Podcasts about executive power

# Trump Administration Supreme Court Cases: Week of January 16, 2026Welcome back to Quiet Please. I'm your host, and today we're diving into what's shaping up to be one of the most consequential weeks in recent Supreme Court history. As we head into the final stretch before the Court's April sitting, there are several major cases involving President Donald Trump that could fundamentally reshape American governance and policy for years to come.Let's start with what's happening right now. The Supreme Court is in what experts at SCOTUSblog describe as "maximum overdrive," with ninety-one cases already relisted for consideration and seventeen new cases added just this week. This Friday's conference marks the last real chance for the Court to grant petitions in time for arguments at the April sitting, the final session of this term. That means decisions are coming fast.Now, the Trump administration is front and center in several pivotal cases. According to reporting from the Constitution Center, one of the most immediate cases is Trump v. Cook, which involves the president's attempt to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Cook began her fourteen-year term in 2023, and Trump tried to remove her this year, alleging mortgage fraud from before her appointment. Here's the constitutional tension: the Federal Reserve Act only allows the president to remove board members "for cause." This case will be argued on January twenty-first, just five days from now, and it represents a much smaller preview of the larger question the Court is grappling with in another case, Trump v. Slaughter.That case, heard in December and coming to decision soon, asks whether the president can unilaterally remove members from independent, multi-member federal agencies without statutory cause. If Trump wins, according to legal analysis from Dykema, it would overturn a ninety-year-old precedent established in Humphrey's Executor v. United States. The background here is significant: Trump dismissed FTC officials Alvaro Bedoya and fired Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve, justifying both removals by saying their roles were inconsistent with his administration's policies.But there's more. According to reporting from Axios, the Supreme Court is also preparing to rule on Trump's birthright citizenship executive order in a case called Trump v. Barbara, expected in early 2026. If upheld, this would fundamentally alter the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants, a right that has stood for over a century.Then there's the tariffs case. Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump will determine whether Trump's invocation of a national emergency to impose extensive tariffs on imported goods without congressional approval is constitutional. What's at stake here is enormous. If the Court rules against Trump, the government could be forced to reimburse over one hundred billion dollars in tariffs already collected from businesses and consumers.According to SCOTUSblog, in an interview transcript, Trump himself said he would pursue tariffs through "some other alternative" if the Supreme Court strikes down his current tariffs, showing just how central this issue is to his policy agenda.What makes this moment particularly significant is that Trump has frequently used the Court's emergency docket during his second term to suspend lower court decisions while legal matters unfold. The administration is essentially testing the limits of executive power across multiple fronts simultaneously.These cases represent nothing less than a potential reshaping of the separation of powers, executive authority over independent agencies, the scope of immigration law, and trade policy. Decisions here could determine whether a president can act unilaterally on major policy questions or whether constitutional checks remain in place.Thank you for tuning in today. Come back next week for more as these cases develop. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit quietplease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

As The Electorette returns with a new season, there was only one place to start: the front lines of civil liberties. In this episode, Jen Taylor-Skinner is joined by Deirdre Schifeling, Chief Political & Advocacy Officer at the American Civil Liberties Union, for a wide-ranging and urgent conversation about what Trump's second term really represents—not chaos, but a calculated “shock and awe” strategy designed to overwhelm the law, the courts, and the public. They discuss the ACLU's unprecedented legal response, the escalating attacks on immigrant communities, and why the Supreme Court's upcoming birthright citizenship case could fundamentally redefine what it means to be American. Deirdre also explains how coordinated legal and civic pressure can slow executive overreach, why public engagement still matters in moments like this, and what people can do right now to meaningfully defend civil liberties and the rule of law. Mentioned in this episode: Firewall For Freedom: States Must Safeguard Our Rights Stop ICE's Attack On Our Communities Episode Chapters & Timestamps 00:00 — Season Return & Why the ACLU Now Jen kicks off the new season of The Electorette and explains why beginning with the ACLU is both urgent and necessary. 02:00 — “Shock and Awe” as a Governing Strategy Deirdre Schifeling explains why the current moment isn't chaos, but a deliberate strategy designed to overwhelm the law and civil society. 06:30 — The Scale of the ACLU's Legal Response How the ACLU mobilized immediately—and what it means to file hundreds of legal actions in a single year. 09:30 — Immigration Enforcement, Due Process, and Escalation A look at aggressive immigration tactics, racial profiling, and why conditions may intensify as new funding takes effect. 14:30 — Public Backlash and the Limits of Fear Politics Why demonizing immigrant communities has consequences—and where public resistance is already visible. 18:30 — Are the Courts Holding Up? An assessment of how the judicial system is responding, where it's working, and where the risks remain. 22:30 — Birthright Citizenship and the Supreme Court Test Why the birthright citizenship case is so consequential—and what's at stake for the Constitution if it fails. 28:30 — What Birthright Citizenship Really Means Historical context on why birthright citizenship exists and how it defines American equality. 33:30 — Executive Power and the Role of the Courts How recent court decisions have expanded executive authority—and where guardrails are most needed. 38:30 — What Comes Next for Civil Liberties Looking ahead: where pressure points are likely to emerge and how rights are most vulnerable. 42:30 — Civic Engagement Beyond the Courts How public participation, organizing, and legal advocacy intersect outside electoral politics. 46:30 — The ACLU's “Firewall for Freedom” Strategy How state and local governments can act as safeguards—and what that looks like in practice. 51:30 — What Individuals Can Do Right Now Concrete ways people can support civil liberties, engage locally, and stay involved. 55:30 — Final Thoughts & The Work Ahead Closing reflections on this moment, the long view, and why sustained engagement matters. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tonight on **Habari Live**, we break down two major stories that reveal a dangerous pattern of power, secrecy, and accountability failures — at home and abroad.We begin in **Minnesota**, where state officials say they've been shut out of the investigation into the fatal ICE shooting of **Renee Good**, a 37-year-old mother of three. As a new video contradicts the federal government's account of the shooting, the FBI has taken sole control of the case, blocking state investigators from accessing evidence, interviews, and the scene itself. Protests have erupted, state leaders are demanding answers, and questions about federal overreach are growing louder.Then we turn to **Venezuela**, where decades of U.S. involvement — driven largely by oil and regime-change ambitions — have culminated in a dramatic escalation. We examine the history of American oil dominance, sanctions, failed coups, and the recent military operation that resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro. As U.S. officials openly discuss seizing oil resources and projecting American power “anywhere, anytime,” lawmakers push back, advancing a Senate resolution to block further military action without congressional approval.Throughout the episode, we connect the dots between domestic law enforcement, foreign intervention, war rhetoric, and the erosion of the rule of law — asking a central question:**Who benefits when accountability disappears?**This is *Habari Live*.**News Our Way.**---### **CHAPTER MARKERS (OPTIONAL FOR YOUTUBE)**00:00 – Opening02:15 – ICE Shooting in Minnesota & Federal Blockade12:40 – Video Evidence Contradicts Official Story20:05 – U.S. History in Venezuela & Oil Interests32:10 – Maduro Capture, Oil Seizures & War Powers45:30 – Senate Pushback & Rule of Law55:00 – Final Analysis & Outro---### **HASHTAGS**#HabariLive #ICE #Venezuela #OilWars #WarPowers #Accountability #BreakingNews #NewsOurWay

In TOM CLANCY EXECUTIVE POWER, Kyle is the only survivor of an attack on his team. It was supposed to be a routine mission in a quiet African nation, but now he's being held by the leader of a bloody coup.His father, the President of the United States, is about to discover which is more important to him: the interests of his country or the life of his son?Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/arroe-collins-unplugged-totally-uncut--994165/support.

