjustments since 2017, despite rising costs for services and infrastructure. While avoiding tax hikes may have seemed politically savvy, it left the town with a nearly $400,000 budget shortfall that now demands a painful correction.The Wellington situation illustrates a broader problem: local governments often delay modest increases to avoid political consequences, only to face greater fiscal challenges later. Holding tax rates flat may feel like good governance, but it allows infrastructure to decay and expenses to balloon. By the time officials act, the required adjustment feels extreme to residents who weren't prepared for it.The solution, according to my piece, lies in normalizing small, predictable tax increases. This would help cities keep pace with inflation and infrastructure needs, without shocking taxpayers. One of my proposed reforms is land value taxation, which taxes land rather than improvements on it—encouraging development without penalizing property upgrades and offering greater economic stability.To depoliticize the process, cities could establish independent, bipartisan bodies to manage long-term tax planning. This shift from reactive crisis management to proactive fiscal planning could help avoid sudden, disruptive tax spikes like Wellington's. The underlying message: the longer tax adjustments are postponed, the more painful and politically damaging they become.Utah Town's 225% Property Tax Spike Is Lesson on Fiscal Realism 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 breaks down three major legal developments: the Supreme Court allowing Mississippi's age verification law for social media to take effect while litigation continues, a renewed but unlikely push to overturn the Court's marriage equality decision in Obergefell, and a federal court ruling enabling potential mass firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Jessica explains what these cases mean for our rights and daily lives, highlighting the ongoing balance between state power, individual liberties, and consumer protection.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Supreme Court and Mississippi's Social Media Age Verification Law: The episode opens with a discussion of the Supreme Court's decision to allow Mississippi's new law requiring age verification for children on social media to take effect while legal battles continue. The law mandates social media companies verify users' ages and get parental consent for kids under 18. Supporters claim it protects children from online harms, while critics argue it's vague, intrusive, and may violate the First Amendment.Renewed Push to Overturn Marriage Equality (Obergefell v. Hodges): There's renewed legal activity aimed at overturning the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The case gained attention due to Kim Davis, a former Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, now asking the Supreme Court to revisit the ruling.Trump Administration and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): The final major story discusses a recent court decision paving the way for the Trump administration to pursue mass firings at the CFPB—a federal agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers. Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

