Podcasts about executive power

From birthright citizenship to the independence of federal agencies, the Supreme Court is poised to decide a series of cases that could redefine the balance of power in Washington. Yale legal scholar and New York Times Magazine staff writer Emily Bazelon joins Ian Bremmer to assess what's at stake and whether the judiciary remains an effective check on presidential authority. Bazelon argues that Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship is unlikely to succeed, but says other pending cases involving the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission could significantly expand presidential control over agencies that Congress intentionally designed to operate independently. "I think it's very likely the court will rule in the president's favor," she says of the FTC case. The conversation also examines the Court's recent decisions on tariffs and voting rights, including a ruling that further weakened protections against partisan gerrymandering. Bazelon argues that the consequences extend beyond individual cases, contributing to a broader perception that the Court is becoming increasingly political. Yet despite declining public trust, Bazelon sees reasons for cautious optimism. While Congress has largely failed to constrain executive power, she argues that the judiciary, particularly the lower courts, has repeatedly pushed back against actions that exceed legal authority. The bigger question is whether those guardrails will continue to hold as the Court confronts some of the most consequential constitutional disputes still ahead. Subscribe to the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Episode 6 in the series marking the 250th Anniversary of the USA in this second quarter 2026. We're covering the first several pages of chapter 3: National Executive Power before the US Constitution but after July 4th, 1776. We discuss pp. 45 thru the top of p.53. When the Founders signed their names onto the Declaration of Independence, they were committing a capital crime, and they were signing their own death warrants if they were caught. They took themselves not to be looking for a fight, but rather, refusing any longer to duck the fight that in fact had come to them. And they sought to ground their cause, their reaction, to right reason in the natural law, consistent with Revelation and the Scriptures. They sought to articulate such an argument for their cause in such a way that would be rightly persuasive to any future reader and any of the nations which may inquire as to the source of their actions. Of course, their cause was initially, in large measure, a reaction against abuse of Executive Power. But such a war required itself strong Executive Power. Therein lies the rub: how can Executive Power be strong yet consistent with the principles of Liberty ? We're making a fair use, transformative reading and discussion of Charles C. Thach's doctoral dissertation at Johns Hopkins in 1922 called "The Creation of the Presidency, 1775-1789 made available by Liberty Fund INC in Indianapolis, Indiana in 2007. Go out and get your physical copy today. Follow along. We'd like to thank Liberty Fund for making this material available, and we'd like to thank Charles C. Thach for writing it. This material was required reading in my Ph.D. program in Public Law and American Politics at The Claremont Colleges. It was used on the 6 hour comprehensive exams (6 hours each) and in a course called The Presidency and the Constitution taught by Joseph M. Bessette, who also served on my dissertation committee many years later. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-understanding-the-American-Presidency, anti-grade-inflation-plantation podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

From birthright citizenship to the independence of federal agencies, the Supreme Court is poised to decide a series of cases that could redefine the balance of power in Washington. Yale legal scholar and New York Times Magazine staff writer Emily Bazelon joins Ian Bremmer to assess what's at stake and whether the judiciary remains an effective check on presidential authority. Bazelon argues that Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship is unlikely to succeed, but says other pending cases involving the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission could significantly expand presidential control over agencies that Congress intentionally designed to operate independently. "I think it's very likely the court will rule in the president's favor," she says of the FTC case. The conversation also examines the Court's recent decisions on tariffs and voting rights, including a ruling that further weakened protections against partisan gerrymandering. Bazelon argues that the consequences extend beyond individual cases, contributing to a broader perception that the Court is becoming increasingly political. Yet despite declining public trust, Bazelon sees reasons for cautious optimism. While Congress has largely failed to constrain executive power, she argues that the judiciary, particularly the lower courts, has repeatedly pushed back against actions that exceed legal authority. The bigger question is whether those guardrails will continue to hold as the Court confronts some of the most consequential constitutional disputes still ahead. Subscribe to the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Send us Fan MailFederal judges just reminded America that the Constitution still exists.The Kilmar Abrego Garcia case is bigger than immigration politics — it's about whether executive power can ignore court orders, avoid accountability, and punish people after getting caught.Today's opening argument breaks down:Why this ruling matters for checks and balancesHow the courts pushed back against concentrated powerThe Article I vs. Article II fight nobody in corporate media is explainingWhy this is actually a win for constitutional accountability in AmericaThis isn't about parties.It's about whether power answers to law — or law answers to power.LIVE weekdays on The Tony Michaels Podcast.Become a paid supporter at The Coffman Chronicle for full episodes, deeper breakdowns, transcript analysis, and independent reporting focused on power, accountability, and working people.Rumble: https://rumble.com/v7agpp8-judge-torches-executive-power-in-kilmar-garcia-case-tmp-1058.htmlThe Coffman Chronicle: https://www.thecoffmanchronicle.com/ Pocket Constitution: https://thecoffmanchronicle.kit.com/pocket-constitutionYou're listening to today's Opening Argument from The Tony Michaels Podcast. The full show is free on Rumble, with clips, receipts, and the full breakdown. For the ad-free version and deeper breakdowns, subscribe to The Coffman Chronicle at TheCoffmanChronicle.com. Support the show

