Podcasts about Equal Protection Clause

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia DecidedOn this day in 1967, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia striking down Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and, with it, the anti-miscegenation statutes that sixteen states still had on the books. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the Court. The case had come up from a county courthouse in Caroline County, Virginia, where Richard Loving, a white bricklayer, and Mildred Jeter, a Black and Native American woman, had been arrested in their bedroom in the middle of the night in 1958 by a sheriff acting on an anonymous tip — they had been married in the District of Columbia and returned home to Virginia, where their marriage was a felony. The Lovings pleaded guilty, accepted suspended sentences on the condition that they leave the state for twenty-five years, and lived in exile in Washington until Mildred wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy that landed eventually with the ACLU, which took the case.The Supreme Court's opinion did two things at once. It held that Virginia's statute violated the Equal Protection Clause because it drew an explicit racial classification with no legitimate state purpose beyond preserving “White Supremacy” — the Court used the phrase the Virginia statute itself had used — and it held that the statute violated the Due Process Clause because the freedom to marry is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” That second holding, the marriage-as-fundamental-right strand, is the through-line that runs from Loving to Zablocki v. Redhail in 1978, to Turner v. Safley in 1987, to Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 — every one of those decisions cites Loving and treats it as the foundational case. Whether the Court's substantive due process marriage doctrine survives the next decade is, as we discussed earlier this week, one of the open questions in American constitutional law. But Loving itself remains intact, and on June 12, 1967, the Court said something it had not said cleanly before: that the right to marry is the kind of liberty interest the Constitution actually protects.The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the Second Circuit in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd., holding 6-3 that the Investment Company Act of 1940 does not give private parties a cause of action to seek rescission of fund bylaws or other contractual terms. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority. The dispute came out of a campaign by Boaz Weinstein's Saba Capital against eleven closed-end funds — funds that, under Maryland's Control Share Acquisition Act, had adopted bylaws limiting the voting power of any shareholder who accumulated a disproportionate stake without the consent of other shareholders. Saba sued under Section 47(b) of the ICA, which makes contracts that violate the Act unenforceable, and the Second Circuit held that Section 47(b) implied a private right to rescind the bylaws.The Court told the Second Circuit to look harder at the modern implied-cause-of-action doctrine, which since Alexander v. Sandoval in 2001 has been hostile to inferring private rights of action that Congress did not write into the statute. The opinion reads as a continuation of that line: the ICA's enforcement structure is committed to the SEC, not to private plaintiffs, and Section 47(b) is a defense against contracts the SEC has already determined to be unlawful, not an offensive cause of action. The dissent, by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that this is a misreading of Section 47(b)'s text and that the majority is gratuitously narrowing the enforcement of the federal securities laws. The practical impact is significant. Activist investors who had been pushing closed-end funds to convert to open-end form, or to alter investment strategies, lose a federal-court tool they had been using; the funds themselves and their independent directors gain a meaningful structural defense. Expect the next round of activist campaigns to move to state-court fiduciary-duty theories instead.US Supreme Court rules against private suits brought under key securities law | US NewsThe Court on Thursday also decided Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., vacating the Fifth Circuit 9-0 in an opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The case is small in its facts and large in its doctrine. Thomas Keathley filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2019 and failed to disclose, on his schedule of assets, a personal-injury claim he later brought against a construction company over a truck accident. The Fifth Circuit barred the personal-injury suit on judicial-estoppel grounds — the longstanding equitable doctrine that prevents a party from taking one position in one proceeding and a contradictory position in another — using a three-factor test under which a debtor's mere knowledge of the facts plus a motive to conceal was enough to bar the later claim.The Supreme Court said no.To determine whether the omission was inadvertent or mistaken for judicial-estoppel purposes, the Court held, the lower courts must look to the totality of the circumstances, not just to whether the debtor knew of the facts and had a motive. The doctrinal interest of the case lies in two concurrences. Justice Sotomayor, concurring, wrote that judicial estoppel should likely never apply in an open bankruptcy case at all — the trustee can simply amend the schedule and pursue the claim for the estate, which solves the problem judicial estoppel was invented to address. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, went further and questioned whether federal courts have any inherent authority to apply judicial estoppel as a freestanding doctrine, period — a position that, if it ever gets five votes, would unwind a doctrine that has been part of American practice since the 1850s. None of that is the holding. But the votes to revisit one of the duller corners of equitable estoppel are now visibly on the table.Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. | SCOTUSblogThe third unanimous decision of the day was Abouammo v. United States, in which the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and vacated the obstruction-of-an-FBI-investigation conviction of Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee whose underlying case was one of the more striking Saudi-Arabia infiltration prosecutions of the last decade. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion. The facts are simple and the constitutional point cleaner than the facts. Abouammo, while working at Twitter's San Francisco office in 2014 and 2015, accessed and passed on confidential user information about Saudi dissidents to a Saudi official, in exchange for a $42,000 watch and $200,000 in wire transfers. The FBI eventually came to interview him at his home in Seattle, where he had moved by 2018, and during those interviews he created and emailed agents a fake invoice intended to make the wire transfers look like a legitimate consulting fee. The Justice Department charged the obstruction count along with foreign-agent and wire-fraud counts in the Northern District of California, and a San Francisco jury convicted him on all of them.The Supreme Court held that the obstruction count belonged in the Western District of Washington, not California, because the act of creating and sending the false invoice — the only act that supported the obstruction charge — happened entirely in Seattle. Article III's venue clause and the Sixth Amendment's vicinage requirement together do not let the government try a defendant in a state where no element of the charged offense occurred, no matter how convenient the prosecution. The obstruction conviction is vacated. The foreign-agent and wire-fraud convictions, which had different venue facts and were not before the Court, stand. Abouammo will not walk free. But the prosecution will need to decide whether to retry the obstruction count in Seattle, and the case is now a clean precedent that the venue clause has real teeth in a multi-district federal investigation.US Supreme Court overturns ex-Twitter employee's obstruction conviction in Saudi spy case | US News 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

SCHEDULE JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW, 6-5-2026.1900 ADAMS BOULEVARD LA. Jeff Bliss highlights the stark contrast between Seattle's controlled homelessness and the pervasive crisis in Los Angeles. The discussion transitions to California's jungle primary, where late-arriving ballots in the Los Angelesmayoral race show statistically improbable gains for Karen Bass and Nithya Raman, fueling accusations of election irregularities. Jeff Bliss previews the opening of a massive, multi-story In-N-Out Burger in Las Vegas, predicting it will become a celebrity destination similar to Hollywood's historic clubs or New York's Stork Club. He also reflects on a rare 1955 invitation from Walt Disney, noting its role in establishing Disneyland's enduring cultural legacy. Richard Epstein examines the 14th Amendment's opening clause, distinguishing the robust rights of citizens from the conditional privileges of aliens. He argues that naturalization was historically a federal prerogative, noting that early statutes, influenced by Thomas Jefferson, included explicit racial exclusions for persons of African or Asiandescent. Richard Epstein disputes the "plain meaning" application to the 14th Amendment, arguing that "subject to the jurisdiction" requires natural allegiance rather than mere physical presence. Critiquing the Wong Kim Ark ruling, he suggests that children of legal permanent aliens should inherit their parents' status rather than automatic citizenship. Jim McTague reports on the cautious economic sentiment in Lancaster County, where despite falling gas prices, consumers remain budget-conscious. While tourism remains strong at venues like the Sight and Sound Theatre, local officials recently rejected a proposed data center in Columbia due to technicalities and concerns over its utility. Lorenzo Fiori provides an optimistic update on Italy's economy, noting improved employment rates across various demographics. He highlights a landmark legislative shift toward nuclear energy, with small plants planned by 2034. For travelers, he recommends San Miniato, a strategic, less-crowded Tuscan village famous for its white beans. Bob Zimmerman dismisses NASA's sheltering orders on the ISS as an overreaction to routine Russian repair work on the Zvezda module. He details SpaceX's massive IPO, which aims to raise billions, and observes that private space station firms like Axiom and Vast continue to secure significant capital despite SpaceX's market dominance. Bob Zimmerman surveys global spaceport developments, contrasting Spain's investment in French Guiana with the liquidation of the UK's Sutherland facility due to red tape. He debunks claims that the interstellar comet 3I/Atlas is an alien craft and notes that unpredictable sunspot activity continues to defy scientific models. Andrew Bayliss recounts how Pericles provoked the Peloponnesian War by steering Athens toward confrontation with Sparta. He details the Athenian strategy of retreating behind city walls and relying on naval imports, a move that tragically facilitated a devastating plague, claiming thousands of lives, including Pericleshimself. Andrew Bayliss profiles Lysander, a Spartan general of modest origins who secured crucial Persian funding to challenge Athenian naval supremacy. Lysander achieved victory not through direct combat, but by using deception to capture the Athenian fleet while the crews were uncharacteristically casual and off their ships. Andrew Bayliss explores the aftermath of Sparta's victory, noting that Lysander's immense power and ambition ultimately led to his death during a failed siege. Sparta's dominance eventually collapsed at the Battle of Leuctradue to a dwindling citizen population, reducing the once-mighty superpower to a minor village. Andrew Bayliss critiques the modern application of the "Thucydides Trap" to US-China relations, arguing that the original Peloponnesian War was not inevitable. He suggests the conflict was precipitated by specific provocations and accidental circumstances, drawing parallels to the circumstantial outbreak of the First World War. Henry Sokolski warns of China's fast breeder reactor program, which produces super weapons-grade plutonium capable of fueling efficient nuclear triggers. He also notes South Korea's growing interest in developing independent nuclear capabilities and submarines to counter threats from North Korea and China, despite international non-proliferation standards. Henry Sokolski explains the strategic significance of deploying Dual Capable Aircraft (DCA), such as the F-35, to reinforce NATO's nuclear deterrent in Europe. He observes that while Moscow and Beijing oppose these deployments, the aircraft act as vital "glue" for alliances, ensuring that American nuclear guarantees remain credible. Richard Epstein analyzes the Wong Kim Ark decision, arguing that Justice Horace Gray erroneously applied birthright citizenship to the children of ineligible aliens. He further critiques the expansion of the Equal Protection Clause in the 20th century, claiming it was originally intended for criminal matters rather than civil benefits. Richard Epstein discusses the legal complexities of a proposed executive order to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. He highlights the rise of "manufactured citizenship" through birth tourism and predicts the Supreme Court may eventually distinguish between transient visitors and those seeking permanent residency.