This Day in Legal History: East German Border SealedOn August 13, 1961, the East German government abruptly sealed the border between East and West Berlin, cutting off one of the last open crossings between the Eastern Bloc and the West. Overnight, streets were blocked, barbed wire unrolled, and armed guards posted, turning neighbors into strangers by force. For years after World War II, Berlin had been a divided city within a divided Germany, but its open border allowed thousands of East Germans to flee to the West. By 1961, East Germany's leadership, with Soviet backing, viewed the steady exodus as both an economic drain and a political embarrassment. The border closure was quickly followed by the construction of the Berlin Wall — initially a rudimentary barricade, later reinforced into a heavily guarded concrete barrier. Families were split, jobs lost, and daily life in the city transformed, as movement between the two halves became nearly impossible. West Berlin became an isolated enclave of democracy surrounded by a communist state, symbolizing Cold War tensions. The Wall also became a stage for daring escape attempts, some successful, others tragically fatal. Its legal underpinning rested on East Germany's assertion of sovereignty and border control, which the West rejected as illegitimate. International condemnation followed, but geopolitical realities left the Wall in place for nearly three decades. The border closure and Wall construction intensified the East–West standoff, influencing Cold War diplomacy, military posturing, and propaganda. The Wall finally fell on November 9, 1989, marking the beginning of German reunification. The events of August 13, 1961, remain a stark reminder of how governments can physically enforce political divisions.The American Bar Association has voted to eliminate its longstanding rule that reserved five Board of Governors seats specifically for women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ members, and people with disabilities — what can only be described as a stunning kowtowing to authoritarianism. Instead, those positions will now be open to anyone who can demonstrate a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, regardless of personal demographic background. The change was approved by the ABA's House of Delegates during its annual meeting in Toronto, where members also considered, but rejected, proposals to shrink the size of both the House and the Board. Advocates for the shift argued that broadening eligibility could help the ABA sidestep potential lawsuits, while critics noted it follows years of political pressure from the Trump administration and conservative legal groups. That pressure has included threats to strip the ABA of its law school accreditation role and formal complaints alleging its diversity programs discriminate against non-minorities. The ABA has already paused its law school diversity accreditation requirement until at least 2026. Membership in the association has also sharply declined over the past decade, falling from nearly 400,000 in 2015 to about 227,000 in 2024, with leadership citing the elimination of free and low-cost memberships as one factor. Previously, eligibility for the diversity-designated seats was based strictly on identity, but the new rules rely on factors such as lived experience, involvement in relevant initiatives, and resilience in the face of obstacles. While the ABA did not cite political motives, the timing and surrounding context suggest a strategic retreat in the face of escalating ideological confrontation.ABA ends diversity requirements for governing board seats | ReutersAT&T has reached a settlement with Headwater Research, ending a wireless patent infringement lawsuit just days before trial in a Texas federal court. Headwater, founded by scientist Gregory Raleigh, claimed AT&T used its patented technology for reducing data usage and easing network congestion without permission, allegedly copying the inventions after a 2009 meeting with company employees. The suit, filed in 2023, targeted AT&T's cellular networks and devices, with the telecom giant denying infringement and challenging the patents' validity. The case was set for trial Thursday, but both parties asked the court to pause proceedings due to the settlement. Headwater has had recent success in the same court, winning $279 million from Samsung and $175 million from Verizon in separate wireless technology disputes earlier this year. Terms of the AT&T settlement were not disclosed.AT&T settles US wireless patent case before trial | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore part of the $584 million in federal grants it recently froze for UCLA, finding the move violated a prior court injunction. Judge Rita Lin, ruling from San Francisco, said the National Science Foundation's suspension of funds breached her June order that blocked the termination of multiple University of California grants. The decision affects more than a third of the frozen amount, which had been halted amid President Trump's threats to cut funding to universities over pro-Palestinian campus protests. The administration has accused UCLA and other schools of allowing antisemitism during demonstrations, while protesters — including some Jewish groups — argue the government is conflating criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza with bigotry. The funding freeze comes as UCLA faces a proposed $1 billion settlement demand from the administration, a figure the university says would be financially devastating. Critics, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, have labeled the offer as extortion, raising broader concerns about free speech and academic freedom. UCLA has already settled a separate antisemitism lawsuit for over $6 million and faces litigation tied to a 2024 mob attack on pro-Palestinian demonstrators. The administration has reached settlements with other universities, including Columbia and Brown, while talks with Harvard continue.Judge orders Trump administration to restore part of UCLA's suspended funding | ReutersA federal appeals court has upheld Arkansas's ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, reversing a lower court's ruling that found the law unconstitutional. In an 8-2 decision, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited the U.S. Supreme Court's recent approval of a similar Tennessee law, concluding that Arkansas's restrictions do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The majority also rejected claims that the ban infringes on parents' constitutional rights to seek medical treatment for their children, finding no historical precedent for such a right when the state deems the care inappropriate. The dissent argued the law lacked evidence to support its stated goal of protecting children and would harm transgender youth and their families. Arkansas passed the first statewide ban of its kind in 2021, overriding a veto from then-Governor Asa Hutchinson, and it has since been followed by similar laws in 25 states. The ruling represents a significant victory for Republican-led efforts to restrict gender-affirming care and comes amid a wave of federal and state litigation over such policies.US appeals court upholds Arkansas law banning youth transgender care | 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