# Supreme Court's Trump Trials: A Week of Historic Decisions AheadAs we kick off 2026, the Supreme Court is preparing for what could be one of the most consequential months in recent judicial history. Next week, the justices will begin hearing arguments in cases that could fundamentally reshape American law, presidential power, and individual rights. Let me walk you through what's coming and why it matters.The most immediate case hits the core of executive authority. On January 21st, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Trump v. Cook, a case centered on whether President Donald Trump can fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Cook began her fourteen-year term on the board in 2023. Trump attempted to remove her in August, alleging mortgage fraud that occurred before her appointment. Here's the legal tension: the Federal Reserve Act explicitly states that the president can only remove board members for cause. Trump's lawyers argue he should be able to dismiss her freely, while Cook's team contends the removal protections exist for a reason, to insulate the Fed from political pressure.What makes this case historic is its broader implications. According to analysis from Georgetown professor Stephen Vladeck, the Trump administration has filed nineteen shadow docket applications in its first twenty weeks, matching what the entire Biden administration filed over four years. If the Court rules in Trump's favor on the Cook case, it would overturn nearly a century-old precedent protecting independent agency commissioners from arbitrary dismissal. That could reshape how federal agencies operate and their independence from political winds.But the Fed case isn't the only executive power question before the justices. The Supreme Court's January calendar also includes Trump v. Barbara, which will examine whether Trump's executive order eliminating birthright citizenship can stand. This order aims to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants. Such a ruling would overturn protections established by the 14th Amendment that the Court has maintained for over a century. Multiple courts have already temporarily blocked the order's enforcement, signaling serious constitutional concerns.There's also the tariffs case. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump will determine whether Trump can invoke a national emergency to impose extensive tariffs on foreign goods without congressional approval. Trump has called this the most significant case ever. The stakes are enormous. If the Court rules against him, the government might need to reimburse over one hundred billion dollars in tariffs already collected, and Trump's ability to use emergency declarations for economic policy would be severely constrained.Beyond Trump's cases, listeners should know that on January 13th, the Court will hear arguments in cases challenging state bans on transgender students participating in sports that align with their gender identity. These cases raise questions about the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and Title IX protections against sex-based discrimination in education.As these arguments unfold over the coming weeks, decisions are expected before the end of June. The Court's rulings could reshape the balance between presidential power and institutional independence, alter immigration law, transform federal economic policy, and redefine civil rights protections. These aren't abstract legal questions, listeners. They'll affect real people's lives and how American government functions.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more analysis as these historic arguments begin. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Hey there, listeners, buckle up because the Supreme Court's shadow docket has been on fire these past few days, handing President Donald Trump and his administration a string of high-stakes wins in battles over everything from the National Guard to passports and federal spending. Just eight days ago, on December 23, 2025, the Court ruled in Trump v. Illinois, siding against the administration's bid to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Illinois without state consent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence, while Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing the move was essential for national security amid rising unrest in Chicago. The Brennan Center's Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker notes this as one of only five losses for the administration since January, out of 25 emergency decisions, with most favoring Trump at least partially and often with minimal explanation.But don't let that one setback fool you—the Court has been overwhelmingly pro-administration lately. On November 6, the justices greenlit the State Department's policy refusing passports that reflect transgender applicants' gender identity for a certified class of plaintiffs, overruling lower courts in a terse order. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented sharply, warning it tramples civil rights. This fits a pattern: back on October 3 in Noem v. National TPS Alliance, the Court forced the government to release congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds, with Justice Kagan's dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, blasting it as executive overreach. Earlier, September 22's Trump v. Slaughter let the administration dodge discovery demands from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington over DOGE Service materials under the Freedom of Information Act.Rewind a bit further into this whirlwind year, and the shadow docket explodes with immigration clashes. In Noem v. Doe on May 30, the Court allowed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to revoke parole en masse for half a million noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, skipping individual reviews—Justice Jackson dissented alongside Sotomayor. April's Trump v. J.G.G. permitted deportations of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, despite dissents from Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and even partial pushback from Amy Coney Barrett. A.A.R.P. v. Trump on April 19 blocked removals of Venezuelan nationals, a rare check, with Kavanaugh concurring and Alito dissenting.Civil service purges? Check: McMahon v. New York on July 14 okayed firing Department of Education employees, while Trump v. Boyle upheld Trump's power to boot Consumer Product Safety Commission members without cause. Even LGBTQ+ rights took hits, like United States v. Shilling in May letting the Defense Department terminate transgender service members. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker highlights ongoing suits, including a coalition of nonprofits and cities challenging the suspension of November 2025 SNAP benefits—a case that echoes lower court fights like District of Rhode Island's order to fully fund them.Since Inauguration Day, the Supreme Court's emergency docket—mostly Department of Justice filings—has tilted 20-to-5 toward Trump, per SCOTUSblog and Shadow Docket Watch data. Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh often push back against blocks, while the liberal trio fights rearguard actions. As 2025 wraps, two applications still pend, promising more drama.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Send us a textAs Ken Fong and I wrap up another year of 2KENS, we wanted to create space not just to review what happened in 2025, but to reflect on what still matters—and what gives us reason to hope. This year-end conversation is grounded in honesty, but it's also shaped by gratitude: for friendship, for thoughtful listeners, and for the enduring power of dialogue in unsettled times.We revisit the major moments that defined the year—from the inauguration and its ripple effects across government and culture, to global flashpoints in Ukraine and the Middle East, to the economic and political tremors felt here at home. Along the way, Ken and I try to hold two things together: a clear-eyed look at power and policy, and a belief that democratic institutions, civic engagement, and moral imagination are still very much alive.We also note signs of resilience—voters showing up in off-year elections, communities refusing to disengage, and people across the spectrum asking better questions about leadership, accountability, and the common good. Even amid executive overreach, cultural division, and international instability, the story of 2025 is not only about what was broken, but about what endured.This episode is less about having the last word and more about keeping the conversation going. If you're looking for reflection without despair and realism anchored in hope, listen in. SHOW NOTESSupport the showBecome a Patron - Click on the link to learn how you can become a Patron of the show. Thank you! Ken's Substack Page The Podcast Official Site: TheBeachedWhiteMale.com