Episode 5 in the series marking the 250th Anniversary of the USA in this second quarter 2026. It should have been episode 4 because we accidentally skipped a ten page section between pp. 23- 33 last time that should have been episode 4, but we will just have those two sections out of chronological order and move on. Today we are doing those pages: pp. 23 -- 33 we had skipped accidentally last time, and then going from where we left off last time on page 40 through to the end of the chapter at p. 44. So, we're discussing pp. 23 through 33, then pp. 40 through 44 to the end of Chapter 2. When the Founders signed their names onto the Declaration of Independence, they were committing a capital crime, and they were signing their own death warrants if they were caught. They took themselves not to be looking for a fight, but rather, refusing any longer to duck the fight that in fact had come to them. And they sought to ground their cause, their reaction, to right reason in the natural law, consistent with Revelation and the Scriptures. They sought to articulate such an argument for their cause in such a way that would be rightly persuasive to any future reader and any of the nations which may inquire as to the source of their actions. Of course, their cause was initially, in large measure, a reaction against Executive Power. But such a war required itself strong Executive Power. Therein lies the rub: how can Executive Power be strong yet consistent with the principles of Liberty ? We're making a fair use, transformative reading and discussion of Charles C. Thach's doctoral dissertation at Johns Hopkins in 1922 called "The Creation of the Presidency, 1775-1789 made available by Liberty Fund INC in Indianapolis, Indiana in 2007. Go out and get your physical copy today. Follow along. We'd like to thank Liberty Fund for making this material available, and we'd like to thank Charles C. Thach for writing it. This material was required reading in my Ph.D. program in Public Law and American Politics at The Claremont Colleges. It was used on the 6 hour comprehensive exams (6 hours each) and in a course called The Presidency and the Constitution taught by Joseph M. Bessette, who also served on my dissertation committee many years later. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-understanding-the-American-Presidency, anti-grade-inflation-plantation podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Episode 4 in the series marking the 250th Anniversary of the USA in this second quarter 2026. It should have been episode 5 because we accidentally skipped a ten page section between pp. 23- 33 that should have been episode 4, but we will just have those two section out of chronological order and move on. When the Founders signed their names onto the Declaration of Independence, they were committing a capital crime, and they were signing their own death warrants if they were caught. They took themselves not to be looking for a fight, but rather, refusing any longer to duck the fight that in fact had come to them. And they sought to ground their cause, their reaction, to right reason in the natural law, consistent with Revelation and the Scriptures. They sought to articulate such an argument for their cause in such a way that would be rightly persuasive to any future reader and any of the nations which may inquire as to the source of their actions. Of course, their cause was initially, in large measure, a reaction against Executive Power. But such a war require itself strong Executive Power. Therein lies the rub: how can Executive Power be strong yet consistent with the principles of Liberty ? We're making a fair use, transformative reading and discussion of Charles C. Thach's doctoral dissertation at Johns Hopkins in 1922 called "The Creation of the Presidency, 1775-1789 made available by Liberty Fund INC in Indianapolis, Indiana in 2007. Go out and get your physical copy today. Follow along. We'd like to thank Liberty Fund for making this material available, and we'd like to thank Charles C. Thach for writing it. We are discussing in this second episode of Thach's thought the first third of his second chapter, entitled "State Executive Experience 1776 to 1787," through the top of his page 40 starting, mistakenly actually, at the top of p. 33. We were supposed to start on the top of p. 23 and continue there from last time, but we didn't. I made a mistake. Don't worry, we will fill in the incredibly valuable discussion of the material in pp. 23 through p. 33 at the top. This material was required reading in my Ph.D. program in Public Law and American Politics at The Claremont Colleges. It was used on the 6 hour comprehensive exams (6 hours each) and in a course called The Presidency and the Constitution taught by Joseph M. Bessette, who also served on my dissertation committee many years later. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-understanding-the-American-Presidency, anti-grade-inflation-plantation podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Host James-Christian Blockwood talks with Academy Fellow and McGeorge School of Law Professor Clark Kelso and American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Adam White about why public agencies struggle and what the executive branch does in response. They discuss how checks and balances slow action and make errors hard to undo, while polarization and congressional dysfunction push presidents toward unilateral action, creating separation-of-powers conflicts and court intervention. The conversation centers on Schedule F and fears it could expand political appointments and erode civil service protections. They conclude trust is rebuilt through tangible, non-rhetorical improvements, suggesting a public-safety focus like FAA modernization.01:14 Why Agencies Fail03:25 Checks Balances and Speed05:22 Congress Gridlock Executive Action09:44 Unitary Executive and Independence12:47 Courts Guardrails and Chevron15:44 Real World Impacts and Trust19:30 Reforming Bureaucracy and DOGE23:45 Schedule F Debate29:31 Rebuilding Trust and OptimismManagement Matters is a presentation of the National Academy of Public Administration produced by Lizzie Alwan and Matt Hampton and edited by Matt Hampton. Support the Podcast Today at: donate@napawash.org or 202-347-3190Episode music: Hope by Mixaund | https://mixaund.bandcamp.comMusic promoted by https://www.free-stock-music.comFollow us on YouTube for clips and more: @NAPAWASH_YT