At the urging of President Trump, the Texas legislature has launched a mid‑decade redistricting effort aimed at securing additional Republican seats in Congress. If successful, this effort could have far‑reaching implications for representation and governance—and spur other states to try the same. In this episode of Stanford Legal, two of Stanford Law School's—and the nation's—leading election law experts sit down to untangle the legal and political stakes of today's redistricting wars. In their wide‑ranging discussion, Professors Pamela Karlan and Nathaniel Persily shed light on Texas's push to add five new Republican‑leaning seats, the Supreme Court's recent decision to re‑argue Louisiana v. Callais—a move that could reshape how the Voting Rights Act is applied—and the broader battles over race, representation, and the future of redistricting in America.Links:Nate Persily >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00) Voting Rights and Gerrymandering (05:31)The Legal Landscape of Redistricting(15:01) The Impact of Partisan Gerrymandering (25:31) The Evolving Role of the Judiciary (35:01) Future Implications for the Voting Rights Act 

This Day in Legal History: Fourteenth Amendment RatifiedOn July 28, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was officially adopted, reshaping the legal and constitutional landscape of the nation. Ratified in the wake of the Civil War, it was one of the Reconstruction Amendments designed to integrate formerly enslaved people into American civic life. Section 1 of the amendment granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," effectively nullifying the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Black people could not be citizens.The amendment also introduced two foundational legal principles: the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. These clauses placed new limitations on state governments, barring them from infringing on individual rights and mandating that laws be applied equally to all people. The Due Process Clause would later become a cornerstone in expanding civil liberties, providing the basis for numerous Supreme Court decisions involving privacy, marriage, and bodily autonomy. The Equal Protection Clause became instrumental in the fight against racial segregation and discrimination, notably underpinning Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which dismantled “separate but equal” doctrine in public education.Initially resisted by many Southern states, the amendment's ratification was made a condition for reentry into the Union. Over time, its scope grew far beyond the post-Civil War context, influencing legal battles on gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and immigration. It also played a critical role in the doctrine of incorporation, through which many protections in the Bill of Rights became applicable to state governments. The Fourteenth Amendment remains one of the most litigated and interpreted sections of the Constitution, central to the American concept of civil rights and liberties.A&O Shearman has postponed the start date for some of its incoming associates until January, according to a source familiar with the matter. The firm typically offers new associates a choice between two start dates and provides a salary advance to those opting for the later one. The decision comes amid broader industry trends of delaying associate onboarding as a cost-management strategy in response to uneven client demand, despite overall revenue growth among top firms.Formed through the May 2024 merger of Shearman & Sterling and Allen & Overy, A&O Shearman is now the fourth-largest law firm by revenue. While the firm's revenue has benefited from broader sector gains, it faces challenges tied to economic uncertainty and trade tensions. Internally, a cohort of associates had reportedly resisted leadership shortly before the firm joined other legal powerhouses in agreements involving legal services to President Trump—moves seen as efforts to fend off sanctions and settle federal investigations into workplace diversity practices. The firm also experienced a recent exodus in its London office, with nine lawyers, including eight associates, departing in June.A&O Shearman Pushes Start Date to January for Some AssociatesA New York state appeals court has ruled that social media companies cannot be held legally responsible for the 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 people dead. The court reversed a lower court's decision, finding that platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Reddit are shielded by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which grants online platforms immunity from liability for user-generated content. The lawsuit alleged that these platforms were designed to addict and radicalize users, including the shooter, Payton Gendron.Justice Stephen Lindley, writing for the 3-2 majority, argued that holding platforms liable would threaten the open nature of the internet and contradict Congress's intent to foster innovation and limit government interference. He acknowledged the horrific nature of the shooting and the hateful content that influenced it but warned that allowing liability would cause the internet to collapse into tightly restricted message boards.Dissenting justices contended that the platforms actively pushed extremist content through targeted algorithms, suggesting that this behavior went beyond neutral hosting. Other platforms used by Gendron, including Amazon, Discord, 4chan, Snap, and Twitch, were also named in the lawsuit. Gendron is currently serving a life sentence without parole after pleading guilty to state charges, and he still faces federal charges that may lead to the death penalty.Social media companies not liable for 2022 Buffalo mass shooting, New York court rules | ReutersA federal judge in Massachusetts has reaffirmed a nationwide injunction blocking President Donald Trump's executive order that sought to limit birthright citizenship. Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that only a nationwide halt could fully protect the coalition of 22 Democratic-led states challenging the policy, rejecting arguments from the Trump administration that a narrower ruling would suffice following a recent Supreme Court decision. The executive order, signed on Trump's first day back in office in January, directed federal agencies to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.Judge Sorokin found that allowing the policy to take effect even in some states would harm immigrant families and disrupt federal benefits programs like Medicaid. Plaintiffs argued it would create a confusing and unfair patchwork of citizenship rules and overwhelm states not enforcing the order. The Trump administration maintained that the Constitution was being misinterpreted, and signaled plans to appeal.Although the Supreme Court recently limited the use of nationwide injunctions, it allowed exceptions under certain conditions—exceptions Sorokin found applicable here. Meanwhile, a separate federal appeals court in California also ruled that Trump's executive order violated the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and blocked it nationwide.US judge reaffirms nationwide injunction blocking Trump executive order on birthright citizenship | ReutersCalifornia has dropped plans to require Internet service providers (ISPs) to offer $15-per-month broadband plans to low-income residents, following pressure from both the Trump administration and major telecom companies. Assemblymember Tasha Boerner, who led the effort, said her office was warned that enforcing such a law could jeopardize California's access to $1.86 billion in federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funding. The administration's revised BEAD rules prohibit states from setting explicit or implicit broadband pricing requirements.Despite earlier court wins by New York upholding a similar law, Boerner chose to pull the bill after the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) confirmed that even applying for BEAD funds could exempt ISPs from state pricing rules. Advocates and lawmakers criticized the move as a giveaway to large corporations, arguing it undermines efforts to ensure affordable internet access. Boerner had already watered down the bill in negotiations with ISPs, reducing required speeds and allowing ISPs to handle eligibility verification—both points that drew backlash from digital equity groups.Advocates argued the BEAD funding was intended for new broadband infrastructure, while the California bill focused on existing networks, meaning the NTIA's restrictions shouldn't apply. Critics also pointed out that the proposed speed standards were below the federal definition of broadband, and that delegating verification to ISPs risked privacy and access issues. While Boerner acknowledged the need for affordable broadband, she said the risk of losing billions in federal funds wasn't worth pushing the mandate. A separate Senate bill aims to encourage, but not require, ISPs to offer low-cost plans by linking them to subsidies.California backs down to Trump admin, won't force ISPs to offer $15 broadband - Ars Technica 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

Send us a textJoin Chuck and John as they take a trip back to June of 2023 to revisit the case of Geduldig v. Aiello - the ORIGINAL pregnancy Supreme Court case. Sylvia Aiello, was a pregnant woman who sought disability benefits under the California State Disability Insurance program. However, the program excluded coverage for pregnancy-related disabilities. Aiello argued that this exclusion violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state, represented by Michael N. Geduldig, defended the exclusion, stating that pregnancy was not a "disability" covered under the program and that the program treated men and women equally. Support the showOur new book...The Ultimate Guide to HR: Checklists Edition is now AVAILABLE! Go to UltimateGuidetoHR.com to Get HR Right: and Avoid Costly Mistakes. Certified and approved for 3 SHRM Recertification Credits.Join the HR Team of One Community on Facebook or visit TeamAtHRstories.com and sign up for emails so you can be the first to know about new things we have coming up.You can also follow us on Instagram and TikTok at @HRstoriesPodcast Don't forget to rate our podcast, it really helps other people find it!Do you have a situation or topic you'd like the team to discuss? Are you interested in having Chuck or John talk to your team or Emcee your event? You can reach the Team at Email@TeamAtHRStories.com for suggestions and inquiries.The viewpoints expressed by the characters in the stories are not necessarily that of The Team at HR Stories. The stories are shared to present various, real-world scenarios and share how they were handled by policy and, at times, law. Chuck and John are not lawyers and always recommend working with an employment lawyer to address concerns.

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for July 21, 2025Citing the Equal Protection Clause, Florida Supreme Court Allows Desantis Redistricting Plan to Wipe Out Black Majority Congressional DistrictThe Florida Supreme Court, citing the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, upheld the racial gerrymandering of a North Florida congressional district, which eliminated a long-standing Black majority district.  Use of the Equal Protections Clause is the latest anti-voter tactic to undo protections for minority voters. 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 - (2023)  DeSantis Congressional Map Diluting Black Voting Power Heads to Florida Supreme Court After Being Upheld by Appeals CourtFlorida Supreme Court -  Decision  in Black Voters Matter v. FloridaFlorida Phoenix - Florida Supreme Court upholds congressional district maps; 5-1 opinion erases Black district, guts Fair Districts Amendment.SCOTUSBlog - Supreme Court punts decision on Louisiana's congressional map to next term National Constitution Center - The Equal Protections ClauseGroups Taking Action:Black Voters Matter FL, National Redistricting Foundation, League of Women Voters FL, Equal GroundRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:Please 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!#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #Florida #FLSupremeCourt #RacialGerrymandering #EqualProtectionsClause

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

Judicial scrutiny, vital for U.S. constitutional law, assesses if laws comply with the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. It has three levels: Rational Basis Review (lenient, for non-fundamental rights), Intermediate Scrutiny (mid-tier, for quasi-suspect classifications like gender), and Strict Scrutiny (highest, for fundamental rights or suspect classifications like race, often "fatal in fact").The Equal Protection Clause, requiring similar treatment for similarly situated people, has evolved, notably expanding to corporations. However, "pluralism anxiety" has led to limitations on traditional, group-based civil rights by restricting heightened scrutiny classifications, foreclosing disparate impact claims without discriminatory intent, and curbing congressional enforcement powers under Section 5.Despite these limitations, the Court has shifted to "liberty-based dignity claims," using due process liberty analysis to protect subordinated groups, as seen in cases like Lawrence v. Texas (sodomy laws) and Roe v. Wade (abortion rights). This approach often frames rights universally, circumventing traditional scrutiny bars and Section 5 limitations.Critics argue the scrutiny framework has ambiguous boundaries, allows too much judicial discretion, is overly deferential in rational basis, and struggles with modern issues and intersectional discrimination.U.S. v. Skrmetti, addressing gender-affirming care for minors, is a pivotal case that will define the application of the Equal Protection Clause to transgender issues. Arguments revolve around whether the law discriminates on sex, age, or transgender status, and the state's justification for the ban. The outcome, expected in June 2025, will significantly impact equal protection jurisprudence.In conclusion, the scrutiny framework, while foundational, faces challenges in adapting to societal changes. The shift to liberty-based dignity claims offers a new avenue for protecting rights, but cases like Skrmetti highlight ongoing debates and the framework's future.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.   The Supreme Court held 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. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.First, the Equal Protection Clause does not require heightened scrutiny because Tennessee's law does not classify on any bases that warrant such review. The law contains only two classifications: one based on age (allowing treatments for adults but not minors) and another based on medical use (permitting puberty blockers and hormones for certain conditions but not for treating gender dysphoria). Classifications based on age or medical use receive only rational basis review—the most deferential standard of constitutional review. The law does not classify based on sex because it prohibits healthcare providers from administering these treatments to any minor for the excluded diagnoses, regardless of the minor's biological sex. When properly understood as regulating specific combinations of drugs and medical indications, the law treats all minors equally: none may receive these treatments for gender dysphoria, but minors of any sex may receive them for other qualifying conditions like precocious puberty or congenital defects.The law satisfies rational basis review because Tennessee's legislature had reasonable grounds for its restrictions. The state found that these treatments for gender dysphoria carry risks including irreversible sterility, increased disease risk, and adverse psychological consequences, while minors lack the maturity to understand these consequences and many express later regret. Tennessee also determined that the treatments are experimental with unknown long-term effects, and that gender dysphoria can often be resolved through less invasive approaches. Under rational basis review, courts must uphold laws if there are any reasonably conceivable facts supporting the classification. States have wide discretion in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty, noting that recent reports from health authorities in England and other countries have raised similar concerns about the evidence supporting these treatments for minors.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, arguing that Bostock v Clayton County (in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination because of sex includes discrimination based on transgender identity or sexual orientation) should not apply to Equal Protection Clause analysis and criticizing deference to medical experts who lack consensus and have allowed political ideology to influence their guidance on transgender treatments for minors.Justice Barrett authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, arguing that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause because they lack the “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics” of a “discrete group” and because suspect class analysis should focus on a history of de jure (legal) discrimination rather than private discrimination.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down the Supreme Court's two most significant cases of the term. First, she examines the Court's ruling that sharply limits federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, especially in the context of challenges to executive orders like those affecting birthright citizenship. The episode then moves to the Supreme Court's decision upholding Tennessee's ban on certain gender-affirming care for minors. Jessica explains how the Court sided with state power, applying a deferential standard of review, and contrasts this with the dissent's focus on equal protection for transgender youth.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Limits on Judicial Power: The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal judges generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions unless Congress clearly authorizes it. This shifts significant power dynamic back to individual cases and underscores the role of Congress in expanding judicial remedies.Nuanced Exceptions Remain: Despite the new limits, broad relief is still possible through class actions, certain state-led cases, and challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act. These pathways ensure there are still tools to address sweeping executive actions, though access is more restricted.Transgender Rights Under Scrutiny: In the Skrmetti case, the Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, framing the law as a neutral regulation based on age and medical use—not sex or transgender status. Dissenting justices warn this approach threatens protections for vulnerable groups and diminishes the judiciary's role as a check on legislative overreach.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

On June 18, the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that prohibits medical transitions for transgender minors. In this episode, William Eskridge Jr. of Yale Law School and Christopher Green of The Ohio State University join to debate the decision and to discuss the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.    Resources United States v. Skrmetti (2025) Christopher Green, Brief amicus curiae, United States v. Skrmetti (Oct. 15, 2024) William Eskridge, et al., Brief amici curiae, United States v. Skrmetti (Sept. 3, 2024) Geduldig v. Aiello (1974)  Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@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. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠. Support our important work. ⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

This Day in Legal History: United States v. VirginiaOn this day in legal history, June 26, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in United States v. Virginia, striking down the Virginia Military Institute's (VMI) male-only admissions policy. The 7–1 ruling held that the exclusion of women violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized that gender-based government action must demonstrate an “exceedingly persuasive justification” to be constitutional.VMI had long argued that its adversative, military-style education would be compromised by the inclusion of women. In response to the lawsuit, Virginia created a separate program for women at Mary Baldwin College, which the Court found to be inherently unequal. The Court concluded that Virginia failed to show that its gender-based admissions policy was substantially related to an important governmental objective.Justice Ginsburg's opinion stressed that generalizations about gender roles cannot justify the denial of opportunity. The ruling did not require VMI to change its core program but made clear that women must be given equal access to it. This decision marked a significant moment in the legal evolution of gender equality and helped to dismantle one of the most visible public institutions that had resisted coeducation.Justice Scalia dissented, arguing that the decision imposed a rigid standard of gender equality that went beyond the Constitution's text and history. Nevertheless, the ruling reflected the Court's growing skepticism of laws that enforce traditional gender roles. United States v. Virginia remains one of the most cited gender discrimination cases and is considered a hallmark of Ginsburg's judicial legacy.A federal judge has extended a block on the Trump administration's attempt to dismantle Job Corps, a longstanding job training program for low-income youth. U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter ruled that the Department of Labor's plan to abruptly end the program without congressional approval likely violates federal law. The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the National Job Corps Association and several of its contractors.Job Corps, established in 1964, provides educational and vocational training for disadvantaged individuals aged 16 to 24. It currently serves about 25,000 participants at 120 centers nationwide, with an annual budget of $1.7 billion. The administration argued the program was inefficient, citing low graduation rates, poor job placement, and issues with violence and security at centers.However, plaintiffs maintain that only Congress can terminate a federally funded program and that the Labor Department failed to follow statutory procedures for closing individual centers. Judge Carter agreed, stating that once Congress mandates and funds a program, the executive branch cannot unilaterally terminate it.US judge extends block on Trump's bid to eliminate Job Corps program | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco ruled in favor of Meta Platforms, dismissing a copyright lawsuit brought by authors who accused the company of using their books without permission to train its AI system, Llama. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria found the authors failed to show sufficient evidence that Meta's AI training harmed the market for their work—an essential element in proving copyright infringement under U.S. law.While Chhabria emphasized that unauthorized use of copyrighted works for AI training could be illegal in many scenarios, he clarified that his ruling was limited to the plaintiffs' failure to present the right arguments or evidence. This position diverges from another recent ruling in which Judge William Alsup found that Anthropic's AI use of copyrighted content qualified as fair use.The authors' legal team criticized the decision, calling Meta's actions a form of “historically unprecedented pirating,” while Meta praised the outcome and defended fair use as essential for developing transformative AI technologies.This case is part of a broader legal wave in which creators are challenging companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Anthropic over AI systems trained on copyrighted materials. At the heart of the dispute is whether using such content without payment or permission to create AI-generated works constitutes fair use or undermines creative incentives.Meta fends off authors' US copyright lawsuit over AI | ReutersAnd in a piece I wrote for Forbes yesterday, I note the IRS managed an objectively successful 2025 filing season—processing nearly 138 million returns, most of them electronically—but also that success masks deeper structural weaknesses. While headline numbers are strong, the IRS suspended over 13 million returns, largely due to fraud checks or errors, delaying refunds and spotlighting operational vulnerabilities. One of the most glaring issues is the average 20-month wait time for identity theft victims to resolve their cases, many of whom are low-income taxpayers urgently awaiting those refunds.Staffing levels are at crisis lows: the IRS workforce shrank by 26% in the first half of 2025, casting doubt on its ability to maintain performance as the temporary funding from the Inflation Reduction Act winds down. Looking ahead, the 2026 expiration of key provisions from the 2017 tax law will require major administrative overhauls—updates to forms, guidance, and withholding tables—that the current IRS may be too under-resourced to handle.The agency has promising plans, including digitization of paper returns and case system integration, but even the best-designed systems require trained staff to implement and maintain them. Moreover, modernization must be inclusive: 17% of Americans still lack internet access, and an effective IRS must serve them too. Ultimately, tax administration is not just a technical task—it's a distributive justice issue, and how we fund and staff it determines who bears the burden when the system falters.What The IRS' 2025 Filing Season Tells Us About The Future Of Taxes 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

[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

The Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law prohibiting transgender drugs and surgeries for children. In a 6 to 3 ruling, it was determined in United States v. Skrmetti that Tennessee's law does not violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Chief Justice John Roberts penned the court's opinion, saying the plaintiffs "contort the meaning of the term medical treatment.'" Tennessee's law blocks all transgender medical treatments on children, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries. Doctors who offer these treatments risk losing their medical licenses and paying a $25,000 fine. The law also gives children and their families the right to sue if these treatments harmed them.All but two Judiciary Committee Democrats skipped a hearing on the "cover-up" of Joe Biden's mental state when he was in the White House. Ranking member Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) each departed after they got a chance to speak.A bill stripping free healthcare for illegal immigrants in Minnesota was signed into law this week, days after Minnesota House Democrat leader Melissa Hortman was assassinated. Hortman was the lone House Democrat to vote for the bill.U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, a federal judge in Boston, issued a preliminary injunction that expands on an earlier ruling that applied to six plaintiffs who sued the federal government. Kobick granted the plaintiffs' request to make the lawsuit a class action, expanding the injunction to block President Donald Trump's order restricting passports to only reflect biological sex.Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) wants to prevent the United States from getting involved in the fight between Israel and Iran without the consent of Congress. His plan is the introduction of a "War Powers Resolution" to "prohibit" U.S. involvement in the Middle East conflict. I don't know about Republicans, but "The "Squad supports his plan.USAID, under Joe Biden, awarded an $800 million contract to a business operating out of a Virginia home even after it formally ruled that its key manager lacked "honesty or integrity" — a reference to the fact that, according to a May 12 guilty plea, he had secured USAID contracts through bribery for a decade. The contract? Addressing "issues affecting the root causes of irregular migration from Central America to the United States" — the work that Biden assigned to Kamala Harris, but she never did. For the life of me, I can not figure out why I am not surprised.Judge Jodie Mooney threw out the conviction of Darian McWoods for the murder of his 15-month-old daughter, Kamaya Flores. She decided that McWoods didn't receive a fair trial because, during jury selection, the prosecution prevented two black people from serving on the jury. Judge Mooney sent the case back to the lower court for a new trial. But instead of trying the case again, prosecutors in Portland used the opportunity to give Darian McWoods a plea deal. He simply had to plead guilty to manslaughter and "criminal mistreatment." In exchange, he will leave prison in less than two years.Become a supporter of Tapp into the Truth: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tapp-into-the-truth--556114/support Tapp into the Truth on Rumble. Follow, watch the older shows, and join the live streams.“Remember Pop Rocks? Now, imagine they gave you superpowers.” Please let me introduce you to Energy Rocks! Born from the grit and ambition of a competitive athlete who wanted a better, cleaner way to fuel the body and mind, without the hassle of mixing powders, messy bottles, or caffeine crashes. Energy Rocks is a reimagining of energy into something fun, functional, and fantastically effective. A delicious popping candy energy supplement that delivers a rapid boost of clean energy and focus — anytime, anywhere. No water. No mixing. No bulky bottles. Just open, pop it in your mouth, and get ready to rock. Making any time the right time to “Get in the Zone, One Pop at a Time.”If you love high-quality jerky, you need to check out Jerky Snob. They deliver small-batch, artisan jerky straight to your door every month—no MSG, no nitrates, just premium cuts and bold flavors. You can choose from 2, 4, or 8-bag subscriptions, and every delivery brings something new and delicious. One of my favorite things is the variety—spicy, smoky, sweet, all from different craft makers. It's like a jerky-tasting adventure every month. Plus, it makes an awesome gift! Grab your subscription at tappintofood.com and treat yourself to better jerky. Take This Quiz To Find Out The Best & Worst Foods To Avoid For Joint Pain!Do you wake up in the morning with stiff joints or pain in your hips, back, knees, or elbows? Then, chances are you're feeling the effects of chronic inflammation taking its toll on your body. The good news is that it is NEVER too late to help get this under control. And the best part is certain foods help you do this naturally, without the need for prescription medications.If recent events have proven anything, you need to be as prepared as possible for when things go sideways. You certainly can't count on the government for help. True liberty requires self-reliance. My Patriot SupplyDiversify and protect your hard-earned wealth. Use America's Premiere Conservative Gold Company, Harvard Gold Group. Use promo code TAPP.Support American jobs! Support the show! Get great products at great prices! Go to My Pillow and use promo code TAPP to save! Visit patriotmobile.com or Call (817) 380-9081 to take advantage of a FREE Month of service when you switch using promo code TAPP! Morning Kick is a revolutionary new daily drink from Roundhouse Provisions that combines ultra-potent greens like spirulina and kale with probiotics, prebiotics, collagen, and even ashwagandha. Just mix with water, stir, and enjoy!Follow Tapp into the Truth on Locals Follow Tapp into the Truth on SubstackHero SoapPatriot DepotBlue CoolersKoa CoffeeBrainMDDiamond CBDSauce Bae2nd SkullEinstokBeanstoxBelle IsleMomento AIHoneyFund"Homegrown" Boone's BourbonBlackout Coffee Co.Full Circle Brewing Co.Pasmosa Sangria  

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

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

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

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

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