This is the fifth episode of our ongoing series breaking down the U.S. Constitution.This month, Roman and Elizabeth turn to the rest of Article Two with former CDC director Dr. Tom Frieden, talking about the experience of being a highly trained expert in an inherently political institution within the executive branch. Dr. Frieden was also the New York City Public Health Commissioner under Mayor Bloomberg from 2002 to 2009, and he discusses the difference between running a city and a federal health agency.Elizabeth also explains the constitutional powers and limitations of the presidency, including hiring and firing, impeachment, pardons, and presidential duties—and how President Trump and the current Supreme Court are upending those powers. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of 99% Invisible ad-free and a whole week early. Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A coalition of privacy defenders led by Lex Lumina and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit on February 11 asking a federal court to stop the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from disclosing millions of Americans' private, sensitive information to Elon Musk and his “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). As the federal government is the nation's largest employer, the records held by OPM represent one of the largest collections of sensitive personal data in the country.Is this a big deal? Should we care? Joining Pam today is Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley, an expert in intellectual property, patent law, trademark law, antitrust, the law of robotics and AI, video game law, and remedies. Lemley is of counsel with the law firm Lex Lumina and closely involved in the DOGE case. In this episode, Lemley overviews urgent privacy concerns that led to this lawsuit, laws such as the Privacy Act, and legal next steps for this case. The conversation shifts to the current political landscape, highlighting the unprecedented influence of Silicon Valley, particularly under the Musk administration. Lemley contrasts the agile, authoritative management style of Silicon Valley billionaires with the traditionally slow-moving federal bureaucracy, raising concerns about legality and procedural adherence. The conversation also touches on the demise of the Chevron doctrine and the possible rise of an imperial presidency, drawing parallels between the Supreme Court's and the executive branch's power grabs—and how Lemley's 2022 paper, "The Imperial Supreme Court," predicted the Court's trend towards consolidating power. This episode offers a compelling examination of how technological and corporate ideologies are influencing American law.Links:Mark Lemley >>> Stanford Law page“The Imperial Supreme Court” >>> Stanford Law publication pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) The Rise of Executive Power(00:07:22) Concerns About Data Handling and Privacy(00:08:41) The Impact of Silicon Valley's Ethos on Government(00:14:01) The Musk Administration's Approach(00:18:01) The Role of the Supreme Court(00:24:43) Silicon Valley's Influence on Washington Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

EXECUTIVE POWER AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES Colleague Professor Richard Epstein, Hoover Institution. Epstein discusses a Supreme Court case regarding the President's power to fire members of independent boards like the FTC. He fears Chief Justice Roberts will side with executive power, a move Epstein views as an "unmitigated disaster" that undermines the necessary independence of agencies like the Federal Reserve. NUMBER 14

 In this edition of the State Secrets podcast, we're talking with two men who are carrying one of the most legendary torches in modern thriller history.  Brian Andrews and Jeffrey Wilson are the powerhouse duo behind the tier one series and are the authors of the latest novel in the Tom Clancy, Jack Ryan universe - Executive Power.  Host Suzanne Kelly talks with them about a covert team wiped out in Angola and a high-stakes hostage with action playing out on a global scale, of course.  In other words, all the good stuff. 

Jon Herold works through a wide-ranging December 17 broadcast focused on executive power, economic narratives, and the latest media psyops surrounding the Trump administration. He breaks down President Trump's upcoming Oval Office address, pushing back on online hype while examining what aides say will be an affordability focused agenda tied to housing, healthcare, spending cuts, and executive authority. Jon dives into executive orders, immigration restrictions, market indicators like Bitcoin, gold, and silver, and skepticism around official claims of mass voluntary deportations. A major portion of the show is dedicated to the Susie Wiles Vanity Fair controversy, analyzing how the story is being used to frame Trump's team as chaotic and incompetent, and why similar narratives are being amplified from both legacy media and within MAGA circles. The episode also touches on DOJ and FBI revelations tied to Mar-a-Lago, Jack Smith's testimony, Pentagon command restructuring, and crime data manipulation, emphasizing discernment and emotional discipline in an ongoing information war.

In this episode of J.P. Morgan's Making Sense, Joyce Chang, chair of Global Research, is joined by Sarah Isgur, senior editor at The Dispatch and Supreme Court expert, and Peter Harrell, visiting scholar at Georgetown Law and Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Together, they unpack the Supreme Court cases challenging President Trump's use of executive power, focusing on trade, tariffs and presidential authority over independent agencies and the Federal Reserve Bank. The discussion explores the legal and economic implications of these cases, the evolving balance between Congress and the executive branch and the potential consequences for markets, businesses and governance.   This episode was recorded on November 19, 2025.   This communication is provided for information purposes only. Please visit www.jpmm.com/research/disclosures for important disclosures. JPMorgan Chase & Co. or its affiliates and/or subsidiaries (collectively, J.P. Morgan) normally make a market and trade as principal in securities, other financial products and other asset classes that may be discussed in this communication. This communication has been prepared based upon information from sources believed to be reliable, but J.P. Morgan does not warrant its completeness or accuracy except with respect to any disclosures relative to J.P. Morgan and/or its affiliates and an analyst's involvement with any company (or security, other financial product or other asset class) that may be the subject of this communication. Any opinions and estimates constitute our judgment as of the date of this material and are subject to change without notice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This communication is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. J.P. Morgan Research does not provide individually tailored investment advice. Any opinions and recommendations herein do not take into account individual circumstances, objectives, or needs and are not intended as recommendations of particular securities, financial instruments or strategies. You must make your own independent decisions regarding any securities, financial instruments or strategies mentioned or related to the information herein. Periodic updates may be provided on companies, issuers or industries based on specific developments or announcements, market conditions or any other publicly available information. However, J.P. Morgan may be restricted from updating information contained in this communication for regulatory or other reasons. This communication may not be redistributed or retransmitted, in whole or in part, or in any form or manner, without the express written consent of J.P. Morgan. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. Receipt and review of this information constitutes your agreement not to redistribute or retransmit the contents and information contained in this communication without first obtaining express permission from an authorized officer of J.P. Morgan. Copyright 2025, JPMorganChase & Co. All rights reserved.