AP correspondent Julie Walker reports President Trump flouts lower court rulings in unprecedented display of executive power.

Episode 3 in the series marking the 250th Anniversary of the USA in this second quarter 2026. When the Founders signed their names onto the Declaration of Independence, they were committing a capital crime, and they were signing their own death warrants if they were caught. They took themselves not to be looking for a fight, but rather, refusing any longer to duck the fight that in fact had come to them. And they sought to ground their cause, their reaction, to right reason in the natural law, consistent with Revelation and the Scriptures. They sought to articulate such an argument for their cause in such a way that would be rightly persuasive to any future reader and any of the nations which may inquire as to the source of their actions. Of course, their cause was initially, in large measure, a reaction against Executive Power. But such a war require itself strong Executive Power. Therein lies the rub: how can Executive Power be strong yet consistent with the principles of Liberty ? We're making a fair use, transformative reading and discussion of Charles C. Thach's doctoral dissertation at Johns Hopkins in 1922 called "The Creation of the Presidency, 1775-1789 made available by Liberty Fund INC in Indianapolis, Indiana in 2007. Go out and get your physical copy today. Follow along. We'd like to thank Liberty Fund for making this material available, and we'd like to thank Charles C. Thach for writing it. We are discussing in this second episode of Thach's thought the first third of his second chapter, entitled "State Executive Experience 1776 to 1787," through the top of his page 23. This material was required reading in my Ph.D. program in Public Law and American Politics at The Claremont Colleges. It was used on the 6 hour comprehensive exams (6 hours each) and in a course called The Presidency and the Constitution taught by Joseph M. Bessette, who also served on my dissertation committee many years later. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-understanding-the-American-Presidency, anti-grade-inflation-plantation podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Episode 2 in the series marking the 250th Anniversary of the USA in this second quarter 2026. When the Founders signed their names onto the Declaration of Independence, they were committing a capital crime, and they were signing their own death warrants if they were caught. They took themselves not to be looking for a fight, but rather, refusing any longer to duck the fight that in fact had come to them. And they sought to ground their cause, their reaction, to right reason in the natural law, consistent with Revelation and the Scriptures. They sought to articulate such an argument for their cause in such a way that would be rightly persuasive to any future reader and any of the nations which may inquire as to the source of their actions. Of course, their cause was initially, in large measure, a reaction against Executive Power. But such a war require itself strong Executive Power. Therein lies the rub: how can Executive Power be strong yet consistent with the principles of Liberty ? We're making a fair use, transformative reading and discussion of Charles C. Thach's doctoral dissertation at Johns Hopkins in 1922 called "The Creation of the Presidency, 1775-1789 made available by Liberty Fund INC in Indianapolis, Indiana in 2007. Go out and get your physical copy today. Follow along. We'd like to thank Liberty Fund for making this material available, and we'd like to thank Charles C. Thach for writing it. This material was required reading in my Ph.D. program in Public Law and American Politics at The Claremont Colleges. It was used on the 6 hour comprehensive exams (6 hours each) and in a course called The Presidency and the Constitution taught by Joseph M. Bessette, who also served on my dissertation committee many years later. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-understanding-the-American-Presidency, anti-grade-inflation-plantation podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Kerri Miller hosted a community conversation with presidential historian and author Jeffrey Engel in Red Wing on Wednesday night, April 8. Engel was brought in by the Duff Endowment, as part of their free lecture series, designed to increase civic engagement in the Red Wing area.During their discussion, Engel talked about the expansion of executive power in the United States and how that threatens democracy. He also addressed the current military operation in Iran. His forthcoming book, “Seeking Monsters to Destroy: How America Goes to War, From Washington to Biden and Beyond,” is a history of how American leaders have identified enemies, and how their description alters the way Americans fight.

