Podcasts about executive power

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

Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative architects at the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, launched in April 2023 as the 900-page Mandate for Leadership, a detailed roadmap to consolidate executive power and dismantle what its authors call the bloated administrative state, according to the Heritage Foundation's own documentation.At its core, the plan targets federal agencies for radical overhaul. It calls for abolishing the Department of Education entirely, shifting programs like those under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to Health and Human Services, while empowering states with school choice and parental rights to combat what it labels "woke propaganda" in public schools. The Department of Homeland Security would vanish too, replaced by a streamlined immigration agency merging Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and others, with proposals to end protections against migrant apprehensions near schools and churches, as outlined in the Mandate.Key reforms push the unitary executive theory, placing the DOJ, FBI, and independent bodies like the FTC under direct presidential control. "The DOJ has become a bloated bureaucracy... infatuated with a radical liberal agenda," the project states, advocating replacement of civil servants with loyalists via reinstating Schedule F, which strips job protections for up to a million workers. It also eyes cuts to Medicare and Medicaid through funding caps and work requirements, plus shrinking the National Labor Relations Board to hinder union organizing.Latest developments show momentum: By early 2025, President Trump's Executive Order on the Department of Government Efficiency directed agencies to prepare massive reductions in force and reorganization plans by March, per Office of Personnel Management guidance, echoing Project 2025's 180-day playbook of ready executive orders.Experts warn of risks. The ACLU describes it as a "radical restructuring" threatening civil liberties, while unions like the American Federation of Government Employees decry it as a bid to terminate workers and politicize expertise. Yet proponents argue it streamlines efficiency, as Heritage claims: a collective effort for "positive change."This ambition connects to broader themes of reclaiming power from unelected bureaucrats, illustrated by merging economic bureaus into one conservative-aligned entity.Looking ahead, Phase 2 agency plans due by September 2025 could accelerate these shifts, with midterm elections as a pivotal decision point.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more.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

Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative architects at the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, launched in April 2023 as the 900-page Mandate for Leadership, a detailed roadmap to consolidate executive power and install loyalists across federal agencies, according to the Heritage Foundation's own documentation.Its stated goal? Reshape the sprawling administrative state into a leaner machine aligned with right-wing priorities. Picture Day One of a new Republican presidency: a stack of executive orders ready to sign, firing tens of thousands of civil servants under the revived Schedule F category, reclassifying them as at-will political appointees. The Heritage Foundation's plan calls for replacing them with vetted personnel from its database, aiming for 20,000 recruits by late 2024. As Government Executive reports, by early 2025, the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, accelerated this—slashing diversity offices, issuing reduction-in-force plans for 70,000 jobs, and targeting agencies like USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which returned $21 billion to scam victims but now faces elimination.Concrete changes abound. The blueprint urges dismantling the Department of Education, shifting programs like those for disabled students to Health and Human Services and curbing federal civil rights enforcement in schools to prioritize “student safety over racial parity in discipline,” per Mandate for Leadership. It eyes abolishing the Department of Homeland Security, merging its immigration functions, and partisan control of the DOJ and FBI, making their leaders directly accountable to the president. Cuts loom for Medicaid via funding caps and work requirements, plus shrinking the NIH and reversing Biden-era environmental rules to boost nuclear energy and corporate tax breaks.Experts warn of risks. The ACLU describes it as a “radical restructuring” threatening reproductive, LGBTQ, and immigrant rights. Unions like AFGE decry the potential loss of up to a million federal workers' protections, echoing fears of politicized governance.By mid-2025, courts have reinstated some fired staff at Voice of America and CFPB, signaling legal battles ahead. As return-to-office mandates clash with office closures, the project's ambition tests America's checks and balances.Looking forward, key milestones like congressional action on Education cuts and union fights could define 2026 governance. Will efficiency triumph or chaos ensue?Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more.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

Jim Thorne returns to break down why this market reset is unlike the 1970s, exposing Fed missteps, supply-side economics, and the real drivers behind AI, oil, and global capital flows. He explains why Wall Street is misreading inflation and why gold, Bitcoin, and select banks could lead the next cycle, with a clear 12-month outlook and a path toward $5,000 gold. #fed #gold #bitcoin ------------

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

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.

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.

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

The 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.

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

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.