Leah, Kate, and Melissa recap the oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that could nuke the administrative state as we know it by giving Trump broad leeway to fire heads of independent agencies. They also cover the other arguments in cases involving campaign finance and the death penalty, and various and sundry bits of legal news including the antics of Judge Emil Bove and Trump's ongoing game of U.S. attorney musical chairs.Favorite things:Leah: At will? Whose will? By Don Moynihan (Can We Still Govern?)Melissa: Trump's Very Weird Night at the Kennedy Center Honors, Alexandra Petri (The Atlantic); A Flower Traveled in My Blood, Haley Cohen GillilandKate: How a Manosphere Star Accused of Rape and Trafficking Was Freed, Megan Twohey and Isabella Kwai (NYT) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn 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 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Supreme Court appears ready to let Donald Trump fire Federal Trade Commission members at will. On this week's On the Media, why the court's expansion of presidential powers would impact the entire government. Plus, how two Hollywood giants are squaring off over a massive merger. [02:47] Host Brooke Gladstone sits down with Noah Rosenblum, associate professor of law at New York University, to discuss how the Supreme Court's pending decision in Trump v. Slaughter could radically expand the president's power, and the history behind the case. [23:02] Host Micah Loewinger talks with Oliver Darcy, lead author of the newsletter Status and co-host of the podcast Power Lines, about the moguls at Netflix and Paramount Skydance battling over Warner Brothers Discovery, and what this means for the future of CNN, which is owned by Warner Brothers Discovery, and Hollywood. [37:41] Micah speaks with Joel Simon, founding director of the Journalism Protection Initiative at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism, about what happened with Blake Lively's legal team subpoenaed Perez Hilton, the gossip blogger, and why expanding the legal framework of journalistic protections is essential.  Further reading / watching:The Supreme Court Is About to Hand Trump a Cudgel in the Paramount-Netflix Fight, by Mark Joseph SternThe CNN Sacrifice, by Oliver DarcyThe O.G. News Influencer, by Joel Simon   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.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.racket.newsLink Here: Listen to subscriber-only audio in your podcast appShare the Free Previews of America This Week:Watch ATW on YouTube below:

On episode 109 of Native Land Pod, hosts Tiffany Cross, Angela Rye, Andrew Gillum, and Bakari Sellers discuss Jasmine Crockett’s campaign launch, and bring on one of our favorite guests: Elie Mystal. Racial profiling, birthright citizenship, executive power, and campaign finance are all up for judgement by the US Supreme Court. There’s no one better to walk us through SCOTUS’s recent and upcoming decisions than the Justice Correspondent for The Nation, Elie Mystal. Elie on Executive Power: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-ftc-slaughter/ Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (TX 30) is running for senate in Texas in 2026. There’s a lot of chatter out there about her announcement, that she’s a Republican plant, that she can’t win–and it’s true that it’s tough for a Dem to win a senate seat in Texas. Our hosts take a critical look at the media coverage of her announcement and speculate on a possible path to victory. We’ll get to more of your questions this week, including one about legacy media’s complicity in the Trump administration's agenda. A lot of y’all had smoke for Tiffany in the questions this week, we’ll get to those in our MiniPod. Read More about the recent SCOTUS cases– Racial Profiling: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/supreme-court-allows-federal-officers-to-more-freely-make-immigration-stops-in-los-angeles/ Birthright Citizenship: https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/trump-v-barbara/ Campaign Finance: https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/national-republican-senatorial-committee-v-federal-election-commission/ Federal Agency Independence (Executive Power): https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/trump-v-slaughter-2/ Check out the Council of Negro Women: https://ncnw.org/ And congratulations to A’Ja Wilson for winning TIME’s Athlete of the Year! If you’d like to submit a question, check out our tutorial video: http://www.instagram.com/reel/C5j_oBXLIg0/ and send to @nativelandpod. We are 329 days away from the midterm elections. Welcome home y’all! —--------- We want to hear from you! Send us a video @nativelandpod and we may feature you on the podcast. Instagram X/Twitter Facebook NativeLandPod.com Watch full episodes of Native Land Pod here on YouTube. Native Land Pod is brought to you by Reasoned Choice Media. Thank you to the Native Land Pod team: Angela Rye as host, executive producer, and cofounder of Reasoned Choice Media; Tiffany Cross as host and producer, Andrew Gillum as host and producer, Bakari Sellers as host and producer, and Lauren Hansen as executive producer; LoLo Mychael is our research producer, and Nikolas Harter is our editor and producer. Special thanks to Chris Morrow and Lenard McKelvey, co-founders of Reasoned Choice Media. Theme music created by Daniel Laurent.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When a single federal judge can freeze a president's policy nationwide, it raises big questions about checks and balances and democratic accountability. That's one reason nationwide injunctions have become central to some of today's most consequential legal battles—and why the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. CASA matters.At a live recording, Stanford Legal host Diego Zambrano sat down with Professor Mila Sohoni, one of the country's leading scholars on federal courts and administrative law, for a conversation that moved from President Trump's day-one birthright-citizenship order to the Court's ruling in CASA, including how lower courts are now navigating the decision's new, but murky, constraints on nationwide injunctions.Sohoni breaks the protection these injunctions can offer when sweeping executive actions threaten millions, the risks of empowering individual judges to halt national policy, and the incentives for strategic forum shopping in a polarized era. She also explains how CASA reins in—but doesn't eliminate—the nationwide injunction, leaving room for broad relief through class actions, universal vacatur, and “complete relief” findings. The discussion sheds light on how the legal landscape is shifting after CASA, and why nationwide injunctions continue to shape major clashes between the courts and the executive branch.Links:Mila Sohoni >>> Stanford Law page“The Puzzle of Procedural Originalism” >>>  Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) The Scope of Nationwide Injunctions(00:12:01) Epistemic and Democratic Arguments Against Nationwide Injunctions(00:28:54) The CASA Decision(00:29:37) Legal Basis and Impact of Executive Orders(00:38:20) Conclusion and Audience Questions Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Chris Sullivan with a Chokepoint: Looking at the potential future of tolling in the state // Luke Duecy with a Tech Talk: AI technology is being tested at SEA Airport // Rob McKenna on the Supreme Court case that could extend President Trump's executive power over federal agencies // Charlie Commentary on the importance of not assigning blame for massive flooding across the state // Meteorologist Scott Sistek on the unprecedented atmospheric river, flooding across Western Washington, and the extended forecast through the rest of December

The conservative Supreme Court majority seems poised to allow President Trump to fire the top official on the Federal Trade Commission, expanding presidential power. Elie Mystal, justice correspondent and columnist for The Nation magazine and bestselling author of Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America (The New Press, 2025), discusses this and other legal news.