We return after a brief hiatus to catch up on a whirlwind of recent headlines, from political drama to bizarre claims about aliens, before turning to the Supreme Court's consideration of birthright citizenship and the broader question of executive power versus congressional authority. We examine how Congress has gradually ceded its responsibilities on issues like tariffs, war powers, and immigration, and what that means for the balance of power in government. We then head to Ireland, where one enterprising citizen used AI to track the true price of a pint of Guinness, before moving to Texas for our Foolishness of the Week, where a congressional race has taken an unusual turn as a candidate campaigns by performing at quinceañeras. Finally, we dive into financial bubbles, exploring how markets price uncertainty, why emerging technologies like AI attract massive investment despite unclear outcomes, and how bubbles function as part of the process of discovering what new innovations are actually worth. 00:00 Introduction: A Month of Chaos 02:43 Supreme Court, Birthright Citizenship, and Trump's Presence 03:45 Executive Power vs Congressional Authority 06:16 Why Congress Keeps Ceding Its Power 09:09 Can a System This Large Even Function? 10:17 Ireland's Guinness Price Investigation with AI 13:04 Foolishness of the Week: Texas Campaigning at Quinceañeras 16:04 Redistricting, Demographics, and Political Miscalculations 18:11 Financial Bubbles and Why Economists Ignore Them 19:17 The “Real Economy” vs Financial Markets 22:24 Pricing the Unknown: Cars, Dot-Coms, and AI 24:56 AI Investing, Speculation, and Bubble Pricing 26:53 AI as the Next Internet and Technological Integration 30:53 Amazon, Spillover Innovation, and Unexpected Winners 37:22 Consumer Power, Corporate Fear, and Market Discipline Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We return after a brief hiatus to catch up on a whirlwind of recent headlines, from political drama to bizarre claims about aliens, before turning to the Supreme Court's consideration of birthright citizenship and the broader question of executive power versus congressional authority. We examine how Congress has gradually ceded its responsibilities on issues like tariffs, war powers, and immigration, and what that means for the balance of power in government. We then head to Ireland, where one enterprising citizen used AI to track the true price of a pint of Guinness, before moving to Texas for our Foolishness of the Week, where a congressional race has taken an unusual turn as a candidate campaigns by performing at quinceañeras. Finally, we dive into financial bubbles, exploring how markets price uncertainty, why emerging technologies like AI attract massive investment despite unclear outcomes, and how bubbles function as part of the process of discovering what new innovations are actually worth. 00:00 Introduction: A Month of Chaos 02:43 Supreme Court, Birthright Citizenship, and Trump's Presence 03:45 Executive Power vs Congressional Authority 06:16 Why Congress Keeps Ceding Its Power 09:09 Can a System This Large Even Function? 10:17 Ireland's Guinness Price Investigation with AI 13:04 Foolishness of the Week: Texas Campaigning at Quinceañeras 16:04 Redistricting, Demographics, and Political Miscalculations 18:11 Financial Bubbles and Why Economists Ignore Them 19:17 The “Real Economy” vs Financial Markets 22:24 Pricing the Unknown: Cars, Dot-Coms, and AI 24:56 AI Investing, Speculation, and Bubble Pricing 26:53 AI as the Next Internet and Technological Integration 30:53 Amazon, Spillover Innovation, and Unexpected Winners 37:22 Consumer Power, Corporate Fear, and Market Discipline Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This episode offers an exhaustive exploration of how the U.S. Constitution distributes authority among branches and levels of government, emphasizing that these powers are constantly in dynamic tension. It's essential listening for understanding how modern courts police the boundaries designed by the framers.Most of us assume separation of powers keeps legislative, executive, and judicial branches neatly apart. But the reality is far more dynamic—and dangerous. In this episode, we explore how the U.S. Constitution's architecture intentionally fosters friction, overlap, and always a battle for power. You'll discover how the framers designed a system that relies on constant collision, not silence, between branches to prevent tyranny.We break down the true nature of the separation of powers: why the silos are leaky, how ambition must counteract ambition, and why the branches are wired to clash. From the president's domestic toolkit—appointments, vetoes, pardons—to foreign policy's delicate dance of treaties versus executive agreements, you'll gain a real-world sense of these powerful tools in action. Decipher why presidents deploy troops without congressional declarations, and how executive agreements differ from treaties in legal hierarchy, with critical implications for national security and foreign diplomacy.Then, we navigate the complex terrain of federalism, mapping how federal laws can preempt state laws through express, conflict, obstacle, or field preemption. You'll learn to spot the Dormant Commerce Clause's core restriction against protectionism—plus its key exceptions, congressional consent, and the market participant doctrine. These nuanced concepts reveal how states can act as market players, but not regulators, without infringing on the national economic fabric.Finally, we tie it all together with the Major Questions Doctrine—the Supreme Court's latest must-know. When agencies claim sweeping powers based on vague statutes, courts now demand clear congressional authorization for those monumental shifts. This is constitutional architecture at its most vital, gating the exercise of colossal policy decisions to elected representatives.This episode isn't just about rules; it's a blueprint for understanding the relentless tension that sustains American democracy. Perfect for law students, legal professionals, or anyone eager to see deeper into how power genuinely operates in the U.S. government. Master these concepts, and you'll see through the noise—understanding not just what the law says, but why it was built that way.

Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner joins Marc Elias to break down why the rule of law is hanging by a thread. They also discuss the Epstein files cover-up, DOJ ethics violations, and why we need a scorched-earth accountability effort.Support Democracy Docket's mission:https://newsletters.democracydocket.com/anchor-youtube-tuesday00:00 Today's Guest: Glenn Kirschner00:41 One Year In: How is the Nation and the Rule of Law Doing?02:47 What Does the New "Accountability Project" Look Like?05:43 Where Will the Next Generation of Non-Political Prosecutors Come From?07:40 Context: Glenn's History with Eric Holder and Bob Mueller09:42 Unpacking Legal Standards: Probable Cause vs. Likelihood of Conviction11:06 Case Study: The Sean Dunn "Sandwich Throwing" Prosecution17:58 Accountability After Jan 6th: What Was Done Right and Wrong?23:56 Avoiding the "Normalizing" of Political Crimes in 202926:19 Current Events: The Seizure of Ballots in Fulton County28:15 Discussion: The "Presumption of Regularity" in Trump-era Courts35:02 Is the Supreme Court Recalibrating on Executive Power?37:21 Potential DOJ Interference in the Upcoming Election40:13 The Epstein Files: What is Happening with the Missing Records?47:44 Final Thoughts: What Can Everyday Americans Do to Fight Back?

CannCon and Ashe in America are joined by attorney Peter Ticktin for a wide-ranging discussion on constitutional law, executive authority, and the legal frameworks surrounding election legitimacy. The conversation explores how the Constitution is interpreted in modern legal battles, the limits of federal power, and how legal strategies are being used to challenge or defend election outcomes. Peter breaks down complex constitutional arguments into plain terms, walking through the role of the executive branch, the judiciary, and the tension between state and federal authority. The discussion also touches on legal precedent, the importance of due process, and how courts approach politically sensitive cases. Throughout the episode, the panel examines how legal narratives shape public perception and why understanding constitutional structure is critical in evaluating election-related disputes. It is a deep dive into law, power, and the ongoing debate over how America governs itself.

International law expert Rebecca Ingber of Cardozo Law joins Leah at the top of the show to talk about the US and Israel's war on Iran. Then, Leah welcomes guest co-host Chris Geidner of Law Dork to run through domestic legal news, including the omission of allegations against Trump from the Epstein files, the President's MAHA Surgeon General nominee Casey Means's confirmation hearing, the administration's wildly illegal halting of Medicaid funds to Minnesota, the role of independent media in Trump 2.0, and some of the stories Chris has been breaking. They also unpack last week's oral arguments and opinions before Leah is joined by Marc Elias, chair of Elias Law Group and founder of Democracy Docket, to discuss how voting rights are under attack from all three branches of government.Favorite Things: Chris: Upcoming theatre including As You Like It (RSC), The Rock Horror Show (Broadway), and Sunday in the Park With George (Barbican, London) Leah: Upcoming article for the Georgetown Law Review, The Passive Vices; independent media including Law Dork; Democracy Docket; and One First; The Supreme Court is Not "Reining in" Executive Power, Steve Vladeck (One First); Crooked on MS NOW premiering on Saturday at 9pm ET on MS NOW Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2026!  3/6/26 – San Francisco 3/7/26 – Los Angeles Learn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPreorder Melissa's book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern ReaderBuy Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

The SOTU Address was masterful, and we witnessed the power of the Executive Branch when the military is in control.  The shots were fired and the warnings were sent.  I discuss the position of the fraud czar, the search warrant for the superintendent of the LAUSD, and Nationwide Children's Hospital literacy screenings uncovered that schools and illegals are the problem.   Book Websites: HERE and HERE. https://www.moneytreepublishing.com/shop PROMO CODE: “AEFM” for 10% OFF, or https://armreg.co.uk PROMO CODE: "americaneducationfm" for 15% off all books and products. (I receive no kickbacks).  https://www.thriftbooks.com/ Q posts book: https://drive.proton.me/urls/JJ78RV1QP8#yCO0wENuJQPH

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching court battles unfold like a high-stakes thriller, but here we are in late February 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal showdowns have dominated the headlines for days. It started heating up last Friday, February 20th, when the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., dropped a bombshell in the consolidated cases of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. By a 6-3 vote, Chief Justice John Roberts announced the judgment, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA from 1977, does not authorize the president to impose those sweeping tariffs Trump had slapped on imports from Canada, Mexico, and dozens of other countries. Trump had declared national emergencies over drug trafficking and massive trade deficits, calling them unusual and extraordinary threats, then hit Canada with a 25% duty on most goods to combat fentanyl flows. But the justices, including Trump's own appointees like Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett in the majority on key parts, said no—the law lets the president investigate, block, regulate, or prohibit imports during emergencies, but not straight-up tariffs. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts fully, while Brett Kavanaugh dissented, arguing IEEPA's text and history gave Trump broad power, especially under the major questions doctrine for foreign affairs.The ruling, covered everywhere from SCOTUSblog to The New York Times and Fox News, was a huge check on executive power. Vox called it a Republican court reining in Trump, while The Guardian labeled it the end of his one-man tariff war. Trump didn't take it lying down. That same day, February 20th, he spoke to a packed crowd, as captured in the CNBC Television video, ripping into the justices: "I'm ashamed of certain members of the court... they're a disgrace to our nation, very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution." He accused them of being swayed by foreign interests and even his own picks of lacking loyalty, though he praised Justice Kavanaugh's "genius." Axios reported him calling the court an embarrassment, and Politico noted his fierce pushback with vows for new levies.By Tuesday's State of the Union, Trump dialed it back, calling the decision disappointing but complying—no defiance, as senior writer Ankush Khardori pointed out in Politico Magazine. He signed an order for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, set to kick in days later for up to 150 days or longer, plus Section 301 probes into unfair practices. Meanwhile, just yesterday on Thursday, February 26th, SCOTUSblog reported the Trump administration, via U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, petitioned the Supreme Court again. This time, it's over Temporary Protected Status for Syrian nationals. A federal judge in New York had blocked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's move to end the program, which lets Syrians stay and work here amid their country's chaos. Sauer called it an easier case than recent Venezuelan TPS wins, urging the justices to stay the ruling by March 5th, arguing courts can't second-guess national security calls or consultation requirements.These past few days have been a whirlwind of executive power tests—from tariffs crashing down to immigration fights heating up. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker shows dozens more cases bubbling, but this week's rulings remind us the courts are holding the line.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and 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

In this explosive episode, you'll get breaking analysis of the Supreme Court's landmark 6-3 decision declaring Trump's tariffs unconstitutional, and what it means for the economy, Congress, and the upcoming State of the Union address. Key topics you'll explore in this episode: • The Supreme Court's constitutional reasoning behind striking down Trump's tariff authority and why this wasn't an ideological decision • Trump's immediate response and his plan to impose new tariffs under different legal authority • The massive logistical nightmare facing businesses: Will companies have to refund tariff costs to consumers? How will they prove what was passed on? • The rising power of Commerce Secretary and how Section 232 and Section 301 trade authorities become the new battleground • Whether Congress will finally reclaim its Article One constitutional duty to regulate tariffs through a new reconciliation package • State of the Union preview: Will Trump stay on teleprompter or go off-script attacking the Supreme Court? • The strategic debate: Should Democrats attend the State of the Union or boycott? Our panel is deeply divided • Alternative State of the Union events on the National Mall and at the National Press Club—who's attending and why it matters • How the rise of independent journalism and platforms like Substack are changing political media consumption • The proper decorum debate: Is sitting silently while the President lies a dereliction of duty, or is disrupting the institution worse? This episode features passionate debate between our co-hosts about institutional norms, political strategy, and what Democrats should do on Tuesday night. You'll hear arguments for maintaining decorum versus the moral imperative to resist, and why this moment represents a fundamental question about American democratic institutions. Whether you're concerned about rising prices, worried about constitutional checks and balances, or just trying to understand what happens next in this chaotic political moment, this episode gives you the insider analysis you need.

On this Week in Politics, Scott Jagow is joined by John Hancock and Michael Kelley to break down the Supreme Court ruling on tariffs and executive authority, its impact on Donald Trump, and what it means for checks and balances moving forward. The panel also discusses the State of the Union, inflation and tariff messaging, the Democratic rebuttal, and early speculation surrounding the 2028 presidential race.

Justice Scalia and the Unitary Executive Theory. Reflecting on Justice Antonin Scalia's legacy, Professor John Yoodetails the concept of the unitary executive. Scalia powerfully argued that the Constitution vests all executive power directly in the president, warning that independent agencies fragment federal authority, diminish democratic accountability, and disrupt the essential separation of powers. #151910 BOOK OF MINES

In a monumental 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Trump Administration's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), making clear that, in the eyes of the majority, regulating trade and taxing it are not the same thing and that nothing in IEEPA's text, structure, or history shows that Congress intended to quietly hand over unlimited tariff power to the Executive Branch.  

SCOTUS:: Guest: Richard Epstein. Epstein analyzes the legal implications of President Trumpfiring Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, debating the limits of the unitary executive power.1889 SCOTUS

From February 12, 2025: Jack Goldsmith, the Learned Hand Professor at Harvard Law School and co-founder of Lawfare, joins Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare, to talk about his recent Lawfare article discussing last year's Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States and its implications for executive power. They discuss how the ruling extends beyond presidential immunity, the broader shift toward a maximalist theory of executive authority, and what this means for the future of American democracy.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.

On today's episode of Uncommon Sense with Ginny Robinson, we continue unpacking the devastating revelations found in the Epstein files. What's been exposed isn't just corruption, it's a system that protects powerful criminals while innocent victims are silenced.The facts are very disturbing. There has been absolutely no accountability. And the victims deserve more than headlines and non-answers.We're asking hard questions about leadership, responsibility, and why justice still feels so out of reach. If powerful names are involved, then powerful action must follow. No more silence. No more avoidance. The victims deserve truth, and they deserve justice. NOW.--https://www.bible.com/

Plus: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson embraces warrantless ICE searches, the Super Bowl halftime culture war, and Trump continues funding the Department of Education

One year into Trump 2.0, we examine the administration's record on free speech and how it compares to the president's campaign pledge to "bring back free speech to America."  We also discuss recent ICE protests, including the right to carry a gun and to film law enforcement, and what these encounters reveal about protest rights today. Today we are joined by: Clark Neily, senior vice president for legal studies at the Cato Institute Timothy Zick, professor of government and citizenship at William & Mary Law School and author of the new book Trump 2.0: Executive Power and the First Amendment Conor Fitzpatrick, supervising senior attorney at FIRE Zick is also the author of Public Protest and Governmental Immunities, Managed Dissent: The Law of Public Protest, and Arming Public Protests.   Timestamps:  00:00 Intro   01:47 ICE protests: Alex Pretti, filming police, and the right to carry a gun 13:30 How to hold law enforcement accountable 19:10 Don Lemon's arrest 23:27 Trump's retribution politics and the "domestic terrorist" label 35:05 FCC pressure and attacks on the media  39:40 Free speech for noncitizens 53:49 Attacks on higher education 58:40 Trump 1.0 vs. Trump 2.0 01:02:25 What reforms are needed? 1:09:13 Outro Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more.  If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.

Richard Epstein of the Hoover Institution endorses Kevin Walsh for the Fed, arguing that while independent boards challenge executive power, long-standing institutions gain legal legitimacy through historical prescription.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court like it's the Super Bowl, but here we are in late January 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal battles are heating up faster than a Florida summer. Just this week, on January 21, the justices heard arguments in Trump, President of the United States v. Cook, a case straight out of the Oval Office power playbook. According to the Supreme Court's own monthly argument calendar, it was one of the key sessions testing how far Trump can push executive authority. Picture this: Trump's team arguing he can fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud, no full hearing required. News4JAX reports the Court seemed skeptical during those arguments, with justices across the spectrum questioning whether the president can boot independent agency leaders on a whim like that.Rewind a bit to the shadow docket frenzy of 2025—that's the Supreme Court's fast-track emergency rulings without full debates or explanations. Scotusblog details how Trump's administration leaned on it heavily, winning over 80% of the time from the conservative majority. They greenlit canceling foreign aid and health funding, firing independent agency heads, even immigration questioning based on appearance or language, and requiring passports to match biological sex. But the Court drew a line at Trump's plan to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, blocking it in a December 23 decision, and handled Trump v. Illinois on September 8 over immigration detentions in Los Angeles. These shadow moves shaped policy quietly, but now, with Trump's approval dipping to 42% by late 2025 per News4JAX polls, the big full hearings are here.Coming down the pike: birthright citizenship challenges under the 14th Amendment—can Trump end automatic U.S. citizenship for anyone born here? Sweeping global tariffs without Congress's okay, testing presidential trade power. And that Fed firing case, potentially gutting the Federal Reserve's independence. Chief Justice John Roberts wrapped 2025 with a year-end report hammering home judicial independence, calling courts a counter-majoritarian check against popular whims. He sidestepped politics, focusing on history, but experts like Constitutional Law Professor Rod Sullivan on News4JAX's Politics & Power say the Court's timing is no accident—Trump's weaker politically, so justices might finally clip his wings.Meanwhile, down in Congress, the House Judiciary Committee grilled former Special Counsel Jack Smith on January 23 about Trump's alleged criminal actions, from conspiring to overturn the 2020 election to mishandling classified documents. Representative Steve Cohen's newsletter recounts Smith facing questions on Trump's witness intimidation tactics, with Cohen praising him as a great American standing firm. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker notes a dismissal on January 14 of a case over dismantling the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, mooted out. And don't sleep on criminal law sidelines: Scotusblog's mid-term update flags nine new cases, like Wolford v. Lopez argued January 20 on Second Amendment rights, or geofence warrants in United States v. Chatrie testing Fourth Amendment limits.As California's Republicans begged the Court on January 22 to block a new 2026 midterm election map, per Scotusblog, it feels like every corner of the judiciary is tangled in Trump's orbit. These rulings could redefine presidential power, from citizenship in cities like New York to trade hitting ports in Miami. Chief Justice Roberts' quiet defense of court independence is about to face its ultimate stress test—will the justices stand firm, or bend to the political gale?Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and 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 listeners, picture this: it's been a whirlwind few days in the courts, with President Donald Trump's legal battles dominating headlines from the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., all the way to Capitol Hill. Just two days ago, on Wednesday, January 21, I was glued to the live updates from SCOTUSblog as the nation's highest court dove into Trump v. Cook, a blockbuster case over Trump's bold move to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from the Board of Governors. The arguments kicked off at 10 a.m. sharp in the majestic Supreme Court chamber, with Trump administration lawyers defending the president's authority to remove her, claiming it's essential for executive control over the independent Fed. On the other side, Lisa Cook's powerhouse attorney, Paul Clement—the guy often called the LeBron James of the Supreme Court for his wins under President George W. Bush—argued fiercely that Fed governors serve 14-year terms protected by statute, shielding them from political whims.Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell showed up in person, drawing fire from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who blasted it on CNBC as a mistake that politicizes the Fed. Bessent said, and I quote from the report, "If you're trying not to politicize the Fed, for the Fed chair to be sitting there trying to put his thumb on the scale, that's a mistake." Bloomberg Law highlighted Clement's role, noting his recent clashes with the Trump team on everything from Big Law firm executive orders to Harvard's foreign student visa fights. The justices grilled both sides intensely—Justice Amy Coney Barrett even pressed a lawyer on disagreements with the government's brief—leaving everyone buzzing about a potential ruling that could reshape presidential power over economic watchdogs.But that's not all. Shifting to Congress, yesterday, Thursday, January 22, the House Judiciary Committee in the 2141 Rayburn House Office Building held a tense 10 a.m. hearing titled "Oversight of the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith." Lawmakers zeroed in on Smith's office, scrutinizing his past investigations and prosecutions of President Trump and his co-defendants in cases tied to the 2020 election and classified documents. Tension was thick as Republicans pushed for accountability, while Democrats defended the probes' integrity—echoes of Smith's indictments that rocked the nation before Trump's return to the White House.Meanwhile, other Trump-related fights simmer. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco scheduled a June hearing on Trump's appeal of an Oregon federal judge's injunction blocking National Guard deployment to Portland, after the Supreme Court sided against a similar Illinois push last month, per The Oregonian. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker noted a dismissal as moot on January 14 in a case over dismantling the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, one of dozens tracking the administration's court clashes. And don't forget the Supreme Court's recent denials of gun rights petitions, though they punted on one involving a woman's old check-forgery conviction—Trump's influence looms large even there.As these battles unfold, from Fed independence to prosecutorial oversight, the stakes feel sky-high for our democracy and economy. Will the justices side with Trump's firing power? What's next for Jack Smith's legacy? Listeners, thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more updates. 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

# 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

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.