Richard Epstein analyzes the Wong Kim Ark decision, arguing that Justice Horace Gray erroneously applied birthright citizenship to the children of ineligible aliens. He further critiques the expansion of the Equal Protection Clause in the 20th century, claiming it was originally intended for criminal matters rather than civil benefits.1890 SCOTUS

 Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the emergency docket ruling from SCOTUS on Alabama's congressional maps, which broke down over three-justice ideological lines, Virginia's filing (yes, they did file) at the Supreme Court, and a very special 2-1 9th Circuit panel opinion.  The Agenda: –Remember Allen v. Milligan? –Central, urban bonkerstown –14th Amendment Equal Protection argument vs. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act –Virginia files gerrymandering case at SCOTUS –Biogradable cooler dispute, are you Team Gorsuch or Team Kavanaugh? –Why 5-4? –Would You Rather: Due Process Clause or Equal Protection Clause? Show Notes: –Remarks by Sen. A. Shane Massey on the Sine Die Resolution and Congressional Redistricting Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Unleashed: The Political News Hour with Nate Cain – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on April 29 that Louisiana's congressional map constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Separately, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down a Democrat-backed voter-approved amendment that sought to bypass the state's independent...

The Supreme Court just ruled on Louisiana's redistricting. Is the Voting Rights Act being demolished?

The US Supreme Court ruled that states can no longer use race to draw congressional districts. 20-30 house seats are represented by districts drawn to represent minorities.    The court ruled this violated the Equal Protection Clause and the civil rights of the majority of voters. Democrats have benefited for decades with these congressional districts.    This is a massive change in political power that will likely benefit the Republicans for decades.   The Virginia Supreme Court stopped the new district map that would have likely changed Virginia's house representation from 6 democrats and 5 republicans to 10 democrats and 1 republican.    Virginia is a purple state. They had a very popular republican governor a few months ago. Kamala Harris won Virginia by about 5% in 2024. The ballot initiative barely passed. 51% of voters would have disenfranchised 49% of voters.    Florida recently passed a redistrict effort that will likely increase republican representation by about 4 seats. Florida's redistricting would have off-set Virginia. Millions have moved to Florida since the last Census. Florida had a reason to redistrict other than purely political power, unlike Virginia.   Both parties gerrymander. The democrats have been far more aggressive for decades. The 6 New England states average 42% republican voters. Due to gerrymandering, New England has zero Republican House representatives. New England Republicans have no representation in the US House of Representatives.    LINK: Annuities Improve Outcomes Paper - JP Morgan

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for May 5, 2026Louisiana v. Callais Didn't Just Affect VRA Section 2 Protections for Black Americans; Hispanic, Native, and Asian-American Districts are Impacted, Too.The U.S. Supreme Court's seismic April 29th decision that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits using race in redistricting decisions didn't just affect African American communities in the South.  It also eroded the chance for Hispanic, Native, Asian and other majority-minority communities to elect the candidate of their choice, too. 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:Native News Online - North Dakota's 180-Degree Turn in Redistricting Case Sparks Outcry from MHA NationTri-City Herald (WA) - Will landmark Voting Rights ruling erase Latino gains in WA?NPR - Asian American groups file a legal challenge to Texas' redistricting plansRelated ADM Reports:American Democracy Minute - (2024) Federal Court Releases Redistricting New WA Maps After Striking Down Districts Diluting Latino Voting Power American Democracy Minute -  ND Native American Nation Prevails in Protecting Majority-Minority Voting Districts.  A Victory for Minority Voters, But GOP Efforts to Neutralize the VRA ContinueGroups Taking Action:Native American Rights Fund,  Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF)Register or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your State  Please follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org#NewsAlerts #AmericanDemocracy #VotingRightsAct #LouisianavCallais #USSupremeCourt #NativeVoters #AsianVoters #HispanicVoters

Greg is joined by Jeff Poor, editor of 1819 News, to break down today's ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States involving a Louisiana redistricting case and what it could mean for Alabama.They discuss the Court's guidance on the role of race in drawing congressional districts and how that ongoing legal tension—between the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause—could continue to impact Alabama's congressional map.The conversation also turns to Alabama politics, with a look at the current Republican primary races for Attorney General and Lt. Governor, key candidates, and what to watch as those contests begin to take shape.

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for April 29, 2026Gerrymandering Arms Race Update:  FL Gov. Ron DeSantis Unveils Congressional Redistricting Plan, Gerrymandering 4 Additional GOP SeatsFlorida Governor Ron DeSantis finally unveiled his mid-decade congressional redistricting plan on April 27th, saying “this has been a long-standing issue that we've had.”  The map attempts to gerrymander four additional GOP seats, but experts suggest his plan may make other red-leaning districts vulnerable.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:Florida Phoenix - DeSantis sends his new congressional map to Florida lawmakersWLRN Public Media - DeSantis slammed for ripping up voter-approved Florida amendment in gerrymandering push FOX News - Gov. Ron DeSantis Announces Proposed Maps  Univ. of Virginia Center for Politics - How We Would Rate the New Proposed Florida Gerrymander    Florida Div. of Elections - Voter Registration - By Party Affiliation Related ADM Reports:American Democracy Minute - Gerrymandering Arms Race Update: VA Voters Narrowly Approve Mid-Decade Redistricting; FL's Delayed Special Session Starts April 28thAmerican Democracy Minute - Citing the Equal Protection Clause, FL Supreme Court Allows DeSantis Redistricting Plan to Wipe Out Black Majority Congressional DistrictGroups Taking Action:Equal Ground, Common Cause, Florida RisingPlease follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org#NewsAlerts #AmericanDemocracy #Florida #Redistricting #Gerrymandering #RacialGerrymandering

Pitchford v. Cain | 03/31/26 | Docket #: 24-7351 24-7351 PITCHFORD V. CAIN DECISION BELOW: 126 F.4th 422 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-70009 QUESTION PRESENTED: District Attorney Doug Evans convicted Terry Pitchford, aged 18 years at the time of the crime, of capital murder and secured a death verdict in the Grenada Circuit Court before Judge Joseph Loper on February 9, 2006, with the entirety of jury selection and opening arguments taking place on February 6. After direct and collateral reviews in state court, the Northern District of Mississippi granted habeas corpus relief upon concluding that the trial court failed to determine the plausibility of the prosecutor ' s proffered reasons for peremptorily striking four Black venire members or otherwise consider the full circumstances bearing upon whether Mr. Evans ' s reasons for striking any and each of these four venire members was pretextual and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In so doing, the District Court ruled the state supreme court ' s reliance on its waiver jurisprudence improperly foreclosed consideration of pretext under Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that Judge Loper implicitly made determinations for each of the four strikes, trial counsel waived argument of pretext, and the Supreme Court of Mississippi ' s waiver jurisprudence comports with Batson. This opinion in Pitchford v. Cain confirmed the Fifth Circuit ' s disavowal of earlier circuit jurisprudence recognizing, inter alia, that since Miller-El v. Dretke , 545 U.S. 231 (2005) ( Miller-El II ), capital petitioners had been unable to “ waive[] any Batson claim based on a comparison analysis, ” Woodward v. Epps , 580 F.3d 318, 338 (5th Cir. 2009), deepening the Fifth Circuit ' s split, joined by two other circuits, with the majority of courts of appeals in the application of Batson . This petition presents the following questions: 1. Does clearly established federal law determined by this Court and applied in six other circuits require reversal of a state appellate court ' s denial of relief from a capital prosecutor ' s discriminatory exercise of four peremptory strikes against Black venire members wherein the trial court, for each of the four strikes, failed to determine “ the plausibility of the reason in light of all evidence with a bearing on it ”? Miller-El II , 545 U.S at 251–52. 2. Does Mississippi Supreme Court precedent, which deems waived on direct review arguments of pretext not stated in the trial record, defy this Court ' s clearly established federal law under Batson ? 3. Does a finding of waiver on a trial record possessing Batson objections, defense counsel efforts to argue the objection, and the trial court ' s express assurance the issues were preserved, constitute an unreasonable determination of facts? GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER, UNDER THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN AEDPA, 28 U. S. C. § 2254 (d), THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT UNREASONABLY DETERMINED THAT PETITIONER WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO REBUT THE PROSECUTOR'S ASSERTED RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR EXERCISING PEREMPTORY STRIKES AGAINST FOUR BLACK JURORS. ORDER OF MARCH 30 , 2026 : THE MOTION OF PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS GRANTED.           CERT. GRANTED 12/15/2025

This week, the Idaho Senate is considering a bill that would block transgender people from using public bathrooms that conform with their gender identity, escalating the state's preexisting trans bathroom ban in public schools. A first offense could land someone in prison for a year. This bill is just the latest in a devastating cascade of legal actions stripping away trans rights. For the midweek pod, host Brooke Gladstone speaks with Alejandra Caraballo, a civil rights attorney and a Clinical Instructor at Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, about why she's been looking toward a legal framework invented in the wake of Nazi Germany called "the dual state" to better understand this moment.    On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