Paramount made a $108bn all-cash offer to buy Warner Bros Discovery in an attempt to thwart Netflix's bid. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In their third, and final, Tom Clancy publication, Brian Andrews and Jeff Wilson sit down with me to discuss the journey to becoming New York Times Bestselling authors, what it meant to write for the Clancy estate, the current affairs in Africa, China, and Russia, and what their new imprint over on Blackstone Publishing has in store for 2026. We also discuss the SEAL Legacy Foundation, something both Brian and Jeff are extremely passionate about. Check them out at seallegacy.orgIn EXECUTIVE POWER, the story follows Jack Ryan as he has to master through another international crisis, this time with the lesser-known Kyle Ryan center stage. Jack Ryan is faced with a major dilema-enter the US into a major conflict, or risk loosing his son Kyle.For more on Brian and Jeff, check out: andrews-wilson.comPlease visit my website to get more information: http://jeffclarkofficial.com/

December 6, 2025. Steve Adubato welcomes Elie Honig, author of “When You Come at the King,” CNN Senior Legal Analyst, and Former Federal and State Prosecutor, to explore the history of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, the abuse of executive power, and its implications for the future of American democracy. Show 723

General Ding Dong https://youtu.be/3dS6ZYA5OHg?s...Get Prepared with Our Incredible Sponsors! Survival Bags, kits, gear www.limatangosurvival.comEMP Proof Shipping Containers www.fardaycontainers.comThe Prepper's Medical Handbook Build Your Medical Cache – Welcome PBN FamilyPack Fresh USA www.packfreshusa.comSupport PBN with a Donation https://bit.ly/3SICxEq

Notes: Constitution Law 2025 – Full Outline Understanding Executive Power: A Deep Dive into Constitutional LawThis conversation delves into the complexities of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, focusing on the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. It explores the historical and judicial interpretations of presidential power, the role of the Supreme Court in checking executive overreach, and the implications of recent doctrines like the Major Questions Doctrine. The discussion emphasizes the ongoing struggle for power and the evolving nature of constitutional law in the context of American governance.In the realm of constitutional law, the separation of powers is a cornerstone principle that defines the boundaries and interactions between the branches of government. This blog post delves into the complexities of executive power, particularly focusing on Article II and the ongoing tension between presidential authority and congressional checks.The Maximalist vs. Narrow ViewAt the heart of the debate is the interpretation of the vesting clause in Article II, which grants executive power to the President. The maximalist view, rooted in the unitary executive theory, suggests a broad, inherent authority for the President, especially in foreign affairs. In contrast, the narrow view, inspired by James Madison, limits presidential power to explicitly enumerated duties, emphasizing the President's role as an enforcer of laws.Key Judicial InterpretationsThe Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in shaping the understanding of executive power. Landmark cases like United States v. Curtis Wright and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer highlight the evolving judicial stance on presidential authority. Justice Jackson's tripartite framework from Youngstown remains a critical tool for analyzing executive power, categorizing presidential actions based on congressional support or opposition.Modern Challenges and DoctrinesIn recent years, the major questions doctrine (MQD) has emerged as a significant check on executive overreach. This doctrine demands clear congressional authorization for executive actions of vast economic and political significance, reinforcing the separation of powers. The MQD, alongside the non-delegation doctrine, underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that executive actions align with legislative intent.The ongoing debate over executive power is not just a theoretical exercise but a living, evolving conflict that shapes American governance. As future constitutional lawyers, understanding these dynamics is crucial for navigating the legal landscape and ensuring the balance of power remains intact.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest insights in constitutional law and governance.TakeawaysThe separation of powers is a living, evolving conflict.The maximalist view of presidential power suggests inherent authority.Youngstown's framework is essential for analyzing executive power disputes.The president's control over the bureaucracy is a contentious issue.The Appointments Clause distinguishes between principal and inferior officers.Foreign trade agreements often blur the lines of congressional and presidential powers.The Major Questions Doctrine serves as a check on executive overreach.Judicial tools are crucial for maintaining the balance of power.Article II, separation of powers, presidential power, constitutional law, executive orders, Supreme Court, Youngstown, Curtis Wright, major questions doctrine, federal bureaucracy

Scott Jagow talks with John Hancock and Michael Kelley about the shooting of National Guard members and how it connects to current immigration policies. The conversation explores the impact of immigration crackdowns on poorer countries, concerns about vetting evacuees from Afghanistan, and the legality of President Trump's actions in Venezuela. They compare Trump's use of executive power across both of his terms and discuss whether Democrats are acting as an effective opposition party.

This is the fourth episode of our ongoing series breaking down the U.S. Constitution.This month, Roman and Elizabeth turn to Article Two, which establishes the executive branch, alongside former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Elizabeth also explains why Trump administration's attacks on Venezuelan boats defy even the broadest interpretation of the president's war powers. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of 99% Invisible ad-free and a whole week early. Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case to decide whether the Trump administration has the power to impose tariffs on a whim, without the approval of Congress. Trump wants this power as a negotiating tool, but he fails to consider the fact that future administrations will be able not only to overturn his orders but to impose far more onerous ones of their own. Matt Kibbe talks with John Vecchione, senior litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, about the dangers of executive power overriding the legislative branch of government. Do we really want a system that would allow a future President AOC to unilaterally tax gas-powered cars out of existence or levy selective tariffs on anything she deems bad for the environment? Republicans always seem to forget that they will not be in charge forever, and with the midterm elections fast approaching, their time in the majority may be ending sooner than they think. This is all the more reason why they should use this opportunity to govern responsibly instead of setting dangerous legal precedents that will empower their enemies in just a few years.

Tom Clancy Executive Power (A Jack Ryan Novel) by Brian Andrews, Jeffrey Wilson https://www.amazon.com/Clancy-Executive-Power-Jack-Novel/dp/B0DYHZ9SHQ An international incident may fracture the Ryan family in the latest entry in this #1 New York Times bestselling series. Even in a family of strong individualists like the Ryans, Kyle has stood out as a lone wolf. For years he’s gone his own way, joining the DIA rather than the CIA, and disagreeing with his father’s politics. Now he’s missing in an African country on the brink of a coup. His last message to his handlers, “We’re on the wrong side of history.” His father, the President of the United States, is about to discover which is more important to him: the interests of his country or the life of his son? Brian Andrews Brian Andrews profile image About the author Brian is a US Navy veteran, nuclear engineer, and former submarine officer. He graduated from Vanderbilt University with a degree in psychology, holds a Master’s in business from Cornell, and is a Park Leadership Fellow.

Join me for a high-stakes, one-on-one discussion with Dr. Richard Haass, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a leading voice on MSNBC's Morning Joe, as we break down the world's most urgent flashpoints.

