Podcasts about Executor

Choosing a Trustee: Why Naming Your Kid May Be a Mistake — Marguerite Lorenz Short answer: Naming your child as trustee, executor, or agent under your power of attorney is the default choice for most American families — and it is frequently the wrong one. In this episode of Wealth Actually, host Frazer Rice talks with California Licensed Professional Fiduciary and Master Certified Independent Trustee Marguerite Lorenz about why roughly two-thirds of American adults still have no estate plan, why the job of a trustee is far more intimate and technical than families expect, and how to decide between a family trustee, a bank or trust company, and an independent professional trustee. https://youtu.be/56bzuORe8YI Episode Overview: Who Will Actually Run Your Plan? Most estate planning conversations stop at the documents. Marguerite Lorenz argues the documents are the easy part. The hard part is staffing — deciding who steps in when you can no longer make new decisions, and whether that person can absorb the technical, financial, and emotional weight of the job. Lorenz has served as trustee, executor, agent under power of attorney for finance, and agent for health care for hundreds of families since 2003. She is the author of three books — Luck or Control? The Life-Improving Power of Estate Planning, How to Be a Successful 90-Year-Old, and the newly updated Ethics for Trustees 2.0 — and she is Vice-Chair of the Independent Trustee Alliance. Her framing line, and the one that should stick with every listener: “If you don’t get your estate plan done, you’re suing your family. You’re making them go to court. And who would want to make anyone else go to court?”— Marguerite Lorenz This is the second time Marguerite has joined the show. Her first appearance covered the mechanics of individual trusteeship: EP.75 — Individual Trusteeship with Marguerite Lorenz. Key Takeaways •Only about a third of American adults have any written estate plan — and Lorenz argues half of those plans would not actually function when needed. •Professionals are barely better than the public. When Lorenz polls rooms of attorneys, CPAs, and financial advisors, roughly one-third raise their hands for a complete, up-to-date, ready-to-go plan. •The trustee role is intimate, not administrative. A trustee sees your paperwork, your bills, your medications, and your bedroom. “Who is going to be the first person in your bedroom when you are no longer able to make new decisions?” •Incapacity, not death, is the long tail. Many people live for five or six years unable to make new decisions. The trustee’s job often runs during your lifetime, not just after it. •A professional trustee can be temporary. Lorenz recounts stepping in for a client during cancer treatment, providing a full accounting, and stepping back down when he recovered — then serving again after his death. Would your child step back down? •Estate planning is about preferences, not predictions. “Our power in estate planning is not prediction, it’s setting our preferences” — and preferences can only be set while you are competent. •Quality of life belongs in the plan. Not just tax, legal, and financial terms — but how you want to live, where you want to live, and what small things matter (for Lorenz, an international selection of dark chocolate). •Digital assets are now a core trustee problem. Phones, social accounts, and daily transactions all require someone with access and authority. •A will does nothing while you are alive. “The will doesn’t operate at all if you go to the hospital and you haven’t granted authority to anyone.” •Cost is usually overestimated. Both an estate plan and an independent professional trustee typically cost far less than probate court. •Revisit every five years. Calendar a five-year check-in with your attorney to review law changes, marriages, divorces, births, and deaths. Chapters and Timestamps •[00:00] Cold open: “If you don’t get your estate plan done, you’re suing your family.” •[00:32] Welcome back — introducing Marguerite Lorenz, California trustee and author •[01:14] Luck or Control? — why fear keeps families from finishing an estate plan •[02:22] What a full-time trustee actually sees: trustee, executor, agent for finance, agent for health care •[03:49] Why families default to naming a child — and where that breaks down •[05:00] The skill set nobody screens for: negotiation, calm, empathy, and grief •[05:40] Case study: serving as temporary trustee through a client’s cancer treatment — and stepping back down •[07:51] Why even attorneys need their own attorney: nobody is objective about their own circumstances •[09:09] The five-year estate plan check-in as a life milestone •[09:39] How to Be a Successful 90-Year-Old — living well to the very end •[10:20] The “black box” problem: privacy, dignity, and care in your own home •[11:54] Preferences over predictions — planning for your future vulnerable self •[13:40] Rewriting an advance health care directive after hundreds of hospital bedsides •[16:13] The statistics: only a third of adults — and only a third of professionals — are actually ready •[17:47] Frazer’s challenge to advisors: you can’t advise well if you aren’t practicing what you preach •[18:22] The first question in Luck or Control?: “Hey professional, do you have your estate plan done?” •[19:21] Ethics for Trustees 2.0 — what’s new in the updated audio and PDF edition •[20:27] Family trustee vs. bank trustee vs. independent professional trustee •[21:52] The looming crisis: the great wealth transfer, incapacity, and digital assets •[24:54] Documenting the “why” behind hard trustee decisions •[25:23] Probate courts overrun, bioethics committees, and next-of-kin defaults •[26:54] Where to find the books, the podcast, and the Independent Trustee Alliance directory About the Guest: Marguerite Lorenz, MCIT, CLPF Marguerite Lorenz is a California Licensed Professional Fiduciary (CLPF #319) and a Master Certified Independent Trustee (MCIT). She has served as Trustee, Executor, Agent for Finance, and Agent for Health Care for more than 200 families since 2003 as managing partner of Lorenz Private Trustees. Marguerite is Vice-Chair of the Board of the Independent Trustee Alliance, past Chair of the California Professional Fiduciaries Bureau Advisory Committee, and host of the Plan For This podcast. She is the author of Luck or Control? The Life-Improving Power of Estate Planning, How to Be a Successful 90-Year-Old, and Ethics for Trustees 2.0. About the Host: Frazer Rice Frazer Rice is the author of Wealth, Actually: Intelligent Decision-Making for the 1% and host of the Wealth Actually podcast, where he interviews experts, entrepreneurs, and commentators on preserving assets and enjoying wealth. Resources and Links Mentioned •PlanForThis.com — Marguerite’s books, the Plan For This podcast, and a free First Steps toolkit. Ethics for Trustees 2.0 is now exclusive to this site (audio + PDF bundled with purchase). •TrusteeAlliance.com — the Independent Trustee Alliance directory for locating certified independent trustees by state. •Marguerite Lorenz on LinkedIn •California Professional Fiduciaries Bureau — state licensing for professional fiduciaries •Related episode: EP.75 — Individual Trusteeship with Marguerite Lorenz •Related episode: What If You Are Named in a Will or Trust? Frequently Asked Questions Should I name my child as trustee? Not automatically. A child understands the family but may lack the technical skill to handle tax, legal, financial, and medical decisions — and may be grieving or in conflict with siblings at the exact moment judgment is required. Marguerite Lorenz notes that a trustee must be a good negotiator, stay calm under pressure, set aside personal feelings, and enforce rules the grantor set. She also raises a test most families never consider: if you recover, would your child voluntarily step back down and hand you a full accounting? What is the difference between a family trustee, a corporate trustee, and an independent trustee? A family trustee is a relative or friend serving in a personal capacity, usually unpaid and untrained. A corporate trustee is a bank or trust company with institutional infrastructure, minimum account sizes, and staff turnover. An independent professional trustee is a licensed or certified individual — like a California Licensed Professional Fiduciary — who serves full-time, carries a succession plan, and can often be engaged at a lower cost than families expect. The Independent Trustee Alliance maintains a national directory of independent trustees. What does a trustee actually do while I am still alive? A trustee acting during incapacity manages assets, accounts for every dollar, handles taxation, pays bills, coordinates care, and increasingly manages digital assets such as phone-based transactions and social media accounts. Lorenz emphasizes that many people live for five or six years unable to make new decisions, so the trustee’s lifetime role is often longer and more demanding than the post-death administration. How often should I update my estate plan? Roughly every five years, or sooner after a major life event such as marriage, divorce, birth, death, a liquidity event, or a change in tax law. Lorenz recommends putting a five-year reminder in your phone to call your attorney and ask what has changed in the law and in your life. What happens if I go to the hospital without an estate plan? The hospital and its bioethics committee will do the best they can and will look for next of kin to make decisions for you — potentially people with whom you have never discussed your personal wishes. A will does not help here, because a will only operates after death. Financial and health care powers of attorney are what grant someone authority while you are alive. Is an estate plan expensive? Usually less than people assume, and materially less than probate court. Lorenz makes the same point about professional trustees: “Independent individual professional trustees cost a lot less than you think also. And you need to ask, because this is your life we’re talking about.” Do financial professionals have their own estate plans? Often not. When Lorenz polls audiences of attorneys, CPAs, and financial advisors, only about a third report having a complete, up-to-date, ready-to-go plan — barely better than the general public. Her challenge to the profession is that clients will increasingly ask advisors directly: “Do you have your estate plan completed?” Pull Quotes “Our power in estate planning is not prediction, it’s really about setting our preferences.” “Who’s going to be the first person in your bedroom when you are no longer able to make new decisions?” “I’m not in charge. I’m a servant-manager.” “Once I get my estate plan done and updated, I don’t think about it anymore. My head space is so clear because everything I was worried about has been thought about, considered, allowed, and put down in writing.” Full Transcript Transcript lightly edited for clarity. Timestamps are approximate. [00:00] Marguerite Lorenz: You know, if you don’t get your estate plan done, you’re suing your family. You’re making them go to court, right? And who would want to make anyone else go to court? [00:08] Announcer: Welcome back to the Wealth Actually podcast, the show that features experts, entrepreneurs, and commentators that will give you the right knowledge, planning, and guidance so you can preserve your assets and enjoy your wealth. Learn more and subscribe today at wealthactually.com. This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is not investment, legal, nor tax advice and does not represent the opinion of the employers of the host or guests. [00:32] Frazer Rice: Welcome back. Friend of the podcast Marguerite Lorenz is on the podcast this week. She’s a California trustee and has a new book called Luck or Control? out. We’re going to talk a little bit about fiduciary matters and what it takes to have good staffing within your estate plan. Welcome back, Marguerite. [00:54] Marguerite Lorenz: Thank you, Frazer. [00:55] Frazer Rice: Since the last time you were on, you have a couple of books out and we’ve gotten to see each other a couple of times with the Independent Trustee Alliance. Let’s talk a little bit about the new book that you just published and what you’re trying to do with it. [01:14] Marguerite Lorenz: So that book is Luck or Control? The Life-Improving Power of Estate Planning. And I wrote it because I’ve seen hundreds and hundreds of families really struggle with how this is going to get done, and many people don’t get their estate plan done at all because they’re so afraid. They don’t know what to expect, they don’t want to talk about their mortality, they don’t want to have serious conversations with their loved ones. And if we don’t have those conversations, we really lose all control when we need it the most — when that medical crisis happens or when life changes in a big way. [01:52] Frazer Rice: No question about it. And I went through the book and it’s an important read, because for those people who really have to get their affairs in order and feel stuck for some reason, I think you do a good job of laying out why you need to get unstuck and then how to take a couple of steps to initiate those conversations and get the important things down so that you can then have the deeper conversations that help out later on as you’re structuring things. What part of your experience being a full-time trustee helped to inform all of this? [02:22] Marguerite Lorenz: Well, as a trustee professionally, I’ve met with lots of different families in lots of different circumstances. And for many of them they’ve named me, and so I’m serving in that role. It’s not just trustee; it’s trustee, executor, agent on the power of attorney for finance, and even as agent for health care. And so that’s a very intimate job. It’s a job where you end up seeing someone’s entire life, or as much as you can of another person — their paperwork, how they do things, how they pay their bills, how they live, what medications they take. It’s really very intimate. And I think a lot of us assume that our children know us and they’ll do what we want them to do. But the thing is that it’s very likely you haven’t lived with your children in the same household for decades. And now you’re asking them to come back, drop their life, and come in and be that person for you. Be the person who’s going to protect your privacy, be that person who’s going to protect the way you want to live. And they may disagree with the way you want to live. They may actually have issues with some of the choices that you’ve made or how you’ve proceeded. So now, in addition to having a medical challenge where you’re not able to make new decisions — maybe temporarily, maybe permanently — now you have someone who wants to run the show or actually be in charge. In my job as a professional trustee, I’m not in charge. I’m a servant-manager. I’m really taking the trustor’s wishes and how they’ve structured things and really looking at that to be sure that I can continue it as best I can with all the changes that have occurred. [03:49] Frazer Rice: One of the things we were talking about before we got on board, and something we’ve discussed generally through the Independent Trustee Alliance, is that people who are asked to serve in those roles usually are family members. And for people who are uninitiated in the field, that seems like an obvious choice, because they’re really trying to put somebody in there who understands the family. But as you and I know, they may not be necessarily qualified to deal with the technicalities of the different roles that we just discussed. But also, the idea of taking on the emotional toll of these new conditions can be something different and unapproachable for many people. [04:30] Marguerite Lorenz: Well, I think it helps to kind of look at some of those issues. So you might have more than one child. Even if you have an only child, these issues apply. And now you’ve been in the hospital and you’re expecting this person to deal with your tax, legal, financial, and medical decisions. This person has to be a good negotiator. This person has to be calm when there’s issues that arise, and they may have feelings — they may be grieving that things have changed for themselves and in their relationship with you. So I think to be really empathetic and to be really kind and compassionate, we have to get our own stuff in order so that we can really have a good experience for our last days. And again, some of these roles that I’ve served in have been temporary. Let me give you an example. I worked with a gentleman whose wife had passed away because of cancer. She had been gone about two years and he himself was diagnosed with cancer. So he already knew what that might be like, right? She had already had chemotherapy; he was right there with her through all of that experience. Well, now faced with it himself, he said, “In order for me to do this, I don’t have a partner. I need somebody who’s going to deal with the business of my life so that I can focus on my health.” He named me as his trustee. I became active. I reported to him because he was still able to receive those reports. He was certainly mentally able, but physically it was really hard. He was exhausted most of the time. And he was going to grief support for the loss of his wife and going to chemotherapy treatments. So you can imagine just how full his day was. So we’re into this two years. He met a woman at grief support. He was feeling better because the treatment worked, and he decided he wanted to travel the world before he died. And he married this woman, and they were very happy together. And he asked if he could be trustee again. So — I’m a professional trustee. It’s part of my duty to step back and step down when the trustor who wants to be trustee again wants that job back. So I gave him a full report, he had an accounting, he knew exactly what had happened during my term. He went on with his life, and then he passed away and I became trustee again. So I just wanted people to know that it could be temporary. It’s not necessarily a permanent job. Would your child step back down? [07:14] Frazer Rice: No question. Once in the role, sometimes it’s difficult to get out of it. But you did the right thing in terms of getting an accounting, making sure that your duties stopped when you were told to get off, and then when you were ready to come back on, that those sightlines are very clear. And that’s what comes with talking to a professional like you. You understand those parts so that you’re not having things bleed from one role into another and having liability issues or misunderstandings with the next generation. [07:51] Marguerite Lorenz: Right. And let’s talk about working with professionals from the beginning. We don’t know what we don’t know. And even attorneys need to go to an attorney to get their estate plan done. There may be attorneys who disagree with that, but none of us can be truly objective about our own circumstance. And we need someone who’s going to ask us some tough questions and really help us figure out: what is our intention? How do we feel about this? What’s important to us? So, getting my own estate plan done — I was a single mom in a new profession. I had just become a fiduciary and I had just learned about estate planning. I was learning so much at that time and realized, every time I drive on the freeway, I’m risking my children’s future. I’m their only parent. What can I do about that? So estate planning isn’t just about money, and it isn’t just about death. It’s also about taking an inventory. What do I have? What have I accomplished? Who do I love? What do I really care about? And once we get to have those kinds of conversations, our whole perspective on life improves. And I’ve used my own estate plan, every time I’ve gone to update it, as sort of a milestone check — where am I now? [09:09] Frazer Rice: Maybe the standard procedure is every five years to check in and make sure that life has not advanced as far as divorce, deaths, new kids, marriages, things like that, to make sure that the plan is in place. And it’s a great milestone to reflect on things. And then, as we move up the ladder wealth-wise, if there are changes in tax laws and things like that, it’s important to make sure that the plan understands that change and is able to accommodate what’s going on on that front. Let’s take that as a segue. You have another book that you came out with, How to Be a 90-Year-Old — or a well-functioning 90-year-old. [09:36] Marguerite Lorenz: How to Be a Successful 90-Year-Old. [09:39] Frazer Rice: More than well-functioning — actually successful. How to Be a Successful 90-Year-Old. I have not read that yet, so tell us a little bit about what’s going on there. [09:47] Marguerite Lorenz: Well, I want everyone to have that blue ribbon feeling at the end of their lives. And I picked 90 because I have had clients that have reached a grand old age of over 100. My last client passed at 105. So it is possible to live well until the very end. And I’ve been working with people for over 20 years that are much older than me, who have lots of wisdom and experience to share. Their stories are important. So for people that are serving as trustee — whether you’re a family member trustee or you’re a professional — this book might be helpful, because I actually talk about the relationships with those clients. And I also talk about some things we could do now so that life is simpler, better, and more comfortable when we might need some help. And that’s another barrier that a lot of us have. We have this barrier to having someone come into our home and help us. Our home is our sanctuary, it’s our private space. But I want everyone who’s listening right now to just think about it: who’s going to be the first person in your bedroom when you are no longer able to make new decisions? And do you want that person to see everything that might be in your bedroom? Many, many adults have what I call a black box. We have something that’s private that really, really we keep to ourselves. But everything gets exposed once you are not able to care for yourself. So then what? Well, many people want to stay in their home no matter what, as long as possible. So imagine, if you will — some of my clients have lived in the same home for 30, 40, 50 years. And now they have to get care. Can we arrange to have that care in their home? So this exploration is really about living well to the very end. There are some really great tips, things I’ve learned from my 90-plus-year-old clients that I’ve employed and deployed for myself. [11:23] Frazer Rice: Just as an example there — I’m a ripe old age of 53 shortly. The idea of getting things in place while you’re at the peak of your powers, and you don’t have the difficult decision of having the car keys taken from you, or being in a home that isn’t appropriate for you anymore, meaning you don’t have the necessary safeguards for showers and stairs and things like that. Do you get into that, as far as trying to look five years ahead to make sure that the things that you can do now in a more comfortable environment take place before maybe the emergency happens and then all of a sudden we say, “Oh my gosh, we’ve got to do a complete overhaul here”? [11:54] Marguerite Lorenz: Well, as you know, Frazer, our power in estate planning is not prediction, it’s really about setting our preferences. And if we don’t do that while we feel good, while we’re competent, while we’re thinking clearly, we don’t get a chance to express that or do that once we’ve lost our competence. So this is really important — that I’m thinking about my future vulnerable self. I’ll give you a small example for me personally: dark chocolate is part of my life. I like having an international selection of dark chocolate and I don’t want the same kind every day. I feel the nuances and the taste and the flavors; it’s important to me. For some people that might be wine, for other people it might be fine literature. It really depends on what you’re into. Well, our estate plan can be just about tax, legal, and financial stuff, but it really should be more. It should be about our quality of life. And that’s really what I’m instructing and what I’m talking about in a very warm, personal way in How to Be a Successful 90-Year-Old. And even in Luck or Control?, I want people to understand the function of the documents. So we talk about the documents and what they’re supposed to do to assist your person. But you have to have a person. And you might choose to have a trust company or a bank serve as your trustee, you might have a family member, you might have an individual like me — an independent trustee. You can find more independent trustees at the Independent Trustee Alliance. But the point is: how do I want to live? Who do I want to have help me? What does that help look like? Well, you might not know all the answers right now, but if you begin now, your eyes open to different possibilities. I’ll give you an example: I have visited lots of hospitals. I’ve been to people’s bedsides many, many times. I’ve learned that there are certain procedures I’m just not willing to go through. So in my mind I had to update my advance health care directive to basically say: this shell that I’m in, the case I walk around in, the machine that I live in, needs to be kept alive long enough so that my boys can say goodbye. And that’s not for me, that’s for them. But I don’t want it to go on interminably. [15:00] Marguerite Lorenz: So I’m pretty specific in my documents about what I want. So I’m hoping to help people have a little perspective — use that energy you have, use the power that you have right now to make decisions for yourself, and allow yourself the opportunity to update your estate planning documents from time to time, so that what you learn goes into your documents, and what you decide and what your intention is, is clear. [15:23] Frazer Rice: One of those points that you bring up that I think is important is that you can be a really good user of professional services with some forethought. To muse a little bit about what the end of life looks like is somewhat an unpleasant thought, if you feel like you’ve got less than your full faculties and that ends up being your future. But thinking about that and putting some planning around it, and real ideas about what you want others to take away from your end of life, in many ways I think is a great way to really get the documents put in place and reduce tension and questioning later, and any ambiguity that there might have been ahead of time. [16:13] Marguerite Lorenz: Well, that’s the thing too that we don’t necessarily consider when we avoid estate planning. And I’m talking to all the professionals who listen to you, Frazer. The percentage of professionals who have their estate plans completed might be just a little bit more than the average person, but only a third of American adults have any kind of written plan — and I would argue that half of them are not really going to work. And when I speak to professional groups — attorneys, CPAs, financial advisors and so on — I get that same raise of hands: only about a third of them have a complete, up-to-date, ready-to-go estate plan. Why do I need it ready to go? Because I don’t know what’s going to happen or when. So yes, it is hard to contemplate the end of our lives; it’s not something we want to think about. But how do you stop thinking about it? How do you stop worrying about it? You do everything you can about it right now, and then you set it aside. And our cell phones are so powerful that I can put in my calendar five years from now to call my attorney and ask if anything’s changed in the law, and to consider then if I need to think about anything that might have changed in my life that I want to update. So once I get my estate plan done and updated, I don’t think about it anymore. I’m so relieved. My head space is so clear, because everything I was worried about has been thought about, considered, allowed, and put down in writing. And now I don’t worry anymore. [17:47] Frazer Rice: I scolded a group of financial professionals I was giving a talk to. I asked probably a similar question, which was: how many of you have your estate plan documents up to date? And they all shot up, out of shame. I said, “How many of you have looked at them within the last two years?” And then that shot down to about a third, maybe less. I just said, “Shame on you.” People are looking to you for help on these things and you’re not leading by example. And so — point taken, and not just the trusts and estates lawyers, but for everybody else around the ecosystem. To not go through that exercise yourself — you can’t possibly advise correctly if you’re not practicing what you’re preaching. [18:22] Marguerite Lorenz: Well, here’s my challenge, and here’s my challenge to every professional in our mutual space: bank trust officers, administrators, paralegals, everybody. In Luck or Control? and on planforthis.com, which is where you can find my books and get a free First Steps toolkit, the first question is, “Hey professional, do you have your estate plan done?” It’s the first question. Why? Because I want to be sure I’m dealing with somebody who has some empathy for the emotional decisions I’m going to have to make. I want someone on my team that understands what this feels like — not just the wise, tax-smart decisions that they made. It’s a whole package. And so I’m putting it out there and I’m saying: I’m challenging everyone in our mutual space. Make sure you have your estate plan done, because more and more clients are going to be asking you, “Do you have your estate plan completed?” [19:21] Frazer Rice: So then let’s talk about your third book, which is sort of an update — and we talked about it in the previous podcast that we did a while ago, and I’ll have that in there — which is Ethics for Trustees. What’s in the update? I know it’s now in an audio version, which I haven’t sampled yet but I’m sure it’s really good. What’s new now versus when it first came out? [19:54] Marguerite Lorenz: So I’ve simplified it a bit, because I recognize that each of us can look up the probate code for the state that we live in, and it was really much more of a California-specific book. Look, I’m a California Licensed Professional Fiduciary and I’m also a Master Certified Independent Trustee. So having the audiobook, and also having it in PDF form, I think is very helpful for people so they can make notes, take a certain page with them. And the book now is exclusively available at planforthis.com. And when you purchase it, you’re getting both the audio and the PDF version. [20:27] Frazer Rice: Cool. Well, we’ll make sure that’s in the show notes. Let’s take the last little bit of time we have here and talk about the decision to have an individual trustee — and by individual, I mean family trustee — versus a more professional trustee, whether it’s an individual or a bank trustee. You and I sort of nod our heads in agreement every time we talk on this topic, and I’ve done podcasts with others where I feel this looming crisis is coming, where people put all these documents together in trusts and then they staff them with people who may be initially qualified, barely, but then six months after the ink is dried, their interest wanes, their technical capability wanes, life intervenes, something different happens — and the problems just multiply at that point. I guess my big question is — and from the Independent Trustee Alliance, where there is a group of people who can operate as a trustee without having to go to a bank — how bad do you think this problem could get? We have this great wealth transfer and we have a lot of assets shifting, not just from the ultra-high-net-worth but regular people shifting to the next generation, with people at the wheel of these structures that I don’t think really understand what’s going on. How bad could this get? [21:52] Marguerite Lorenz: In my view, we’re not just dealing with a transfer of wealth — because that’s where a lot of people focus. Where’s the money going, right? It’s going from one generation who died and then the money’s going to the next generation. But in that interim — and by the way, many people live for years unable to make new decisions for themselves. So it’s during their lifetime that they might need their trustee to step in, not just after they die. And that’s really important to consider: that you might need someone for five or six years when you need someone to make decisions. What kind of decisions? You have digital assets, you have your social media accounts, you might be doing transactions on your phone all day every day — but someone else will need to get into your phone to actually do those things, maybe. Is that somebody you want from your family to do that for you? Maybe you still say yes. But that family member has to have the ability to enforce the rules that you’ve set in your trust. They need to communicate really well with other people. And they have to set aside their own feelings. They have to put you first. And that’s a big challenge. So when you think about the word fiduciary — and I know that the financial industry has used the word a lot — the technical aspect of that is that I’m putting my needs aside and putting that trustor, that person who created the trust, their needs first. Then I also have to consider their beneficiaries and the future of those beneficiaries. So I’m dealing with transactions and having to account for every single penny of where the funds are now and where they’re going, what the assets are, what the character of those assets are. I have to deal with all the taxation that goes with that. I have to manage those assets. So that’s one set of skills, right? But then there’s the softer skills about communicating with other people and understanding their doubts and their concerns, and not taking that personally, and putting things in writing. So this is a big job. It’s not the simple job that it might have been at one point, where someone just wrote a will on their cocktail napkin and said, “Okay, I’m leaving you all my money.” The will doesn’t operate at all if you go to the hospital and you haven’t granted authority to anyone to be that person for you, to go to your house, get you some clean underwear and socks and bring it to the hospital for you. So I think we have to look at our lives as more complex. It’s not just driving a car; it’s deciding where that car goes, and if the car is maintained, and is the car clean, and can we have other people in the car with you? There are just so many decisions that I’ve had to make for other people that I don’t take any of this lightly — and nor should anyone who’s writing their estate plan. You need that attorney to ask you those questions and walk you through your day-to-day, so you can keep your day-to-day as long as possible. [24:54] Frazer Rice: Well, the other part too is the people who assume those roles — and I’ve been in it too — when you are asked to make tough choices, sometimes you have to make tough choices that favor one person over another, and you may be called to account for that. And the idea of keeping diligent records and writing — in a sense putting down the reasoning behind what you’re doing and making sure that everyone, to the extent it’s possible, understands the why of what’s happening — I think that is going to help people really save themselves some issues going forward when those tough choices have to be made. [25:23] Marguerite Lorenz: You know, if you don’t get your estate plan done, you’re suing your family. [25:27] Frazer Rice: Ah — good way to put it. [25:29] Marguerite Lorenz: You’re making them go to court, right? And who would want to make anyone else go to court? I mean, it’s just such a sad thing. And by the way, our courts are overrun with people that did no planning. And none of it happens quickly. So if you end up hospitalized and you haven’t selected a person, then the hospital and their bioethics committee is going to do the best they can. They’re going to ask for next of kin to make decisions for you — people that you may never have discussed your personal life with now have to be making decisions for you. So I’m asking people to be a little more proactive. I know you’re busy. I know it costs money to get an estate plan — probably less than you think, and certainly less than probate court would cost. A lot less than probate court would cost. Independent individual professional trustees cost a lot less than you think also. And you need to ask, because this is your life we’re talking about. I’m good. I have my plan, I keep up to date with my successors. I have a succession plan that’s worked beautifully. I’ve tested it. I know. And that’s why I can be so calm and so confident everywhere I go in my life. I’m feeling so good and so happy. Well, I want that for everyone. I want everyone to have that calm, true confidence that comes with knowing you’ve done everything you possibly can for yourself and the people you love. [26:54] Frazer Rice: Terrific. Marguerite, how do people get the books? How do people find you and your podcast, the Independent Trustee Alliance, and any other points of contact? [27:04] Marguerite Lorenz: Great, thank you. So planforthis.com is where you can find the books, where you can find me. We do have a podcast that has some wonderful discussions, case studies, and other topics to help people better understand the choices that they have. The Independent Trustee Alliance has a wonderful directory to find all kinds of professionals, but especially independent trustees, and you can find that at trusteealliance.com. And I’m going to be out there — I’m on LinkedIn. Come find me, connect with me. And Frazer, once again, thank you so much for the opportunity to visit with you. [27:40] Frazer Rice: Oh, it’s always great to get your expertise. And you bring a great sense of empathy to what can be a very technical and dollar-driven process. And I think the empathy, when it gets avoided or missed, there’s something really lost. So I really value your perspective on it. Thank you so much. [28:00] Announcer: This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is not investment, legal, nor tax advice and does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or guest. Subscribe to Wealth Actually on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Youtube or wherever you listen — and if this episode was useful, share it with the person you have named in your documents. https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Actually-Intelligent-Decision-Making-1-ebook/dp/B07FPQJJQT/

In this episode, legal scholars Michael Ramsey and Jed Shugerman the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, which address the president's authority to remove members of the executive branch. They trace the history of presidential removal power from the founding era through the Court's 1935 landmark Humphrey's Executor decision to the present day and explore what Slaughter and Cook may mean for the future of executive power. Thomas Donnelly, lead scholar at the National Constitution Center, moderates.  Resources  Trump v. Cook (2026)  Trump v. Slaughter (2026)  Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)  “Trump v. Slaughter: Another Win for Justice Scalia,” Michael Ramsey, The Originalism Blog, June 30, 2026  Brief Amicus Curiae of Professor Jed Shugerman in Trump v. Slaughter  “Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC member but not Fed director,” National Constitution Center's Constitution Daily  Stay Connected and Learn More  Stay connected with We the People—follow, rate, and review the show wherever you listen.  Questions or comments? Email ⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠.  Follow @ConstitutionCtr on social media and ⁠⁠sign up⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.  Support our important work by making a donation today.  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

Confused by all the estate planning lingo you hear tossed around? Estate planning comes with a language all its own, and many of the terms sound similar enough to create unnecessary confusion. In this episode, Connor Kelly, Estate Planning Attorney, clarifies some of the words and concepts that often leave families unsure about what their documents actually do and who is responsible for carrying out their wishes. Tune in and finally feel confident speaking the language of estate planning. Here's what we cover in this episode:

“We have a Justice Department which is now 100% the political pawn of the president,” warns Brookings senior fellow Jonathan Rauch. “He points, and they shoot.” Point and shoot. Like an old Kodak camera. Not exactly assuring words, you might think, from a man who begins our conversation looking back at the first six months of 2026 by announcing that he's significantly less alarmed than he was a year ago. Yes, Rauch acknowledges, Trump's approval ratings have sunk, the courts have pushed back, Elon Musk's DOGE rampage has petered out. And yet the pointing and the shooting goes on. Rauch, who only months ago diagnosed eighteen “distinct and unmistakable signs” of an American fascism in a much touted Atlantic piece, now admits he may never crack the Trumpian code. Every time you nail it to the wall, he says, it morphs, creeps or sails away. Like an Iranian gunboat in Hormuz. Slippery stuff for the liberal Brookings analyst. Fascism one month, McKinley-style imperialism the next, then Gilded Age plutocracy — although without those ontologically undeniable Carnegie libraries. Meanwhile, America's 250th birthday party fizzled into what Rauch calls a “damp squib,” its reflecting pool turning an opaque green rather than a clarifying blue. A muddy madness in DC. Still, amidst all the opacity, Rauch remains a defiantly optimistic liberal. In contrast with yesterday's guest, the reality hallucinating Turi Munthe, Rauch believes not only that there is an ontological reality, but that it's good. Frank Fukuyama was right, Rauch insists. Liberalism is not only the only political system that creates wealth, produces knowledge and settles disputes, but also establishes an undeniable reality. Liberals just need to relearn how to clearly tell its story. Perhaps. Though storytelling is certainly simpler when nobody is waving a gun at you. Five Takeaways •       Less Alarmed, Still Scared. Rauch opens with the good news: he is significantly less alarmed than he was a year ago, when the administration was running rampage, putting agencies out of business and demanding Greenland. Approval ratings have dropped, so Trump has less political space; the courts have pushed back, so he has less judicial space; Stephen Miller has vanished from view. And then comes the caveat that gives the episode its title: the Justice Department is now 100% the political pawn of the president — he points, and they shoot — and Trump has shown that as his ratings fall, he becomes more willing, not less, to use those tools. •       I May Never Crack the Code. Only months ago, Rauch diagnosed eighteen distinct and unmistakable signs of a modern American reinvention of fascism in The Atlantic. He doesn't regret the essay — but he has gone back to being confused. The Trump phenomenon is slippery: every time you nail it to the wall, it morphs, creeps or slides away. Fascism one month, McKinley-style imperialism in Venezuela the next, an Iran war with no rationale at all. Trump is such an improviser, and so disorganized, that Rauch concedes there is an element of randomness he may never decode — though he accepts Andrew's suggestion that attention is now the coin of the political realm. •       Not the Gilded Age — No Carnegie Libraries. The new inequality, Rauch argues, is different in kind: a class of people almost superhuman in the wealth they control, and strangely narcissistic and nihilistic toward the broader society. The Gilded Age tycoons did some bad things, but they also built — Carnegie's libraries, Mellon's National Gallery, Rockefeller's University of Chicago, Stanford's university. This group builds rockets and sounds, in the case of Marc Andreessen, like a parody of an Ayn Rand novel — or, as Andrew corrects him, not a parody at all: they simply repeat what they've read. Even so, Rauch is not sorry to see politics reacting to a world where Musk can casually drop $300 million into a presidential race. •       The Gloves-Off Court and the Accelerating Presidency. The Supreme Court term brought the clearest statement yet of the conservative agenda: Humphrey's Executor overturned after eighty years, making it far easier for presidents to fire agency heads at will; what remained of the Voting Rights Act effectively gutted; birthright citizenship surviving by a shockingly narrow margin. The imperial presidency is not new, Rauch notes — what's new is the speed. A president can now simply refuse to run a congressionally mandated agency, and the Senate, forty quietly nixed nominations notwithstanding, remains lacking in spine. The Todd Blanche nomination, he says, is the next test of whether any line exists at all. •       Fukuyama Was Right — and Liberals Should Say So. Rauch sees a moral vacuum and, for the first time, a craving to fill it: the pope's AI encyclical, multi-faith clergy bearing witness in Minnesota, the Episcopalians and Latter-day Saints finding their voices. His prescription for the second half of 2026 is a liberal one, in the nineteenth-century sense — science, markets, constitutions, rule of law. Fukuyama, widely misunderstood, was right: there is only one system that produces knowledge, peace, freedom, and wealth on a global scale, and it's ours. It needs fixing — he cheers the bipartisan housing bill Trump refused to sign — but liberals must relearn how to tell that story, and how to brag. About the Guest Jonathan Rauch is a senior fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution and a contributing writer at The Atlantic. He is the author of nine books, including The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth (2021), Cross Purposes: Christianity's Broken Bargain with Democracy (Yale, 2025), and Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought. A recipient of the National Magazine Award, he serves on the boards of Heterodox Academy and Civic Life, and is a longtime friend of the show. References: •       Rauch's Atlantic essay identifying eighteen “distinct and unmistakable signs” of a modern American reinvention of fascism — the piece he stands by, even as he admits the phenomenon keeps morphing. •       His recent essays for The UnPopulist on why liberal societies need grand stories about themselves, and why liberals must relearn how to brag about liberalism. •       Jonathan Rauch and Peter Wehner in The New York Times — the earlier argument, which Rauch says still holds, that the Republican Party is more dangerous to the constitution and the rule of law than the Democratic Party. •       Tim O'Reilly in The Economist — on Elon Musk building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate. •       Francis Fukuyama — whose widely misunderstood The End of History thesis Rauch defends: there is only one system that creates wealth, produces knowledge, and settles political disputes on a global scal...

The award-winning Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast that takes a deep dive into a compliance-related topic, literally going into the weeds to explore it in greater depth. Looking for some hard-hitting insights on compliance? Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds! In this episode of Compliance into the Weeds, Tom Fox and Matt Kelly discuss the June 29 Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Slaughter. This decision upheld the president's power to fire independent agency commissioners at will (with a carve-out for the Federal Reserve), overturning long-standing protections from Humphrey's Executor. Kelly argues the ruling will politicize and degrade regulatory agencies, deter qualified minority-party commissioners, increase rulemaking volatility, and shift power away from Congress toward courts as rules are challenged. As an example, they cite the SEC's proposal to allow semi-annual rather than quarterly reporting, which drew about 80,000 comments, with roughly 99% opposed, yet they predict it may proceed and later be reversed, creating compliance burdens. They then cover Georgia author Jean Wilson, sentenced to 10 years for a $66 million Medicare fraud scheme while writing healthcare compliance books. Key highlights: The Slaughter Ruling Regulatory Volatility Ahead Who Will Serve as Commissioners Fed Carve-out and Court Power Compliance Impact and No Easy Answers Healthcare Compliance Fraud Story (Or is it from The Onion?)  Resources: Matt in Radical Compliance  Tom Instagram Facebook YouTube Twitter LinkedIn A multi-award-winning podcast, Compliance into the Weeds was most recently honored as one of the Top 25 Regulatory Compliance Podcasts, a Top 10 Business Law Podcast, and a Top 12 Risk Management Podcast. Compliance into the Weeds has been conferred the Davey, Communicator, and W3 Awards, all for podcast excellence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What if the most misunderstood role in business is also the one deciding whether your company scales?In this solo episode, Cameron Herold, founder of the COO Alliance and author of Second in Command, tackles the question every growth-minded CEO eventually faces: what exactly is a COO? Drawing on Bennett and Miles' research and his own years as second in command at 1-800-GOT-JUNK?, Cameron explains why no two COOs on the planet have the same job, and why the search for a great one starts with the CEO's own strengths and gaps.He walks through the seven types of COO: Executor, Change Agent, Mentor, Other Half, Partner, Heir Apparent, and MVP, with stories from Shopify, Oracle, Dell, and Facebook, plus the common roles a COO plays as adult in the room, integrator, and moderator.Get this hire wrong, and the person meant to fix the chaos only adds to it. Listen now.Timestamped Highlights[00:00] – The question-asking habit that separates growing companies from stuck ones[00:52] – Why most CMOs are interchangeable, but no two COOs share the same job[01:40] – The only non-negotiable requirement for any COO[02:31] – The research that uncovered the seven main categories of COO[04:30] – When a change agent should come from outside the company[05:34] – Why changing a company's culture is like dealing with teenagers[07:30] – The mentor move that shaped Facebook's earliest years[08:30] – The marriage test every CEO-COO pairing has to pass[13:18] – The leadership meeting comment that earned Cameron the COO title[18:57] – The homeowner and contractor rule for splitting the what from the how[23:20] – Why the CEO, not the COO, should be the tiebreakerMentioned ResourcesRiding Shotgun: The Role of the COO by Nate Bennett and Stephen A. MilesSecond in Command: The Misunderstood Role of the Chief Operating Officer by Nate Bennett and Stephen A. Miles (Harvard Business Review)Double Double by Cameron HeroldHigh Growth Handbook by Elad GilRocket Fuel by Gino Wickman and Mark C. WintersTraction: Get a Grip on Your Business by Gino WickmanImportant LinksConnect with Cameron: Website | LinkedInExplore the COO Alliance - The World's Leading Community for Seconds in CommandGet Cameron's book: Second in Command: Unleash the Power of Your COO BookClaim your FREE* copy: Second in Command: Unleash the Power of Your COO BookTake his course: Invest In Your Leaders Online Course (Use promo code PODCAST10 before the end of the month for 10% off)Chat or video call with AI Cameron via Delphi*Valid only for CEOs or COO/Second in Command based in the US or Canada at companies wih $2M + revenue.The Second in Command Podcast is an original production hosted by Cameron Herold. Brought to you by COO Alliance. Production and editing by Podcast Your Brand.

Two constitutional battles dropped in the last 72 hours that go to the exact same question: Who runs the executive branch of the United States government? Is it the President that the American people elected — or is it unelected bureaucrats and Democrat governors who've decided they know better?SPONSOR: Alliance Defending FreedomAlliance Defending Freedom is challenging a Colorado law that forces business owners to use pronouns that violate their religious beliefs, defending a Christian bookstore and a sports apparel company after a court ruled against them. Your support helps protect free speech in cases like this across the country, and for a limited time your first gift is doubled while matching funds last.Have your gift doubled. Text NICK to 83848 or go to https://www.JoinADF.com/Nick-----GET YOUR MERCH HERE: https://shop.nickjfreitas.com/BECOME A MEMBER OF THE IC: https://NickJFreitas.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/nickjfreitas/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NickFreitasVATwitter: https://twitter.com/NickJFreitasYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@NickjfreitasTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@nickjfreitas3.000:00:00 – Trump fires the Election Assistance Commission00:02:00 – What the commission actually does (and doesn't do)00:03:54 – Who got the grant money? Calls for congressional oversight00:10:29 – Pritzker invokes the 25th Amendment — what it actually says00:14:46 – Is the president "unable to discharge" his duties?00:16:39 – Can Trump legally fire commissioners? Humphrey's Executor (1935)00:18:53 – Seila Law and Collins v. Yellen: the Supreme Court changes course00:20:47 – Article II: executive power and faithful execution of the laws00:24:37 – The verdict00:27:21 – Being honest about Trump too: Iran and the War Powers Act00:28:32 – Final ruling for the president — and shrinking the bureaucracy

Adam White hosts Chief Judge Susan G. Braden (Ret.) to discuss the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which held the Federal Trade Commission's statutory independence unconstitutional and explicitly overruled Humphrey's Executor. Braden argues the ruling will ripple across administrative law by treating agencies with authority to file lawsuits on behalf of the United […]

American history is riddled with collisions between legally defensible rulings and morally costly outcomes. Still, "the purpose of law in any society is to embody a moral framework in practice," says Yuval Levin, who joins Mark Labberton to explore the moral architecture in the foundation of the American legal system, as they review the most recent rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has just closed one of the most consequential terms in recent memory, articulating the tension between faithfulness to the Constitution and enacting justice and morality. Together they reflect on why and how a system founded on equality must be both majoritarian and counter-majoritarian at once; why a judge's job is to articulate their legal (rather than their moral) opinion; the rise of Constitutional originalism; why pre-Trump conservative arguments win at this Court while "Trumpy" ones lose; the contemporary relevance of the Federalist Papers; what recourse citizens have when they believe the Court has done wrong; and why the American legal system's worst failures still cluster around race. They explore several of the 2025-26 rulings of the Supreme Court, including imposition of tariffs, immigration enforcement, and birthright citizenship, and the Voting Rights Act. Episode Highlights "The purpose of law in any society is to embody a moral framework in practice." "This is a very good time to get to know The Federalist Papers." "The role of the judge in the American system is to apply the law, not to find the moral answer per se. We hope the law does that, though it doesn't always and we know it." "The American system of government, very much for moral reasons, is expected to be both majoritarian and counter-majoritarian." [Regarding Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh] "They grew up in the same place. They literally went to the same high school and had the same history teacher. Their mothers knew each other … They agreed with each other 52% of the time in this last term of the Supreme Court." [Courts to Trump] "You are in charge of the executive branch, but the executive branch is not in charge of the American government." "If you come to this court with a pre-Trump conservative legal argument, you're going to win. If you come to this court with a Trumpy legal argument, you're going to lose." "We experienced the high water mark of executive power about a year ago, and it is now receding." "The areas where it has failed most are concentrated around questions of race. That has been true from the beginning. It is thankfully less true than it used to be, but it is still true, and I think we have to be uniquely sensitive to those questions for that reason." About Yuval Levin Yuval Levin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he holds the Beth and Ravenel Curry Chair in Public Policy and directs Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies. He founded and edits National Affairs, and he is a senior editor at The New Atlantis and a contributing editor at National Review. His books include "The Great Debate," "The Fractured Republic," "A Time to Build," and most recently, "American Covenant." He served on the White House domestic policy staff under George W. Bush and earned his PhD at the University of Chicago's Committee on Social Thought. Helpful Links and Resources Yuval Levin at the American Enterprise Institute: https://www.aei.org/profile/yuval-levin/ National Affairs, the publication Levin founded and edits: https://nationalaffairs.com/authors/detail/yuval-levin American Covenant, by Yuval Levin: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/yuval-levin/american-covenant/9780465040742/?lens=basic-books A Time to Build, by Yuval Levin: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/yuval-levin/a-time-to-build/9781541699281/?lens=basic-books The Federalist Papers, full text at the Library of Congress: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers Trump v. Slaughter, the decision overturning Humphrey's Executor (June 29, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-332_qn12.pdf Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the IEEPA tariffs decision (February 20, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf Louisiana v. Callais, the Voting Rights Act decision (April 29, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf Coverage of the birthright citizenship ruling in Trump v. Barbara, SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-trumps-order-ending-birthright-citizenship/ Show Notes Yuval Levin's legal/constitutional frame: The law exists to put a society's moral convictions into workable practice. On "All men are created equal": If no one has natural authority over anyone else, we decide by majority vote—but equality also means the minority keeps its rights no matter who wins The Constitution assigns those two jobs to different institutions and lets them fight: Congress and the president answer to majorities, the courts deliberately do not Life tenure and fixed salaries exist so justices can protect minority rights without fear of majority reprisal A judge's job is to say what the law is, not to reach the most just result; therefore good judges regularly land where they might wish they didn't. What citizens can do when the Court rules wrongly: If it misread a statute, Congress can rewrite it. Constitutional rulings are harder to undo, but examples include the 16th Amendment (re: income tax) and the 14th Amendment (re: black citizenship, answering the Court directly) The pro-life movement's 50-year strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade Levin on the difficulty of simply being in the political minority, and why the system tries to make everyone a winner sometimes Originalism began as a limit on judicial power and judges' preferences Legal originalism looks for original public meaning, not the drafters' intent Parallel to biblical interpretation, where faithful readers reach wildly different conclusions The challenge of interpreting and applying the Constitution to matters of freedom and democracy today With Congress mostly absent, the Court is now deciding questions of executive power the Federalist Papers were written about Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch: Same age, same hometown, same high school history teacher, agreed only 52% of the time this term Trump v. Slaughter ends the independent agency: the Court overturned Humphrey's Executor, and the president can now fire FTC-style commissioners at will 2026 Court rulings also told the president no: on tariffs, on the National Guard in Illinois without the governor's consent, and on birthright citizenship Levin's rule of thumb: Pre-Trump conservative arguments win at this Court, Trumpy arguments lose Yuval Levin: Executive power peaked about a year ago and is now receding. Louisiana v. Callais guts Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by requiring proof of racial intent A legal bind: Black voters vote Democratic by 90% in the South, so a racist map and a purely partisan map look identical Levin defends the ruling as law and grieves it as outcome—several Black-held Southern seats will likely be redistricted away Why he opposes reauthorizing the VRA with race-based set-aside districts, and where he thinks change should come from instead Software now lets parties gerrymander voter by voter—in New England, Trump won 35% and Republicans hold zero House seats The deceptions of the human heart Does constitutional structure just launder self-interest? The system's deepest failures have always clustered around race Gratitude for the Constitution in America's 250th year #SupremeCourt #Constitution #VotingRights #Originalism #ExecutivePower #FaithAndPolitics #YuvalLevin #Conversing Production Credits Conversing is produced and distributed in partnership with Comment Magazine and Fuller Seminary.

In Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) statutory for-cause removal protection violates the separation of powers, overruling Humphrey's Executor. The Court reasoned that subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Thus, because the FTC exercises executive power, its Commissioners must be removable by the President at will.Yet in Trump v. Cook, the Court, 5-4, denied the government’s request to stay an injunction blocking the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The Court held that a president’s asserted “for cause” statutory basis for removing a Federal Reserve governor is judicially reviewable and that Cook was entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before removal. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that the statute was enacted against the backdrop of the common law, and that any definition of “cause” in this context must reflect the Federal Reserve’s unique historical status and role.Join us for a webinar breaking down both decisions, the separate opinions, and what they may mean for presidential removal power, independent agencies, the Federal Reserve, and the future of the administrative state.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation Chair, Lex Politica; Of Counsel, Alliance Defending FreedomAdam White, Laurence H. Silberman Chair in Constitutional Governance and Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State

Adam White hosts Chief Judge Susan G. Braden (Ret.) to discuss the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which held the Federal Trade Commission's statutory independence unconstitutional and explicitly overruled Humphrey's Executor. Braden argues the ruling will ripple across administrative law by treating agencies with authority to file lawsuits on behalf of the United States as executive agencies subject to presidential control, and by limiting “independent” agencies to advisory roles.Sign up for email updates from the Gray Center hereJudge Braden's paper on the future of the FTCAdam White's analysis of Slaughter and Cook in SCOTUSblog

www.marktreichel.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-treichel/In this episode of With Flying Colors, host Mark Treichel welcomes back David Reed of Reed & Jolly, PLLC — a longtime credit union attorney, former general counsel, and self-described “recovering supervisory committee member” who served a decade on a supervisory committee, including six or seven years as chair. David reached out after listening to Mark's earlier coverage of the Jackson Area Federal Credit Union case, just as he was kicking off a two-day national supervisory committee school, and the timing made for a rich conversation.The heart of the discussion is fraud prevention through the lens of the supervisory committee. Using the Jackson Area allegations as a teaching tool — and stressing repeatedly that everything is alleged, drawn from NCUA's amended lawsuit — David walks through why trust is not an internal control, why insider accounts are the single greatest fraud risk at smaller credit unions, and why occasional reviews of senior executives' own accounts (even just by volume) should be routine and done independently. He and Mark unpack the “clipboard audit” problem, the limits of pop teller audits, and the difference between a full CPA opinion audit, agreed-upon procedures, and a supervisory committee doing the work itself.David makes a direct case that the $500 million CPA opinion-audit threshold is outdated — arguing it should drop to $250 million — because technology has erased the product-and-service gap between small and large credit unions while leaving the same fraud exposure. He notes that many of his sub-$500 million clients already choose to get CPA audits because they add accountability and assurance, and that scope can be added to any audit like a cafeteria plan, including a targeted review of senior-executive and insider accounts.The conversation then broadens. On the NCUA board, David explores the implications of changes to Humphrey's Executor — the prospect of removable board members, a possible “clean sweep” every administration, the chilling effect on recruiting qualified people to serve partial terms, and the resulting shift of power toward the permanent bureaucracy. On succession planning, he champions a “junior varsity governance” model with associate board and committee members, and reframes every incumbent nomination as a re-selection that deserves real evaluation. On collections, he urges credit unions to turn the same predictive analytics they use to find lending opportunities inward — reaching members before they fall two or three payments behind and stop answering the phone.Throughout, David returns to one theme: most credit unions already have the tools, processes, and even the results they need — the question is whether anyone is actually activating and reviewing them. Reach David Reed at david@reedandjolly.com.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Editor in Chief and co-host emeritus Benjamin Wittes and Senior Editors Anna Bower and Michael Feinberg to talk through the latest in national security news, including:“Humphrey's Executioner.” On June 29, the Supreme Court closed out its term with a trio of decisions on the president's power to fire officials at supposedly independent agencies. In Trump v. Slaughter, a 6–3 majority upheld Trump's firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and overruled the 90-year-old precedent Humphrey's Executor, handing the president at-will removal power over roughly two dozen multimember agencies. The same day, in Trump v. Cook, the Court refused 5–4 to let Trump remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, carving out a special exemption for the central bank. And a day later, in Blanche v. Perlmutter, the justices declined to let Trump oust Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter, whose office sits within the legislative branch. Taken together, what do these cases tell us about the unitary executive and the future of agency independence?“For Your Lies Only.” The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is in freefall. Since Bill Pulte—a housing-finance official with no intelligence background—took over as acting DNI on June 19, he has demanded a roster of every employee, fired the head of the office that oversees the President's Daily Brief, and all but liquidated the National Intelligence Council. The fight over his appointment has already cost the government its Section 702 surveillance authority, which lawmakers let lapse rather than leave in his hands, and Trump abruptly canceled the confirmation hearing for his own permanent nominee, Jay Clayton, to keep the “less shackled” Pulte in place. How did the nation's top intelligence coordinator get here—and how much damage can a politicized ODNI actually do?“Fixer Upper.” In one of the stranger turns of the Trump era, Michael Cohen—the former “fixer” whose testimony helped convict Trump of 34 felonies—says he and the president have reconciled. Cohen, who once vowed to flee the country if Trump won, said that the ice between them “didn't just melt, it broke,” and he is now taking a weekend slot on a conservative station with what he says was Trump's “glowing recommendation.” The thaw arrives as Trump's appeal of his New York conviction and related civil fraud judgment grind forward—and after Cohen publicly claimed he felt “pressured and coerced” to testify. What might Cohen's turn mean for that pending appeal?In object lessons, everyone is in a unifying mood. Ben demonstrates how RAGtime, his co-creation with AI overlord Claude to develop and analyze datasets, can find common cause between this week's co-hosts. Mike is enthusiastic about the new Criterion Collection bringing together all of Stanley Kubrick's works. Scott is reaching for perhaps humanity's greatest unifier—a certain beverage that can be enjoyed across political persuasions and coasts alike. And Anna is bringing us all to the world of personal essays with Jo Ann Beard's “The Fourth State of Matter.” 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.

Live from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Center in Washington, D.C., Sarah Isgur and David French review the OT25 term with Akhil Amar, professor of law and political science at Yale University, and David Lat, author of Original Jurisdiction. The four break down the most consequential cases of the past term—from the tariffs case to Humphrey's Executor, birthright citizenship, and what it all means for President Trump's relationship with the court. The Agenda: –Thank you to the ACLU for sponsoring our SCOTUSblog Summit at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Center –Getting deep into trucking Twitter –How the culture war is shifting toward separation-of-powers fights –Counting jelly beans and winning heifers –The demise of Humphrey's Executor in Slaughter –Did Trump win or lose this term? –What even makes a “big” case? –Previewing OT26 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Editor in Chief and co-host emeritus Benjamin Wittes and Senior Editors Anna Bower and Michael Feinberg to talk through the latest in national security news, including:“Humphrey's Executioner.” On June 29, the Supreme Court closed out its term with a trio of decisions on the president's power to fire officials at supposedly independent agencies. In Trump v. Slaughter, a 6–3 majority upheld Trump's firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and overruled the 90-year-old precedent Humphrey's Executor, handing the president at-will removal power over roughly two dozen multimember agencies. The same day, in Trump v. Cook, the Court refused 5–4 to let Trump remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, carving out a special exemption for the central bank. And a day later, in Blanche v. Perlmutter, the justices declined to let Trump oust Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter, whose office sits within the legislative branch. Taken together, what do these cases tell us about the unitary executive and the future of agency independence?“For Your Lies Only.” The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is in freefall. Since Bill Pulte—a housing-finance official with no intelligence background—took over as acting DNI on June 19, he has demanded a roster of every employee, fired the head of the office that oversees the President's Daily Brief, and all but liquidated the National Intelligence Council. The fight over his appointment has already cost the government its Section 702 surveillance authority, which lawmakers let lapse rather than leave in his hands, and Trump abruptly canceled the confirmation hearing for his own permanent nominee, Jay Clayton, to keep the “less shackled” Pulte in place. How did the nation's top intelligence coordinator get here—and how much damage can a politicized ODNI actually do?“Fixer Upper.” In one of the stranger turns of the Trump era, Michael Cohen—the former “fixer” whose testimony helped convict Trump of 34 felonies—says he and the president have reconciled. Cohen, who once vowed to flee the country if Trump won, said that the ice between them “didn't just melt, it broke,” and he is now taking a weekend slot on a conservative station with what he says was Trump's “glowing recommendation.” The thaw arrives as Trump's appeal of his New York conviction and related civil fraud judgment grind forward—and after Cohen publicly claimed he felt “pressured and coerced” to testify. What might Cohen's turn mean for that pending appeal?In object lessons, everyone is in a unifying mood. Ben demonstrates how RAGtime, his co-creation with AI overlord Claude to develop and analyze datasets, can find common cause between this week's co-hosts. Mike is enthusiastic about the new Criterion Collection bringing together all of Stanley Kubrick's works. Scott is reaching for perhaps humanity's greatest unifier—a certain beverage that can be enjoyed across political persuasions and coasts alike. And Anna is bringing us all to the world of personal essays with Jo Ann Beard's “The Fourth State of Matter.” 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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showHumphrey's Executor, which has been obviously dead for some time, is now officially overturned. Except! The Federal Reserve is special and unique and in a historical tradition. Also this week: John Bolton has pleaded guilty to mishandling national defense information and might even get jail time. In Florida, federal prosecutors mistakenly disclosed Jack Smith's report on the documents investigation to Carmen Mercedes Lineberger, as part of their prosecution of Lineberger for stealing a copy of the report (which she labeled as a “bundt cake recipe,” oops).For paying subscribers: In Chicago, US Attorney Andrew Boutros is in more trouble. And in Minnesota, more subpoenas have been quashed as politically motivated. Alleged pipe bomber Brian Cole hasn't been pardoned. Todd Blanche doesn't want to release more Epstein documents. A prosecution relating to Trump's reflecting pool is likely to face problems. Florida's “Stop WOKE Act” has been thrown out. And the ACLU of Maine wants the Secret Service to let the “Cats on a Couch” lady troll JD Vance in person.Upgrade your subscription now at serioustrouble.show.

the for-cause removal protections for Federal Reserve governors. The report reviews how federal law, including 12 U.S.C. 242, limits presidential removal of governors to for-cause grounds and outlines implications for monetary policy and supervision. It situates the dispute within Supreme Court precedents such as Humphrey's Executor, Free Enterprise Fund, Seila Law, and Collins v Yellen. Possible outcomes could influence leadership turnover expectations, Treasury yields, and corporate credit spreads. The analysis also highlights potential effects on bank capital and liquidity rulemakings and on corporate borrowing and hedging strategies. Businesses are advised to plan for a wider range of interest rate paths and monitor developments from the Board of Governors and the courts.Learn more on this news by visiting us at: https://greyjournal.net/news/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Talk What You Know — Hard Talk EditionEpisode 32: “Who Decides?”The SAVE Act, Voting Rights & The Imperial PresidencyHosted by Rev. Dr. Donald R. JonesTonight, we are asking two of the most important constitutional questions in America:

✅ Victories 1. Expansion of Presidential Power Case: Trump v. Slaughter Outcome: The Court overturned Humphrey’s Executor (a long-standing precedent). Meaning: The President now has broader authority to fire officials in independent agencies (like the FTC). Seen as strengthening Article II executive power. A related case (Trump v. Cook) ruled the opposite for the Federal Reserve, limiting presidential removal power there. This creates a partial exception, showing the Court did not fully embrace unlimited executive control. 2. Transgender Athletes in Women’s Sports Case: West Virginia v. BPJ Outcome: States can restrict participation in women’s sports based on biological sex. Impact: Laws in 27 states are upheld. The Court ruled such restrictions do not violate the Equal Protection Clause or federal law. 3. Campaign Finance / Free Speech Case: NRSC v. FEC Outcome: Political parties can spend unlimited money in coordination with candidates. Impact: Expands political speech rights. Removes restrictions on party-candidate coordination. ❌ Losses 1. Birthright Citizenship Key points: The Court affirmed that such a major change cannot be done via executive action. Leaves open: Constitutional amendment Possible congressional legislation 2. Mail-in Ballots / Election Law Case: Watson v. RNC Outcome: States may count ballots received after Election Day if postmarked on time. Impact: Election rules remain state-controlled. Some states can allow extended ballot receipt windows. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The big opinions are coming fast and furious as the Term ends. This episode, we take on two related cases from the penultimate opinion drop day: Trump v. Slaughter, which overrules Humphrey's Executor and clears away for-cause protection for the independent agencies, alongside its interim-docket companion Trump v. Cook, where the very same logic somehow spares the Federal Reserve. The big question: if the President can fire an FTC commissioner at will, what actually makes the Fed different — is "history" doing the work, or is the Court just saving the bond markets? Along the way: Heidegger's "always already," whether the metaphor of a living tree is consistent with originalism, a Goldilocks definition of "cause," the Chief leaning on his own unworkable precedents, the Ex parte Young mystery that keeps escaping the Court's grasp, and the first appearance of "the interim docket" in the U.S. Reports.Highlights[00:00:18] The penultimate opinion day — four down, four to go[00:00:50] The last-day pileup, and the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance case still pending[00:03:25] A confession: staircase wit, and the metaphor Will wishes he'd used[00:04:27] The living tree as an originalist — and the petrified-tree rejoinder[00:06:01] The new custom-cover workflow, and what Claude still isn't allowed to write[00:07:00] The day's four opinions: Cook, Slaughter, Chatrie, and Watson v. RNC[00:09:50] Is the Court strategic about opinion timing? A walk back through OT21's last days[00:13:55] Slaughter before Cook: the general rule before the exception[00:15:08] "Humphrey's Executor has always already been overruled" — by way of continental philosophy[00:17:36] Slaughter: the question, Humphrey's Executor, and the road from Morrison v. Olson through Seila Law[00:22:12] Why presidents mostly haven't tested removal — and whether this shifts the equilibrium[00:25:29] Walking the opinion: Roberts for the Court, the Thomas non-join, a Sotomayor (not Kagan) dissent[00:27:30] The Decision of 1789, the history fight, and the "good arguments on both sides" that made Will a "witless hack"[00:33:19] Part III-B's reserved questions and the Gorsuch concurrence's non-delegation wish list[00:43:06] Cook: procedurally on the interim docket, and why it comes out the other way[00:46:00] The Chief's history tour — the Bank of North America, Hamilton, and an accomplished yachtsman[00:49:00] The Fed as the "third bank"; Bamzai & Nielson and the monetary-vs-regulatory problem[00:50:25] The chain of moves: reviewability, a Goldilocks "cause," and the equity remedy[00:53:11] Footnote 2 and the Ex parte Young mystery — Armstrong, CASA, and Bivens[00:58:41] Process not received: a Truth Social post isn't enough, and what Cook gets next[01:00:54] "The interim docket" enters the U.S. Reports[01:01:52] The separate writings: Kavanaugh (save the economy), Jackson (equities), Thomas's solo dissent[01:04:45] Alito-Gorsuch and Barrett: hard questions, and skepticism of a carve-out defended "for secret reasons"[01:11:26] Sign-off: if there's a long delay before the next episode, it's because we've lost removal protectionRelevant linksCasesTrump v. Slaughter — slip opinion · SCOTUSblog analysisTrump v. Cook — slip opinion · SCOTUSblog analysisChatrie v. United States — slip opinion · SCOTUSblog analysisWatson v. Republican National Committee — slip opinion · SCOTUSblog analysisCommentary & articlesAditya Bamzai & Aaron L. Nielson, "Article II and the Federal Reserve" — the leading qualified defense of Fed independence (Cornell L. Rev.)Samuel L. Bray, "Remedies in the Officer Removal Cases" — relied on by the Cook majority on the equity-remedy question (Journal of Legal Analysis); draft/announcement on the Divided Argument blogWilliam Baude, "How To Save The Federal Reserve" — Will's prior take on preserving Fed independence under the removal cases

Marc Cox opens Hour 3 teasing the Supreme Court decision that will reshape American government for a generation before bringing in Heritage Foundation Executive VP Derek Morgan to break it all down. The overturning of Humphrey's Executor ends 90 years of congressional insulation for unelected deep state bureaucrats — Derek drops the receipts showing over 90% of USAID employees donated to Democrats and 75% of high-paid DC government workers said they would defy a lawful presidential order. Derek and Marc also torch the birthright citizenship ruling together, with Derek citing Justice Alito's historic rebuke and calling Justice Thomas's 93-page dissent a monument to principled originalism. On court packing, it is a naked power grab. On John Roberts, he is too worried about the DC cocktail circuit. Then Dr. David Yablonsky, Medical Director of Victory Men's Health, joins in studio for Men's Health Month and publicly shames Marc Cox on air for skipping his follow-up blood work — before laying out what he calls a genuine epidemic of ground-down American men suffering from fatigue, low testosterone, weight gain, and sexual dysfunction while the Wild West of unregulated clinics peddles medications without proper screening or monitoring. Victory Men's Health's fifth flagship location in Glen Carbon is weeks from opening. Kim on a Whim closes the hour with a flag freedom showdown — UK citizens getting fined thousands for flying their flag wrong while Marc Cox replaces his American flag with a Trump flag just to spite his HOA Karen neighbor, and the duo walks through proper American flag code ahead of July 4th. Hour 3 Hashtags: #MarcCoxMorningShow #Hour3 #DerekMorgan #HeritageFoundation #HumphreysExecutor #DeepState #TrumpWins #JusticeAlito #JusticeThomas #BirthrightCitizenship #DrDavidYablonsky #VictoryMensHealth #MensHealth #MedicalWeightLoss #KimOnAWhim #AmericanFlag #July4th #PatriotismMatters #TrumpFlag #ConservativeMissouri #StLouis Hour 3 Guest List: Derek Morgan — Heritage Foundation Executive VP breaking down Humphrey's Executor gutting the deep state and the birthright citizenship dissents of Justices Alito and Thomas Dr. David Yablonsky — Victory Men's Health Medical Director on the male health epidemic, medical weight loss protocols, and the Wild West of unregulated men's clinics

Heritage Foundation Executive VP Derek Morgan joins Marc Cox to break down the Supreme Court decision that could reshape American government for a generation — and almost nobody is covering it. The overturning of Humphrey's Executor ends 90 years of congressional protection for the unelected bureaucrats embedded in federal agencies, and Derek has the receipts: over 90% of USAID employees donated to Democrats, and 75% of high-earning DC government workers told Rasmussen they would flat-out disobey a lawful presidential order they disagreed with. That is the deep state — and this ruling gives Trump the legal authority to start cleaning it out. Derek and Marc also tear into the birthright citizenship ruling, with Derek citing Justice Alito's extraordinary rebuke that the court has made one of the most serious mistakes in its history, and calling Justice Thomas's 93-page dissent — written in chapters — a monument to principled originalism. On court packing, Derek calls it a naked power grab. On John Roberts, he says the Chief Justice is too worried about what the DC cocktail circuit thinks. And on whether Trump could swap Roberts for Alito as Chief Justice — turns out he can't, but Marc Cox says maybe it's worth testing the waters anyway. Hashtags: #MarcCoxMorningShow #DerekMorgan #HeritageFoundation #HumphreysExecutor #DeepState #SCOTUS #TrumpWins #FireAtWill #JusticeAlito #JusticeThomas #BirthrightCitizenship #14thAmendment #CourtPacking #JohnRoberts #TemporaryProtectiveStatus #DailySignal #ConservativeMissouri #StLouis #OriginalistJudges #DrainTheSwamp

Good Morning BT with Bo Thompson and Beth Troutman | 7/1/26 6:05 Beth’s Song of the Day | The Puerto Rico song rears its head again6:20 GUEST: Theresa Payton - AI documentary premiere, data protection services6:35 New Willy Wonka Reality Show coming soon6:50 RAM Biz Update; Coke Zero vs Diet Coke 7:05 Where could Lebron go next season?7:20 GUEST: Willy P - USMT World Cup game tonight7:35 GUEST: Willy P - USMT World Cup game tonight (cont)7:50 GUEST: Bill Graham - on SCOTUS rulings 8:05 GUEST: Bill Graham - on SCOTUS rulings (cont) 8:20 WBT SkyShow this Saturday / Bo throws down the hot sauce gauntlet8:35 GUEST: Scott Huffmon - Midterm GOP convention, SCOTUS rulings8:50 GUEST: Scott Huffmon - Humphrey's Executor overturned, JD Vance press tour 9:05 GUEST: Mick Mulvaney - America 2509:20 GUEST: Mick Mulvaney (cont) - Midterm GOP Convention9:35 GUEST: Mick Mulvaney (cont) - First flight on the Qatari plane this morning9:50 GUEST: Mick Mulvaney (cont) - SCOTUS RulingsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sarah Isgur and David French break down the latest Supreme Court opinions regarding unitary executive theory, mail-in voting, and the Fourth Amendment. The Agenda: —Unitary executive theory gets tested —Dorm-room originalism —Lisa Cook keeps her job —Mail-in voting —Text, history, and ... —Geofence warrants Show notes: —Trump v. Slaughter —Myers v. United States —Humphrey's Executor v. United States —Sarah Isgur on the executive branch for the NYT —Trump v. Cook —Watson v. Republican National Committee —Chatrie v. United States Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court has been making waves with its recent decisions, and this episode of the Carl Jackson Show is a must-listen for anyone interested in staying informed about the latest developments. Joining Carl Jackson in the studio is Zach Smith, a constitutional attorney from the Heritage Foundation, who breaks down the key takeaways from the Supreme Court's recent rulings. This episode covers a range of topics, from the contentious issue of birthright citizenship to the importance of executive authority and the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court's decisions have significant implications for the future of American politics and law, and Zach Smith provides expert analysis and insight into what these rulings mean for the country. From the Court's surprising decision on birthright citizenship to the restoration of executive authority, this episode is a comprehensive guide to the latest Supreme Court news. Zach Smith shares his expertise on the Supreme Court's recent decisions, including the birthright citizenship case, the election integrity case, and the Humphrey's Executor case. He also discusses the implications of these rulings for the future of American politics and the role of the executive branch in government. With his clear and concise explanations, Zach Smith makes complex legal concepts accessible to listeners and provides a deeper understanding of the issues at play. If you're interested in staying informed about the latest Supreme Court news and its impact on American politics, this episode is a must-listen. Join Carl Jackson and Zach Smith as they discuss the key takeaways from the Supreme Court's recent decisions and what they mean for the future of the country. Follow Carl Jackson:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/carljacksonradioX/Twitter: https://twitter.com/carljacksonshowInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarljacksonshowWebsite: http://www.TheCarlJacksonShow.comStore: https://CarlJacksonStore.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Donate (no account necessary) | Subscribe (account required) Bryan's Op Ed on Dem Communists (Click Here) Join Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA Operations Officer, as he covers today's top stories shaping America and the world. In this episode of The Wright Report, Bryan breaks down a major Supreme Court ruling giving Presidents broad authority to fire agency appointees, plus a separate ruling on the Federal Reserve and a surprising decision allowing late-arriving mail-in ballots to be counted. Bryan also tackles a growing panic on Wall Street as New York's wealthy realize they have no real plan to stop the rise of Communist Democrats in Gotham, and he gives his blunt take on why it is too late to reverse the trend. From there, Bryan covers new developments in Iran, including a Pentagon database failure now blamed for the deadly strike on a girls school during Operation Epic Fury, and a vigilante known as "Mexican Batman" taking justice into his own hands against cartel-linked criminals. Plus, the US deepens its Pacific strategy with new underwater drones for the Philippines and a major deal pulling Vanuatu back from China's orbit, China's AI models close the gap with American systems, and Ford rehires veteran engineers after learning AI cannot fully replace human judgment. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32   Keywords: Bryan Dean Wright, The Wright Report, Supreme Court ruling, Humphrey's Executor, Federal Reserve, Lisa Cook, mail-in ballots, Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, SAVE America Act, Zohran Mamdani, Communist Democrats, NYC Wall Street panic, Daria-liza Avila Chevalier, Dan Goldman, Scott Wiener, Iran nuclear talks, Doha Qatar, Strait of Hormuz, Operation Epic Fury girls school strike, Pentagon targeting failure, Mexican Batman, vigilante justice, Cartel corruption, Sheinbaum, Battle for the Pacific, Philippines underwater drones, Vanuatu China debt trap, Australia Vanuatu deal, China AI Z Dot, Anthropic Mythos, Ford rehiring engineers, AI Revolution

Today's Headlines: Clarence Thomas showed up to Congress yesterday and was all sus about why, though Politico reported Republicans say he was there for the special members-only doctor's office. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that mail ballots postmarked by election day can be counted even if they arrive up to five days later — not what Trump wanted, who went off on the justices despite his own voters benefiting equally — and separately declined to hear his appeal of the E. Jean Carroll verdict, meaning he has to pay her $5 million. The Court also overturned the 91-year-old Humphrey's Executor precedent, allowing Trump to fire FTC commissioners without cause and setting a standard that applies to basically every federal regulator except the Federal Reserve Board, meaning he still can't fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook like he wanted. More major rulings are expected this week on transgender athletes in sports, campaign finance, and birthright citizenship, which the administration is determined to end. In other news, Airbnb cofounder Joe Gebbia, now running Trump's "National Design Studio" alongside DOGE veterans, has reportedly been quietly rebuilding government websites — including passport applications, TrumpRX, and a White House-controlled mirror of vote.gov — with tracking code that records and replays every click, scroll, and keystroke and sends the data somewhere off the public internet, so that's normal. Meanwhile, a Wall Street Journal investigation found that over 1,000 viral Polymarket betting videos showing people winning big were entirely staged — Polymarket paid influencers to post fake wins using a password-protected dupe website that mimicked real trades, then paid clippers to spread the videos, racking up 140 million views of completely fabricated winnings. And finally, Comcast announced it's spinning off NBCUniversal — including Bravo, SNL, Law & Order, the theme parks, and Peacock — to focus on broadband, and investors loved it, sending shares up over 4% after a rough year. Resources/Articles mentioned:  The Daily Beast: Clarence Thomas, 78, Busted on Mystery Medical Visit SCOTUS Blog: Justices uphold state law allowing for late-arriving mail-in ballots The Hill: Supreme Court won't hear Trump's bid to overturn Carroll sexual abuse verdict  SCOTUS Blog: Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner and overturns major restraint on presidential power | SCOTUSblog SCRIPPS News: Eight cases await Supreme Court ruling as major opinion day arrives Monday The Guardian: ‘It's dangerous and it's going to erode trust': redesign of US government websites stokes surveillance fears | Trump administration WSJ: They Looked Like They Were Getting Rich on Polymarket—but None of It Was Real WSJ: Comcast Plans Company Split as Competition Escalates Subscribe to the Betches News Room and join the Morning Announcements group chat. Go to: betchesnews.substack.com Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court has been making waves with its recent decisions, and this episode of the Carl Jackson Show is a must-listen for anyone interested in staying informed about the latest developments. Joining Carl Jackson in the studio is Zach Smith, a constitutional attorney from the Heritage Foundation, who breaks down the key takeaways from the Supreme Court's recent rulings. This episode covers a range of topics, from the contentious issue of birthright citizenship to the importance of executive authority and the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court's decisions have significant implications for the future of American politics and law, and Zach Smith provides expert analysis and insight into what these rulings mean for the country. From the Court's surprising decision on birthright citizenship to the restoration of executive authority, this episode is a comprehensive guide to the latest Supreme Court news. Zach Smith shares his expertise on the Supreme Court's recent decisions, including the birthright citizenship case, the election integrity case, and the Humphrey's Executor case. He also discusses the implications of these rulings for the future of American politics and the role of the executive branch in government. With his clear and concise explanations, Zach Smith makes complex legal concepts accessible to listeners and provides a deeper understanding of the issues at play. If you're interested in staying informed about the latest Supreme Court news and its impact on American politics, this episode is a must-listen. Join Carl Jackson and Zach Smith as they discuss the key takeaways from the Supreme Court's recent decisions and what they mean for the future of the country. Follow Carl Jackson:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/carljacksonradioX/Twitter: https://twitter.com/carljacksonshowInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarljacksonshowWebsite: http://www.TheCarlJacksonShow.comStore: https://CarlJacksonStore.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

During the second segment of Hour 3 on Tuesday, June 30, 2026, host Tara Servatius praised a monumental, yet largely underreported, 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that granted President Donald Trump the constitutional authority to fire a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner. Tara emphasized that the true impact of this decision extends far beyond a single agency, effectively dismantling the 1935 Humphrey's Executor v. United States precedent that had long legally shielded independent federal bureaucracies from direct presidential oversight. She argued that for nearly a century, these unelected agencies—such as the SEC, NLRB, and EEOC—had operated as unaccountable, totalitarian fiefdoms, weaponizing fake investigations and forcing banks to target conservatives without warrants. With this wall of protection gone, Tara celebrated that Trump can now systematically remove deep-state holdovers who are actively trying to block his agenda from within the executive branch, declaring the ruling a miraculous victory that stops a runaway bureaucratic dictatorship.

On the June 30, 2026 broadcast of The Tara Show, the opening segment broke down a massive, yet underreported, executive branch victory for Donald Trump at the Supreme Court. The hosts highlighted a major 6-3 ruling that overturned 91 years of legal precedent from the 1935 Humphrey's Executor case, effectively dismantling the unconstitutional wall that long protected independent federal agencies—like the FTC, SEC, and NLRB—from direct presidential authority. While the media focused heavily on Trump's concurrent losses regarding mail-in ballot deadlines and birthright citizenship challenges, the show emphasized that this monumental SCOTUS decision restores the founders' original intent by giving the president the power to fire rogue, weaponized bureaucrats at will.

The end is nigh! Or, the end of this Supreme Court term is nigh, at least. On the second to last day of this term, the court's right wingers delivered a sweeping ruling that will reshape the federal government for years to come. In Trump v. Slaughter, the conservative supermajority voted 6-3 to allow the president to fire members of independent regulatory agencies—overturning Humphrey's Executor, a 91-year-old unanimous precedent—and handing Trump effective control over agencies that regulate consumer protection, nuclear energy, union activity, mine safety, and more. But the Roberts majority weren't quite ready to hand the nation's credit card (and their investment portfolios) over to the mad king, and so the Federal Reserve got a carve-out in a separate 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Cook. How did they reach these wildly different conclusions in such closely related cases? Justice Roberts offered a barely argued rationale, but who needs a rationale if your red lines are painted in a crimson of pure cynicism?The court also handed down a significant Fourth Amendment ruling on geofence warrants, with Justice Kagan writing for a 6-3 majority that such warrants constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. And in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court upheld state laws allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive shortly after. But the squeaker of a 5-4 majority was deeply alarming in a case that played to some of the justices' fox-brained ideas about election fraud. Justice Alito and his fellow dissenters appear to have signed onto the wholly unsupported view that Democrat wins are always suspect, and the only way to restore trust in voting is to restrict voting. As Rick Hasen writes for Slate, we won't be as lucky next time. The term wraps this week and Amicus is with you all the way for clear-eyed analysis of the final raft of decisions. Slate Plus members can also sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business as part of our live online audience, July 10 at noon EDT. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The end is nigh! Or, the end of this Supreme Court term is nigh, at least. On the second to last day of this term, the court's right wingers delivered a sweeping ruling that will reshape the federal government for years to come. In Trump v. Slaughter, the conservative supermajority voted 6-3 to allow the president to fire members of independent regulatory agencies—overturning Humphrey's Executor, a 91-year-old unanimous precedent—and handing Trump effective control over agencies that regulate consumer protection, nuclear energy, union activity, mine safety, and more. But the Roberts majority weren't quite ready to hand the nation's credit card (and their investment portfolios) over to the mad king, and so the Federal Reserve got a carve-out in a separate 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Cook. How did they reach these wildly different conclusions in such closely related cases? Justice Roberts offered a barely argued rationale, but who needs a rationale if your red lines are painted in a crimson of pure cynicism?The court also handed down a significant Fourth Amendment ruling on geofence warrants, with Justice Kagan writing for a 6-3 majority that such warrants constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. And in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court upheld state laws allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive shortly after. But the squeaker of a 5-4 majority was deeply alarming in a case that played to some of the justices' fox-brained ideas about election fraud. Justice Alito and his fellow dissenters appear to have signed onto the wholly unsupported view that Democrat wins are always suspect, and the only way to restore trust in voting is to restrict voting. As Rick Hasen writes for Slate, we won't be as lucky next time. The term wraps this week and Amicus is with you all the way for clear-eyed analysis of the final raft of decisions. Slate Plus members can also sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business as part of our live online audience, July 10 at noon EDT. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In part one of our Supreme Court decisions coverage, Charles C. W. Cooke, Richard Epstein, and John Yoo break down the decisions handed down today, beginning with the Court's treatment of presidential removal power in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook (no relation) —the first apparently overruling Humphrey's Executor for ordinary agencies, the second preserving a major carveout for the Federal Reserve. They also debate Chatrie v. United States, a Fourth Amendment case involving law enforcement's use of geofencing warrants and cellphone location data, and close with Watson v. Republican National Committee, in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that states may count mail-in ballots received after Election Day unless Congress clearly says otherwise. Along the way, the hosts argue over the administrative state, judicial independence, election integrity, and whether the Roberts Court is as predictable—or as partisan—as its critics claim. Part two will be on Thursday, with a decision expected on (cue dramatic music)...birthright citizenship!

The end is nigh! Or, the end of this Supreme Court term is nigh, at least. On the second to last day of this term, the court's right wingers delivered a sweeping ruling that will reshape the federal government for years to come. In Trump v. Slaughter, the conservative supermajority voted 6-3 to allow the president to fire members of independent regulatory agencies—overturning Humphrey's Executor, a 91-year-old unanimous precedent—and handing Trump effective control over agencies that regulate consumer protection, nuclear energy, union activity, mine safety, and more. But the Roberts majority weren't quite ready to hand the nation's credit card (and their investment portfolios) over to the mad king, and so the Federal Reserve got a carve-out in a separate 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Cook. How did they reach these wildly different conclusions in such closely related cases? Justice Roberts offered a barely argued rationale, but who needs a rationale if your red lines are painted in a crimson of pure cynicism?The court also handed down a significant Fourth Amendment ruling on geofence warrants, with Justice Kagan writing for a 6-3 majority that such warrants constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. And in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court upheld state laws allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive shortly after. But the squeaker of a 5-4 majority was deeply alarming in a case that played to some of the justices' fox-brained ideas about election fraud. Justice Alito and his fellow dissenters appear to have signed onto the wholly unsupported view that Democrat wins are always suspect, and the only way to restore trust in voting is to restrict voting. As Rick Hasen writes for Slate, we won't be as lucky next time. The term wraps this week and Amicus is with you all the way for clear-eyed analysis of the final raft of decisions. Slate Plus members can also sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business as part of our live online audience, July 10 at noon EDT. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In part one of our Supreme Court decisions coverage, Charles C. W. Cooke, Richard Epstein, and John Yoo break down the decisions handed down today, beginning with the Court's treatment of presidential removal power in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook (no relation) —the first apparently overruling Humphrey's Executor for ordinary agencies, the second preserving a major carveout for the Federal Reserve. They also debate Chatrie v. United States, a Fourth Amendment case involving law enforcement's use of geofencing warrants and cellphone location data, and close with Watson v. Republican National Committee, in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that states may count mail-in ballots received after Election Day unless Congress clearly says otherwise. Along the way, the hosts argue over the administrative state, judicial independence, election integrity, and whether the Roberts Court is as predictable—or as partisan—as its critics claim. Part two will be on Thursday, with a decision expected on (cue dramatic music)...birthright citizenship!

Where there' s a will, there's a way… NOCTURNAL TRANSMISSIONS is proud to present:  Livia E. De Souza's ‘The Executor' ---   NOCTURNAL TRANSMISSIONS is a fortnightly podcast featuring inspired performances of short horror stories, both old and new, by voice artist Kristin Holland.   ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.nocturnaltransmissions.com.au⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   You can support us (and access lots of exclusive content) by becoming a patron at Patreon.com: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/nocturnaltransmissions⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ___ NOCTURNAL TRANSMISSIONS is proud to be a part of the SpectreVision Radio podcast network. SpectreVision Radio is a bespoke podcast network at the intersection between the arts and the uncanny, featuring a tapestry of shows exploring creativity, the esoteric, and the unknown. We're a community for creators and fans vibrating around common curiosities, shared interests and persistent passions. spectrevisionradio.com linktr.ee/spectrevisionsocial Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Probate is one of the most misunderstood topics in estate planning. Many people know they want to avoid it, but few understand what probate is or why it exists in the first place. This week, attorney Kyle Rinaudo of Reeves Law, P.C., joins us for an in-depth conversation on the facts and fiction surrounding probate, including its purpose, the role it plays in settling estates, why it often carries a negative reputation, and what families can realistically expect when navigating the process.Original Air Date: June 13, 2026Read the Article: https://www.henssler.com/before-you-try-to-avoid-probate-understand-it 

California attorney Scott Rahn resolves contests, disputes and litigation related to trusts, estates and conservatorships, creating a welcome peace of mind for clients. He represents heirs, beneficiaries, trustees and executors.Visit his website here: https://rmolawyers.com/

Send us Fan MailMany talented professionals reach a moment when they know they're capable of more influence, more impact, and more leadership, yet something keeps them standing at the edge of that next chapter.In this episode of The UpLevel Podcast, we invite you inside a real coaching conversation with Marlenne Johnson, an organizational transformation strategist, storyteller, and systems thinker who helps organizations move through complexity with greater clarity, intention, and humanity.Throughout her career, Marlenne has partnered with leaders and teams to guide change, strengthen employee experiences, and create meaningful transformation. Now she finds herself facing a leadership question of her own:How do I move from being known as an executor to becoming a builder, thought leader, people leader, and community leader?Together, Christie Mann and Marlenne design a coaching alliance and explore the beliefs, habits, and assumptions that can keep even the most capable leaders from fully stepping into their potential.Through a future-self visualization rooted in Co-Active coaching, Marlenne connects with the version of herself she hopes to become, only to discover that the qualities she's seeking may already be present.In This Episode:Designing an alliance for safety, bravery, and growthHow future-self coaching can open up leadership growthWhy so many leaders wait for permission before stepping forwardThe difference between executing work and creating lasting impactHow self-trust shapes leadership presenceThe role community plays in personal and professional growthPractical ways to bridge the gap between who you are and who you're becomingAbout Marlenne:Marlenne Johnson is an organizational transformation strategist, storyteller, and systems thinker whose work lives at the intersection of people, power, and change. With a career spanning recruiting, employee experience, and organizational effectiveness, she specializes in helping leaders navigate complex transformation by turning ambiguity into structure and intention into action.Her perspective is grounded in a deep curiosity about how individuals move within systems: how culture, incentives, and identity shape the choices people make inside organizations. Marlenne is known for her ability to see patterns others miss and for bringing both strategic clarity and emotional intelligence to conversations about leadership, transformation, and personal agency.Through her writing and her work, she explores what she calls the work of the “Soul Architect”: the ongoing practice of examining the systems we inherit, the roles we play within them, and the conscious choices available to us as we build something new.She is also the co-founder of the storytelling podcast My Story Is Not Unique, a space for honest conversations about identity, resilience, and the shared human experiences that shape how we lead, live, and grow.LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/marlennejohnson/My Story is Not Unique Podcast

Have you made your Legal Will? Part 2.‎‎⁠‎⁠‎As in Episode 21, Part 1, we have an experienced lawyer Dr ‎Robinson D'Souza and the hostess is Ms Sharmila Martis Arora. Fr ‎Juventius Andrade, Redemptorist, continues to bring the spiritual ‎dimension and those aspects of relationships - that a matter such as a ‎‎‘legal will' engenders.‎‎This program on the Legal Will has drawn forth a number of responses and questions. Some of these have been dealt with in Episode ‎‎22. Here, we have discussed the need for sound mind and mental capacity while making a will; the role and responsibility of the Executor ‎and witnesses; the complications of a Joint Will; the importance of indicating nominees; and the distinction between a living will and the ‎legal will. Of course, linked to it, is the possibility of donating organs of the body or the entire body itself at death. The Living Will has been ‎dealt with in great detail in Episodes 13, 14, and 15.‎A Legal Will, which comes into effect after death, is a form of communication between the person who has died and the heirs. Should the ‎heirs be taken into confidence when the person is still alive? So much depends on the relationship and this has also been discussed in ‎this Episode.‎This Episode has shown the importance and urgency of making a Legal Will. Start the process today, if you have not already done so. ‎Listen to this lively discussion and pass on this link to others!‎

This Day in Legal History: Black Monday and the End of the NIRAOn May 27, 1935 — a day quickly dubbed “Black Monday” by the press — the United States Supreme Court delivered three unanimous decisions that gutted central pieces of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in a single morning. The most consequential was A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, in which the Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act. The case grew out of the prosecution of a Brooklyn kosher poultry slaughterhouse for violating the “Live Poultry Code,” one of the hundreds of industry codes drafted by trade groups and given the force of federal law by the National Recovery Administration. The Court held that the NIRA's code-making scheme was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to private actors and the executive, and that the federal government's Commerce Clause authority did not reach the intrastate sale of poultry to local butchers. Justice Cardozo, concurring, famously described the statute as “delegation running riot.”The same day, in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the Court cabined the President's power to remove members of independent regulatory commissions, a holding that would shape the constitutional status of agencies like the FTC, SEC, and FCC for the next ninety years. And in Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, the Court invalidated the Frazier-Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act as an uncompensated taking from secured creditors. Roosevelt was, by all accounts, furious — and Black Monday became the proximate cause of his 1937 court-packing plan, which failed in Congress but is generally credited with prompting the “switch in time” that produced the more deferential commerce-clause and administrative-law jurisprudence of Jones & Laughlin Steel and the decades that followed. The nondelegation doctrine the Court announced in Schechter has, famously, not been used to strike down a federal statute since — though it has been the subject of growing interest from the current Court's conservative majority, which makes the ninety-first anniversary of Black Monday more than just a historical footnote.Former President Joe Biden has sued the Department of Justice to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts from his interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur, the prosecutor who investigated Biden's handling of classified documents and declined to bring charges. According to the filing, Biden argues that releasing the recordings would skirt federal law restricting disclosure of materials gathered in a special counsel probe, and would effectively turn protected investigative material into political fodder. The suit follows a 2024 Freedom of Information Act action by the conservative Heritage Foundation seeking the same recordings, and comes against the backdrop of repeated efforts by the current administration to make Hur-era material public — efforts the Biden team has argued are intended to embarrass the former president rather than to serve any legitimate investigative or oversight function. The transcripts of the Hur interviews were released back in 2024, but the audio itself has been the subject of executive privilege fights ever since. Worth watching for what the court does with the privilege claims, and for how the Special Counsel regulations are treated now that there is an ex-president on each side of these disputes.Former President Biden sues DOJ over release of interview audio | ReutersThe Trump administration is asking a California federal judge to throw out an expanded challenge to its sweeping reorganization of the federal workforce, calling the litigation a “litigation safari.” In a Friday motion to dismiss filed in AFGE v. Trump, the administration urged Judge Susan Illston to toss a supplemental complaint that broadened the case to cover, among other things, the downsizing of FEMA and a set of forward-looking workforce planning documents the administration issued last October. The original suit, filed in April 2025 by a coalition including the American Federation of Government Employees, SEIU, and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and San Francisco, challenged layoffs and reorganizations at more than twenty federal agencies. Judge Illston enjoined the workforce plans last May, but the Supreme Court stayed her injunction in July, and she has since declined to dismiss the case outright.The administration's argument is essentially jurisdictional: that the October planning documents are too tentative to constitute “final agency action,” that there is no specific DHS order behind the FEMA contract lapses the plaintiffs point to, and that individual FEMA terminations must run through the administrative civil-service process rather than land in district court. The “litigation safari” framing — that the plaintiffs are simply “roving the executive branch to explore various employment issues” — is rhetorically catchy but glosses over the more interesting underlying question: how cleanly the Administrative Procedure Act's “final agency action” requirement maps onto a coordinated, rolling, and openly cross-agency reorganization. A ruling on the dismissal motion is expected later this summer.Trump Admin Looks To Ax Expanded Suit Over Staffing Cuts - Law360Billionaire insurance magnate Greg Lindberg was sentenced in the Western District of North Carolina to twelve years in federal prison across two separate criminal cases — eighty-seven months on charges that he tried to bribe the state's insurance commissioner, and 144 months on wire-fraud charges arising from a $2 billion scheme in which prosecutors said he treated the insurance companies he controlled as a personal piggy bank. The sentences will run concurrently. Judge Max Cogburn also entered a preliminary restitution order of $1.6 billion based on a court-appointed special master's recommendation, which Lindberg's defense team described as the largest restitution award in state history.Prosecutors said the scheme harmed more than two hundred thousand victims, most of them elderly annuity holders, at least twenty thousand of whom died before any promised payouts arrived. The bribery case has its own complicated history — Lindberg was first convicted in 2020, had that conviction vacated by the Fourth Circuit in 2022 over faulty jury instructions, and was reconvicted on retrial in 2024. He pleaded guilty to the separate wire-fraud and money-laundering counts in November 2024. Judge Cogburn credited Lindberg's “extraordinary cooperation” with prosecutors and the special master, but also noted, with what reads like real exasperation in the transcript, that Lindberg has continued to file pro se civil lawsuits against the insurance companies he once owned and that the case illustrates how much of our regulatory apparatus can be “bought and sold like sacks of potatoes.” The government had sought roughly fourteen and a half years; Lindberg had asked for four.‘Regretful' Billionaire Gets 12 Years For $2B Fraud, Bribery - Law360The Colorado Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a debt buyer suing a consumer must attach to its complaint a non-affidavit writing that actually shows the buyer owns that consumer's debt — not just a generic bill of sale showing that the buyer purchased some bundle of receivables from the original creditor. The case, Wright v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, involved a $671.29 Victoria's Secret credit-card balance that Comenity Bank had sold to Portfolio Recovery in 2018. Portfolio Recovery's complaint attached a bill of sale and an affidavit identifying the last four digits of Wright's account number, and the lower courts found that sufficient under Colorado's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Colorado Supreme Court, in the first opinion authored by recently appointed Justice Susan Blanco, reversed and held the affidavit could not cure a complaint that didn't first satisfy the statute's non-affidavit-writing requirement.The practical consequence is significant: the four largest debt buyers alone filed close to forty thousand cases in Colorado county courts between 2013 and 2015, accounting for around eight percent of the state's county-court civil docket, and many of those complaints have historically relied on exactly the kind of generic bill-of-sale-plus-affidavit packaging the court just rejected. Consumer advocates argue the ruling will help consumers — most of whom never had any relationship with the debt buyer — understand and respond to the suits filed against them; the debt-buying industry will, in the near term, need to retool its pleading practices statewide.Colo. Justices Say Debt Buyer Must Show It Owns The Debt - Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

We are joined by guest co-host Professor Pam Karlan at the American Law Institute Annual Meeting for the last live show of season 6. We work through a busy stretch of the interim docket: the Alabama GVR in Allen v. Caster and what Callais has done to Section 2; the denied stay in the Virginia redistricting fight, Scott v. McDougle; and the mifepristone cases, Danco and GenBioPro v. Louisiana, where Thomas rides the Comstock Act alone and Alito takes it personally. Then a turn to executive power and the term's looming merits decisions—birthright citizenship, the Federal Reserve, Humphrey's Executor—before audience questions on state voting rights acts, fixing the single-member-district statute, and whether you can wish yourself more wishes.Key Topics[00:00:11] - Live show introduction at the American Law Institute with guest host Pam Karlan[00:02:30] - Fallout from Louisiana v. Callais and the Alabama redistricting order[00:06:26] - Purcell principle, mid-election rule changes, and discriminatory intent findings[00:17:32] - Virginia's redistricting amendment case and why the Supreme Court declined to intervene[00:32:41] - Danco Laboratories / GenBioPro and the mifepristone stay[00:39:56] - Justice Thomas, the Comstock Act, and Justice Alito's dissent[00:47:15] - Big-picture trends in executive power and the Court's posture toward the administration[01:00:54] - Audience Q&A on Congress, district design, and gerrymandering reform[01:05:47] - The President's public attacks on the Court and possible effects on future cases

Are You Sure You Want to Be an Executor? Episode 384 – Being named as an estate executor is often considered an honor, and you will be compensated for your efforts. But is it worth all the potential trouble? More SML Planning Minute Podcast Episodes Transcript of Podcast Episode 384 Hello, this is Bill Rainaldi, with another edition of Security Mutual's SML Planning Minute. In today's episode: are you sure you want to be an executor? Perhaps you should consider it an honor. Your Uncle Charlie, who always liked, trusted and respected you, has named you as the executor of his will. What does that even mean? The executor of an estate is the person (or, sometimes an entity) appointed to manage the financial affairs of a deceased individual and to carry out their wishes as outlined in their will. The executor is usually a family member, but it can also be a close friend, financial advisor or family lawyer. It can also be a financial institution. And sometimes there's more than one. So, what does an executor do? Here are some of the early steps many executors take: obtaining copies of the death certificate and filing a copy of the will with the probate court where the deceased lived. Before the court approves the executor, they may schedule a hearing to give interested parties a chance to either contest the will or object to the appointment of the executor.[1] Once approved, the executor generally needs to notify the appropriate parties of the decedent's death. This may include friends and family members, financial institutions and government agencies, such as the Social Security Administration. Then they usually need to gather all the estate's assets and liabilities. After that, the executor will need to settle any debts or taxes before the assets can be distributed. Once all this is done, they will supervise the distribution of the assets.[2] It sounds complicated, and it very often can be. It typically takes three to six months, but it can be much longer, sometimes as long as two years or more.[3] [4] And it could involve a major time commitment on the executor's part. Also, the amount of paperwork can be overwhelming. Here's one good reason to say yes: executors usually get paid. However, for small and modest sized estates where family members act as executor, this is often done free of charge.  In larger and more complicated estates, the rate is typically set by state law, with a normal rate of anywhere between 2 and 5 percent of the total estate value.[5] In many cases the rate will be calculated on a sliding scale based on the value of the estate. In New York, for example, the fee is 5 percent for estates below $100,000, gradually dropping down to 2 percent for estates of more than $5 million. Two percent of $5 million is $100,000. Things can sometimes get tricky for an executor. In most states, the executor can also be a beneficiary of the estate.[6] This has the potential to create a conflict of interest, if not conflict with the other beneficiaries. The entire process can be overwhelming for some. It's important to remember that even though it may be an honor, you don't have to accept it. Another alternative might be to accept the assignment but hire some professionals to help you out.[7] And people do sometimes turn down the opportunity to serve as an executor, despite any personal or financial incentives. Potential family conflicts are sometimes enough to scare someone off. For example, the decedent might own a house that is scheduled to be split among his children. But what happens if one of them is already living there? The executor may have to notify the resident that he or she must move out so that the property can be sold. It may carry some prestige, but acting as the executor can often put them in the middle of disagreements between some of the heirs over the distribution of assets. If you're a family member or friend, being an executor can cause irreparable damage to your personal relationships, and that's one of the big reasons people sometimes opt out. It's also important to recognize that an executor is considered a fiduciary for the estate and its beneficiaries. This is a high ethical standard where, if the executor does something wrong or enriches him or herself unjustly, they can be sued personally. The potential for personal liability may be enough of a reason to reject the nomination, particularly in large or complicated estates. Finally, note that things can get even more complicated if the individual does not have a will. In that case, the court will appoint someone to be the administrator of the estate. That's basically the same job as the executor, but with a court-appointed individual who may or may not have known the decedent. If you're the one who's doing your own estate planning, putting together the will—with the help of a qualified estate planning attorney—is a good start. You'll need to think seriously about who you want as your executor. Just as important, you need to communicate early and openly about your decisions with everyone involved. And be sure to revisit your choice every few years. [1] MetLife. “Executor of Estate: What Do They Do?” MetLife.com. https://www.metlife.com/stories/legal/executor-of-estate/ (accessed April 16, 2026). [2] Id. [3] American Wills & Estates. “How Long Does Probate Take and How Much Does it Cost?” Americanwillsandestates.com https://americanwillsandestates.com/blog/how-long-does-probate-take-and-how-much-does-it-cost/ (accessed April 16, 2026). [4] Beck, Lenox & Stolzer. “How Long Does It Take to Distribute Assets and Close an Estate?” Beckelderlaw.com. https://beckelderlaw.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-distribute-assets-and-close-an-estate/# (accessed April 16, 2026). [5] The Olear Team. “Executor of estate fees: How much is paid, and when?” Olear.com. https://olear.com/executor-estate-fees-much-paid/#:~:text=What%20are%20executor%20of%20estate,executor%20fee%20is%202%20percent (accessed April 16, 2026). [6] MetLife. “Executor of Estate: What Do They Do?” MetLife.com. https://www.metlife.com/stories/legal/executor-of-estate/ (accessed April 16, 2026). [7] Miura, Danielle. “Your client is the executor. Now what?” Insurancenewsnet.com. https://insurancenewsnet.com/innarticle/your-client-is-the-executor-now-what (accessed April 16, 2026). More SML Planning Minute Podcast Episodes This podcast is brought to you by Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, The Company That Cares®. The content provided is intended for educational and informational purposes only. Information is provided in good faith. However, the Company makes no representation or warranty of any kind regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information. The information presented is designed to provide general information regarding the subject matter covered. It is not to serve as legal, tax or other financial advice related to individual situations, because each individual's legal, tax and financial situation is different. Specific advice needs to be tailored to your situation. Therefore, please consult with your own attorney, tax professional and/or other advisors regarding your specific situation. To help reach your goals, you need a skilled professional by your side. Contact your local Security Mutual life insurance advisor today. As part of the planning process, he or she will coordinate with your other advisors as needed to help you achieve your financial goals and objectives. For more information, visit us at SMLNY.com/SMLPodcast. If you've enjoyed this podcast, tell your friends about it. And be sure to give us a five-star review. And check us out on LinkedIn, YouTube and Twitter. Thanks for listening, and we'll talk to you next time. Tax laws are complex and subject to change. The information presented is based on current interpretation of the laws. Neither Security Mutual nor its agents are permitted to provide tax or legal advice. The applicability of any strategy discussed is dependent upon the particular facts and circumstances. Results may vary, and products and services discussed may not be appropriate for all situations. Each person's needs, objectives and financial circumstances are different, and must be reviewed and analyzed independently. We encourage individuals to seek personalized advice from a qualified Security Mutual life insurance advisor regarding their personal needs, objectives, and financial circumstances. Insurance products are issued by Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Binghamton, New York. Product availability and features may vary by state.​ SubscribeApple PodcastsSpotifyAndroidPandoraby EmailTuneInDeezerRSSMore Subscribe Options

Being named executor might feel like an obligation, but it's not always one you have to accept. Nick walks through what happens if you're unexpectedly chosen, what your options are, and how to properly step away if it's not something you want to take on. Make an informed decision before you act, because handling it the right way upfront can save a lot of stress later. Here's some of what we discuss in this episode:

What did MEWL say when JLR told her about how much money Charlie got for his punishment plate? How is JLR's diet going? A man in India digs up his dead sister to retrieve money from her bank account. Duji' s mom calls her to buy things from QVC. Charlie the Executor. 

What did MEWL say when JLR told her about how much money Charlie got for his punishment plate? How is JLR's diet going? A man in India digs up his dead sister to retrieve money from her bank account. Duji' s mom calls her to buy things from QVC. Charlie the Executor. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What did MEWL say when JLR told her about how much money Charlie got for his punishment plate? How is JLR's diet going? A man in India digs up his dead sister to retrieve money from her bank account. Duji' s mom calls her to buy things from QVC. Charlie the Executor. Guardians fan who attempted to catch homerun ball deletes all of his social media. What did they find inside Krystle's cyst? JLR has his E.D. Appointment. Live streamer hit by a car. Rover is thinking about running a marathon. Video of a man groping a woman at the bar when her husband knocks him out cold. Fight broke out at the Yankees vs. Rangers game. Duji insists on having cable installed to her basement TV. The mother of the girl who had the baseball stolen from her at the Guardians game calls into the show. Lisa Kudrow interview reveals the cast of Friends makes $20 million a year in residuals. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What did MEWL say when JLR told her about how much money Charlie got for his punishment plate? How is JLR's diet going? A man in India digs up his dead sister to retrieve money from her bank account. Duji' s mom calls her to buy things from QVC. Charlie the Executor. Guardians fan who attempted to catch homerun ball deletes all of his social media. What did they find inside Krystle's cyst? JLR has his E.D. Appointment. Live streamer hit by a car. Rover is thinking about running a marathon. Video of a man groping a woman at the bar when her husband knocks him out cold. Fight broke out at the Yankees vs. Rangers game. Duji insists on having cable installed to her basement TV. The mother of the girl who had the baseball stolen from her at the Guardians game calls into the show. Lisa Kudrow interview reveals the cast of Friends makes $20 million a year in residuals. 

We break down the legal case against James Comey over an alleged "true threat" and how far the government can go in prosecuting speech. Plus, we examine renewed FCC pressure on ABC and Jimmy Kimmel. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 00:57 Does the DOJ have a viable case against James Comey? 04:51 "True threats" and Comey's case 06:36 Threats against U.S. presidents and Watts v. United States 09:55 Was it a mistake for Comey to take down the "8647" seashell image? 11:18 Can the case be dismissed before it goes to trial? 12:38 Can Comey's case be considered a selective prosecution? 13:23 Is the process itself a punishment? 15:29 Could prosecutors face consequences for bringing this case? 18:07 Examples of true threats 20:35 "True threat" versus "incitement to imminent lawless action" 22:53 Is it still a "true threat" if charges come a year later? 24:32 Can Comey recover his legal fees? 25:34 Do threats become more real in the wake of other active threats? 26:32 Does the First Amendment differ for speech about the president? 30:06 What's going on with the FCC and ABC? 34:20 What do NRA v. Vullo and the FCC's calls to fire Jimmy Kimmel have in common? 35:17 Why does broadcast licensing exist in the internet age? 36:51 Have past presidents historically influenced broadcast licensing? 38:33 Is the Fairness Doctrine still in effect? 40:30 What can ABC do if the FCC takes away their licenses? 42:40 Will ABC fight back? 46:01 Has broadcast media regulation always been a frustration for 1A advocates? 49:20 Humphrey's Executor & content-based regulation 50:58 Is the FCC independent from the executive branch? 51:45 The past 18 months of FCC action 52:15 Outro Joining us: Conor Fitzpatrick, supervising senior attorney Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit claremontinstitute.substack.comIn anticipation of an eventual Trump v. Slaughter ruling, Spencer and Ryan follow up last week's special episode by outlining the arguments in favor of ex-FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. After Clarence Thomas and the other Court conservatives prodded Slaughter's representative Amit Agarwal, it turned out that the respondents' argument could, in principle, be used to engineer a wholesale takeover of government power by Congress and the administrative state. Will Humphrey's Executor be overturned? Ryan and Spencer make their bets.