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

Mississippians continue to work toward stronger communities and better understanding when it comes to race. The legal profession is no different. Our guest is Magnolia Bar President Rafael Green. We'll have a discussion about the past and the future. In Legal Terms, the show where we break down the law, explain how it works, and help make it a little less intimidating for everyday Mississippians hosted by attorney Adam Kilgore. legalterms@mbponline.orgIf you enjoyed listening to this podcast, please consider contributing to MPB: https://donate.mpbfoundation.org/mspb/podcastToday's Legal Terms on In Legal Terms are: Equal Protection Clause, Civil Rights, Rule of Law You can listen LIVE to us from the MPB Public Media app or from MPBonline.org/radioThursdays, following our over-the-air broadcast, you can hear Next Stop Mississippi on MPB Think Radio at 4pm Central.Do you need a lawyer? Or do you need scholarship money to go to college or while attending law school? The website for The Magnolia Bar Association has a “find a lawyer” tab and information about scholarships for highschoolers and current law students. Do you love MPB? Would you like some “MPB” stuff? A Felder Rushing – The Gestalt Gardner t-shirt? Tomorrow – Friday, March 13th starts our MPB Radio Pledge Drive. With your contribution to Mississippi Public Broadcasting you could choose as a Thank You gift a variety of items such as an umbrella or a weather radio, or a whole passel of items bundled together. Tomorrow there'll be more information on MPB Radio and our webpage. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You're listening to American Ground Radio with Stephen Parr and Louis R. Avallone. This is the full show for February 2, 2026. 0:30 When Donald Trump floats a bold idea, the reaction is instant—and explosive. We dive into the firestorm sparked by Trump’s comments about potentially nationalizing elections in states with broken systems, and the predictable cries of “dictator” and “authoritarian” that followed. But instead of panic, we slow things down and walk through the real constitutional, legal, and practical questions around election integrity, federal authority, and states’ rights. From Article I, Section 4, to the Equal Protection Clause, to the long-standing warnings in the Federalist Papers, this is a serious, clear-eyed discussion about voter fraud, mail-in ballots, and whether a nation that truly trusts its elections should be afraid to have this debate at all. 9:30 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things You Need to Know. The US is once again in a partial government shutdown. Last week, Democrats in the US Senate refused to pass a series of remaining funding bills that had previously been passed by Republicans in the House. The CEO of the nonprofit Abundant Blessings in Los Angeles has been arrested for fraud.First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said Alexander Soofer took $23 million of tax payer money ment to benefit homeless people in southern California and spent it instead on a lavish lifestyle with expensive vacations, a Range Rover, and designer clothes. Texas Democrat Taylor Rehmet beat Republican Leigh Wambsganss in a special election over the weekend for a Texas State Senate Seat. 12:30 Get Prodovite Plus from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 13:00 Google search isn’t just getting worse by accident—it may be by design. We unpack explosive claims that Google deliberately degraded its search results to force users to search more often, rack up more ad views, and boost profits after hitting market saturation. Drawing on DOJ lawsuit memos, internal Google power struggles, and the rise of AI tools like ChatGPT and alternatives like DuckDuckGo, the conversation digs into Big Tech arrogance, antitrust concerns, and why users are quietly abandoning traditional search. From “don’t be evil” to profit-first search manipulation, this is a blunt look at how Google may have broken its own product—and why people are finally noticing. 16:00 Did the Grammys turn into a night of hypocrisy and virtue signaling? American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson break down what they saw at the Grammy Awards—from nauseating fashion and celebrity grandstanding to public shots at ICE and the on-air bashing of Nicki Minaj. We dive into Hollywood double standards, cancel culture, and why Minaj’s faith, resilience, and clapback resonated with so many viewers. The Mamas also contrast Jelly Roll’s bold Christian testimony with what they describe as darker, more provocative performances, framing the night as a snapshot of a larger cultural and spiritual battle. It’s a no-holds-barred take on the Grammys, celebrity hypocrisy, and why standing firm in faith matters more than ever. If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, AmericanGroundRadio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button. 23:00 Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. We break down why the First Amendment is not a shield for trespassing, disrupting worship, or breaking the law, dismantling celebrity outrage over so-called “journalistic rights” in the wake of Grammy-era protests. From Don Lemon to Hollywood activists, there is no special exemption from criminal law just because a camera is rolling. The conversation then pivots to California’s future with an in-depth interview featuring Steve Hilton, Republican candidate for governor. Hilton, an immigrant who fled the legacy of European socialism, lays out a stark indictment of one-party Democratic rule, soaring costs, crushing regulations, and mass exodus from the Golden State. Framing California as the epicenter of far-left extremism with national consequences, Hilton makes the case for restoring common sense, economic freedom, and constitutional order—warning that this race could determine not just California’s fate, but America’s direction. 32:00 Get TrimROX from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 32:30 How did the border spiral so far out of control? We break down how illegal immigration dropped to historic lows under Trump, only to explode under Biden as enforcement collapsed and asylum law was fundamentally twisted. The result wasn’t compassion, but chaos: a system flipped on its head, overwhelmed communities, and an asylum process so diluted that over 95% of claims ultimately fail. Abusing asylum doesn’t just undermine immigration law—it erodes the rights of Americans and destroys a tool meant to protect the truly persecuted. 35:30 A landmark $2 million jury verdict could reshape the national debate over so-called gender-affirming care for minors, and it's a Bright Spot. A New York jury—yes, in a deep blue state—held a doctor and psychiatrist accountable for approving and performing a double mastectomy on a 16-year-old girl who later detransitioned and says the irreversible procedure harmed her. This historic transgender medical malpractice verdict sends a clear message: doctors are not above accountability, especially when children and permanent surgeries are involved. After years of rushed evaluations, skipped safeguards, and the misuse of mental-health diagnoses to justify irreversible interventions, this ruling is a turning point—one that puts child protection, medical standards of care, and biological reality back at the center of the conversation. 40:00 Accountability suddenly got real. We react to reports that Bill and Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee after Congress threatened criminal contempt over their refusal to cooperate. At issue: what the Clintons know about the Epstein files—and why they initially declined to show up. 41:30 And we finish off today's show with a halftime show that will make you say, "Whoa!" Turning Point USA is taking on the Super Bowl halftime show—and doing it their own way. In response to the NFL’s choice of Bad Bunny, TPUSA announced an alternative “All-American Halftime Show” featuring Kid Rock, Brantley Gilbert, Lee Brice, and Gabby Barrett. Articles Los Angeles homeless services CEO charged with defrauding taxpayers to pay for luxury lifestyle Democrat Taylor Rehmet Wins Deep-Red Texas State Senate Seat In Landslide, Major Upset Boom: Jury Awards $2 Million In First Detransitioner Trial First detransition trial victory is only the beginning Follow us: americangroundradio.com Facebook: facebook.com / AmericanGroundRadio Instagram: instagram.com/americangroundradio See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It has officially been one year since the beginning of the second Trump term. Almost immediately, the administration dismantled global public health, including sexual and reproductive health. Gender equity and LGBTQI+ health and rights, especially transgender health and rights, have been consistently attacked. Jessica Mason Pieklo sits down to talk with us about the administration's recent strategies of authoritarianism, and what to continue to watch for. In January, the Supreme Court heard arguments to a case challenging Idaho's and West Virginia's ban on trans girls playing sports. At its core, the cases ask the legal question as to whether categorical sports bans based on gender identity violate the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. With this month marking Roe v. Wade's decision anniversary, fears continue to grow over access to mifepristone and telehealth. The concept of fetal personhood is being brought into legislative sessions all over the country, while birth control could be a new target. Support the showFollow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social Buy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., both involve the question of whether states can designate women’s sports based on biological sex consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.In 2020 and 2021, Idaho and West Virginia passed laws that required public schools and colleges to designate sports by biological sex and to forbid males from competing on women’s sports teams. Two male athletes who identified as females, one a middle school shot-put and discus thrower and the other a collegiate cross-country runner, challenged the laws in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Idaho and Southern District of West Virginia, alleging a right to compete in women’s sports and saying the state laws discriminate on the basis of sex and transgender status in violation of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In Little v. Hecox, the Idaho district court entered a preliminary injunction against the Idaho law for violating the Equal Protection Clause, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the West Virginia district court preliminarily enjoined the West Virginia law for violating Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause and then dissolved that injunction, upholding the law at summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered the district court to enjoin the law for violating Title IX.The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and oral argument is set for January 13, 2026. Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how both oral arguments went before the Court.Featuring:Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

The cases brought the Justices questions about whether these laws violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and whether West Virginia's law violates the federal anti-discrimination statute Title IX. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

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

During oral arguments on Tuesday, the Supreme Court appeared likely to uphold state laws banning anyone other than biological females from participating in women's and girls' sports. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the mother of a transgender girl brought a challenge to a state law in West Virginia; in Little v. Hecox, a transgender woman wishing to compete at the college level challenged an Idaho law. Together, the legal challenges claim the laws violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in programs that receive federal funding. Although the justices are expected to rule similarly in each case, the Court is considering the challenges separately.Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: What do you think of the challenges to these laws? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Audrey Moorehead and audio edited and mixed by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause allow a state to designate school sports teams for girls and boys based on students' biological sex as determined at birth.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause allow a state to designate school sports teams for girls and boys based on students' biological sex as determined at birth.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a State from categorically requiring sports participants to compete based on their biological sex, rather than gender identity.

Civil Rights: Do laws that limit transgender athlete's from participating in women's sports violate the Equal Protection Clause? - Argued: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 13:24:56 EDT

West Virginia v. B. P. J. | 01/13/26 | Docket #: 24-43 24-43 WEST VIRGINIA V. B.P.J. DECISION BELOW: 98 F.4th 542 CERT. GRANTED 7/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Like everywhere else, West Virginia schools offer separate sports teams for boys and girls. The West Virginia Legislature concluded that biological boys should compete on boys' and co-ed teams but not girls' teams. This separation made sense, the Legislature found, because of the "inherent physical differences between biological males and biological females." A parent sued on behalf of her child, B.P.J., arguing that the State must allow biological boys who identify as girls to compete on girls' teams. After extensive discovery, the district court disagreed, entering summary judgment for the State on claims under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Yet a divided Fourth Circuit panel granted an injunction pending appeal. B.P.J. then beat and displaced hundreds of girls in track and field. Ultimately, the same divided panel ruled in B.P.J.'s favor on the Title IX claim and vacated the district court's judgment for the defendants on the equal-protection claim. Judge Agee dissented, criticizing the majority for "inappropriately expand[ing] the scope of the Equal Protection Clause and upend[ing] the essence of Title IX." App.44a. He hoped this Court would "take the opportunity with all deliberate speed to resolve these questions of national importance." App.74a The questions presented are: 1. Whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth. 2. Whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1078, 23-1130

Little v. Hecox | 01/13/26 | Docket #: 24-38 24-38 LITTLE, GOVERNOR OF IDAHO V. HECOX DECISION BELOW: 104 F.4th 1061 ORDER OF OCTOBER 20, 2025: RESPONDENT'S REQUEST THAT THE COURT DISMISS THE CASE AS MOOT IS DEFERRED PENDING ORAL ARGUMENT. SEE ACHESON HOTELS, LLC v. LAUFER , 601 U. S. 1, 4 (2023). CERT. GRANTED 7/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Women and girls have overcome decades of discrimination to achieve a more equal playing field in many arenas of American life-including sports. Yet in some competitions, female athletes have become bystanders in their own sports as male athletes who identify as female have taken the place of their female competitors-on the field and on the winners' podium. The Idaho Legislature addressed that injustice by enacting the Fairness in Women's Sports Act, which ensures that women and girls do not have to compete against men and boys no matter how those men and boys identify. The Act-one of 25 such state laws around the country-is consistent with longstanding government policies preserving women's and girls' sports due to the "average real differences" between the sexes. Clark ex rel. Clark v. Ariz. Interscholastic Ass'n, 695 F.2d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 1982). Breaking with this Court's precedents, its own caselaw, other circuit decisions, and biological reality, the Ninth Circuit panel here upheld an injunction against the Act because it prevents "transgender women and girls"-meaning males who identify as women and girls-from competing in "women's student athletics." App.4a-5a. The question presented is: Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 20-35813, 20-35815

This Day in Legal History: Judge Robert W. Archbald ImpeachedOn January 13, 1913, Judge Robert W. Archbald of the U.S. Commerce Court was convicted by the U.S. Senate on articles of impeachment and removed from office, becoming one of the earliest federal judges ousted through this constitutional process. The House had impeached him the prior July on thirteen charges of corruption and misconduct, five of which the Senate upheld. Archbald had used his judicial position to secure favorable deals from railroads and coal companies—entities that regularly appeared before his court. These secretive contracts, executed through intermediaries to obscure his involvement, allowed him to purchase valuable coal lands below market value.One of the more egregious acts involved advising a railroad representative on how to amend legal pleadings to improve their chances of winning in court—a direct violation of judicial ethics. After a twenty-eight-year judicial career, Archbald's fall was swift. His defense largely relied on claims of pure motives, rather than denial of the facts. A senator observed afterward that Archbald was “convicted, not so much of being corrupt, as of lack of plain common sense,” noting his failure to grasp the ethical boundaries expected of judges.The Senate vote was overwhelming, with only five senators dissenting. Every former judge in the Senate, save one, voted to convict. Archbald's conviction marked the first successful impeachment for judicial corruption in U.S. history; earlier impeachments, like that of Judge Pickering in 1804, were rooted in issues like insanity, not unethical conduct. The case prompted calls for reform of the impeachment process itself, with suggestions to create a special judicial conduct court or authorize Senate committees to streamline trials. More broadly, the case had a chilling effect throughout public service, reinforcing ethical standards across all levels of government.Uber is facing a high-stakes sexual assault trial in Phoenix that could have sweeping implications for thousands of similar lawsuits. The case, brought by Oklahoma resident Jaylynn Dean, alleges that Uber failed to protect her from an assault by a driver in 2023. Dean claims Uber has long been aware of sexual assaults committed by drivers but has not taken adequate steps to improve rider safety. This trial marks the first federal bellwether case in a massive consolidation of over 3,000 lawsuits involving similar allegations.Uber maintains that it should not be held liable for criminal actions of independent contractors, arguing its safety features, background checks, and transparency are sufficient. Still, the company faces additional lawsuits in California state court and has been criticized for its historic lack of oversight and a culture focused more on growth than safety.A jury in a previous California case found Uber negligent but ruled that negligence wasn't a direct cause of harm. Uber tried to delay Dean's trial, claiming her attorneys influenced the jury pool with misleading advertisements, but the judge allowed proceedings to continue. The outcome could influence settlement talks, regulatory scrutiny, and investor confidence as Uber continues to defend its safety record.Uber faces sexual assault trial in Arizona that puts its safety record under scrutiny | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in two high-profile cases challenging state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that bar transgender students from participating in female sports teams. While the court previously upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for minors in Tennessee, that ruling was seen as narrow. The decision to now consider sports-related bans has heightened concerns among transgender rights advocates about broader implications for legal protections.At the heart of these cases is whether such bans violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause or Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. Legal scholars warn that the court's ruling could shape future policies affecting transgender people beyond athletics—such as bathroom access, military service, and healthcare. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has previously supported limits on transgender rights, including allowing restrictions on gender markers for passports and banning transgender people from military service.Idaho's law is being challenged by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender college student who has since stopped playing sports, while West Virginia's ban is being challenged by 15-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson, who has been allowed to compete under lower court rulings. The states argue the laws protect fairness in women's sports by preventing perceived competitive advantages. Lower courts have reached opposing conclusions on the legality of the bans, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to clarify whether restrictions based on biological sex or transgender status require heightened scrutiny.The Court may also have to decide whether its 2020 decision protecting transgender workers under Title VII extends to school settings under Title IX. Legal observers say this case could reshape how courts approach not just transgender rights but broader equal protection claims.US Supreme Court's next transgender rights battle could affect more than sports | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Citigroup's appeal in a lawsuit accusing the bank of enabling a major fraud at Mexican oil services company Oceanografía, effectively allowing the case to proceed. More than 30 plaintiffs—including bondholders, shipping firms, and Rabobank—allege that Citigroup's Banamex unit knowingly financed Oceanografía to the tune of $3.3 billion between 2008 and 2014, despite the company's mounting debt and fraudulent practices, including forged Pemex signatures.Oceanografía, which serviced Mexico's state-owned oil giant Pemex, collapsed in 2014 and was later declared bankrupt. Citigroup uncovered $430 million in fraudulent advances and was fined $4.75 million by the SEC in 2018 for inadequate internal controls. Plaintiffs argue Citigroup hid critical information while profiting from interest on the advances.At the center of the legal battle is whether bondholders can sue Citigroup under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which allows for triple damages. Citigroup contended their claims were standard securities fraud allegations not suited for RICO and pointed to conflicting rulings in other federal appeals courts. However, the 11th Circuit found the plaintiffs' claims plausible, noting it defied belief that a sophisticated bank like Citigroup was unaware of the fraud. By refusing to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court leaves that ruling intact and allows the lawsuit to move forward.US Supreme Court rebuffs Citigroup appeal in lawsuit over Mexican oil company fraud | ReutersThis week, my column for Bloomberg looks at an obscure but telling tax provision: the so-called NASCAR tax break.Dozens of tax provisions expired at the end of 2025, and Congress will soon debate whether to revive them. Among these is the motorsports entertainment complex depreciation break, which allows racetrack owners to write off their facilities over just seven years—a timeline far shorter than that allowed for buildings like housing or wastewater plants. Initially enacted in 2004 as part of the American Jobs Creation Act, the break was a reaction to a Treasury reclassification effort that would have extended depreciation timelines for motorsports. Rather than accepting the change, Congress locked in the favorable treatment to preserve the status quo.Since then, the provision has been extended repeatedly, despite no clear policy rationale or economic justification. Unlike other tax incentives that at least attempt to stimulate broader economic development, the NASCAR break benefits a narrow group of wealthy owners in a lucrative, sponsor-heavy industry. The economic spillover is minimal, and unlike subsidies for sports stadiums—which are themselves of dubious value—this break doesn't even offer the illusion of local benefit.Its survival has more to do with inertia and lobbying than public interest. Letting it remain expired would save money and demonstrate that the tax code isn't permanently rigged in favor of politically connected sectors. More broadly, the column argues for a disciplined framework to evaluate all expiring provisions based on economic efficiency, equity, administrability, and demonstrated value. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Supreme Court is examining whether state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender girls and women from participating in female sports violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. The justices are hearing challenges brought by transgender athletes who argue these bans discriminate based on sex and transgender status. Supporters of the laws claim they protect fairness in women’s sports by requiring teams to be designated by biological sex. This marks the Court’s first major review of transgender sports restrictions, a debate now affecting more than half of U.S. states. Please Like, Comment and Follow 'Broeske & Musson' on all platforms: --- The ‘Broeske & Musson Podcast’ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever else you listen to podcasts. --- ‘Broeske & Musson' Weekdays 9-11 AM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 FM KMJ | Facebook | Podcast| X | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in two pivotal cases about whether the government can discriminate against trans women and girls in athletics. Imara sits down with Supreme Court veteran and civil rights lawyer Chase Strangio, unpacking the strategy being used to challenge state laws than ban trans girls from playing sports. In this necessary conversation exploring what's at stake in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.J.P., the pair unpack how the right-wing actors taking aim at trans girls actually have their sights set on a much bigger target: the Equal Protection Clause and, ultimately, democracy itself. Send your trans joy recommendations to translash_podcast @ translash [dot] org Follow TransLash Media @translashmedia on TikTok, Instagram, Threads, Bluesky, and Facebook.Follow Imara Jones on Instagram (@Imara_jones_), Threads (@imara_jones_), Bluesky (@imarajones.bsky.social), X (@ImaraJones)Check out our guest on social media:@chasestrangio Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Get ready for the February 2026 Georgia Bar Exam with my wildcard essay predictions! In this episode, I'm focusing on two subjects that could surprise test-takers: Constitutional Law and Remedies. For Constitutional Law, I break down the testing patterns from recent Georgia bar exams and explain why I think Equal Protection Clause and Commerce Clause (including takings) are prime candidates. I walk through the historical testing dates and show you exactly which past questions to review in the Bar Exam Drills app, skipping the religion-focused questions from recent exams that are less likely to repeat. On the Remedies front, I'm predicting a crossover question with either Contracts or Property. I dive into specific performance, unique items (remember those special orange carrots from law school?), injunctive relief, and contract damages. Using the app, I trace through the pattern of remedies questions from 2016 through 2019 to show you why this makes sense as a wildcard topic. This isn't about predicting every possible essay—it's about identifying the topics that could catch you off guard. I'm calling these wildcards because the patterns and timing suggest they're due to appear. Study smart by focusing on these specific areas, and you'll be better prepared than most test-takers walking into that exam room. Download Bar Exam Drills to access all the past Georgia essay questions I reference in this video, organized by subject and date. Leave a comment below to discuss these predictions or share your own thoughts on what might appear. Good luck on your February 2026 Georgia Bar Exam!

This Day in Legal History: Bush v. GoreOn December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Bush v. Gore, effectively ending the Florida recount and resolving the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. The per curiam opinion held that the Florida Supreme Court's method for ordering a manual recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment due to inconsistent standards across counties. The Court also ruled that there was not enough time to implement a constitutionally valid recount before the deadline for certifying electors.The decision was one of the most controversial in the Court's history. It was split 5-4 along ideological lines, with the majority—led by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor—arguing that allowing the recount to continue would irreparably harm Bush. The dissent, written by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter, criticized the majority for intervening in a state election process and undermining public confidence in judicial neutrality.The ruling effectively awarded Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush, giving him 271 electoral votes—one more than needed to win the presidency—despite losing the national popular vote to Al Gore. The case remains a flashpoint in debates over judicial activism, the politicization of the courts, and the role of federal courts in state election matters. It also raised enduring questions about election integrity and the limits of judicial power in resolving political disputes.The watchdog group American Oversight filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Commerce and Justice Departments, demanding records of legal arrangements between the Trump administration and nine major law firms. The group had submitted eight Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in October seeking details about agreements in which the firms pledged to provide nearly $940 million in pro bono or discounted legal services to the federal government. After receiving inadequate responses, the group took legal action to compel the release of any related contracts, communications, or internal legal analyses.The agreements were announced by Trump earlier in the year on social media, shortly after he issued executive orders targeting law firms for their previous political and diversity-related work. American Oversight is particularly concerned about whether the deals were transparent and whether they might have influenced government policy or enforcement decisions. Several firms—Kirkland & Ellis, Paul Weiss, Simpson Thacher, and Skadden Arps—were reported to have been involved in trade matters or other projects with the administration. None of the firms or the agencies responded to requests for comment.This lawsuit follows a similar legal action by Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute, which alleged in October that related federal record requests had been improperly denied. Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers have also asked several of the firms to explain their government work, but the firms declined, citing client confidentiality and discretion in matter selection.Trump administration sued for records of law firm deals | ReutersA federal judge blocked a renewed attempt by immigration authorities to detain Kilmar Abrego, just one day after his court-ordered release from ICE custody in Pennsylvania. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had previously ordered Abrego's temporary release, but an immigration judge quickly issued a new directive requiring him to report back to detention by the following morning. In response, Abrego's attorneys filed an emergency request to stop the re-detention, which Xinis granted.In her ruling, Judge Xinis emphasized that judicial decisions must be respected and cannot be reversed hastily without due process. Abrego's case has drawn national attention, serving as a high-profile example of what critics view as the Trump administration's heavy-handed immigration enforcement tactics. Originally deported in March to El Salvador under disputed circumstances, Abrego was returned to the U.S. in June to face charges related to human smuggling.Supporters argue his case reflects serious due process violations, while administration officials have maintained he poses a public safety risk. The legal tug-of-war over Abrego's detention has become emblematic of broader legal and political conflicts surrounding immigration enforcement and civil liberties under the Trump administration.Judge blocks new effort to detain Kilmar Abrego | ReutersA federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration acted unlawfully when it attempted to terminate a FEMA program designed to help states prepare for natural disasters. U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns sided with a coalition of 20 mostly Democratic-led states, finding that the administration overstepped its authority by trying to cancel the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and redirect its funds elsewhere without congressional approval.The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees FEMA, had labeled the program wasteful and politically driven when it moved to end it in April. Judge Stearns rejected that rationale, emphasizing that Congress—not the executive branch—has the power to decide how federal funds are spent. He previously issued an order in August blocking FEMA from diverting more than $4 billion in BRIC funding. In this latest decision, he ordered the program reinstated and required FEMA to take immediate steps to undo its termination.Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell praised the ruling, stating it would save lives by preserving funding for critical infrastructure improvements meant to prevent disaster-related harm. The Department of Homeland Security, in contrast, denied that it had ended BRIC and accused the court of siding with a politicized narrative, claiming the program had been misused by the Biden administration.Since its launch, BRIC has approved over $4.5 billion in grants for nearly 2,000 disaster mitigation projects, many located in vulnerable coastal states. The lawsuit, led by states like Washington and Massachusetts, argued that canceling the program delayed or canceled hundreds of vital community projects aimed at reducing disaster risk.Trump administration unlawfully canceled disaster prevention program, US judge rules | ReutersPresident Trump announced an executive order threatening to withhold federal broadband funding from states with AI regulations deemed obstructive to national technological dominance. The order targets state-level laws that the administration argues create a fragmented, burdensome environment for AI innovation, particularly for startups. Trump emphasized the need for a single, centralized regulatory system, positioning the U.S. to compete more aggressively with China in the AI sector.The order authorizes the Commerce Department to review state AI laws and restrict access to the $42 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment fund for non-compliant states. It also criticizes anti-discrimination measures in states like Colorado, claiming such laws inject “ideological bias” into AI development. While the administration supports certain safeguards, such as child protection, it aims to dismantle what it sees as excessive oversight.Critics argue the move undermines state authority and risks public safety. Representative Don Beyer warned the order violates the 10th Amendment and discourages meaningful congressional action. State leaders from both parties have defended their right to regulate AI, citing the federal government's inaction on tech legislation. States like New York, California, and Florida have already enacted laws addressing AI's risks, from data transparency to deepfake bans.Trump threatens funding for states over AI regulations | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Abigail Leahey and her classmates.This week, we are proud to present a performance of singular clarity, youthful ambition, and the product of more than a little bit of dedicated practice: The First Scale March, recorded live on December 10th at a school Winter Concert. Its thematic simplicity belies its pedagogical complexity: it is equal parts warm-up and war cry. The holidays are upon us.The featured artist, Abigail, is one of several violins. She was born in New Jersey in 2014 and has been defying expectations and delighting her family ever since. A gifted writer, illustrator, softball player, and—crucially—violinist, she began studying the instrument in earnest in early 2025. In a bold display of ambidextrous courage, she agreed to learn the instrument right-handed.Abigail's musical sensibility combines the raw urgency of a student recital with the unmistakable rhythmic intensity of a group trying very hard to play the same tempo at the same time. Her phrasing evokes a deep respect for the discipline of practice; she has come a long way—and is still going.We are honored to showcase this piece as a representative work from a performer at the dawn of her musical journey, backed by a supporting cast of equally determined string players. With hearts full and bows raised, they march forward—one note at a time. 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 Intervenes in 2000 Presidential ElectionOn this day in legal history, December 9, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened in the presidential election with a pivotal order in Bush v. Gore. The Court issued a 5-4 decision to halt the manual recount of ballots in Florida, which had been ordered by the Florida Supreme Court due to the razor-thin margin between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The justices cited potential violations of the Equal Protection Clause, expressing concern that differing standards across counties for evaluating ballots could lead to unequal treatment of voters.The per curiam order did not decide the case outright but signaled deep skepticism about the recount process, effectively pausing it while the Court considered broader constitutional questions. This stay was the first significant sign that the nation's highest court might ultimately decide the outcome of the 2000 election. Three days later, the Court would issue its final ruling, effectively awarding Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush and securing his presidency.The December 9 order was controversial not only for its impact on the election but for its constitutional implications. Critics argued the Court had overstepped by interfering in a state-managed election process, while supporters claimed it was necessary to ensure legal consistency and fairness. The episode raised enduring questions about the judiciary's role in democratic governance and electoral integrity.The Court's use of the Equal Protection Clause in this context was novel and has rarely been invoked in similar cases since. The justices themselves noted that the ruling was limited to the specific circumstances of the 2000 election. Nevertheless, the decision left a lasting mark on American law and politics, serving as a stark example of how constitutional interpretation can intersect with high-stakes political conflict.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a major challenge to federal campaign finance limits in a case involving Vice President JD Vance and two Republican political committees. The case targets restrictions on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates they support, with plaintiffs arguing that these limits violate the First Amendment's free speech protections. The legal challenge stems from a 2022 lawsuit filed while Vance was running for Senate in Ohio.At issue are “coordinated party expenditure limits” under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which differentiates between independent spending (unlimited) and coordinated spending (restricted). The challengers argue that the current rules unconstitutionally restrict political speech by capping how much support a party can directly offer its candidates. In contrast, Roman Martinez, appointed by the Court to defend the law after the Trump-aligned FEC declined to do so, argues that without these limits, parties could act as loopholes for donors to evade individual contribution caps—raising corruption risks.A lower court upheld the law, citing a 2001 Supreme Court precedent, but the challengers now argue that subsequent changes in campaign finance law—especially since Citizens United—warrant a reassessment. Three Democratic campaign committees have joined the case to defend the law, represented by attorney Marc Elias. The outcome could significantly reshape the balance between campaign finance regulation and political speech, especially in high-stakes federal elections.US Supreme Court weighs challenge to campaign spending curbs in JD Vance case | ReutersMassachusetts is taking legal action to block Kalshi, a prediction-market platform, from allowing residents to bet on sports outcomes, arguing the company is operating as an unlicensed gambling business. Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell is seeking a preliminary injunction in state court to stop Kalshi's operations in Massachusetts, marking the first time a U.S. state has pursued a court order against the platform. At least nine other states have issued cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, but none have yet gone this far.Kalshi offers users the ability to buy “event contracts” on the outcomes of various occurrences—including sporting events—through a platform regulated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The company maintains that its activities are legal under federal law, claiming its contracts are financial derivatives (swaps), not wagers, and thus fall outside the scope of state gambling laws.Massachusetts disagrees, alleging that Kalshi is effectively offering sports betting to users, including individuals as young as 18—below the state's legal betting age of 21. The case highlights a growing tension between federal financial regulation and state-level gambling laws. Kalshi's position has already faced judicial setbacks: federal judges in Nevada and Maryland have ruled that state gambling laws apply to Kalshi's operations, though those decisions are under appeal. Meanwhile, the company has pending legal challenges against other states, including New York and Connecticut.Massachusetts seeks to block Kalshi from operating sports-prediction market | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against the Loudoun County School Board in Virginia, challenging its policy that allows transgender students to use locker rooms aligned with their gender identity. The DOJ claims the policy violates the constitutional rights of religious students who object to “gender ideology,” framing the case as a denial of equal protection rooted in religious freedom concerns. This lawsuit is part of a broader push by the Trump administration to roll back transgender-inclusive policies in schools, sports, and the military.The Loudoun County school board has maintained its gender policy despite federal pressure, citing prior court rulings supporting the rights of transgender students to use facilities aligned with their identity. Critics, including state officials, claim the school has retaliated against students and parents who objected to the policy, particularly in cases involving locker room complaints.The case represents a new front in an escalating legal and political campaign to police gender expression and access, using constitutional arguments around religion and sex-based rights to challenge trans inclusion in public spaces. This comes amid a broader moral panic over gender identity, echoing the structure and rhetoric of the 1980s satanic panic—but with even more tangible consequences, especially for already marginalized transgender youth. While the panic of that earlier era was rooted in fabricated threats, today's version is targeting real people, shaping policies that affect their education, safety, and public presence.US Justice Department sues Virginia school board over transgender use of locker rooms | ReutersIn my latest column for Bloomberg Tax, I argue that Texas' new sales tax sourcing rules expose the shaky logic behind decades of municipal incentives for fulfillment centers—and offer a timely reason to abandon the practice altogether. The recent revision to Rule 3.334 by the Texas Comptroller clarifies that a location must actively receive customer orders—not merely fulfill them—to count as a “place of business” for local tax purposes. That change has triggered a lawsuit from the City of Coppell and other Texas municipalities, who now stand to lose out on lucrative sales tax revenue tied to online commerce routed through local warehouses.But regardless of the lawsuit's outcome, I believe the real issue is the flawed economic development model these cities have been relying on. For years, under Chapter 380 agreements, municipalities handed out infrastructure upgrades and tax rebates to lure backend logistics operations with promises of rising sales tax revenue. Yet these facilities, often low-wage, temporary, and increasingly automated, were never a strong foundation for community growth. Their value was always tied to creative interpretations of tax code language—not meaningful employment or local investment.Now that the tax arbitrage game is falling apart, municipalities should see this as an opportunity to rethink their approach. I argue for redirecting public resources toward workforce development, technical training, and support for regionally rooted industries—investments that actually build capacity, not just capture transactional flows. If a city's financial health depends on how an e-commerce order is defined in the tax code, that's not economic development—it's dependence.Texas Sales Tax Sourcing Fight Is More Reason to Drop Incentives 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

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

This Day in Legal History: Rosa Parks ArrestedOn December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama, for refusing to surrender her seat to a white passenger on a segregated city bus. Parks, a 42-year-old Black seamstress and longtime activist, had been sitting in the “colored” section when the driver demanded she move. Her quiet but firm defiance violated local segregation laws, which mandated racial separation in public transportation and required Black passengers to yield seats to white passengers when buses became crowded. Parks' arrest became a catalyst for the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a coordinated campaign to end racial segregation on public transit.The boycott began four days later, organized by the Montgomery Improvement Association, with a then-unknown Martin Luther King Jr. as its president. It lasted over a year, during which thousands of Black residents refused to use the city's buses, severely impacting the transit system's finances. The protest was not only a powerful act of collective resistance but also a carefully structured legal challenge. Civil rights attorneys, including Fred Gray, filed a federal lawsuit—Browder v. Gayle—on behalf of several Black women who had experienced bus segregation.In November 1956, the federal district court ruled that Montgomery's segregated bus system was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision, and on December 20, 1956, the boycott officially ended when the Court's ruling was implemented. Rosa Parks' arrest and the movement it sparked marked a turning point in the American civil rights struggle. Her individual act of resistance ignited a mass movement and set the stage for future legal and social change.The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a key copyright case today involving Cox Communications and several major record labels, including Sony, Warner, and Universal. The case centers on whether Cox can be held financially liable for allegedly enabling its users to illegally download music. A jury originally awarded the labels $1 billion in 2019 after finding Cox secondarily liable for over 10,000 copyright infringements, but the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed part of that decision, leading to a retrial on damages.Cox argues it shouldn't be held accountable for users' actions, warning that a ruling against it could force ISPs to terminate internet access for entire households or public institutions over alleged piracy. The company claims it reasonably handled piracy reports and criticized the notion that it failed to act. In contrast, the labels accuse Cox of ignoring thousands of infringement notices and protecting profitable repeat offenders while readily cutting off nonpaying customers.Big tech companies like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft have sided with Cox, suggesting that a ruling for the labels could harm the internet economy. Meanwhile, the Trump administration—represented by Solicitor General John Sauer—is supporting Cox's view that merely knowing about piracy isn't enough to establish liability. Industry groups in music, film, and publishing back the labels, arguing that Cox's stance threatens collaborative anti-piracy efforts. The Supreme Court's decision could reshape how ISPs respond to copyright violations.US Supreme Court to hear copyright dispute between Cox and record labels | ReutersFollowing a deadly shooting in Washington, D.C., involving an Afghan immigrant accused of killing a National Guard member, President Donald Trump has intensified efforts to restrict legal immigration. Within 48 hours of the attack, Trump paused Afghan immigration applications, launched a review of asylum approvals from the Biden era, and hinted at expanded vetting under his existing travel ban targeting 19 countries. These moves revive and build upon restrictive immigration policies from Trump's first term, now framed as necessary for national security.Critics argue the administration is exploiting a tragic but isolated incident to justify sweeping immigration rollbacks. Afghan advocacy groups stressed that Afghan immigrants undergo extensive vetting and should not be broadly blamed. While Trump and top officials suggested large-scale reforms—like ending federal benefits for non-citizens and denaturalizing those deemed a threat—federal agencies have so far announced more limited actions, such as case reviews for applicants from travel-ban countries.Legal experts warn that some of the proposed policies, including denying welfare to lawful residents and mass denaturalization, would likely be ruled unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the administration is signaling an aggressive stance, despite polls showing declining public approval of Trump's immigration policies. Meanwhile, Democrats accuse Trump of targeting law-abiding immigrants and using fear-based tactics for political gain.Trump sharpens focus on legal immigration after National Guard shooting | ReutersA federal judge's decision to ban generative AI from his chambers after an intern used it in a flawed court opinion has sparked debate over how technology should be used in the legal system. Judge Julien Neals of New Jersey attributed the error in a June ruling to a law student who used AI in violation of their school's policy, prompting Neals to prohibit AI use entirely among his staff. His response to Senator Chuck Grassley drew concern from legal academics and judges who argue that banning AI outright may be shortsighted.Proponents of AI in the judiciary say the technology, if used responsibly, could reduce case backlogs and improve efficiency amid staffing shortages. Judge Xavier Rodriguez of Texas ran an experiment comparing traditional opinion writing with AI-assisted drafting, showing significant time savings without sacrificing quality. He and others advocate for structured AI use, emphasizing vetting, fact-checking, and clear protocols to preserve judicial integrity.Magistrate Judge Allison Goddard and law professors like David Kemp suggest that instead of bans, institutions should focus on teaching students ethical and effective AI use. With many law students already accustomed to using generative AI, schools are scrambling to develop policies and training. Some institutions, like the University of Chicago Law School, have embraced AI integration, while others lag behind. The incident in Judge Neals' courtroom has become a wake-up call for courts and law schools to align on responsible AI use in legal education and practice.Judges' AI Blunders Spark Debate on Technology Use in CourtsLuigi Mangione, accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in a high-profile shooting outside a Manhattan hotel, appeared in court today for key pretrial hearings. The 27-year-old, arrested in December 2024, has pleaded not guilty to murder and multiple related charges in both state and federal cases. The hearings will determine whether crucial evidence—including a 3-D printed gun, silencer, and journal writings found in Mangione's backpack—can be used at trial. His defense argues that the items were obtained through an illegal search during his arrest in Pennsylvania and that statements he made to police should also be excluded.Prosecutors dispute those claims and are seeking to admit the materials, which they argue implicate Mangione in the killing. Mangione, who has gained a controversial following among critics of the U.S. healthcare system, faces life in prison if convicted of second-degree murder. In a separate federal case, prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty. Earlier in September, two terrorism charges were dismissed after a judge ruled there was insufficient evidence Mangione intended to intimidate healthcare workers or influence government policy.The hearings, overseen by Judge Gregory Carro, are expected to last through the week and include testimony from arresting officers. No trial date has yet been set, and Mangione remains in federal custody in Brooklyn.Luigi Mangione due in court for pretrial hearings over US healthcare executive's killing | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Anna Lange, an employee with the Houston County Sheriff’s Office, sought “male-to-female sex change surgery.” The county’s employer-provided health insurance policy covered some treatments for gender dysphoria, but it excluded drugs, services, and supplies for a “sex-change” (among other categories). Lange sued, claiming the policy discriminated based on sex and transgender status in violation of Title VII. The district court, affirmed by an Eleventh Circuit panel, held that the policy facially violated Title VII under Bostock v. Clayton County. On rehearing en banc, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the county’s policy, which drew a line between which treatments it covers, “is not facial discrimination based on protected status.”Lange v. Houston County, decided on September 9, 2025, is one of the first circuit court decisions to apply the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which held that Tennessee’s law prohibiting healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to transition a minor's gender did not discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Join Christopher Mills and Rachel Morrison for a discussion of Lange, its application of Skrmetti and Bostock, and its implications for Title VII and insurance coverage.Featuring:Christopher E. Mills, Principal, Spero Law LLC(Moderator) Rachel N. Morrison, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

In this episode of The Sober Gay Guy Podcast, host TJ shares personal updates following his recent surgery, discusses holiday preparations, and reflects on current events affecting the community. He touches on the importance of consistency in personal growth, community engagement through food donations, and mental health awareness. The episode also includes a review of Guillermo del Toro's Frankenstein and a heartfelt thank you to veterans.Q: Do governments workers and military get back pay after a government shutdown?A: Yes, government employees are legally guaranteed back pay for work missed during a government shutdown, as established by the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019. This applies to both furloughed employees and those who are "excepted" and work without pay during the shutdown. The pay is provided once the shutdown has ended and is at the employee's standard rateKim Davis defied a US court order when she denied marriage license to same sex couples in August of 2015.Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Movie: Frankenstein: A film by Guillermo DelToro Available in theaters & on NetflixBook: The deep magic of daily Consistency By: Robin Sharma Available as an audiobooks, paperback & hardcoverFood Pantry: Beyond Hunger Food Pantry: gobeyondhunger.orgCurrent Book: The Prophet: Kahlil Gibran Available in paperback & hardcover

This Day in Legal History: 2000 Presidential ElectionOn November 7, 2000, the United States held a presidential election that would evolve into one of the most significant legal showdowns in American history. The race between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore came down to a razor-thin margin in Florida, where just hundreds of votes separated the two candidates. Under state law, the closeness of the vote triggered an automatic machine recount. What followed was a legal and political firestorm involving punch-card ballots, partially detached chads, and controversial ballot designs like the “butterfly ballot,” which some argued led to voter confusion.Litigation quickly erupted in Florida state courts, with both campaigns fighting over recount procedures and ballot validity. Central to the legal debate was whether Florida counties could use different standards in determining voter intent during manual recounts. The legal issues raised tested interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause and the boundaries of state versus federal authority in managing elections. Amid national uncertainty and media frenzy, the dispute reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.On December 12, 2000, the Court issued a 5–4 decision halting the Florida recount, citing equal protection concerns due to inconsistent recount standards across counties. The ruling effectively secured Florida's 25 electoral votes for Bush, granting him the presidency despite losing the national popular vote. The decision was criticized by many for its perceived partisanship and for explicitly stating it should not be viewed as precedent. It remains one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases in modern history.The legal battles following the November 7 election exposed deep vulnerabilities in U.S. election infrastructure and prompted calls for reform, including updating voting technology and clarifying recount laws. The case continues to shape discussions around judicial involvement in elections, federalism, and democratic legitimacy.A federal judge is expected to rule on whether President Donald Trump violated the law by deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon to suppress protests. The case, brought by Oregon's attorney general and the City of Portland, challenges the legality of Trump's domestic military deployment under emergency powers, with broader implications for similar plans in other Democrat-led cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington D.C.U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who already issued a temporary order blocking the deployment, will now decide if that block should become permanent. The central legal question is whether the Portland protests legally constituted a rebellion, which is one of the few conditions under which federal troops may be used domestically.The Justice Department argued the deployment was justified, citing violence at a federal immigration facility and describing Portland as “war-ravaged.” Defense attorneys for Oregon and Portland countered that most protests were peaceful and that any violence was limited and contained by local authorities.A Reuters review revealed 32 federal charges tied to the protests, mostly for assaulting federal officers. Only a few resulted in serious charges or potential prison time.This case marks a significant test of civil-military boundaries and the limits of presidential emergency powers, and may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.Judge to rule on Trump's Portland troop deployment | ReutersSean Charles Dunn, a former Justice Department employee, was acquitted of misdemeanor assault by a federal jury in Washington, D.C., after a high-profile trial over an incident in which he threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer during a 2025 protest. The case, which gained viral attention, stemmed from an August 10 altercation during President Trump's law enforcement surge in the capital. Video footage showed Dunn yelling at officers and then throwing the sandwich, which reportedly splattered mustard and left onion on the officer's equipment.The jury deliberated for about seven hours over two days before finding Dunn not guilty under a statute that criminalizes assaulting or interfering with federal officers. Prosecutors argued the sandwich throw interfered with official duties, while Dunn's defense contended it caused no injury and was symbolic, intended to divert law enforcement from what Dunn feared was an impending immigration raid at a nearby LGBTQ+ nightclub. The CBP officer testified the sandwich left minor messes but no harm, and later received humorous gifts from coworkers related to the incident, which the defense used to downplay its seriousness.The verdict is another setback for the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office, which has struggled to secure convictions in protest-related cases stemming from Trump enforcement policies. Dunn, who had been fired from the DOJ shortly after the incident, expressed relief and said he believed his actions defended immigrant rights. The presiding judge denied a defense motion to dismiss the case mid-trial but ultimately left the decision to the jury, which rejected the prosecution's claim that the act met the legal threshold for assault.Sandwich Hurler Acquitted of Assault Charge in Viral DC Case (2)U.S. District Judge John McConnell ordered the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits (food aid) for 42 million low-income Americans by Friday, rejecting the administration's plan to issue reduced payments during the ongoing government shutdown. McConnell sharply criticized the administration for what he described as using food aid as a political weapon, and warned of irreparable harm if full benefits were not provided, including hunger and overwhelmed food pantries.The USDA had initially planned to suspend benefits entirely in November due to a lack of congressional funding. It later proposed covering only 65% of benefits using limited contingency funds—an option McConnell said was inadequate and failed to address administrative challenges, such as outdated state computer systems unable to process reduced payments. Some states estimated it would take days to weeks to reconfigure their systems for partial payouts.McConnell said the administration should instead use a $23.35 billion tariff fund—previously used for child nutrition—to fully fund November benefits. His ruling followed a related case in Boston, where another judge also found that the government was legally obligated to use available emergency funds to keep food aid flowing.The Trump administration appealed the ruling and blamed Senate Democrats for blocking a funding bill that would end the shutdown. Vice President J.D. Vance criticized the court's decision as “absurd,” framing it as interference in a political stalemate.Trump administration must fully fund food aid benefits by Friday, US judge rules | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.This week marks the anniversary of the death of Tchaikovsky, who passed away on November 6, 1893 according to the Gregorian calendar—November 7 on the Julian calendar still used in Russia at the time. His death, just days after the premiere of his Sixth Symphony (Pathétique), remains a subject of speculation and sorrow in classical music history. In honor of that date, we're closing the week with one of his earlier and more intimate works: the String Quartet No. 1 in D Major, Op. 11.Composed in 1871, the quartet was Tchaikovsky's first major chamber piece and reflects his growing confidence outside the orchestral realm. Though best known for sweeping ballets and symphonies, here Tchaikovsky demonstrates a delicate sense of form and emotional restraint. The second movement, “Andante cantabile,” became especially beloved—Leo Tolstoy reportedly wept when he heard it performed.Unlike his dramatic orchestral works, this quartet offers a quiet depth, full of folk-inspired melodies and lyrical interplay between the instruments. It balances elegance with melancholy, a quality that would come to define much of his later music. Tchaikovsky himself cherished the piece, often arranging and revisiting it throughout his career. The “Andante cantabile” was even played at his own memorial.As we mark November 7, it's fitting to reflect on the more introspective side of a composer whose life and death still stir emotion more than a century later. Tchaikovsky's String Quartet No. 1 doesn't shout—it speaks gently, as if in conversation, and in that quiet voice, it endures.Without further ado, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's String Quartet No. 1 in D Major, Op. 11 – 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

This Day in Legal History: John Jay First SCOTUSOn November 6, 1789, John Jay was sworn in as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the development of the federal judiciary. Appointed by President George Washington, Jay was a prominent figure in the American founding, having co-authored The Federalist Papers and served as President of the Continental Congress. His confirmation by the Senate came just weeks after the Judiciary Act of 1789 formally established the structure of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. At the time of his appointment, the Court held limited power and prestige, lacking even a permanent home or a defined role within the balance of government.Jay's tenure as Chief Justice lasted from 1789 to 1795 and was characterized more by circuit riding—traveling to preside over lower federal courts—than by Supreme Court rulings. Nonetheless, he helped lay the procedural and institutional groundwork for the Court's future authority. One of his few significant decisions came in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which asserted that states could be sued in federal court, a holding that was quickly overturned by the Eleventh Amendment. Jay also took on diplomatic duties, most notably negotiating the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794, which aimed to resolve lingering tensions from the Revolutionary War.Though his judicial legacy on the bench was modest, Jay's influence as the Court's inaugural leader was crucial in legitimizing the judiciary as a coequal branch of government. He later declined a reappointment to the position in 1800, citing the Court's lack of power and institutional independence. The role of Chief Justice would eventually evolve into a central force in constitutional interpretation, but it was Jay who first gave the office its shape. This milestone in legal history underscores the slow and deliberate construction of American judicial authority, which did not arrive fully formed but was built case by case, institution by institution.The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, a case that raises major constitutional and statutory questions about the scope of presidential power—particularly in the context of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At the heart of the dispute is whether the word “regulate” in IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The case touches on foundational issues in constitutional law, including statutory interpretation, the nondelegation doctrine, emergency powers, and the “major questions” doctrine. The Court must assess not just what the statute says, but also how to interpret the silence—IEEPA never mentions “tariffs” or “taxes”—in light of Congress's constitutional power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce.From a textualist standpoint, the omission of “tariffs” suggests Congress did not intend to delegate that taxing authority to the executive. From a purposivist view, the debate turns on whether Congress meant to arm the president with broad economic tools to respond to emergencies or to narrowly limit those powers to national security concerns. Additional arguments center on legislative history and the principle of avoiding surplusage, as opponents claim interpreting “regulate” to include “tariff” would render other statutes that explicitly mention tariffs redundant.The nondelegation doctrine also plays a key role. If IEEPA is read to permit the president to impose tariffs, critics argue it may represent an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power—particularly taxing power—absent a clear “intelligible principle” to guide executive discretion. The Court is also being asked to consider whether the president's determination of an “emergency” under IEEPA is reviewable and whether actions taken in response to such emergencies must still adhere to constitutional limits. The outcome of this case could significantly redefine the boundary between congressional authority and executive power in trade and economic policy.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5, 2025, in a case challenging President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had exceeded his authority by bypassing Congress to enact tariffs, which are traditionally under legislative control. The legal debate centered on whether IEEPA's grant of authority to “regulate importation” includes the power to impose long-term tariffs, and whether doing so constitutes a “major question” requiring explicit congressional authorization.Chief Justice John Roberts, among others, expressed concern that Trump's use of IEEPA effectively allowed the executive to impose taxes—a core congressional function. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether there was any precedent for interpreting “regulate importation” as tariff-imposing authority, while Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that IEEPA was designed to limit, not expand, presidential power. Some conservative justices, like Brett Kavanaugh, were more receptive, referencing historical precedents like Nixon's use of similar powers.The administration argued the tariffs were necessary to respond to trade deficits and national security threats and warned that removing them could lead to economic harm. But critics, including business representatives and Democratic-led states, warned of a dangerous shift in power toward the executive. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested such an interpretation of IEEPA could permanently shift trade powers away from Congress, violating constitutional checks and balances.Lawyer for Trump faces tough Supreme Court questions over legality of tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Senate confirmed Eric Tung to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 52-45 party-line vote, making him President Donald Trump's sixth appellate court appointee in his second term. Tung, a former federal prosecutor and Justice Department lawyer, most recently worked at Jones Day, where he focused on commercial litigation and frequently represented cryptocurrency interests. His confirmation came over the objections of California's Democratic senators, who criticized his past statements and writings on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gender roles.Tung has been a vocal legal advocate for controversial positions, including support for the independent state legislature theory and the argument that stablecoin sales fall outside SEC regulation. While he pledged to follow Supreme Court precedent, critics raised concerns about his originalist approach to constitutional rights. He faced intense scrutiny during his confirmation hearings for remarks made at a Federalist Society event and earlier in life, including statements about gender roles that drew fire from Senator Alex Padilla.Despite these concerns, Tung's legal career earned strong endorsements from colleagues and conservative legal allies. He clerked for Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch and has experience handling judicial nominations from within DOJ. Tung fills the seat vacated by Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, a fellow conservative, ensuring ideological continuity on the Ninth Circuit.Former DOJ, Jones Day Lawyer Confirmed as Ninth Circuit JudgeThe California Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom, seeking to block the implementation of new congressional maps approved by voters just a day earlier via Proposition 50. The measure, backed by Newsom and passed by wide margins, suspends the state's independent redistricting commission and installs a Democratic-leaning map that could endanger five Republican-held congressional seats. Newsom has framed the move as a direct response to Texas' mid-cycle redistricting, which is expected to boost Republican power in the 2026 midterms.The GOP lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, argues that the new maps violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as the primary factor in redrawing districts to favor Hispanic voters. The plaintiffs, represented by attorney Mike Columbo of the Dhillon Law Group, claim the state legislature lacked sufficient justification to use race in this way and failed to meet the legal standards required under the Voting Rights Act.Republicans also contend that Proposition 50 diminishes the political voice of non-Hispanic groups and constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The suit, Tangipa v. Newsom, is backed by the National Republican Congressional Committee and includes Republican lawmakers and candidates as plaintiffs. It mirrors legal challenges in Texas, where courts are evaluating claims of racial bias in redistricting. The outcome of these cases could significantly affect congressional control heading into the latter half of President Trump's second term.California Republicans Sue to Block New Congressional Maps (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we tackle the Supreme Court battle over Louisiana's redistricting and its far-reaching implications for voting rights. Host Jessica Levinson and NPR's Hansi Lo Wang unpack the legal fight over Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, explaining how redistricting shapes the power of racial minorities and the future of partisan gerrymandering. Join us as we break down what's at stake for Congress, the states, and the promise of equal representation.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Redistricting = Real Voting Power: How district lines are drawn can dramatically dilute or amplify your vote. Redistricting is a complex, often opaque process with huge, tangible consequences for representation.Supreme Court Decisions Have National Impact: The outcome of Louisiana's case (and similar cases) could directly affect minority representation in Congress and potentially lock in partisan advantages for years to come.Tension Between Race & Partisan Politics: The debate isn't just about protecting minority voters. The Court is grappling with whether racial considerations in redistricting are required or unconstitutional, especially since partisan gerrymandering is now out of reach for federal courts.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson welcomes Jan Wolfe of Reuters to break down a major Supreme Court case that could reshape voting rights nationwide. They discuss how a challenge to Louisiana's congressional map escalated into a broader attack on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—one of the remaining federal protections against racial discrimination in voting. Jan and Jessica unravel the complexities of the case, the Supreme Court's skepticism, and the potential consequences: from narrowing how race can be considered in redistricting, to making it much harder to bring successful claims under Section 2. The episode also takes a look at other high-profile cases on the Supreme Court's docket, including questions of executive power and social issues, highlighting the legal and political stakes at play this term.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is at a crossroads:Following the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby County decision (which gutted Section 5 preclearance provisions), Section 2 remains the primary tool to challenge racially discriminatory voting practices. This case could either hobble or maintain its effectiveness, depending on how the justices rule.The current dispute reflects broader battles over race and "colorblindness":The case sits at the intersection of redistricting and the recent trend in the Court toward a “colorblind” constitutional interpretation—reminiscent of last year's affirmative action ruling. The outcome could make it significantly harder to prove voting power is being diluted due to race, with huge consequences for minority representation.The Court's decision may have national ripple effects—or remain narrow:While the justices have options ranging from a sweeping redefinition of Section 2 to a narrow ruling specific to Louisiana, the oral arguments showed splintering among conservatives and uncertainty about the ultimate path forward. Watch for possible “off ramps” that limit the case's impact nationally.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing Callais v. Louisiana, a seminal redistricting case that focuses on the constitutionality of the state's congressional map. The court will consider whether Louisiana's creation of a second majority-Black district in 2024 — which was required by the Voting Rights Act — is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and 15th Amendments. John Cusick serves as Assistant Counsel for the Legal Defense Fund, the organization arguing to keep the map as it is. He spoke with WRKF's Report for America Corps Member, Alex Cox, for more.The Symphony Chorus of New Orleans takes audiences on an emotional, musical journey through one of the darkest episodes in human history as it presents Donald McCullough's Holocaust Cantata: Songs from the Camps. The work is based on research of original music sung by those imprisoned in concentration camps. Steven Edwards, music director of the Symphony Chorus of New Orleans, joins us with more.Next Tuesday, Oct. 29, WWNO will host a first-of-its-kind benefit concert. The event will honor contributions in public radio and feature New Orleans musical legends Big Sam's Funky Nation and Stanton Moore. WWNO's development assistant and classical network coordinator, Sara Henegan, tells us what's on deck at the upcoming event.__Today's episode of Louisiana Considered was hosted by Diane Mack. Our managing producer is Alana Schreiber and our assistant producer is Aubry Procell. Our engineer is Garrett Pittman.You can listen to Louisiana Considered Monday through Friday at noon and 7 p.m. It's available on Spotify, the NPR App, and wherever you get your podcasts. Louisiana Considered wants to hear from you! Please fill out our pitch line to let us know what kinds of story ideas you have for our show. And while you're at it, fill out our listener survey! We want to keep bringing you the kinds of conversations you'd like to listen to.Louisiana Considered is made possible with support from our listeners. Thank you!

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we cover the arraignment of former FBI Director James Comey. Host Jessica Levinson explains the charges against Comey and outlines his defense strategies, including claims of vindictive prosecution and challenges to the validity of the prosecutor's appointment. Tune in as Jessica breaks down the legal complexities and what this high-profile case means for the broader landscape of justice.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Challenge to Validity of Appointment: Comey's defense intends to argue that the U.S. attorney who brought the indictment, Lindsey Halligan, may not have been validly appointed. If successful, the charges can't simply be refiled due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.Selective and Vindictive Prosecution Motions: The defense plans to file motions asserting that the prosecution was brought with political animus and lacked objective justification—raising important questions about equal protection and due process under the law.High Bar for Prosecution: To secure a conviction, prosecutors must prove that Comey knowingly made false statements and intentionally obstructed Congress—standards that can be difficult to meet, especially with the complex context and timing of the indictment.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

From May 10, 2024: 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/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the Public Interest is excited to continue In That Case, its third annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. In this episode, host Felicia Ellsworth speaks with WilmerHale Partner Andrew Rhys Davies and Senior Attorney for the ACLU's National LGBTQ and HIV projects Josh Block about United States v. Skrmetti. The case considers whether a Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.Davies and Block unpack the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court's 6–3 ruling, including the international context highlighted in WilmerHale's amicus brief. Block also reflects on the decision's potential impact on future civil rights litigation and its immediate consequences for the transgender community and access to gender-affirming healthcare.

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rules that a South Carolina school must allow a transgender student to use the boys' bathroom despite state law requiring separation by sex. The decision cites Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, sparking pushback from state officials who argue the law protects privacy, safety, and dignity in schools...

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down three major legal developments: the Supreme Court allowing Mississippi's age verification law for social media to take effect while litigation continues, a renewed but unlikely push to overturn the Court's marriage equality decision in Obergefell, and a federal court ruling enabling potential mass firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Jessica explains what these cases mean for our rights and daily lives, highlighting the ongoing balance between state power, individual liberties, and consumer protection.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Supreme Court and Mississippi's Social Media Age Verification Law: The episode opens with a discussion of the Supreme Court's decision to allow Mississippi's new law requiring age verification for children on social media to take effect while legal battles continue. The law mandates social media companies verify users' ages and get parental consent for kids under 18. Supporters claim it protects children from online harms, while critics argue it's vague, intrusive, and may violate the First Amendment.Renewed Push to Overturn Marriage Equality (Obergefell v. Hodges): There's renewed legal activity aimed at overturning the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The case gained attention due to Kim Davis, a former Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, now asking the Supreme Court to revisit the ruling.Trump Administration and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): The final major story discusses a recent court decision paving the way for the Trump administration to pursue mass firings at the CFPB—a federal agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers. Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

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

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

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

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