In TOM CLANCY EXECUTIVE POWER, Kyle is the only survivor of an attack on his team. It was supposed to be a routine mission in a quiet African nation, but now he's being held by the leader of a bloody coup.His father, the President of the United States, is about to discover which is more important to him: the interests of his country or the life of his son?Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/arroe-collins-like-it-s-live--4113802/support.

# Trump Administration Court Battle: A Week of Legal DecisionsThe Trump administration faced a critical moment in federal court this week as one of its most significant legal challenges reached the Supreme Court. On November 5th, just nine days ago, the nation's highest court heard oral arguments in a consolidated case that has profound implications for presidential power and intellectual property law.The case, Trump v. VOS Selections, was heard before all nine justices, with arguments presented by D. John Sauer, the Solicitor General from the Department of Justice, alongside private counsel Neal K. Katyal and Benjamin N. Gutman, the Solicitor General from Salem, Oregon representing state interests. The Supreme Court set aside a full hour for oral argument, an unusually generous allocation that signals the case's importance.The legal journey to get here moved with extraordinary speed. The Trump administration filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on September 3rd and immediately moved to expedite consideration. Just six days later, on September 9th, the Supreme Court granted both the expedite motion and the petition itself, consolidating this case with another related matter. This kind of expedited review happens rarely and reflects the urgency both the Court and the administration saw in resolving the dispute.The underlying case originated in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which issued a decision on August 29th. The Federal Circuit's ruling triggered the administration's appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking reversal of the lower court's judgment. The case involves VOS Selections, a private company, as respondent, and the Supreme Court's decision in this matter could reshape how courts handle disputes between the executive branch and private entities.What makes this case particularly noteworthy is the involvement of multiple amicus briefs filed in support of the government's position. These friend-of-the-court briefs came from organizations including Advancing American Freedom, signaling that interests beyond just the Trump administration viewed the case's outcome as consequential for broader questions of presidential authority.The Supreme Court carefully managed the briefing schedule. Opening briefs on the merits were due September 19th, amicus curiae briefs by September 23rd, response briefs by October 20th, additional amicus briefs by October 24th, and reply briefs by October 30th. This compressed timeline compressed what typically takes many months into just eight weeks, allowing the Court to hear arguments in the first week of November and presumably move toward a decision relatively quickly.This case joins numerous other legal challenges confronting the Trump administration, which has faced litigation over various executive orders and policies. However, the VOS Selections case stands out for its rapid ascent to the Supreme Court and the consolidated nature of the litigation, suggesting that whatever the Court decides will likely have effects far beyond the immediate parties involved.As we head into the final weeks of 2025, listeners should expect that the Supreme Court will issue its decision in this case in the coming months, and that decision could significantly alter the landscape of executive power and business regulation.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more coverage of the Trump administration's legal battles and their implications for American governance. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more analysis and updates, check out Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

In this episode, Teddy Downey sits down with Kathleen Claussen, Professor of Law at Georgetown University, and Beth Baltzan Senior Advisor at The Capitol Forum and former Counselor for Trade and Investment to U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, for a discussion on the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The past few days have been a whirlwind in the legal world as former President Donald Trump's latest court battles have landed squarely before the highest bench in the country. The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. was buzzing this week, especially as Wednesday, November 5, saw arguments in the consolidated cases that could set historic legal precedents. The cases, officially titled Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. versus V.O.S. Selections, Inc., and related parties, had been expedited by a grant of certiorari back in early September, meaning both sides and a slew of amici had scrambled for weeks to submit arguments and briefs.The tension was evident as Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued on behalf of the federal government, Neal K. Katyal represented the private parties, and Oregon's Solicitor General Benjamin N. Gutman stood for the states. These cases, consolidated for efficiency and clarity, revolve around the Trump administration's executive actions that have been under fierce challenge from nonprofits, state governments, and private organizations. Issues range from administrative suspensions—like the litigation over Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits this very month—to broader questions about the executive's authority under statutes such as the Alien Enemies Act. The Lawfare Litigation Tracker, which has grown to include nearly 300 active cases challenging Trump policies and executive orders, reflects just how sprawling and consequential these battles have become.Arguments this Wednesday were intense. According to the Supreme Court docket, all parties were granted a single hour to distill their arguments, but each minute brought sharp questioning from the justices about the limits of presidential power, the scope of agency discretion, and how far the administration could go in reinterpreting statutory mandates. With groups like Advancing American Freedom weighing in as amici and a deluge of amicus briefs flooding the docket, it's clear the stakes are high—not just for Trump but for the future contours of federal power.Litigants and observers alike know that with so many related suits, each Supreme Court argument can impact not only this session's headline-making decisions but also dozens of lower court cases in the months to come. The courtroom drama unfolded against the broader backdrop of political campaigns and media scrutiny, reminding everyone that legal questions surrounding Donald Trump remain deeply interwoven with the nation's political fabric.Thanks for tuning in to this week's breakdown on Trump's latest court trials. Make sure to come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The Buddies are once again revisiting their old pal Vince Flynn, in his 2003 thriller "Executive Power". This one had all the elements of a classic Mitch Rapp novel: fast paced, action packed, and a shockingly detailed description of Rapp's "tan scar-dappled muscly torso" that definitely moved something (in George Costanza's words). The Buddies got to chatting about whether this was actually a David book disguised as a Mitch book, how Austin Powers is definitely still alive and working for MI6, and the critical importance of Mitch lying to his wife for national security reasons. So crack open a Miller Lite, practice your sniper calculations with wind speed and dew point, and join the other disciplined listeners who ask for forgiveness not permission when downloading this pod.Intro/Book Report (0:00-3:05)Stock Up/Down (3:06-32:42)Favorite Scene/Character (32:43-36:46)Love/Hate (36:47-45:59)Conclusion (46:00-48:58)NEXT BOOK: Gone Before Goodbye by Reese Witherspoon & Harlan Coben

The Supreme Court of the United States is back in session with a blockbuster docket that could shift the levers of power in America. Issues range from the scope of executive authority, and the role of the federal government, to the power of the lower courts in resolving executive power disputes. As cases on the so-called “shadow docket” pile up, some district judges are speaking out, raising concerns about risks to the high court's legitimacy. Meanwhile, the business world is watching and waiting for a decision on the administration's tariff-setting power that could shake the global economy.Have the courts provided sufficient guardrails, what limits can Congress impose — and will those checks and balances last? Will SCOTUS rein in the administration's tariff strategy? And how should businesses respond? Join The Sidley Podcast host and Sidley partner, Sam Gandhi, as he speaks with two of the firm's thought leaders on these issues — Kwaku Akowuah and Tacy Flint, the co-leaders of Sidley's Supreme Court, Appellate, and Litigation Strategies practice. Together, they discuss the monumental cases of the Supreme Court's last term, the majority's backing of executive power over the federal bureaucracy, and the court's use of the emergency docket.  Executive Producer: John Metaxas, WallStreetNorth Communications, Inc.

Executive Power and Constitutional Constraints Guest: Professor Richard Epstein Professor Richard Epstein analyzes an executive order creating a five-hundred-person National Guard rapid response force per state for civil disturbances. He argues this improperly expands presidential power, usurping Congress's Article I authority over the militia. Epstein views this as an authoritarian extension of unitary executive theory that violates constitutional federalism. He also notes that pursuing alleged narco-terrorists in Venezuela without a Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force is legally tenuous, as drug running constitutes a crime rather than an act of war, making military action constitutionally questionable.

Executive Power and Constitutional Constraints Guest: Professor Richard Epstein Professor Richard Epstein analyzes an executive order creating a five-hundred-person National Guard rapid response force per state for civil disturbances. He argues this improperly expands presidential power, usurping Congress's Article I authority over the militia. Epstein views this as an authoritarian extension of unitary executive theory that violates constitutional federalism. He also notes that pursuing alleged narco-terrorists in Venezuela without a Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force is legally tenuous, as drug running constitutes a crime rather than an act of war, making military action constitutionally questionable.

Kate and Leah dig into a very busy week of legal news as Trump wields his SCOTUS-enabled executive power in increasingly unhinged ways. They also discuss continuing challenges to the president's deployment of the National Guard in blue cities, ProPublica's reporting on “Kavanaugh stops,” and, for dessert, the bonkers text exchange between Trump lackey–turned–U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan and Lawfare's Anna Bower. Then they speak with author Irin Carmon about her new book, Unbearable: Five Women and the Perils of Pregnancy in America.Favorite things:Leah: Resistance Is Cringe—But It's Also Effective, Quinta Jurecic (The Atlantic); The Democrats' Main Problem Isn't Their Message, Chris Hayes (NYT); The Peril of a White House That Flaunts Its Indifference to the Law, Charlie Savage (NYT); Everybody/Elizabeth Taylor Mashup (Backstreet Boys/Taylor Swift)Kate: Five Tuesdays in Winter, Lily King; I'm Still Here Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/events Get tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.com Order 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 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Presidential power has expanded far beyond what the framers of the Constitution envisioned. From Lincoln and Roosevelt to Nixon and Trump, presidents have pushed the limits of executive authority — often during moments of crisis. Understanding this history is key to understanding what comes next for American democracyIn this episode, host Simone Leeper speaks with American historians Douglas Brinkley and Rick Perlstein, CLC Executive Director Adav Noti and Juan Proaño, CEO of LULAC. In conversation, they trace how the presidency has gathered sweeping power over time; what happens when oversight of this executive power breaks down; and what legal, legislative and civic reforms could restore accountability, prevent presidential overreach and safeguard the constitutional separation of powers that defines the United States.Timestamps:(00:05) — Why were federal troops deployed in Los Angeles?(05:11) — Can the president legally invoke emergency powers?(07:31) — How did the Founders limit presidential authority?(09:14) — When did executive orders begin to expand presidential power?(10:25) — How did FDR and later presidents redefine the presidency?(13:04) — What did Nixon's “If the president does it, it's not illegal” comment really mean?(15:22) — What are the origins of the so-called unitary executive theory?(18:21) — How are checks and balances failing?(19:42) — Is America sliding toward authoritarianism?(27:57) — How is Campaign Legal Center fighting unlawful presidential overreach through litigation?(30:00) — Why does birthright citizenship matter for American democracy?(33:13) — What can be done to stop abuses of presidential authority?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Juan Proaño is an entrepreneur, technologist and business leader who is active in civic affairs, social impact, and politics He has served as the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) Chief Executive Officer (CEO) since November 2023. As LULAC's CEO, Juan oversees the day-to-day operations at LULAC; identifies strategic growth areas; and works to amplify the organization's advocacy initiatives and action-oriented programs.Rick Perlstein is an American historian, writer and journalist who has garnered recognition for his chronicles of the post-1960s American conservative movement. He is the author of five bestselling books. Perlstein received the 2001 Los Angeles Times Book Award for History for his first book, Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, and appeared on the best books of the year lists of The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune. His essays and book reviews have been published in The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Nation, The Village Voice and Slate, among others. A contributing editor and board member of In These Times magazine, he lives in Chicago.Douglas Brinkley is the Katherine Tsanoff Brown Chair in Humanities and Professor of History at Rice University, CNN Presidential Historian and a contributing editor at Vanity Fair. He works in many capacities in the world of public history, including on boards, museums, colleges and historical societies. The Chicago Tribune dubbed him “America's New Past Master.” The New York Historical has chosen Brinkley as their official U.S. Presidential Historian. His recent book Cronkite won the Sperber Prize, while The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast received the Robert F. Kennedy Book Award. He has received a Grammy Award for Presidential Suite and seven honorary doctorates in American Studies. His two-volume annotated The Nixon Tapes recently won the Arthur S. Link – Warren F. Kuehl Prize. He is a member of the Century Association, Council of Foreign Relations and the James Madison Council of the Library of Congress. He lives in Austin, Texas, with his wife and three children.Adav Noti coordinates all of Campaign Legal Center's operations and programmatic activities, overseeing CLC's efforts to protect elections, advance voter freedom, fix the campaign finance system, ensure fair redistricting and promote government ethics. Adav has conducted dozens of constitutional cases in trial and appellate courts and the United States Supreme Court. He also advises members of Congress and other policymakers on advancing democracy through legislation. Prior to joining CLC, Adav served for more than 10 years in nonpartisan leadership capacities within the Office of General Counsel of the Federal Election Commission, and he served as a Special Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. Adav regularly provides expert analysis for television, radio and print journalism.Links: Voting Is an American Freedom. The President Can't Change That – CLC  What Are Executive Orders and How Do They Work? – CLC  The Significance of Firing Inspectors General: Explained – CLC  CLC's Kedric Payne on Trump's Brazen Removal of Nation's Top Ethics Official – CLC  The Justice Department Is In Danger Of Losing Its Way Under Trump – CLC  It's almost Inauguration Day. Will there be any checks on Trump's power? – Trevor Potter op-d in The Hill Amidst the Noise and Confusion – Trevor Potter's newsletter Understanding Corruption and Conflicts of Interest in Government | Campaign Legal Center – CLC  CLC Sues to Stop Elon Musk and DOGE's Lawless, Unconstitutional Power Grab | Campaign Legal Center – CLC  Trump's Executive Orders 2025 – Federal Register  Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections (Trump's EO on voting) – The White House  Defending the Freedom to Vote from the Trump Administration's Unconstitutional Presidential Overreach (LULAC, et al. v. Executive Office of the President) – CLC  CLC Sues to Block Trump Administration's Illegal Election Overreach – CLC  Victory! Anti-Voter Executive Order Halted in Court – CLC  Understanding the election tech implications in the Trump Administration's executive order – Verified Voting  Independent Agencies Must Remain Independent – CLC  Can President Trump Do That? – CLC  Why Birthright Citizenship Is an Essential Part of Our Democracy – CLC  Authoritarianism, explained – Protect Democracy The Authoritarian Playbook – Protect Democracy U.S. Supreme Court Significantly Limits Restraints on Unconstitutional Presidential Actions – CLC  Reconciliation Bill Passes the Senate Without Two Dangerous Provisions: Campaign Legal Center Reacts – CLC  The “Self-Evident” Case for Opposing Tyranny – Trevor Potter's Newsletter White House Eyes Rarely Used Power to Override Congress on Spending – NY TimesAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

Many thought the second Trump administration would feature a confrontation between a Supreme Court intent on limiting executive discretion and an empowered president flaunting the rules. Instead, the Supreme Court has largely acquiesced to Trump's moves, using the shadow docket to overturn lower court actions limiting Trump, even those from Republican judges. Adam Bonica finds that Trump has sought to purge and cut more liberal agencies but has been repeatedly shot down by lower courts. Yet the Supreme Court alone has often sided with the administration, making the courts much less of a check on executive power.

The Perpetual Conflict Over Executive Power and the Rise of Lawfare GUEST NAME: Professor Richard Epstein Professor Richard Epstein analyzes the perpetual clash between executive and congressional power, particularly regarding the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. He notes the Roberts court generally protects executive power. The dispute over fund impoundment, seen in Department of State et al. versus AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, reflects deep polarization, hindering compromise. Epstein criticizes the use of lawfare, exemplified by the indictments of Letitia James and James Comey, stating it fails long-term and leads to cycles of violence and discord. 1910

The Perpetual Conflict Over Executive Power and the Rise of Lawfare GUEST NAME: Professor Richard Epstein Professor Richard Epstein analyzes the perpetual clash between executive and congressional power, particularly regarding the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. He notes the Roberts court generally protects executive power. The dispute over fund impoundment, seen in Department of State et al. versus AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, reflects deep polarization, hindering compromise. Epstein criticizes the use of lawfare, exemplified by the indictments of Letitia James and James Comey, stating it fails long-term and leads to cycles of violence and discord.

Join Matt Lewis and Yuval Levin, scholar at AEI and author of American Covenant, as they dive into the evolving U.S. presidency, executive overreach, and the administrative state. Can America be dictator-proofed? Explore Trump's policies, constitutional balance, AI's impact, and media shifts. Key topics include:The evolution of presidential power and Trump's use of emergency powers-- The administrative state, impoundments, and regulatory actions-- The impact of AI on jobs, dignity, and human identity-- The role of media, with insights on Bari Weiss's appointment at CBS News-- How to safeguard America's democracy for the futureIs it possible to dictator-proof America? Levin offers deep insights into the challenges facing our constitutional system and what can be done post-Trump to restore balance. Don't miss this thought-provoking conversation on governance, populism, and the future of American democracy. Subscribe for more in-depth discussions, and share your thoughts in the comments below!Support "Matt Lewis & The News" at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattlewisFollow Matt Lewis & Cut Through the Noise:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MattLewisDCTwitter: https://twitter.com/mattklewisInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattklewis/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVhSMpjOzydlnxm5TDcYn0A– Who is Matt Lewis? –Matt K. Lewis is a political commentator and the author of Filthy Rich Politicians.Buy Matt's book: https://www.amazon.com/Filthy-Rich-Politicians-Creatures-Ruling-Class/dp/1546004416Copyright © 2025, BBL & BWL, LLC

Leah is joined by guest co-host Skye Perryman, president & CEO of Democracy Forward, to discuss the week's news, including the continued pushback on the shadow docket from the lower courts and Trump's boundless abuse of Article II. Then Kate, Melissa, and Leah — along with special guest Sherrilyn Ifill — take a look at the impact of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, three years into her time on the Supreme Court.Favorite things:Skye: Sierra FerrellLeah: The Summer I Turned Pretty (Amazon); Charlie Kirk, Redeemed: A Political Class Finds Its Lost Cause, Ta-Nehisi Coates (Vanity Fair); Miolin Bakery, Brooklyn; L'Appartement 4F, Brooklyn & Manhattan Kate: Pennsylvania Supreme Court election (get involved at Vote Save America) 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 VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Richard Epstein discusses federal district court judges defying presidential orders, attributing it to a breakdown of trust and the president's "robust view of executive power" that disregards established procedures and precedents. He explains that judges may engage in "passive resistance" or "cheating in self-defense" when they perceive the president acting for political reasons or abusing power, such as in budget cuts or dismissals. Epstein also links this distrust to gerrymandering and increasing political polarization 1932 FDR IN ALBANY

CONTINUED Richard Epstein discusses federal district court judges defying presidential orders, attributing it to a breakdown of trust and the president's "robust view of executive power" that disregards established procedures and precedents. He explains that judges may engage in "passive resistance" or "cheating in self-defense" when they perceive the president acting for political reasons or abusing power, such as in budget cuts or dismissals. Epstein also links this distrust to gerrymandering and increasing political polarization. 1936

David French and Sarah Isgur speak with Nico Perrino to discuss the origin story of Advisory Opinions and the few free speech issues where they disagree with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Show Notes:—Origin story of Advisory Opinions—Disagreements between FIRE and AO—Why FIRE doesn't editorialize on the content of speech—Limits of presidential power—Free speech, the dread of tyrants—The prosecution of political figures—Cracker Barrel—State of the conservative legal movement Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. 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

Trump health rumors, media scrutiny, and what counts as news kick off the show before a wide-ranging interview with Miles Taylor—former DHS Chief of Staff and author of Blowback—about the April 2025 White House memo labeling him “treasonous,” the threats that followed, alleged blacklisting, and how executive power can be bent to punish speech. We discuss investigations vs. “fishing expeditions,” loyalty scorecards for companies, and why institutions cave—or don't. In the spiel, Mike reframes the immigration fight: policy trade-offs, public opinion, and what data actually say about enforcement. Plus, a critique of a viral CNN segment on a deportation case and how storytelling choices shape perceptions.  *Please Note that Mike is on assignment, which is why his audio is not ideal* Come See Mike Pesca at Open Debate Produced by Corey Wara Production Coordinator Ashley Khan Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠ad-sales@libsyn.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ or visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Youtube Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Instagram Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠GIST INSTAGRAM⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow The Gist List at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Pesca⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack