Podcasts about Equal Protection Clause

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

This lecture provides an overview of crucial constitutional rights within the realm of criminal procedure, extending from the moment an individual faces charges through potential post-conviction challenges. It details Sixth Amendment trial guarantees, including the rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, confrontation of witnesses, and compulsory process. The lecture then addresses the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy, explaining when it attaches and relevant doctrines like the same-elements test and dual sovereignty. Furthermore, it covers the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection considerations, particularly as they relate to sentencing and prosecution, before discussing the right to counsel at trial and on appeal. Finally, the lecture explores the avenues and limitations of post-conviction remedies, such as habeas corpus.SummaryThis lecture series on Criminal Procedure delves into the essential rights and protections afforded to defendants under the U.S. Constitution. It covers the Sixth Amendment's trial rights, the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy protections, and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection guarantees. The discussion also highlights the importance of the right to counsel, post-conviction remedies, and emerging issues in criminal law, providing a comprehensive overview of the principles that govern the criminal justice system.TakeawaysThe Sixth Amendment guarantees a fair trial through various rights.Double jeopardy prevents multiple prosecutions for the same offense.Due process includes both procedural and substantive protections.The right to counsel is fundamental for a fair trial.Post-conviction remedies allow for challenging convictions.Emerging technologies pose new challenges to criminal procedure.The Equal Protection Clause ensures non-discriminatory enforcement of laws.The right to an impartial jury is crucial for justice.Procedural default can block federal review of claims.New evidence can lead to claims of actual innocence in court.Sound Bites"The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial.""Due process ensures fair procedures in adjudication.""Access to counsel is essential for a fair trial."Criminal Procedure, Trial Rights, Double Jeopardy, Due Process, Equal Protection, Right to Counsel, Post-Conviction Remedies, Legal Standards, Criminal Justice Reform

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

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

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

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

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

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for Jan. 29, 2025Majority-Minority Voting Districts Give Minority Voters a Fair Chance to Elect Proper Representation. The Equal Protection Clause is Now Being Used to Try to End ThemThere are 141 majority-minority congressional voting districts in the U.S., out of 435.  A new conservative legal tactic has emerged, arguing such districts harm  White Americans, and citingthe Equal Protection Clause, originally passed to end state discrimination against Black Americans.To view the whole script of today's report, please go to our website.Today's LinksArticles & Resources:Ballotpedia - Majority-Minority Congressional DistrictsU.S. Supreme Court  - Allen v. Milligan DecisionU.S. Justice Department - States and Counties Formerly Required for Section 5 Preclearance Because of Consistent Racial Voting DiscriminationBrennan Center for Justice - Black Louisianians Fight in Court to Preserve Fair Voting MapU.S. Supreme Court - BRIEF OF ALABAMA AND 12 OTHER STATES American University Law Review  - (2024) The Twists and Turns of A Map that Captured National Attention - Robinson v. CallaisSCOTUS Blog - Louisiana v. Callais (formerly Robinson v. Callais)Groups Taking Action:Power Coalition for Equity and Justice,  ACLU of LouisianaRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #EqualProtectionsClause #14thAmendment #VoterSuppression #RacialGerrymandering  #MajorityMinority

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for Jan. 28, 2025What is the Equal Protections Clause and How Have Interpretations of It Changed?The Equal Protection Clause, embedded in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, is now being used to dismantle the 1965 Voting Rights Act, opening the door to even more voter suppression.  What's its history, and how have its interpretations changed?To view the whole script of today's report, please go to our website.Today's LinksArticles & Resources:National Archives - 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868)U.S. Senate - Landmark Legislation: The Fourteenth AmendmentNational Constitution Center - The Equal Protection ClauseNational Archives - Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)Cornell Law - Equal Protection ABC News - Supreme Court allows what critics call 'racial balancing' at elite public schoolU.S. Groups Taking Action:ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Constitutional Accountability CenterRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #EqualProtectionClause #14thAmendment #VotingRights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, November 29th, 2024Today, a special edition of the Daily Beans. I'll be going over David Corn's investigative reporting on Tulsi Gabbard, and a brief history of the Equal Rights Amendment from American Progress.Thank you BeamDreamThere's never been a better time to finally try Dream! Shop their Black Friday sale and get up to 50% off when you visit ShopBeam.com/DAILYBEANS and use the code DAILYBEANS at checkout! Stories:Tulsi Gabbard Keeps Starting Up PACs. Where Is the Money Going? (David Corn | Mother Jones)What Comes Next for the Equal Rights Amendment? (Isabela Salas-Betsch and Kate Kelly | The Center for American Progress)Guest: John Fugelsanghttps://www.johnfugelsang.com/tmehttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-john-fugelsang-podcast/id1464094232The Sexy Liberal Save The World Comedy Tourhttps://sexyliberal.com Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

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

This Day in Legal History: Gong Lum v. RiceOn November 21, 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Gong Lum v. Rice, a landmark case concerning racial segregation in public education. The case arose when Martha Lum, a nine-year-old Chinese American girl, was denied entry to a school for white children in Mississippi. Local authorities directed her to attend a school designated for Black students under the state's racially segregated education system. Her father, Gong Lum, challenged the decision, arguing that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The Supreme Court, however, ruled unanimously that Mississippi's actions were constitutional. It extended the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) to include Asian Americans, thereby reinforcing the legality of segregated schools. The Court maintained that states had the authority to classify students by race and assign them to separate schools, as long as the facilities were deemed equal. This decision effectively placed Chinese Americans and other non-White groups under the same discriminatory segregation laws applied to African Americans in the Jim Crow South.The ruling was a significant blow to the Lum family and a stark reminder of the pervasive racial hierarchies embedded in U.S. law at the time. It also illustrated how the "separate but equal" doctrine legitimized widespread exclusion and inequality, beyond Black and White racial dynamics. The precedent set by Gong Lum v. Rice remained unchallenged for decades, contributing to the entrenchment of racially segregated education across the United States.This decision underscored the systemic nature of racial discrimination in early 20th-century America. It wasn't until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 that the Supreme Court overruled the doctrine of "separate but equal," marking a pivotal shift toward dismantling segregation in public education. Gong Lum v. Rice remains a critical case in the history of American civil rights law, reflecting the broader struggles of minority groups against institutionalized racism.The latest round of year-end bonuses at major law firms reflects a cautious approach to associate compensation as firms prioritize protecting partner profits amid rising revenues. Milbank LLP initiated the bonus announcements, offering payments up to $140,000, including special bonuses introduced earlier in the year. At least five firms have matched Milbank's bonus structure, with others expected to follow. However, the stagnant bonus scale, unchanged since 2021, indicates a broader effort to manage costs while maintaining profitability.This year, firms are separating special bonuses from regular ones to avoid setting new precedents for higher compensation scales. Recruiters note that Milbank's early announcements help attract associate attention, a valuable branding strategy. The firm's financial success, with $1.5 billion in gross revenue and over $5.1 million in profits per equity partner last year, underscores its robust position, even as it faces some high-profile departures and lateral hires.Despite the cautious bonus adjustments, top law firms are thriving. A Wells Fargo survey revealed a 15% revenue increase and a 25% net income rise among the 50 largest firms, driven by higher demand, productivity, and billing rates. Still, associate productivity has only slightly improved from record lows, and firms are increasingly focusing on partner-level recruitment to sustain profitability. Traditional leaders like Cravath remain influential in finalizing bonus decisions, reinforcing long-standing industry customs.Big Law Hedges Associate Bonuses to Protect Partner ProfitsIndian billionaire Gautam Adani has been charged by U.S. prosecutors in a $265 million bribery scheme involving payments to Indian officials to secure power contracts and develop India's largest solar power project. The indictment, which includes securities fraud and conspiracy charges, also implicates Adani's nephew, Sagar Adani, and former Adani Green Energy CEO Vneet Jaain. The scheme allegedly defrauded American investors by concealing corruption in financial materials for bond offerings, including one that raised $750 million in 2021.The U.S. has issued arrest warrants for Gautam and Sagar Adani, intending to involve foreign authorities under an extradition treaty with India. Adani's conglomerate, already under scrutiny after a critical report by Hindenburg Research in 2023, saw its market value plunge by $20 billion following the indictment. Adani Green Energy canceled a $600 million bond sale, and shares of Adani-related firms dropped sharply.Indian regulators, including SEBI, have yet to comment on the U.S. charges, while opposition parties in India demand further investigations into the group. The Adani Group denies the allegations and plans to challenge the charges, but the scandal has intensified scrutiny over the company's operations and political connections.Indian tycoon Gautam Adani charged in US over $265 million bribery scheme | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed sweeping measures to address what it calls Google's illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising. Prosecutors argue that Google must divest its Chrome browser, share search data with competitors, and potentially sell its Android operating system to restore competition. The proposals aim to dismantle Google's dominant market position, as it processes 90% of U.S. searches.Other recommendations include banning Google from exclusive agreements with device makers like Apple, ending its preference for its search engine on Chrome and Android, and restricting acquisitions of search rivals or AI products. A five-member technical committee would oversee compliance for up to a decade, with powers to review documents, interview staff, and inspect software code.Chrome and Android are central to Google's business, as they collect user data crucial for targeted advertising. Prosecutors claim these platforms unfairly entrench Google's dominance by limiting rivals' market access. The DOJ also proposes mandatory licensing of search results to competitors at low cost and unrestricted data-sharing unless privacy laws prevent it. Google opposes the measures, calling them government overreach that would harm consumers and innovation. A trial is scheduled for April 2025, during which Google can present alternative proposals. These measures could reshape the digital landscape and are being closely watched by competitors like DuckDuckGo, which supports the DOJ's initiatives.Google must divest Chrome to restore competition in online search, DOJ says | ReutersThe U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has finalized a rule to regulate major technology firms like Apple Inc. that offer digital wallets and payment apps. Companies processing more than 50 million U.S.-dollar transactions annually will now face oversight similar to banks. This rule significantly raises the initial threshold of 5 million transactions proposed last year. It empowers the CFPB to supervise these firms regularly, not just when legal violations occur, as digital payments become increasingly essential to consumers.CFPB Director Rohit Chopra emphasized that digital payments are now a necessity, warranting heightened oversight. The shift comes as digital wallet usage in the U.S. surged to 62% in 2023, up from 47% the previous year, with Apple Pay maintaining dominance in the sector.The new regulatory environment follows global scrutiny of tech firms. Apple recently agreed with European regulators to open its near-field communication technology to competitors, a notable change in its approach. Other firms, like PayPal, are also cooperating with the CFPB on compliance questions regarding digital wallet features.The rule, set to take effect 30 days after its publication, introduces a significant shift in how large tech firms are governed. However, it remains an open question how these regulations will fare under the Trump administration, given the potential for policy shifts in the new political climate.Apple Pay, Other Tech Firms Come Under CFPB Regulatory Oversight This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Ends Bus SegregationOn November 13, 1956, the U.S. Supreme Court took a pivotal stand against racial segregation by refusing to hear the appeal in Browder v. Gayle, a landmark case challenging bus segregation laws in Alabama. This action upheld a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, which had declared state and local bus segregation laws unconstitutional. This legal victory effectively ended the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a 381-day protest sparked by Rosa Parks' arrest for refusing to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in Montgomery, Alabama.The boycott, organized by the Montgomery Improvement Association under the leadership of a young Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., had drawn national attention and served as a major catalyst for the Civil Rights Movement. By ruling against bus segregation, the Supreme Court struck down a long-standing component of Jim Crow laws in the South, emphasizing that enforced racial segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This decision marked a significant legal and moral victory, highlighting the role of the federal judiciary in upholding civil rights in the face of local and state resistance.The end of bus segregation had immediate impacts, enabling Black citizens to ride buses alongside white passengers without enforced separation. More broadly, it emboldened the Civil Rights Movement, inspiring additional challenges to racial discrimination and unequal treatment across the United States.Donald Trump's push for a loyal attorney general highlights his intention to reshape the Justice Department to align closely with his agenda, a move seen as a bid to consolidate power and settle scores. Trump's past frustration with Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, who he viewed as disloyal for permitting investigations against him, underscores his desire for an attorney general who will prioritize his directives, even if it undermines traditional Justice Department norms. Trump's team, led by conservative lawyer Mark Paoletta, is signaling that department employees must either support Trump's agenda or risk losing their positions, signaling a deep commitment to loyalty over impartiality.Trump has promised to prioritize mass deportations, pardon January 6 rioters, and aggressively pursue individuals and officials he believes have wronged him, including political figures like Joe Biden, prosecutors like Alvin Bragg, and past critics like Liz Cheney. Legal experts warn that this approach could undermine prosecutorial independence, a principle established after the Watergate scandal. Trump's transition team suggests a shift in priorities for the Justice Department, where cases involving immigration and religious freedom would take precedence over issues like police accountability and diversity programs.With the Supreme Court's recent ruling granting broad presidential immunity for official acts, Trump's power to leverage the Justice Department is greatly expanded. Critics, including attorney Bradley Moss, believe Trump is prepared to exploit these legal boundaries to fulfill his promises of “retribution.” The list of potential attorney general candidates includes loyalists like Andrew Bailey, Mike Lee, and Matthew Whitaker, hinting at Trump's intent to install officials willing to carry out his vision without hesitation.Trump seeks loyal attorney general | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments from Nvidia, which seeks to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit accusing it of misleading investors about the extent of its revenue dependence on cryptocurrency-related sales. The case, led by Swedish investment firm E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, claims Nvidia and CEO Jensen Huang made false statements in 2017-2018 that downplayed how much of the company's revenue growth stemmed from volatile crypto markets. When cryptocurrency profitability declined in 2018, Nvidia's revenue fell short of projections, leading to a stock price drop that hurt investors.The lawsuit initially dismissed by a federal judge was later revived by the 9th Circuit Court, which found the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that Nvidia's leadership knowingly or recklessly made misleading statements. Nvidia contends the plaintiffs have not met the high bar required under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which aims to limit frivolous securities lawsuits by requiring clear evidence of intentional misrepresentation.The Biden administration has sided with shareholders in this case, while Nvidia argues the lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. This case, along with a similar one involving Meta, could shape the legal threshold for private securities fraud cases, potentially making it harder for investors to sue companies for alleged misleading statements. Rulings on both cases are expected by the end of June.US Supreme Court to hear Nvidia bid to avoid securities fraud suit | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is debating how broadly to interpret what constitutes a "crime of violence" in a case involving mobster Salvatore Delligatti, who was convicted of attempted murder-for-hire. The legal question revolves around whether a crime can qualify as violent under federal law even when no physical force is directly used. Delligatti's case challenges a firearms statute that imposes a minimum five-year sentence for crimes involving “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.”The justices grappled with “absurd” hypotheticals to explore if a crime can be violent in nature without actual force, as the statute requires. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson highlighted a hypothetical involving a lifeguard refusing to save someone, pointing out that under the court's “categorical approach,” even passive omissions could be considered violent. Justice Elena Kagan noted the oddity of this approach since failing to act doesn't fit typical violent behavior but could theoretically fulfill the statute's requirement, even for murder.Delligatti's defense argues that attempted murder isn't always inherently violent, as some cases might involve indirect actions or omissions. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested the court could separate violent acts from omissions to avoid “absurdity.” Yet, the debate underscores the challenge: whether the law's strict categorization aligns with common-sense definitions of violent crimes, especially in cases involving complex, indirect criminal conduct like murder-for-hire.Mafia Case Tests Supreme Court on Crime of Violence Limits (1)Wealth managers are increasingly turning to strategies like the “tax-aware long-short” to help high-net-worth clients avoid taxes. This tax-loss harvesting approach involves holding one stock expected to appreciate long-term and another stock likely to decline in value short-term. When the anticipated loss occurs, the losing asset is sold to offset gains from the appreciating one, reducing taxable income and the overall tax bill. At the macro level, this strategy effectively shifts the tax burden from wealthy investors to average taxpayers and ultimately reduces public funds for essential services.The preferential treatment of long-term capital gains—taxed at up to 20%, compared to a 37% maximum for ordinary income—already favors investment income over wages. While this policy was intended to promote investment, its default high cost to public funds and the extensive tax planning that can be used to exploit it reveal systemic failures in the tax code. When tax professionals and investors go to such lengths to sidestep taxes, this reflects inefficiencies and inequities in tax policy.Addressing this issue requires substantial policy reforms. One solution would be to tax capital gains at the same rate as wages, removing the impetus to shift income into capital gains and thus increasing tax equity between ordinary income and investment income. While this might simplify the tax code and raise substantial revenue, it could discourage investment and lead to market volatility as investors bear more risk without tax-offset options.Another option is to tax unrealized gains, similar to property taxes which tax value without the need for realization, where gains are taxed at regular intervals even if the asset isn't sold. Under this approach, unrealized capital losses could offset unrealized gains during these set intervals, reducing opportunities for manipulative tax timing. This method would diminish the appeal of strategies like the long-short by minimizing the benefits of timing short-term losses against long-term gains. In sum, the effect of timing-based tax loss planning strategies would largely be blunted. On the polar opposite policy spectrum, lowering capital gains rates would reduce the financial incentive to hire advisors for complex tax avoidance strategies. Lowering rates might make it more cost effective for investors to pay taxes directly rather than invest in costly avoidance techniques.Ultimately, tax reform should prioritize policies that effectively generate revenue while minimizing the need for complex, resource-intensive planning.We Need a Better Way to Reduce Tax Avoidance and Enhance Equity This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

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

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

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

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

 Former Independent party presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Election Commission to remove his name from the state's ballot this November, part of his ongoing battle to exit from races in swing states. The case argues that, absent a compelling reason, different treatment for third party candidates violates the Equal Protection Clause and Kennedy's First Amendment rights. It claims the different deadlines for ballot withdrawal for Democrat and Republican candidates versus third-party candidates–September 3 for the former and August 6 for the latter–are unlawfully discriminatory.Support this podcast: https://secure.anedot.com/franklin-news-foundation/ce052532-b1e4-41c4-945c-d7ce2f52c38a?source_code=xxxxxxFull story: https://www.thecentersquare.com/wisconsin/article_9c391ede-6ae5-11ef-8cea-4b6146bf6e44.html

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

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

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

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

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

This Day in Legal History: Regents of the University of California v. BakkeOn June 28, 1978, the US Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, shaping the future of affirmative action in university admissions. The case centered around Allan Bakke, a white applicant who was twice denied admission to the University of California, Davis Medical School, despite having higher test scores than some minority candidates who were admitted under a special admissions program. Bakke argued that he was a victim of racial discrimination.The Court's ruling was complex, resulting in a split opinion. By a narrow 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court held that the university's use of rigid racial quotas, specifically reserving 16 out of 100 seats for minority students, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This decision invalidated the quota system used by the university.However, the Court also ruled, in a separate 5-4 vote, that race could be considered as one of many factors in the admissions process. This part of the decision, delivered by Justice Lewis Powell, emphasized that while quotas were unconstitutional, affirmative action programs aimed at increasing diversity and providing opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups could be constitutionally permissible.The Bakke decision was a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over affirmative action, setting a precedent that continues to influence educational policies and the broader discourse on racial equality in the United States. The case highlighted the delicate balance between prohibiting racial discrimination and promoting diversity and inclusion in higher education.Despite repeated reversals from the Supreme Court, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has continued to push conservative legal boundaries. This term, the Supreme Court reversed or vacated six out of nine Fifth Circuit decisions, yet still made significant rulings in favor of conservative positions, including limiting the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) enforcement power and rejecting a federal bump stock ban. Observers note that while the Supreme Court often overturned Fifth Circuit rulings, it also aligned with the circuit's conservative ideology in key cases.A notable example was the Supreme Court's decision that people subject to civil penalties for alleged securities fraud have a constitutional right to a jury trial, significantly impacting the SEC's adjudication process. Another major case saw the Supreme Court upholding the Fifth Circuit's rejection of the bump stock ban, a regulation initially issued by the Trump administration. The Fifth Circuit also won a case involving incomplete deportation hearing notices, which, though technical, reflected the court's influence. However, the Supreme Court criticized the Fifth Circuit for overreaching, particularly on issues like the abortion pill mifepristone and social media censorship, emphasizing the importance of standing.The Fifth Circuit's decisions are often driven by judges appointed by former President Donald Trump, whose influence reshaped the court. Legal experts suggest that despite some setbacks, the Fifth Circuit's conservative rulings continue to shape national policies, revealing a complex interplay between the circuit and the Supreme Court.Conservatives Gain Despite Fifth Circuit Setbacks at High CourtThe home health industry is preparing to refile its lawsuit against Medicare payment cuts after a recent unfavorable court ruling. William A. Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice (NAHC), stated that the organization will first complete the necessary administrative appeals before returning to court. This legal battle could significantly impact Medicare home health providers and beneficiaries.The US District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed NAHC's initial lawsuit because it was filed before exhausting all administrative remedies. Instead of appealing, NAHC will follow the court's directive and refile the case. Meanwhile, industry groups are lobbying Congress to pass legislation to block a proposed 1.7% cut to home health payments in 2025.The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed a 2.5% payment increase but also a 3.6% cut due to a “permanent behavior adjustment” and a 0.6% cut for outlier payments. This is the third consecutive year of proposed cuts, which, according to Joanne Cunningham, CEO of the Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare, make it difficult for providers to meet the growing care demands of an aging population. High labor costs and workforce shortages exacerbate these challenges, and Katie Smith Sloan of LeadingAge noted that the cuts make it harder to recruit nurses.Senators Debbie Stabenow and Susan Collins, along with Representatives Terri Sewell and Adrian Smith, have introduced legislation to block the CMS proposal and restrict its authority over payment adjustments based on provider behavior. Dombi emphasized ongoing efforts with lawmakers, indicating that CMS is unlikely to change its stance.The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has consistently recommended reductions in home health payments, citing that current payments are significantly higher than costs. Their latest report projects a profit margin of 18% for 2024, arguing that excess payments diminish the value of home health care. However, Dombi countered that MedPAC's estimates don't account for lower payments from private Medicare Advantage plans, which now cover a majority of Medicare beneficiaries.Home Health Agencies to Renew Suit Over Medicare Payment RatesA California federal jury has ordered the National Football League (NFL) to pay over $4.7 billion in damages for overcharging subscribers of its "Sunday Ticket" telecasts. The jury found that the NFL conspired with member teams to inflate the price of "Sunday Ticket" for millions of residential and commercial subscribers. This decision followed more than a decade of litigation. The plaintiffs, who were DirecTV subscribers, argued that the NFL's agreements with broadcast partners allowed DirecTV to charge higher prices by monopolizing distribution. A judge may triple the damages under U.S. antitrust law, potentially bringing the total to over $14 billion. The NFL plans to contest the verdict.NFL hit with $4.7 billion verdict in 'Sunday Ticket' antitrust trial | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven, once again, and still a composer of some note.As we close out this week, we turn to the life and music of Ludwig van Beethoven, one of classical music's most iconic figures. On June 28, 1802, Beethoven penned a poignant letter to his friend Franz Wegeler, revealing his deep struggles with his worsening deafness. Despite the profound personal challenge this posed, Beethoven's determination to overcome his condition fueled some of his most extraordinary compositions.In light of this story, our closing theme is Beethoven's "Symphony No. 3 in E-flat major, Op. 55," commonly known as the "Eroica Symphony." This symphony, composed between 1803 and 1804, epitomizes Beethoven's resilience and innovation. Originally dedicated to Napoleon Bonaparte, whom Beethoven admired for his democratic ideals, the dedication was famously retracted when Napoleon declared himself emperor. The "Eroica" is renowned for its emotional depth and groundbreaking structure, marking a significant shift from classical to romantic symphonic form.Beethoven's ability to compose such a powerful and transformative piece while grappling with the despair of impending deafness is a testament to his genius and perseverance. The "Eroica Symphony" not only reflects Beethoven's personal triumphs but also serves as an enduring symbol of human resilience in the face of adversity.As you listen to the stirring movements of this symphony, remember the indomitable spirit of Beethoven. Let his story and music inspire you as we conclude this week, reminding us all of the power of determination and the beauty that can emerge from our greatest challenges. Thank you for joining us, and we look forward to sharing more with you next week.Once again and without further ado, Ludwig van Beethoven's Symphony No. 3 in E-flat major, Op. 55, the “Eroica Symphony” – 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

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

In this episode, Rich and Pam discuss the successes and failures of Brown v. Board of Education with their colleague, Rick Banks. Marking the 70th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, they look at its impact on Jim Crow segregation and the ongoing challenges in achieving educational equality in the U.S. Banks offers a critical analysis of the effectiveness of Brown in integrating American primary and secondary education and explores alternative approaches to further racial and socioeconomic integration in schools.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Ralph Richard Banks >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Lawyer online feature >>> Brown v. Board: Success or Failure?(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction and Significance of Brown vs. Board of EducationIntroduction to the podcast and the topic of Brown vs. Board of Education. Discussion on the transformative impact of Brown on American society and its less effective impact on primary and secondary education.(00:02:36) Chapter 2: Initial Impact and Challenges of BrownExploration of the immediate aftermath of the Brown decision, including the decade of minimal desegregation and the eventual legislative push in the 1960s. Mention of personal anecdotes highlighting the slow progress.(00:06:35) Chapter 3: Massive Resistance and Supreme Court's RoleDiscussion on the era of massive resistance to desegregation, the role of the Southern Manifesto, and the Supreme Court's strategic avoidance of direct intervention. Examination of the lingering effects of this period on the present educational landscape.(00:10:16) Chapter 4: Socioeconomic Disparities and School SegregationAnalysis of the ongoing economic inequality and its impact on school segregation. Comparison between Northern and Southern school desegregation efforts, with specific examples from Detroit and Charlotte.(00:14:45) Chapter 5: Legal and Structural Barriers to IntegrationExamination of legal decisions such as Milliken and San Antonio vs. Rodriguez that reinforced segregation and funding disparities. Discussion on the narrow scope of Brown and its consequences.(00:18:58) Chapter 6: Integration vs. Educational QualityDebate on the merits of integration versus focusing on educational quality through alternative methods such as charter schools and vouchers. Consideration of the mixed outcomes of these approaches.(00:22:19) Chapter 7: Parental Responsibility and Systemic SolutionsReflection on the burden placed on parents to seek better education through choice programs. Comparison to historical figures who fought for desegregation. Discussion on the need for systemic solutions rather than relying solely on choice.(00:25:02) Chapter 8: Future Directions and Pragmatic SolutionsCall for a mix of approaches to improve education, combining integration efforts with initiatives focused on educational quality. Emphasis on the importance of experimentation, evidence collection, and open-minded evaluation of educational policies.

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

As marginalized populations ponder the future of civil liberties under a U.S. Supreme Court that's already reversed abortion rights and affirmative action policies, the Legislature is looking to strengthen anti-discrimination laws in Vermont by adding an equal protection clause to the state's constitution.

This Day in Legal History: Racist Restrictive Covenants Struck DownOn May 3, 1948, a significant legal decision was rendered by the United States Supreme Court, fundamentally altering the landscape of civil rights and property law. The case, Shelley v. Kraemer, addressed the pernicious practice of racially-restrictive covenants in real estate. These covenants were agreements embedded in the deeds of properties that prohibited the sale of these properties to individuals of certain races, most commonly African Americans.The Supreme Court's decision in Shelley v. Kraemer struck down the legal enforcement of these covenants, ruling that while private parties may enter into whatever agreements they choose, they cannot seek judicial enforcement of covenants that violated constitutional principles of equality. The Court held that such enforcement by state courts constituted state action and therefore was subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The background of the case involved an African American family, the Shelleys, who purchased a home in a neighborhood in St. Louis, Missouri. This neighborhood had an existing covenant that barred African Americans from owning property. When the Shelleys moved in, several of their white neighbors sought to enforce the covenant to prevent them from taking ownership.The Missouri Supreme Court had originally sided with the neighbors, ruling that the covenant was enforceable. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision reversed this ruling. Justice Fred M. Vinson, writing for the majority, emphasized that the enforcement of racially restrictive covenants by state courts amounted to a state action that denied equal protection of the laws.This landmark decision was a crucial step forward in the fight against institutionalized racism, particularly in housing. It reflected the growing judicial recognition of civil rights issues and set a precedent for future rulings related to racial discrimination. Moreover, Shelley v. Kraemer highlighted the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional rights against socially entrenched racial discrimination.The ruling did not, however, eliminate racially restrictive covenants overnight. Many neighborhoods continued to observe such agreements informally, and it wasn't until later legislative efforts, such as the Fair Housing Act of 1968, that such practices were comprehensively outlawed. Nevertheless, the Shelley v. Kraemer decision remains a pivotal moment in American legal history, celebrated for its affirmation of the principles of equality and justice enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.The Biden administration is set to implement a rule that will allow undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children and are covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to receive subsidized health insurance through Obamacare. This rule, scheduled for release by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), will redefine "lawfully present" individuals to include DACA recipients, enabling them to access premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions when purchasing plans from federal and state marketplaces beginning November 1, 2024.HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra emphasized the importance of this change, noting that over a third of DACA recipients currently lack health insurance. The inclusion of DACA recipients is expected to improve not only their health and wellbeing but also contribute positively to the overall economy. Additionally, the rule will permit these individuals to enroll in basic health programs similar to Medicaid in certain states, provided they earn no more than 200% of the poverty level.The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services anticipate that this adjustment could result in 100,000 previously uninsured DACA recipients gaining health coverage. This decision marks a significant shift from previous policies where DACA recipients were excluded from being considered "lawfully present" for insurance purposes due to the original rationale behind the DACA policy, which did not address eligibility for insurance affordability programs.The significant development in this story is the modification of the definition of "lawfully present" by the HHS to include DACA recipients. This change is crucial as it directly impacts the eligibility of these individuals for health insurance subsidies under Obamacare, a shift in policy that broadens access to healthcare for a previously marginalized group.DACA Immigrants Win Access to Obamacare Subsidies in HHS RuleIn a groundbreaking trial in Chicago, attorneys for Angela Valadez, an 89-year-old woman who developed colon cancer, argued that pharmaceutical companies GSK and Boehringer Ingelheim were aware that the heartburn medication Zantac could become carcinogenic under certain conditions but failed to alert the public. The lawyers contended that Zantac's active ingredient, ranitidine, could transform into a cancer-causing substance called NDMA if it aged or was subjected to high temperatures, and accused the companies of covering up the degradation of the pills by altering their appearance.GSK and Boehringer Ingelheim, the only defendants in this trial after other companies reached settlements, defended their product. They insisted that Zantac has been proven safe and effective through numerous studies and that no direct evidence links Zantac to Valadez's cancer, citing her other risk factors for the disease. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration had removed Zantac and its generic versions from the market in 2020 after detecting NDMA in some samples. Despite this, a significant legal victory came for the companies in 2022 when a judge dismissed about 50,000 claims, questioning the scientific backing of the assertion that Zantac could cause cancer. However, with more than 70,000 cases still pending, largely in Delaware, the issue remains a significant legal and public health concern. A newer version of Zantac with a different active ingredient is currently on the market, which does not contain ranitidine.GSK knew about Zantac cancer risk, attorneys tell jury in first trial | ReutersIn the ongoing criminal trial of former U.S. President Donald Trump in New York, a new defensive angle emerged as Trump's lawyer portrayed the hush money payment at the center of the trial as potentially extortive. The payment in question involved Stormy Daniels, real name Stephanie Clifford, who was reportedly paid to keep quiet about an alleged encounter with Trump prior to the 2016 presidential election.During the proceedings, defense attorney Emil Bove questioned Keith Davidson, Daniels' former lawyer, about his history with negotiating cash-for-dirt agreements with celebrities, hinting that Davidson's actions bordered on extortion. Trump's legal team appears to be focusing on undermining the credibility of prosecution witnesses like Daniels and Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and fixer, who arranged the controversial $130,000 payment. Trump has denied any encounter with Daniels and pleaded not guilty to the charges of falsifying business records to conceal the payment.This trial aspect dovetails with previous testimony regarding Cohen's disappointment over not receiving a major governmental post after Trump's election victory. Cohen, who later disassociated from Trump and criticized him publicly, is expected to be a key witness. He has already served prison time for his role in the payment scheme.Moreover, the trial has seen further complications due to Trump's conduct outside the courtroom. Justice Juan Merchan has had to address violations of a gag order by Trump, who has been fined and could potentially face jail for continuing infractions. Trump has criticized the trial publicly, claiming it is an attempt to prevent his political comeback and alleging conflicts of interest by those involved in the trial.Trump's various legal troubles include other serious charges, such as attempting to overturn the 2020 election results and mishandling classified documents, adding layers of complexity to his current legal battles as he campaigns for the 2024 presidential election. These developments suggest a trial fraught with legal and political ramifications, with Trump's defense pushing back against what they suggest are questionable prosecutorial tactics and witness credibility.Trump trial hears Michael Cohen was 'despondent' he was denied a government post | ReutersTrump lawyer suggests hush money payment was extortion | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johannes Brahms.Johannes Brahms, born on May 7, 1833, in Hamburg, Germany, is one of the most revered figures in the history of classical music. His compositions span a wide range of genres, including chamber works, symphonies, and choral compositions. Brahms was known for his perfectionist approach, often taking years to refine his works to his satisfaction.Among his most celebrated creations is Symphony No. 1 in C minor, Op. 68. This symphony, which took Brahms about 14 years to complete, is frequently dubbed "Beethoven's Tenth" due to its stylistic similarities to Ludwig van Beethoven's symphonic work, especially the Ninth Symphony. Brahms's dedication to living up to Beethoven's legacy is evident in the meticulous structure and emotional depth of the piece.Symphony No. 1 was first performed in 1876, and since then, it has become a staple in the orchestral repertoire. It is particularly noted for its profound depth and complexity. The symphony unfolds over four movements, beginning with a dramatic and tense first movement that features a memorable timpani motif, which sets a somber and introspective mood. This is followed by a gentle and lyrical second movement, offering a stark contrast to the dramatic opening. The third movement, often considered the heart of the symphony, showcases Brahms's skill in thematic development and orchestral color. The finale is a triumphant resolution to the symphony's earlier tensions, culminating in a powerful and uplifting theme that echoes Beethoven's own symphonic climaxes.This week's closing theme features this masterful work by Brahms, inviting listeners to explore the depths of his musical genius. Symphony No. 1 stands not just as a nod to Beethoven's influence but as a significant original contribution to the symphonic form, marking Brahms's triumphant emergence as a composer of the first order in the orchestral domain.Without further ado, Brahm's Symphony No. 1 in C Minor, Op. 68 - III. Un poco allegretto e grazioso, enjoy. Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Lee Cheng is an attorney and civil rights activist who has fought discrimination against Asian Americans for three decades.Lee helped found the Asian American Legal Foundation and Asian American Coalition for Education. Most well known for its part in helping win the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. A landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in 2023 in which the court held that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions processes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.As the Chief Legal Officer for Newegg, Lee was famously known as "chief troll hunter.” He was one of the few attorneys a decade ago to fight back against the multi-billion dollar patent troll industry and win.In this episode. we talk about Lee's fight against IP patent trolls and race-based affirmative action.

After discussing the direction of rents, learn about an ominous new tax that's proposed. SCOTUS and Congress are considering a tax on unrealized gains.  For example, if your gold or furniture appreciates from $5K to $8K, would you have to pay a tax on the $3K gain, even if you keep owning the gold or furniture? Tom Wheelwright from WealthAbility joins us to discuss this. Though this is considered a “wealth tax”, the middle class would have to pay it. The tax case being heard is called “Moore vs. United States”. We expect it to be decided this year.  Tom & I discuss how few people understand marginal income tax rates' progressivity. The last dollar that you earn is taxed at your highest rate. The first dollar that you earn is taxed at your lowest rate. Timestamps: Factors Driving Rent Growth (00:02:45) Inflation, lack of inventory, expired rent freezes, shifting workforce, demand for single-family homes, high employment, barriers to homeownership. Promising Development in Multifamily Construction (00:05:33) Multifamily construction reaching a 15-year high, new supply likely to slow down apartment rent growth, inclusionary housing requirements for new construction. Current Rent Trends (00:08:04) Single-family rents up 5%, apartment rent growth at 3%, highest rent price growth in the northeastern quadrant of the US. Supreme Court Case: Moore v. United States (00:11:47) Overview of the case, implications of taxing unrealized gains, arguments for and against the taxation of unrealized income, potential impact on everyday investors and citizens. Challenges of a Wealth Tax (00:18:07) Discussion on the problematic nature of a wealth tax, potential impact on individuals and assets, comparison to estate tax, and potential implications of a wealth tax on various assets. The tax on unrealized gains (00:22:43) Discussion on the potential impact of a proposed wealth tax on unrealized gains and the complexities of taxing assets while they are still held. The regressive nature of wealth taxation (00:24:38) Exploration of the regressive nature of wealth taxation and the challenges in implementing and managing taxes on wealth. Tax laws and equal protection (00:27:19) Insights into how tax laws apply equally to everyone and how billionaires benefit from better advisors to minimize tax payments. Tax rate misconceptions (00:30:15) Clarification of misconceptions about tax rates, including the progressive nature of tax tables and the impact of earning more income. Tax strategies and investment decisions (00:32:17) Exploration of tax benefits related to investment strategies, including the impact of deductions and the suitability of IRAs for different investment types. Updates on tax laws and book release (00:34:57) Announcement of the third edition of the book "Tax-Free Wealth" and the incorporation of major tax law changes into the updated edition. Wealthy's tax contributions and future episode preview (00:36:03) Discussion on the tax contributions of the wealthy and a preview of a future episode topic on the feasibility of abolishing property tax. Conclusion and show updates (00:37:13) Closing remarks on upcoming content, including the landmark episode 500, and a call to subscribe to the show for valuable insights. Resources mentioned: Show Notes: GetRichEducation.com/482 For access to properties or free help with a GRE Investment Coach, start here: GREmarketplace.com Get mortgage loans for investment property: RidgeLendingGroup.com or call 855-74-RIDGE  or e-mail: info@RidgeLendingGroup.com Invest with Freedom Family Investments.  You get paid first: Text FAMILY to 66866 Will you please leave a review for the show? I'd be grateful. Search “how to leave an Apple Podcasts review”  Top Properties & Providers: GREmarketplace.com GRE Free Investment Coaching: GREmarketplace.com/Coach Best Financial Education: GetRichEducation.com Get our wealth-building newsletter free— text ‘GRE' to 66866 Our YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/c/GetRichEducation Follow us on Instagram: @getricheducation Keith's personal Instagram: @keithweinhold   Complete episode transcript:   Keith Weinhold (00:00:01) - Welcome to GRE. I'm your host, Keith Weinhold, and it's a new year. We talk about what drives the growth of rents. Then a gigantic new tax is being proposed that could fundamentally change virtually every current investment you own and future investment you make today on Get Rich education. When you want the best real estate and finance info. The modern internet experience limits your free articles access, and it's replete with paywalls. And you've got pop ups and push notifications and cookies. Disclaimers are. At no other time in history has it been more vital to place nice, clean, free content into your hands that actually adds no hype value to your life? See, this is the golden age of quality newsletters, and I write every word of hours myself. It's got a dash of humor and it's to the point to get the letter. It couldn't be more simple. Text GRE to 66866. And when you start the free newsletter, you'll also get my one hour fast real estate course completely free. It's called the Don't Quit Your Day dream letter and it wires your mind for wealth.   Keith Weinhold (00:01:18) - Make sure you read it. Text grey to 66866. Text GRE to 66866.   Speaker 2 (00:01:30) - You're listening to the show that has created more financial freedom than nearly any show in the world. This is get rich education.   Keith Weinhold (00:01:46) - What could go from Beckley, West Virginia, to Boise, Idaho, and across 188 nations worldwide. You're listening. To get rich education, I'm your host, Keith Weinhold. What about this new proposed wealth tax? Should there be one? How big is it? As you're gonna find out, you would probably even have to pay this huge new proposed tax. If you're in the middle class. That's all. If it gets legislated, that's coming up shortly. But first, last week I told you about the future direction of home prices. As I revealed our 2024 National Home Price Appreciation Forecast this week, let's talk about the direction of rents in America, higher prices for everything that could make tenants feel tapped out. Although we have now had a few months of wage growth picking up before we get into the rent trend, this is get rich education.   Keith Weinhold (00:02:45) - So focusing on the education part as we often do, what are the factors that drive rent anyway? What drives rent growth and how did rent get to feel so expensive for a lot of people? Well, the fast growth of rent costs since 2020 that derives really from a number of factors, including inflation and also including a lack of inventory. There is a shortage of vacant rental properties in general and of affordable ones in particular. You've also got those expired rent freezes and expired discounts. I mean, landlords are making up for pandemic era rent freezes and steep discounts in urban areas. And by doing that, what they've done now is hiked up prices on new units and on lease renewals. Another factor that drives rent growth is what's happening with the workforce. And we've had a shifting workforce. As the pandemic increased, the popularity of remote work, you had deep pocketed renters that sought out larger homes, often single family homes, in areas that had previously been pretty low cost. So this migration then it increased the rents in suburban and outlying areas more than it lowered them in urban ones.   Keith Weinhold (00:04:06) - And see that trend overall that yielded a net increase in rents. And then another factor is that you have more demand for people to live alone. Prospective renters are increasingly looking for studio in one bedroom apartments, driving up demand for available housing, and that drives demand for space and therefore rent growth, because living alone, that means that rather than two people demanding to live in one unit, two people demand two places to live. And of course, high employment like we've had. That's another factor that drives rent growth over time. And the last factor that I'll share with you as a rent growth driver are barriers to homeownership. Yeah. Prospective homeowners, they remain renters for longer because they face high demand and low inventory on those existing homes. Like I've talked about before, higher mortgage rates. And you had those supply chain disruptions that really began a few years ago. Most of those are alleviated now, but that made it more expensive and more difficult to construct new homes. And then as mortgage rates rose starting back in early 2021, housing prices, they cooled off faster than rents, and rents are finally rising at a slower pace now then they did in the past two plus years.   Keith Weinhold (00:05:33) - And so those are the factors that drive rent growth. Now. Back in 2022, a promising development began, promising for those that are looking to pay less for housing in the future anyway. From their perspective, and that is the fact that multifamily construction reached a 15 year high nationwide, and that new supply is what's likely to slow down apartment rent growth. And since many cities require really this inclusionary housing, that means that a portion of new housing needs to be affordable. Well, therefore, new construction also means new affordable housing. Again, that's predominantly on the apartment side. But see, many families, they want a single family home. They want that privacy. They want that separation. They want to live in something that feels like their own, but they can't afford a single family home to buy. So they rent one. And, you know, I thought Zillow recently pointed it out really well when they said that single family rentals are the new. Their homes. They appeal to those that are priced out of buying.   Keith Weinhold (00:06:49) - And now you can see this reflected in rent growth. So now that we talked about some of the longer term drivers of growth, let's talk more about the current period of time. We don't have Q4 numbers in yet, but through Q3 we can see that the growth of single family rents is 5%. All right. That sounds healthy. And it is. And that's per John Burns research and Consulting. But that 5% increase is down from two years ago when it had its recent peak of between 9 and 10%. So again, right there, we're just talking about the annual growth rate in single family rents. It's about 5% through the latest quarter that we have stats for now. Compare that 5% to apartment rent growth, which is about 3% today. Even in an economic slowdown, rents rarely fall. And by the way, if rents ever do fall, I call it falling rents. Or perhaps I use the phrase declining reds for some reason. If price is contracting anything, some economists and analysts and others, they refer to this as negative growth.   Keith Weinhold (00:08:04) - I don't tend to use the term negative growth. That's confusing. I just call it a decline. Okay. Negative growth. That makes you wonder if someone means slowing growth rates or do they mean an outright decline. So negative growth is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp or black light or friendly fire, or telling someone to act natural, or perhaps a working vacation? Okay, that's what negative growth means to me anyway. Now rents, whether it's single family rentals or apartments, when you blend those together regionally, you're seeing the highest rent price growth in the northeastern quadrant of the United States, which oddly contains a good chunk of the Midwest. So you just look at the northeastern quadrant of the United States. So leaders in red growth we're talking about here Providence, Rhode Island, Hartford, Connecticut, Cincinnati, Columbus, Saint Louis, Milwaukee and Chicago, they are all on that list. The highest rent growth blended together, single family rentals and apartments. By the way, two months ago I was in Hartford, Connecticut for the first time in a while.   Keith Weinhold (00:09:18) - Nice skyline there. Yeah, Hartford. You have an impressively urban feel for a city that's not among America's largest. Now. You're seeing slight rent price declines this past year in a lot of their really big, swaggering, broad shouldered gateway cities New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, and also in Raleigh, North Carolina. I'm not sure what's going on in Raleigh, North Carolina, with their sluggish rent growth, but here, as testimony to the fact that rents don't often fall far, all of those bigger cities that I just mentioned, these big losers, they're only down between one half of 1% and 1% for year over year rents. So to review nationally in the last year, single family rents are up 5% and apartment rent growth is up 3%. But both have slowed from a couple years ago. Can the federal government tax your unrealized gains, also known as a wealth tax? We're going to talk about what that means. But how far could this go? If your home appreciates a 30 K in a year, but you want to keep living in it, might you have to pay tax on that gain even though you don't sell it, you just want to keep living there.   Keith Weinhold (00:10:41) - Could that even apply to you? If you own furniture that goes up in value, but you kind of like dining at that nice mahogany table of yours, could you get taxed on that every year? If the value of that goes up? And then you would have to ask the question, where are you supposed to get the money from in order to pay the tax? Might you have to sell that asset in order to pay the tax on it? So let's discuss a wealth tax that is tax on your unrealized gains. A renowned tax and wealth expert is back on the show with us today. He's also a CPA and the CEO of a terrific tax firm called Wealth Ability. He's the best selling author of the Mega-popular book Tax Free Wealth, which I have on my bookshelf. And a third edition is about to come out. He's going to tell us more about that. Hey, welcome back to Dr. Tom Wheelwright. Thanks, Keith. Always good to be with you. It's good to be with you, too.   Keith Weinhold (00:11:47) - And I think it's going to be especially informative and maybe disturbing this time, Tom, because really, it's been called the quadrillion dollar question. This is where Supreme Court justices decide whether the federal government can tax certain unrealized gains. And what this means is that these are assets that you own, but yet you haven't sold yet. So, Tom, tell us about this Supreme Court case hearing it known as more Maori versus the United States. Yeah. So this is a couple that invested in a company in India. They owned, I think, 12 or 13% of the company. And when the 2017 Tax Act was passed, what we commonly think of as the Trump Tax Act, one of the provisions was that in order to go to a taxation where you couldn't just put off bringing back the money all the time, they said, well, look, we're going to have a one time tax, we're going to have a tax on repatriated earnings. Some of you have heard that term repatriated earnings as if they came back.   Keith Weinhold (00:12:56) - Okay. So whether or not they came back as if they came back. And if you're a shareholder of 10% or more, then you have to pay that tax in certain situations. And so the laws actually had to pay the tax. This was the tax on the income of their corporation. So the corporation could have its own tax. But this is actually a tax on the shareholder. So that's actually where this is interesting because is similarly frankly we have taxes on partners and partnerships. Right. If you're a partner in a partnership you're taxed on that income. Whether or not you get the money in a corporation, typically you're not taxed on the income unless you get the money. That's a dividend. If you don't get the money, the corporation's taxed, but you aren't taxed. This was a situation where it's a corporation, but the shareholders were taxed. The Moores are arguing, well, this is equivalent to a wealth tax. And it's actually why I think the Supreme Court took this up, because it's not a case that you would normally think the Supreme Court would agree to hear.   Keith Weinhold (00:13:57) - Well, I think where this concerns people is, could this open up things so that the everyday person and the everyday investor could have to pay these unrealized gains on assets that they own, that have not sold? I mean, even their primary residence, if that appreciates from 500 K to 550 K, are they going to owe tax on that 50 K even if they plan to continue to stay there and hold on to it because they want to live their. That's what certain members of Congress would like. Liz Warren would absolutely like that to happen. Bernie Sanders absolutely like that to happen. I actually think that's why the Supreme Court took up the case, is because I don't think the Supreme Court believes that that should happen. I think it's going to come out. They're going to narrow what a wealth tax can and can't be, because I think they need to because they need to say, look. So we've had oral arguments already. So we expect a decision out sometime this year. But basically the arguments by the IRS were we do this all the time.   Keith Weinhold (00:14:56) - We have taxes, unrealized income. We have mark to market on stock trading. So that's a tax on unrealized income. We have a tax on partnerships. That's a tax on realized by undistributed income. The reality is this tax the Moores are are arguing against is a tax on realized but undistributed income. I think that's where the Supreme Court would come down. I'm actually willing to make a prediction on this because I think the Supreme Court say, well, this isn't a wealth tax, and a wealth tax would be prohibited under the Constitution because that would have to be based on population. A property tax, for example, is a wealth tax. Then the US that's reserved to the locales. We can't do a federal tax. We couldn't have a federal property tax. And that's, I think, what the Supreme Court is going to say. You can't have a federal property tax that's prohibited by the Constitution. You now have local property taxes because the locals can do whatever they want. But unless you have it apportion among the states based on population, you'd literally have to have a poll tax, which is a tax per person, as opposed to a tax on the value of what a person owns.   Keith Weinhold (00:16:07) - That's the difference. So there's a lot of complications. That's a direct tax versus indirect tax, all that kind of stuff. I think the important thing is to understand that there are realized, but undistributed income, that's like a partnership, right? You can be a partner in a partnership. The partnership really uses the income. They get the money, but they don't distribute it. As a partner, you're taxed on your share of that income. It has been realized you just haven't gotten it yet. This is, by the way, very similar to the Moore situation. That money, that income was earned that just hasn't been distributed yet. And the question is the fact that they haven't distributed, does that mean they can't tax it? The odd thing is, is I think the Moores are going to lose the case. Moores will lose the battle and win the war. This is a small amount of money, right. So this is obviously the Moore is not trying to save money. There's way more money being spent on legal counsel than the tax.   Keith Weinhold (00:17:03) - So the Moores aren't doing this. This is people behind saying this is a good test case. We need to put a stop to the wealth tax conversation of Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders and Wade. And this is a case to do that. That's really what kind of the background is. That's all the background of this court case is what's really going on and what's really going on is the Ninth Circuit made it sound like any taxes find. And the Supreme Court said, well, we're going to take this up because I think a majority thinks we don't think any tax is fine because clearly under the Constitution, not any taxes. Fine. We're going to help define that. And so I think we're going to get some better clarity on what kind of taxes Congress can enact. Ultimately, I think the Morse will lose their case. Yes, the more clarity is good. I mean, the Supreme Court knows that this is a contentious issue, and I sure want any discussion to get shut down. It might lead to everyday investors and citizens paying tax unrealized gains.   Keith Weinhold (00:18:07) - I mean, with that example that I gave you of, say, a couple that owns a 500 K home and they want to keep living in it, but it just happened to go up to 550 K. I mean, where would they get the tax to pay on that. Well yeah. Well that's another problem. You can talk to any fixed income retiree and they'd have the same complaint about property tax. Sure. Yeah I don't know where this could go. I mean, what if you own rare furniture in your home? Okay. This furniture is worth more at the end of the year than it is at the beginning of the year. But yet you didn't sell it. You just continue to use your furniture. I mean, could that get taxed? It's a terrible slippery slope. And, you know, they talk about, well, don't give me I'm billionaires. I'm going okay. But let's face it, the income tax was only supposed to be on billionaires, okay. The equivalent of billionaires.   Keith Weinhold (00:18:51) - You had to make a lot of money to be subject to income tax in 1913. Yeah okay. So we know it's going to come down. It always does the tax law. You know politicians never like to give up any tax money. They always are trying to apply to more and more people more and more income. So it is problematic. You know, the idea of a wealth tax is very problematic. You know, several European countries have tried it and they've all failed. France tried it. And people like Gerard Depardieu, um, the actor, he just left France, you know, people leave now, what Bernie Sanders wants to do, this is fascinating. He wants to put an exit tax. So if you do leave, you still have to pay the tax. You actually have to pay a tax to leave. So basically what Trump is, he wants the Berlin Wall, but he wants an economic Berlin Wall. Right. That's what he wants. He wants an economic wall. He's going to complain about the wall bordering Mexico, but he's going to put an economic wall around everybody and not allow you to leave.   Keith Weinhold (00:19:50) - It'd be like somebody, California, putting a wall literal wall up and saying, you can't leave California, right. That's kind of the idea that. And if you do leave California now, California, in fact, they talked about it in 2023. And actually, interestingly, the governor defeated it. They talked about imposing an exit tax. So if you leave California, you have to pay a tax for leaving. And fortunately he defeated that. He crushed that. I mean, not sure why he did that, but he did understand the states have more power to tax than the federal government does. Federal government is limited in its taxing power, and it's really limited by the 16th amendment that allowed a pure income tax. The question and this is the argument that Sanders and Warren are making, is that it is income. And the reality is we do have billionaires who pay no tax. And the reason they pay no tax is because their stocks, which are public, go up in value. They're not required to sell them.   Keith Weinhold (00:20:51) - They can borrow against them and they never pay tax. So the argument is, well, wait a minute, that's not fair. That's a decent argument. Honestly. The challenge is yeah, if you could really say we're going to limit it to billionaires and we're going to limit it to publicly traded stock, you're fine. Not a big deal. But it never gets limited. And that's the problem. It never ever gets limited. Once the camel gets its nose under the tent it just right going on taxation all over the tent piling on and not get pulled away. They don't remove layers of taxation. It seems once the president is sent somewhere, it just seems like it continues to spread. Tom, if I could just give one last example on this. If this ever goes to where unrealized gains get taxed and how absurd this all is, just say you. Oh, gold and gold goes from $2000 to $5000. You don't sell it, you just keep holding on to it. And then you'd have to find the income to go ahead and pay the tax.   Keith Weinhold (00:21:48) - Well, you'd have to sell gold. And that's actually what they want. They actually want you to have to sell the gold. Oh, they would want gold to be sold to sell the gold. I want you to sell the stock. So the goal behind the wealth tax is to force you to sell these assets and pay the tax. Okay. Now we have a wealth tax. It's called an estate tax. That is a wealth tax. And there are businesses. There are families who have to sell their family home. They have to sell their family business. They have to sell their family farm because of the estate tax. And so this is another argument that the proponents of wealth tax are making is, wait a minute, we have a wealth tax already. It's called an estate tax. If we can have an estate tax, why can't we have a tax currently? Why do we have to wait until somebody dies to impose that tax? It's an interesting argument. I'm not a policy guy. I'm not one to make policy.   Keith Weinhold (00:22:43) - I want to explain policy. It is a question. If I can have a tax on wealth when you die, why can't I have a tax on wealth while you're alive? Sure. And I thought through the scenario as well. If the river is a tax on unrealized gains, whether that's your house going up in value or furniture or gold after you would pay this unrealized tax, then in the end, when you do want to sell it, what if you sold it for less than you thought it was worth? And then how the heck do you go back and adjust that for the tax that you are now in it? And it actually gets worse than that. Keith. Let's say we have a boom market this year and next year we have a recession. Are we going to get the money back? Exactly. And that's the hardest part because the answer is clearly, no, we're not. I mean, because think of it right now, we have a provision in the law that taxes capital gains.   Keith Weinhold (00:23:35) - There's an argument capital gains should never be taxed because especially at least if there are a capital gain because of inflation, they should never be taxed. If you actually went up in value, yes, they should be taxed. But if they're just inflated in value, why are you paying a tax on something that's not worth anymore than it was five years ago that got the same value? It's just got a different price. But we have a capital gains tax. But think about this. Let's say you have a year and you sell stocks and you have this big game. And the next year you have a loss because you sell stocks because everything went down well. You don't get to use those losses to offset your income. You have to carry those losses forward forever until you have gains again, you don't get go backwards with those losses and recapture the gains that you paid, you know, last year. So we already have this problem built into the system. And now all you'd be doing is exacerbating it. The other problem with, by the way, is that it's very regressive in that you're talking about people taxing their wealth.   Keith Weinhold (00:24:38) - Now, you can put limits, right, which is what you would have to do. And you say, well, look, your personal residence, we're not going to tax, you know, we're only going to tax the excess, which is, by the way, what income tax originally was. It was only excess investment income. You were never taxed on wages. When the 16th amendment was passed there was no tax on wages. We didn't get a tax on wages until 1944. You go, well, we'll exempt all these today. What about tomorrow? And that's always the issue. I'll tell you, the taxes just keep piling and piling on. We're going to talk more about taxation with Tom. We're right when we come back you're listening to University Kitchen. I'm your host Keith Reinhold. I render this a specific expert with income property you need. Ridge lending Group Nmls 42056. In gray history, from beginners to veterans, they provided our listeners with more mortgages than anyone. It's where I get my own loans for single family rentals up to four Plex's.   Keith Weinhold (00:25:39) - Start your pre-qualification and chat with President Charlie Ridge. Personally, though, even customized plan tailored to you for growing your portfolio. Start at Ridge Lending group.com. Ridge lending group.com. You know, I'll just tell you, for the most passive part of my real estate investing, personally, I put my own dollars with Freedom Family Investments because their funds pay me a stream of regular cash flow in returns are better than a bank savings account up to 12%. Their minimums are as low as 25 K. You don't even need to be accredited for some of them. It's all backed by real estate and that kind of love. How the tax benefit of doing this can offset capital gains and your W-2 jobs income. And they've always given me exactly their stated return paid on time. So it's steady income, no surprises while I'm sleeping or just doing the things I love. For a little insider tip, I've invested in their power fund to get going on that text family to 66866. Oh, and this isn't a solicitation. If you want to invest where I do, just go ahead and text family to six, 686, six.   Tom Wheelwright (00:27:02) - Anybody? It's Robert Elms or the Real Estate Guys radio program. So glad you found Keith Reinhold and get rich education. Don't quit your day dream.   Keith Weinhold (00:27:19) - Welcome back to cash. We're talking with Tom Wheelwright, the author of the Mega-popular book Tax Free Wealth. He runs the terrific tax firm called Wealth Ability. Tom, you often like to talk about how really, in a lot of cases, tax laws can apply to everyone, but do business operate really under the same tax laws as a middle class or us in the middle class? Really take a page out of what billionaires are doing. How can we best do that? So we have a wonderful aspect of the Constitution, a clause called the Equal Protection Clause. And what it says is taxes have to be applied equally to everybody in the same situation. So what we're billionaires are different is they have better advisers. That's where they're different. So their advisors know all the rules of the tax law. They pay them hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars a year to make sure that they're paying the least amount of tax possible.   Keith Weinhold (00:28:14) - Presumably, all they're doing is following the law. Those same laws apply to you and me. So that's why, for example, somebody who owns a single family home that they rent out to an unrelated person is entitled to the same tax benefits as somebody who owns a 200 unit apartment complex or somebody who owns Trump Tower, as an example. Okay. You get the same tax benefits in the same situation. The challenge that, you know, the average person has is not enough access to those advisers and a misunderstanding of how the tax law works, because this whole idea will the billionaires get different tax than the average person is just false. That's just a falsehood that is propagated by a certain part of the public in a certain part of the administration that wants to add another tax to billionaires. The reality is we all get the same tax. The difference is, is that if you're a billionaire, let's say you made $1 billion a year and you paid $400 million in tax. You still have $600 million left over, which is more than 99.999999% of people have in a lifetime.   Keith Weinhold (00:29:25) - So it doesn't really hurt you. It doesn't change your lifestyle. Whereas if you put a 40% tax on somebody who makes $200,000 a year, now they're going from 200 to 120, and that has a major impact. And you're really just explain one reason why in the United States, we have tax tables set up that are what we would call progressive, where the more you make, the more you pay. But yeah, you're right, Tom. There are just there's such a knowledge gap out there. I have something happen to me. I bet it still happens to you a lot. Or I will talk to people and they say something like, well, I don't want to earn too much money this year. I'll go from the 24% tax bracket to the 30% tax bracket, and they act like all of their income is then going to be taxed at 30%. So they don't want to earn too much. So I'll tell you a funny story. Yeah. So I used to teach a class every month we'd have anywhere from 30 to 100 people in the class.   Keith Weinhold (00:30:15) - And I'd always do an example and I'd say, okay, let's say that you earn X amount of dollars and you get a $5,000 bonus. What's the cost of that $5,000 bonus from a tax standpoint? And I would say a good 40% of the class would come up with about $8,000. Was the cost of the $5,000 bonus, because just like you say, well, that puts me in a new bracket there for all my income is being taxed in the new bracket. No, it is progressive, meaning the last dollar you earn is taxed at the highest rate, but the first dollar you earn is taxed at the lowest rate. And that's important distinction because we're never taxed on more than right now. It's actually 40% because we have net investment income tax. So you're never taxed on more than 40% of your income by the federal government. You just can't be. So you can make whether you make a, you know, $1 million a year, $1 billion a year, $10 billion a year, your maximum tax rate is 40%.   Keith Weinhold (00:31:14) - That's an epiphany to some people to learn that tax rates are progressive, like you just explained with that $5,000 bonus example, why don't you tell us about another tactic or another example like that? We have a lot of savvy listeners. A lot of Marty realize that marginal example. Can you give us another one about how there's something relatively simple that can really elevate one's and lower their tax rate? Yeah. Let's go to the flip side of that. If the last dollar you earn is taxed at your highest rate, the first dollar you deduct is deducted at your highest rate. Great point. This is why, by the way, and if you read my book, The Windmill Strategy, I talk about this in chapter eight. I used to say for a long time that you never got a permanent tax benefit from putting your money in an IRA for one K and I ran the numbers and win win. And I was wrong. That's not true. And the reason is because let's say you put in $10,000 a year for 30 years, that deduction that you get for that $10,000 you put into your IRA for one K, you get a deduction at the highest tax bracket.   Keith Weinhold (00:32:17) - When you start pulling the money out, you're going to pull it out and you get all the tax brackets. So you put the money in, you get a deduction of the highest, you pull the money out, you get basically the combination of the different tax brackets. So you are actually better off. So for example, if somebody says I want all I investment to go on in the stock market, I would say you need A41K. That is the answer because self-directed would be best. Absolutely. Because you get a deduction now at your highest tax rate bracket. But down the road you're going to pull it out. Basically, even if you have the same income you can pull out a lower rate. Now that only applies if you're going to put the money in the stock market. If you're going to put the money into real estate for one, K is a terrible idea because real estate is a tax shelter and you lose all the tax benefits of a tax shelter. If you put it in an IRA, you actually take a tax shelter and make it a tax expense by putting it into an IRA for one K.   Keith Weinhold (00:33:14) - So there are certain things you would never do in an IRA. A reformed K real estate is one of those. Energy is one of those businesses. One agriculture. You'd never do those in an IRA or for one K, it's a terrible idea. But if you want to invest in the stock market, the bond market, things like that, IRAs make all the sense in the world. So really, that's why people ask me, well, should I do it for one K I'm going. I have no idea. What's your investment strategy? What's your wealth strategy? Where are you putting your money? People all the time. I have some imitators and they'll ask this question, well, how do you make your money? We can reduce your taxes. I'm going. That's the first question you have to ask. But I'm more interested in what are you going to do with your money? Because what you're going to do with your money has a much bigger impact on how we set things up from a tax side, how much money you're going to make, what kind of investments you're going to do, all that is impact by what you can do with your money.   Keith Weinhold (00:34:06) - That question about, you know, how do I make my money is a simple question that, frankly, I can do that kind of a tax strategy on stage in ten minutes. Well stated. That is a good point. Well, Tom, this has been great. You mentioned your latest book, the Win win. Well, strategy, but in one of your very well-known books, Tax Free Wealth, you've got another edition coming out. Tell us about that. Yeah, we have the third edition. So for the second edition we did that. When the Trump Tax Law 2017 was enacted, we needed to put in fact, we did a kind of in a rush. So we just added in things. Since 2017, we've had six major tax law changes, six major tax law changes during Covid. And so what we felt we want to do is let's roll it all in to a third edition will take the Trump tax law. Changes will roll those in. We'll take all the new tax law.   Keith Weinhold (00:34:57) - Changes will roll those in. So now tax free wealth is up to date. I think it's a better book. When I went through it of course I spent hours and hours and hours going through it. This is the best version of tax free wealth we've ever released. There are so many critical updates there. Again, the name of his book is Tax Free Wealth. I recommend checking that out. Tom. We're right. It's been informative. As always. Thanks so much for coming back out to the show. Thanks, Keith. Yeah. Sharp insights from Tom. As always, you can keep following along with the more versus United States case this year. Now, sometimes the wealthy, they will point something out that you've got to consider. It's got to give you a little pause. And that is actually should the wealthy get a tax rebate yet not get taxed more heavily because in the US see the top 1% pay about 42% of federal income taxes, and you might say, okay, well, that's the top 1%.   Keith Weinhold (00:36:03) - Why don't we bring in some of the middle class and revisit this? Well, the top 25% pay nearly 90% of the taxes. And that's all from a recent year per the Tax Foundation. Should the wealthy then get a tax rebate? Because you could say that they pay more than their fair share. Whatever fair share really means. Well, that is a valid question. Ask at the least. Well, today is the first time that we've had the marvelous, successful author, Tom. We're right on the show here in more than a year and a half. That's just a little unusual because he is the most recurrent guest here in history. And so therefore, for some more catch up coming down the road, Tom is going to return here to discuss a big question that I have for him. And in that future episode, Tom and I are going to discuss, should there even be such thing as a property tax, does it make more sense to say, abolish the property tax and then the government can get their revenue from somewhere else, as well as where that proposal might not be feasible? That should be super interesting.   Keith Weinhold (00:37:13) - Asking the question should there even be a property tax? In the meantime, check out Tom's third edition of his book Tax Free Wealth. It is a good read as far as tax reading goes. You're listening to episode 482 of the get Rich educational podcast. We have got a big year in store with plenty of original, groundbreaking content planned, including a memorable landmark episode 500 Coming Up, which will release on May 6th of this year. If you haven't already, I encourage you to subscribe to or follow the show here on your favorite podcasting device, or tell a friend about the show. I think they'll find it really valuable. Until next week, I'm your host, Keith Reinhold. Don't quit your day dream.   Speaker 4 (00:38:05) - Nothing on this show should be considered specific, personal or professional advice. Please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate, financial or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own. Information is not guaranteed. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. The host is operating on behalf of get Rich education LLC exclusively.   Speaker 5 (00:38:33) - The preceding program was brought to you by your home for wealth building. Get rich education.com.

In June the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Court observers have put forth different analyses […]

On Thursday, June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Two months later, The […]

Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. Weber is a challenge to California's Assembly Bill 979 requiring racial, ethnic, and sexual orientation diversity on boards of public corporations located in California. The Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment is arguing that the Bill violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On May 15, 2023, the […]

Last week I found myself in Sun Valley, Idaho, at a conference with a lot of big wigs. Among them was Larry Summers—an economist, the Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton, and a former president of Harvard University. The timing was fortuitous. Last month, Harvard went before the Supreme Court to defend its race-based admission policies—and lost the case, thus overturning the legality of affirmative action. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that those admissions programs quote, “cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.   This ruling has led to a debate in American life about the future of higher education, and it's caused many to question another admissions policy that numerous American universities have long taken for granted: legacy admissions, the policy of giving preference to college applicants whose family has already attended the school. In light of the Supreme Court ruling, legacy admissions have been scrapped at top schools including Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon, and just this week at Wesleyan University. So I wanted to sit down with Larry Summers to talk about the future of American higher education, whether eliminating legacy admissions actually goes far enough, what he thinks admission departments will do in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, and what he might have done differently as president of Harvard if he could go back in time. And lastly, what makes American higher education worth saving in the first place. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

BlazeTV host Pat Gray and Claremont Lincoln University fellow Inez Stepman join the show today to discuss a groundbreaking decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. A majority of justices ruled that race-based admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina are in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This ruling marks a significant turning point in the ongoing debate surrounding affirmative action in higher education. We will delve into the details of this historic judgment and its potential implications for future admissions policies. A Tennessee federal judge partially blocked a law intended to shield children from life-altering transgender procedures, following other federal judges who blocked similar protective laws in other states. During a speech in Maryland, President Biden revealed that he personally does not support abortion and expressed discomfort with the procedure. In a recent development, a manslaughter case against Jordan Williams, who was charged with stabbing Devictor Ouedraogo to death on a Brooklyn J train, has been dismissed. Today's Sponsors: Keep cool and comfortable this 4th of July with Tommy John. Get 25% off SITEWIDE at http://www.Tommy John.com/WHY. Get privacy, security, and peace of mind whenever you want to go Ghost. Your location, your private conversations, and your private life are all guarded by the Ghost Sleeve: the only Faraday sleeve to block signal, sight, and sound. Visit http://www.RefugePrivacy.com today. Use code SARA to save 10% off your order. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices