Podcasts about federal circuit

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you the episode 176 of the IP Fridays Podcast. Today's interview guest is returning guest Franklin Graves, who is a senior counsel at Linkedin and teaching IP law at Emerson College. With my co-host Ken Suzan he is discussing how the law for creators has dramatically changed in the past years. Franklin Graves is expressing his personal views and not the views of Linkedin or Microsoft. He is talking about the paper “Upload Complete” before he joined Linkedin. Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/franklingraves/ Paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5271442 Website: https://creatoreconomylaw.com/ But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! Richard Meade, a judge on the UK High Court and one of the most prominent figures in European patent law, was appointed Lord Justice of Appeal at the British Court of Appeal on June 12, 2026. Meade played a key role in numerous landmark British patent decisions, particularly in the area of standard-essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND licenses. In Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow Co., No. 2025-1807, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit completely overturned the original $452 million judgment (which had already been reduced by the District Court to $59.4 million) in favor of Insulet. In its decision of June 2, 2026, in the case of Fujifilm v. Kodak, the UPC Board of Appeal provided comprehensive clarifications regarding so-called “long-arm jurisdiction”—that is, the question of whether the UPC can also rule on national patent claims outside the UPC territory (such as in the United Kingdom). In 14 guiding principles, the judges established specific procedural rules for various categories of cases. There is no automatic UPC jurisdiction over national patent claims outside the UPC territory. The Munich Regional Court has issued an arrest warrant against the managing director of Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH because he is alleged to have continued to exploit the Brazilian company Silimed's patent for breast implants despite a preliminary injunction. A number of IT and automotive industry associations—which are among the most frequent users of Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, urging the Court to grant Google's certiorari petition. An attorney for a Las Vegas performer has asked a California federal judge to temporarily prohibit Taylor Swift from using “The Life of a Showgirl” as a trademark while the trademark lawsuit is pending. Swift's attorney called the lawsuit baseless. And now let's hear Ken discuss creator law with Franklin! AI, Platform Law, and the Creator Economy: What Businesses Need to Know Now Franklin Graves has spent his entire career watching digital content move through systems that most people never see. He started in marketing at a major music label right out of law school, then represented individual creators on YouTube in a pro bono capacity, then moved to the platform side at Eventbrite, and today works as Senior Product Counsel at LinkedIn, where he focuses on AI, data, and the regulatory questions that come with both. His recently published law review article, Upload Complete: An Introduction to Creator Economy Law, is the first academic paper to address the creator economy as a distinct legal field. In a recent episode of the IP Fridays podcast, he spoke with host Kenneth Suzan about responsible AI development, platform regulation, and what it actually means to own your audience in a world where the rules keep changing overnight. From Content Creator to Platform Lawyer The through-line in Graves’ career is a genuine understanding of how content moves from an idea in someone’s head to an audience on a screen. That experience, he argues, is precisely what in-house counsel needs right now. Lawyers working on AI and product development cannot afford to sit at a distance from the technology they are advising on. They need to use the tools, experience them as a creator or end user would, and understand the nuances of how a product actually operates before it reaches the public. Understanding the product first is the precondition for everything else. That philosophy translates directly into how he approaches responsible AI implementation. The landscape of AI standards is crowded: NIST frameworks, the EU AI Act, sector-specific guidance, and a growing body of industry-adopted best practices. The challenge for in-house counsel is not knowing that these standards exist. It is making them actionable for the engineering and product teams they support. Abstract principles need to become concrete controls and workflows. Graves offers one practical shortcut: most companies already have open source software review processes that involve the right stakeholders, the right sign-off levels, and the right security checks. Layering the specifics of generative AI or large language models onto those existing processes is far more efficient than building something new from scratch. A Fragmented Regulatory World The geopolitical dimension of AI regulation is something Graves thinks about constantly in his role at LinkedIn. The EU AI Act, shifting US executive orders, and country-specific approaches to data privacy have created a regulatory environment that can change the rules of the game without warning. His analogy is instructive: creators have long understood what it means to build a community on a platform they do not own. An algorithm change, a policy update, or a government ban can wipe out years of audience-building overnight. Businesses deploying AI tools globally now face a structurally similar problem. The response, for creators and for platforms alike, is to build resilience rather than rely on stability that may not last. TikTok is the clearest recent example. When the platform faced the prospect of being shut down in the United States on national security grounds, it triggered a broader conversation about platform dependence that had been building for years. Creators who had invested their entire business in one platform suddenly confronted the possibility that their audience could simply disappear. The lesson is not that platforms are bad. It is that concentration of any kind, whether it is your audience, your data pipeline, or your regulatory compliance strategy, creates fragility. What Is a Creator, Legally Speaking? One of the central contributions of Graves’ law review article is definitional. The terminology matters more than it might seem. When courts and regulators talk about creators without a shared understanding of what that word means, the resulting legal analysis tends to miss the mark. Graves draws a distinction between users who post content, creators who post with the intent to build an audience and eventually monetize it, and influencers, a subset of creators who are actively running a small business through their content. The difference is intent. A parent posting family photos on Facebook is a user. Someone building a subscription community around their professional expertise is running a business, and the legal framework that applies to them should reflect that. That distinction matters practically when it comes to liability. As more creators build their own platforms, whether through custom membership sites, open source tools like Ghost, or federated social networks, they take on obligations that previously fell to large platforms: content moderation policies, privacy notices, terms of service, and compliance with data regulations across multiple jurisdictions. A creator in Tennessee running a membership platform with subscribers in Germany is operating a global business, whether they think of themselves that way or not. Protecting Children Online: A Question Without a Clean Answer The tension between age verification and privacy is one of the more difficult problems in platform law right now. Australia, several European countries, and a growing number of US states have introduced or passed minimum age requirements for social media accounts. The technical challenge is real: verifying age online requires collecting identifying information, and collecting identifying information creates privacy risk, particularly for the young people the laws are designed to protect. Who should bear the responsibility for that verification is also unresolved. Is it the platform? The app store? The mobile operating system? Graves does not pretend there is a clean answer, but he points to the mobile layer as an underexplored option. The Apple App Store and Google Play Store already have significant leverage over which apps reach users on their devices. Whether that leverage should extend to age verification is a question that deserves more attention than it currently receives. The Right of Publicity in the Age of AI Voice cloning, digital replicas, and AI-generated synthetic media have pushed the right of publicity into territory that traditional IP law was not designed to cover. Trademark law, copyright law, and existing publicity rights each capture part of the problem but none of them covers it completely. The result, as Graves describes it, is a period of experimentation: lawyers filing trademarks on vocal sounds and phrases, states updating their publicity statutes to explicitly mention artificial intelligence, and entertainment unions negotiating over who controls a performance and any AI-generated iterations of it. Tennessee’s Elvis Act is a concrete example of the legislative response: the state updated its right of publicity law to include voice and to reference AI directly. Similar efforts are underway elsewhere. The underlying challenge is calibrating protection so that it gives creators and performers meaningful control over their likeness and voice without foreclosing the development of generative AI systems that depend on broad rights to process and learn from content. Somewhere between those two interests, a workable legal framework needs to emerge. The brand deal context may be where the issue becomes most immediately practical. When a brand partners with an influencer and the campaign involves generative AI in any form, the contract needs to address control explicitly. Who has final approval over how the influencer’s likeness or voice is used in AI-generated deliverables? What happens to those assets after the campaign ends? These are not hypothetical questions. They are contract drafting problems that any brand counsel or creator attorney should be addressing today. What Comes Next Graves is cautious about predictions, but his sense of direction is clear. The regulatory environment will continue to fragment before it converges. The right of publicity will be updated, imperfectly, in more jurisdictions. Creators will continue to move toward owning more of their infrastructure. And the lawyers who do this work best will be the ones who understand the technology well enough to translate it into practical, defensible decisions for the people they advise. Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Thank you, Rolf. Our returning guest today is Franklin Graves. Franklin is the founder and editor of Creator Economy Law, a website and newsletter that educates creator economy professionals on the intersection of law and policy with the world of creators, brands, and platforms. Franklin also published the first law review article focused on the creator economy, Upload Complete, an introduction to creator economy law. He regularly appears across news and media outlets as a commentator and contributor with a focus on educating creators and raising awareness of all legal aspects of the creator economy. Franklin is based in Nashville, Tennessee. Ken Suzan: Franklin was invited to participate as one of the creators and creator economy professionals in the first ever White House creator economy conference. Franklin works full time as a product counsel at LinkedIn Corporation. As a member of the product and data team, he focuses on emerging issues in AI and data. Franklin previously held roles on the technology law group at HCA Healthcare, the commercial legal team at Eventbrite, and the business and legal affairs team at Naxos Music Group. Welcome back Franklin to the IP Fridays podcast. Franklin Graves: Thank you so much for having me. It is exciting to be back and reflecting over the last decade since I last joined and also the paper that I wrote that dives into this in more detail. So I really appreciate it. And yes, full disclosure, I currently work for LinkedIn, which is a subsidiary of Microsoft. I’m here in my personal capacity to talk about this, the paper I wrote before joining LinkedIn and all of that. So thank you so much for having me back. Ken Suzan: Excellent. So Franklin, since your last appearance on IP Fridays in 2017, your career has evolved significantly. You are now senior product counsel at LinkedIn focusing on AI and data. How has working inside a major tech platform changed your perspective on the legal frameworks governing digital content compared to when you were viewing it purely from the creator side? Franklin Graves: I appreciate that question because when I wrote the article, I did not work for LinkedIn. And I had been coming from a history in my career where I, right out of law school, worked for a record label like we talked about almost 10 years ago. And I was on the content creation side. I’ve represented a major distributor of classical music digitally at the time. And that was my first exposure to understanding how content was taken from the initial inception stage from creators and routed through all the various digital platforms that were at the time still evolving and even arguably still today continue to evolve. The early days of YouTube Music launching and then Apple Music launching, and then going through all the phases of high-res audio and everything that came after that. So that was an interesting perspective to start my career with. And then I went to Eventbrite, which is a ticketing platform, but was also focused on elevating event creators. They kind of took on that moniker of “Hey, we are event creators that we support.” And that was arguably my first exposure to the platform side, the tech platform side of it, because Eventbrite is a platform. And so then I evolved from there in my personal capacity, in a pro bono capacity representing individual creators across the YouTube space. And that’s what we talked about a little bit back when I first came on the podcast. Franklin Graves: Over the last decade, it’s been a chance to grow my own understanding of the creator economy. The terminology “creator economy” came around. And then now on the other side of it, having written the article and all that, and now being fully in-house at LinkedIn, I truly am experiencing a social media platform. LinkedIn is of course arguably way more than just the platform itself. There are so many different avenues to it, but it is a chance for me to understand what it is like working for a company that is operating the platform that people are distributing content on. There’s a user journey to content and all of that. So it’s definitely enhanced and given me a different perspective from a major tech platform side. And part of my role at LinkedIn is really heavily focused on understanding regulation and how that from an AI and data perspective impacts the company. And so I’ve been really leveling up my game over the last year and a half that I’ve been here, understanding mostly EU regulations, but also US regulations that are still in their infancy when it comes to AI. But really when it comes to privacy and data, those are pretty well established across the board. It’s been kind of a combination of what I learned at Eventbrite, because I went to Eventbrite when GDPR was going into effect. And so that was an eyes-wide-open moment of getting in the weeds with negotiating data processing agreements, understanding data transfers and cross-border data transfers and the like. So it’s been kind of an evolution as the laws and regulations have evolved. So has my career, so has my own understanding, so have the platforms’ responses to those laws and regulations. And I’m sure that probably resonates with a lot of your listeners who have also been growing their practice and their understanding as the laws and regulations in this realm have been evolving too. Ken Suzan: Yes, indeed. Now let’s switch gears and talk about AI. You advise on AI and data daily. As platforms integrate generative AI tools into their tech stacks, what are the most critical best practices in-house counsel should be adopting right now to embed responsible AI principles into product development? Franklin Graves: So as an attorney, one of my key roles is to understand the technology. Even representing creators and working for creator platforms, that’s something I’m constantly trying to do: put myself in the shoes of being a creator. And I think I talked about this last time I was on, but I come from a background where I was working for a major label doing marketing, video editing, social media work. And I was creating content. I understood the whole life cycle from the inception point of an idea to execution and then to the final delivery and distribution of that content to an audience within a major music label. And so part of that is the same thing that I think attorneys, especially in-house, should be doing: using the tools that the product and engineering teams are either developing in-house or partnering with third parties to develop, or a combination of the two. Using them, understanding them, using them as a creator would, using them as an end user or a client or customer would. And making sure that if you understand the product and understand the nuances of how it operates, and being a part of the iterations of that internally before it fully ramps, that really gives you a chance to understand: okay, we have a lot of responsible AI principles and standards and protocols that are in existence right now, whether it’s NIST, whether it’s based on the EU AI Act or anything and everything in between. It’s understanding how to apply those and bring those into a product and an engineering environment in a way that is practical and actionable for the people that you’re supporting, the stakeholders you’re supporting. So I think one of the critical best practices is, number one, understand the product or features that you’re supporting. Franklin Graves: And then understand how you as an attorney can use your expertise and understanding of responsible AI practices, whether it’s a regulatory standard or an industry-adopted standard or a hybrid of the two, to leverage those and implement those, break those down and make them into actionable controls and processes and flows that work within your existing infrastructure. That’s a lot of high-level talk, but that’s the general idea. One concrete example we talk about frequently is with open source AI. If you’re working with a product team or an engineering team that is taking an off-the-shelf open source model and bringing that in-house, a lot of times companies have pre-existing open source processes that cover the use of open source software or code. Piggyback on that. That’s the easiest quick win for attorneys: leveraging your existing open source processes to just build on top of that the AI flavor and layering. It’s not very much that you have to do, but the underlying process of the key stakeholders that need to be involved in the review, whether it’s security, whether it’s executive sign-off if it gets to that point, even export control considerations should already be part of your existing open source software process. So layering in on those existing processes the specifics of generative AI or large language models that you’re trying to bring in is a great way to put this into practice. Ken Suzan: Now looking at the geopolitical landscape that we currently have, we have the EU AI Act setting strict standards and shifting US executive orders. How should platforms and brands prepare for this fragmented regulatory environment when deploying AI tools to a global user base? Franklin Graves: It’s a great question. It’s something that is still evolving, I think is fair to say. I would equate it, as I do in the paper that I wrote, to how creators and arguably brands don’t own the platforms that they’re building their communities on. That spawned this concept of de-platforming or going into building your own platform, a decentralized platform of sorts, and owning your community. That gives you that control and takes away the level of instability that can come for creators trying to build a business on a platform they don’t own, they don’t control when certain updates happen, when algorithms change, when tools and functionalities either become available or go away completely. So it’s very similar to what we’ve been experiencing in a regulatory environment where we have geopolitical complexities, for lack of a better term, that can overnight seemingly disrupt the way in which a platform or even a multinational brand is able to connect and reach an audience or continue to leverage the user base that they’ve built. I think TikTok is a great example of that, where it became a national security concern and suddenly it was facing an executive order that required it to be effectively disabled in the US or completely owned and operated by a US entity. All the mechanics and technicalities of whether it’s actually possible and still have a global platform with a global user base is a whole different discussion. But that’s an example of very similar considerations that are now not just a discussion point at the creator level or the individual brand level, but also in a much broader context at a platform level as well. Ken Suzan: Franklin, let’s now shift gears and talk about your article. In your recently published journal article, Upload Complete, which we will have linked in our show notes, you advocate for a shift in terminology from internet creator law, a term used during our first podcast almost a decade ago, to creator economy law. Why is this distinction important and how does it change the way legal practitioners should view the ecosystem of creators, brands, and platforms? Franklin Graves: Oh yes, this is part of the reason why I wanted to write the article: to lay this foundation of understanding. Because at the time I’d written the article, the term creator economy and creator had really not appeared but for maybe once in an actual court decision. And it was kind of focused on influencers and this concept, and it was just not getting it right. And so it was also, as you mentioned, when we first spoke I was even using the term internet creators. And I think that was something that was common at the time. The “internet” portion as a qualifier has since dropped off. And now for purposes of the creator economy, the term creators refers to individuals, it can be small businesses, which is what we’ve seen from a regulatory standpoint, how these small businesses are being impacted by regulations. But essentially creators in the article I pin in the context of intent. What is the intent behind the person or the small business that is posting content, trying to build a community and form a community in a virtual environment? And then that can even spill over into real physical world environments. And so the intent is kind of what I look at. Franklin Graves: And I have a chart in the article that has a diagram showcasing the overlap of what I refer to as “users generating content.” It’s a play on the concept of user-generated content, UGC. Users generating content is that large bucket of anyone posting on a platform of some kind. And within that large bucket, that large circle, are smaller subsets. You have creators, you have brands. Those are really the two buckets you can put people into. Otherwise it’s like your grandmother or your parents posting content on Facebook or Instagram, and those are everyday users of a platform. The distinction to get into that subcategory of being a creator more so has been analyzing the intent behind the posting. Are you posting content to build an audience, to build a community, to eventually have a chance to monetize the following that you’re bringing in or sell services or something like that? Brands are posting for that reason. Creators are maybe posting for that same reason. But even within the creator category, there’s a subcategory of influencers that are trying to sell something, that are trying to build more than just an awareness of who they are, their influence. They are trying to do brand deals, partnership deals, upsells and all that, and start an actual small business aside from just the content itself that they’re creating. So that’s kind of the distinctions that I make in the paper. And that’s why it’s important to understand and lay that foundation, that anyone can post content online, but the intent, the why behind their posting that content, really does ultimately matter, especially when you’re looking at it from a court case or from a regulatory standpoint. Ken Suzan: Now, Franklin, we’re seeing unprecedented geopolitical activity around platform ownership. For example, the US legislation targeting TikTok and Brazil’s recent temporary ban of X. How do these macro-level battles impact the day-to-day livelihood of creators? And how can they legally and operationally protect themselves? Franklin Graves: So the shift that we’re seeing, and I alluded to this earlier in our conversation, is this concept of Web 3. And that term may or may not be really popular anymore, but that’s essentially what we’re looking at: a shift into a federated, decentralized operation of a platform. So instead of one owner, one company, one entity owning and operating the platform, it’s decentralized. Anyone can start up a server, and it’s interoperable, meaning anyone can plug and play and connect to that larger network. And it creates this unified social network experience. Within each operating node of that network, there can be your own decisions around content moderation, your own decisions around the hosting providers you use, where you’re operating out of, the terms and conditions that apply to that. But the flip side is that instead of creators posting and sharing in a closed environment run and controlled by a singular entity, you’re now experiencing a peer-to-peer type operation where your experience can change based on which server, which node, which user you’re engaging with. You might have content that’s acceptable in one area but not acceptable in another, and maybe it just doesn’t even show up in that other area. Franklin Graves: But from a liability standpoint, as creators start to build their own networks and communities, even outside of a concept like the fediverse, it’s even down to creators building their own communities through online courses, subscription membership-based platforms that they run on their own website. There’s open source software out there, even something called Ghost, where you have memberships. And that is a creator or a small business in the creator economy that is now taking on the obligations that would typically fall upon a platform. They need to take into consideration terms and conditions, privacy policies, legal aspects, and regulatory considerations for running a platform, especially in a global world. So it’s a lot of liability that then shifts over to those small businesses and even brands sometimes that are doing the same thing. Whether it is something as simple or complex as content moderation or all the way up to monetizing an audience, this new world where creators can spin up and run a platform all dovetails back to the concept of creators not feeling like they have control in reaching the audience and the community that they’re building on an individual platform. And so this really became more mainstream conversation with TikTok and the issues around it potentially being shut down in the US. That was kind of the mindset shift and eyes opening for many creators, especially within the influencer subset, of realizing: we need to make sure that we have a way to reach the audience we’ve built if the individual platform that we’ve committed to over the last year or three years or so is no longer available. We need a way to continue that relationship outside of that one platform controlling it. Ken Suzan: Franklin, we have a few minutes left and a number of topics. So I’m going to switch gears and talk about a few issues. First, a major emerging topic in your paper is the evolution of protecting kids online. With state-level age-gating laws like the CAADCA and the recent FTC updates to COPPA, how should platforms navigate the significant tension between strict age verification mandates and the privacy and First Amendment rights of their users? Franklin Graves: Man, that is a whole discussion to unravel. It is a consideration that we’re seeing happen again, going back to the geopolitical nature of everything. Countries like Australia and certain countries in Europe and now even individual states in the US are trying to look at ways, and some of them have already put into place minimum age requirements before you can even sign up for an account with a social media platform. One of the things I’d just highlight quickly here is that one of the tensions is around how you verify someone’s age online and still maintain the ability to be at least pseudonymous. How do you still have a level of privacy, autonomy, and protection when it comes to having to provide something like a driver’s license or have parental consent tied and connected to an account managed by a parent in a situation where maybe it’s not appropriate or not beneficial to the child in that manner? But then maybe there are counterbalancing factors that outweigh that. All of that comes down to the technicalities of how it’s actually implemented and maintaining the sense of openness and freedom that we’ve had on the internet to date. And then the other element there is, since a lot of the internet that we think of today is more so through mobile applications, is it something that the mobile operating system providers and app store providers should be thinking about? So whether that’s the Google Play Store or the Apple App Store, where does that initial age verification need to fall? Is it at the platform level? Is it the app store or mobile device management level or something else? Yeah, there’s a lot to discuss there. And a lot of the issues we’re seeing with how the internet is changing in terms of being able to browse a website without disclosing personal information that might not have been required before is largely stemming from a focus on protecting children online. Ken Suzan: It sounds like, Franklin, we could have another episode covering lots of issues connected with that one topic alone. Franklin Graves: I would absolutely agree with that. There’s a lot going on there. And again, it’s different across the world. And so I know you all have a global listener base. And so there’s a lot of nuances to that whole discussion too, that are worth exploring. Ken Suzan: Last question for today’s episode is regarding the right of publicity. With the explosion of AI-generated synthetic media, digital replicas, and voice cloning, the right of publicity is taking center stage. What are the biggest legal risks for brands partnering with influencers right now? And how can creators protect their most valuable asset, their likeness? Franklin Graves: That’s a great question. I think we’re seeing kind of a throwing-spaghetti-against-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks approach right now by a lot of different parties, whether it’s trademark attorneys, whether it’s general entertainment attorneys or whoever. For example, we’ve seen Taylor Swift filing trademarks to protect certain sounds of her voice and phrasing that she uses. It’s a difficult area because in the realm of generative AI with deep fakes and virtual avatars, that is where it gets tricky, because traditional IP laws are just not able to fully cover that spectrum. It’s a piecemeal approach, but even then it doesn’t fully cover it. So for example, I’m based in Tennessee and a couple of years ago we had the Elvis Act that updated our right of publicity law to add voice and to explicitly reference artificial intelligence. And so that’s the kind of effort we’re probably going to continue to see: efforts to develop some framework around protecting what is essentially a privacy right, in a manner that doesn’t restrict generative AI systems from continuing to develop and operate the way they’re operating now, while layering in those protections so that in the US at least a First Amendment right doesn’t necessarily get squashed, and those traditional well-recognized efforts to not overregulate a technology in its early stages are respected. Franklin Graves: And so I think a lot of what we’re seeing is just a need to update laws. The SAG-AFTRA debate and the strikes that happened around maintaining control of your performance and any iterations of that, or building upon that by a media company that might come later, it’s all on the table right now and still being discussed, still being worked out. I think in the short run, a lot of times if it’s in a brand deal, the key question is: if you are using generative AI to enhance in some way the final deliverable for the campaign, who has control over that? Who has final say and sign-off on how that likeness or that digital replica or that person’s voice is represented? And even outside of the brand space, we’ve seen actors like James Earl Jones signing over certain aspects like their voice and allowing it to continue to be used in these manners powered by generative AI as Darth Vader. And I think I saw something that Boy George was even starting up an AI company that allows musicians, the original recording artist, to rerecord new versions of their masters so that they don’t miss out on that revenue. It’s powered by generative AI, by taking their voice now, which is significantly different than it was back in the 80s, and using generative AI to make it sound closer to the original, but all based on their current performance. So I think it’s still an evolving area. And what’s interesting too is on the platform side, we’re seeing the early stages of platforms like Google starting to acknowledge and rely on the license grant contained in their terms of service for YouTube, which grants them broad rights to use the content to run their platform. So all that to be said, it’s still early stages. I’m very interested to see where we go from here in the future, especially from a global perspective as well. Ken Suzan: Franklin, I could spend hours talking to you about this. You’re such a knowledgeable person on these topics. Maybe in a few years, will we connect again and talk further on AI and all the things that are yet to be developed? Franklin Graves: Thank you. Yeah, it doesn’t have to be another decade. Maybe we can cut it to half a decade, given the pace at which technology is going now. Ken Suzan: Sounds good, Franklin. Thanks again for being on the IP Fridays podcast.

Supreme Court ignores Judge Newman's rights. ----- All the news that's fit to print agrees that Todd Blanche isn't fit to head the Department of Justice. Something about the whole transforming the DOJ into a weaponized arm of Donald Trump's political grievances thing. The Supreme Court dodged the ongoing Judge Pauline Newman debacle in the Federal Circuit. Her fellow judges have performed an end run around the Constitution, and the rest of the judiciary seems content to just look the other way. And as more folks use AI to brush up their resumes, its biases keep coming out. But does it really produce different legal resumes for men and women?

This Day in Legal History: The Watergate BurglaryOn this day in 1972, at roughly 2:30 in the morning, a security guard at the Watergate office complex on Virginia Avenue in Washington named Frank Wills noticed that the latches on a stairwell door had been taped over and called the District police. The police arrested five men inside the offices of the Democratic National Committee on the sixth floor: James McCord, Bernard Barker, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, and Frank Sturgis. McCord was the security coordinator for the Committee to Re-Elect the President. Two days later, the FBI traced a $25,000 cashier's check found in Barker's bank account to the Committee to Re-Elect's finance chairman. The burglary itself was a third-rate one — bad lockpicking, surveillance gear that did not work, men carrying address books that linked them to the White House — but the legal consequences took two years to play out and rewrote large parts of American constitutional law in the process.The Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, chaired by Sam Ervin of North Carolina, conducted public hearings in the summer of 1973 that produced the disclosure of the White House taping system. The Saturday Night Massacre in October 1973 — Nixon's firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus — produced the legal scholarship that became the modern law of presidential removal and the Ethics in Government Act of 1978's independent-counsel framework. United States v. Nixon in July 1974 produced the doctrine that executive privilege is qualified rather than absolute and must yield to a demonstrated need in a criminal proceeding, a holding that is still the foundational separation-of-powers case the Court returns to whenever an administration claims that internal deliberations cannot be subpoenaed.The articles of impeachment voted by the House Judiciary Committee in late July 1974 produced the modern template for impeachment-as-constitutional-remedy that has been deployed four times since. Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. The constitutional residue of what began with five men and a roll of tape in a Watergate stairwell is in the Federal Election Campaign Act amendments, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Inspector General Act, the Presidential Records Act, the post-Saturday-Night-Massacre statute book that defines what limits an administration faces when it tries to use the criminal-justice system politically. Fifty-four years on, the question of how much of that residue has held up is, as the saying goes, the question.U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman of the Eastern District of Wisconsin on Tuesday denied former Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan's post-trial motion to vacate her December 2025 conviction for felony obstruction of a federal proceeding. Dugan had been charged after she let Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who had appeared in her courtroom in April 2025 on a state misdemeanor, and his attorney leave through a side door of her courtroom after Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers had assembled in the public hallway to arrest him on a federal civil immigration warrant. A jury found Dugan guilty of obstruction and acquitted her of the lesser concealing-an-individual count.Her post-trial motion pressed two principal arguments. The first was that the Fourth Circuit's recent decision in United States v. Edwards — which addressed the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 obstruction as applied to interference with administrative agency proceedings — applies to ICE warrant service and so the trial court should have given a narrower jury instruction. The second was that her conduct was protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity for acts taken on the bench. Judge Adelman rejected both. On Edwards, the court held that the Fourth Circuit's reasoning addresses a different statutory provision and a different agency context, and that Dugan's case is governed by Seventh Circuit precedent on the obstruction statute she was convicted under.On judicial immunity, the court held that the doctrine is a civil shield against private damages liability and does not bar federal criminal prosecution for affirmative conduct in aid of evading federal law-enforcement officers. Dugan's team has announced that the case will go to the Seventh Circuit. Sentencing is now back on the calendar. The appellate question that will dominate the briefing is the one Judge Adelman teed up: whether a state judge taking administrative action in the courthouse — guiding a litigant to a back exit — falls inside or outside the federal obstruction statute's reach when the action is calculated to defeat federal law-enforcement service. That issue has not been squarely decided in the Seventh Circuit. The case is going to be the vehicle.Ex-Judge Loses Bid To Undo ICE Obstruction Conviction | Law360A Maryland federal judge on Tuesday denied SCOTUSblog co-founder Thomas C. Goldstein's post-trial motion for acquittal or, in the alternative, a new trial on the twelve counts on which a jury had convicted him in February — tax evasion, assisting in the preparation of false returns, willful failure to pay over employment taxes, and false statements to mortgage lenders. The case is one of the more striking falls in modern Supreme Court practice. Goldstein had argued for years before the Court and was, for two decades, one of the most visible private SCOTUS practitioners in the country, with SCOTUSblog itself becoming the standard public-facing reference for Supreme Court news.The criminal case grew out of his recreational high-stakes poker, which prosecutors used to build out a pattern of unreported gambling income, gambling debts paid out of law-firm funds, and gambling losses claimed as business expenses. The post-trial motion principally argued that the trial court's jury instructions on willfulness improperly conflated the negligence standard with the higher mens rea Cheek v. United States requires in federal tax-evasion prosecutions, and that the court had wrongly excluded evidence going to Goldstein's claimed reliance on his accountants' advice. The court rejected both. On the willfulness instruction, the court found the instruction tracked the Fourth Circuit's pattern instruction on Cheek and made clear to the jury that a good-faith misunderstanding of the law was a defense. On the accountant-reliance evidence, the court held that the offer of proof was insufficient to establish that Goldstein had actually relied on professional advice in the particular omissions the indictment turned on, as opposed to relying on his own judgment. Sentencing is now the next event.The federal sentencing guidelines on the tax counts alone, with the loss amount the jury found, point to a substantial custodial term. Watch for an appeal that focuses on the willfulness instruction; that is the cleanest reversible-error vehicle in the record.SCOTUSblog Founder Goldstein Denied Acquittal Or Retrial | Law360A Delaware federal judge on Tuesday denied Guardant Health's post-trial motion to vacate, reduce, or stay enforcement of the $83.4 million jury verdict TwinStrand Biosciences won against it in late 2023 for willful infringement of diagnostic-sequencing patents covering duplex-sequencing technology used in liquid-biopsy cancer-screening assays. The court also declined to enhance the award under 35 U.S.C. § 284, even though the jury had found willfulness, reasoning that the multi-factor Read v. Portec analysis the Federal Circuit has refined in Halo Electronics and its progeny cut both ways here: Guardant's pre-suit notice and continued use of the accused technology supported some enhancement, but its defenses on infringement and validity, while ultimately rejected, were not objectively reckless.The decision is notable for two doctrinal reasons. First, it reflects how district courts are continuing to deploy Halo's discretion-based framework in the post-pandemic-era diagnostic-patent landscape, where the gap between objectively defensible defenses and reckless infringement is being drawn case by case in a way that is making certworthy issues for the Federal Circuit and, eventually, the Supreme Court. Second, it underscores the $83.4 million is significant but not transformative: the broader competitive question in the diagnostic-sequencing space is whether Guardant can design around the asserted claims fast enough to keep its cancer-screening assays on the market without paying a recurring royalty to TwinStrand. Guardant has indicated it will appeal to the Federal Circuit. Both the underlying infringement findings and the no-enhancement ruling are likely to be appealed in parallel — Guardant on infringement and validity, TwinStrand on the refusal to enhance. The verdict stands for now.Del. Judge Upholds $83.4M Patent Verdict Against Guardant | Law360My Bloomberg Tax column this week argues that the IRS's disclosure of taxpayer address information to ICE should be understood less as a narrow immigration-enforcement controversy and more as a tax-data governance failure.I argue that Section 6103 does not make IRS data impossible to share, but it does make confidentiality the default and disclosure the exception. That distinction matters because a statutory exception should not become a bulk-transfer mechanism whenever another agency wants access to IRS records. The IRS holds unusually sensitive information because taxpayers are legally compelled to provide it, so any interagency disclosure should require necessity, precision, security, and auditability on a record-by-record basis.The TIGTA report is troubling because the IRS apparently built an automated matching process that was vulnerable to bad ICE inputs, inconsistent formatting, malformed records, and weak matching rules. ICE also had unresolved safeguard issues and missed corrective-action deadlines before the data transfer. In my view, that combination means the problem was not simply that data moved; it was that protected taxpayer information moved through a process that treated matching quality and backend security as implementation details rather than core privacy protections.The broader point is that bad data inputs are not just a programmer's inconvenience. If the IRS relies on another agency's messy file to decide whether protected tax information can be disclosed, the quality of that file becomes part of the taxpayer-confidentiality analysis. Loose input standards and crude matching rules effectively expand the statutory exception beyond what Congress authorized.My proposed fix is straightforward: before the IRS discloses taxpayer information, requesting agencies should have to provide clean, structured, validated data; legally certify the need for each record; meet defined match-confidence thresholds; submit ambiguous cases for manual review; and accept strict limits on use, retention, and auditing. The column's central line is that Section 6103 exceptions should operate like locked doors, not loading docks.IRS Sharing Taxpayer Info With ICE Is a Data Governance Issue This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode, Jordan breaks down a major statute of limitations ruling from the Federal Circuit, which erased a massive verdict, and a Sixth Circuit decision clarifying the plaintiff's burden of proof when seeking a preliminary injunction.

This Day in Legal History: Kennedy Signs the Equal Pay ActOn this day in 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, the first federal statute aimed directly at sex-based wage discrimination. The law took the form of an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which meant that it slid into an existing enforcement framework run by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor — a deliberate choice that bypassed the need to build new institutional machinery and harnessed thirty years of FLSA caselaw and habits of compliance. The legal hook is the Act's “equal pay for equal work” command: employers may not pay employees of one sex less than employees of the opposite sex for jobs requiring “equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.”Four affirmative defenses are written into the text — a seniority system, a merit system, a system measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production, or “any other factor other than sex” — and that fourth catch-all has done more work in litigation than the other three combined, shaping how courts evaluate market-based, education-based, and prior-salary-based pay differentials decades later. The wage gap at the moment Kennedy signed was about 59 cents on the dollar; six decades on, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics's standard measure, it sits closer to 84 cents. That tells you something about how a clean, structurally well-designed statute can still leave a lot of the work undone, because the gap is and always was about more than identical pairs of jobs at the same employer.The Equal Pay Act is not the whole story of American workplace-equality law; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and a long line of state-law analogues do much of the modern enforcement work. But June 10, 1963 is the day Congress, with the President's signature, said for the first time that paying a woman less than a man for the same work was unlawful, full stop. Everything that has followed in this corner of the law has been built on top of that sentence.The Federal Circuit on Monday affirmed a Delaware district court judgment invalidating four Purdue Pharma patents covering an abuse-deterrent, low-toxicity version of the opioid OxyContin, in a decision the patent bar has been waiting on for months. The case is Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma LLC. The patents covered Purdue's reformulation of OxyContin to make the pills crush-resistant and to reduce a manufacturing impurity, and the asserted innovation grew, the company said, out of its discovery of the source of a particular toxic impurity that had previously eluded chemists at competing labs. Purdue's argument on appeal was, in essence, that the discovery of the impurity's source was itself nonobvious, and that the resulting patents inherited that nonobviousness. The Federal Circuit said no.The panel held that the relevant obviousness inquiry asks whether the claimed reformulation — not the discovery that motivated it — would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and that once the prior art is taken into account, the answer is yes. The practical consequence of the ruling is large. It opens the door wider for generic abuse-deterrent OxyContin alternatives and clarifies a doctrinal point pharmaceutical companies have been pressing on for years: a hard-won research insight does not, on its own, automatically save a patent from obviousness if the resulting product was within the prior art's reach. Purdue's options now are a rehearing petition at the Federal Circuit, a cert petition at the Supreme Court (which the company has already pursued in a related case last spring), or quiet acceptance. Expect a cert petition. Expect the cert petition to be denied. Watch the generic-drug filings that follow.Fed. Circ. Panel Backs Invalidation Of OxyContin PatentThe plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Virginia lawsuit over the Trump administration's $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” — a story we covered earlier htis week— went back to Judge Leonie Brinkema on Tuesday and asked for permission to conduct limited discovery into whether the Justice Department's recent representation that it would stop work on the fund is a real commitment or a litigation convenience.The plaintiffs' problem is straightforward: acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has filed papers saying the program is “not going forward,” but President Trump publicly described the fund last week as a “great idea” that many Republicans support, and the executive order that created the fund has not been formally rescinded. From a litigation-strategy standpoint, the plaintiffs do not want to walk away from a live case on the strength of a DOJ filing, accept dismissal as moot, and then find out three months later that the fund has been quietly resurrected under a different name.Judge Brinkema has a hearing scheduled for Friday, June 12, on whether to extend the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction. The Tuesday filing teed up the broader mootness fight that will dominate Friday's hearing: when does a federal agency's promise to stop doing something actually deprive a court of jurisdiction to enjoin the underlying program, and what discovery, if any, is a plaintiff entitled to before that determination is made. The doctrine here — voluntary cessation, capable of repetition yet evading review, and the heavy burden the Supreme Court has placed on the party claiming mootness — favors the plaintiffs procedurally. Whether Brinkema agrees on Friday is the question to watch.‘Anti-weaponization' fund challengers question its demise – Roll CallSCOTUSblog's John Elwood walked through a useful relist roundup on Tuesday, and the four cases sitting in the relist pile are worth flagging because each of them touches a different load-bearing wall in federal practice. The first is a prolonged-detention challenge to immigration custody under Section 1226(c). The ACLU is asking the Court to clarify that very long mandatory-detention periods trigger procedural due process review under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, picking up on the Second Circuit's willingness to do so. The second is Newberry v. Texas, a case where Texas itself has confessed error — a rare procedural posture in which the State agrees the defendant should win — and the question is what the Court does when the parties on both sides ask for the same remedy. The third is Kian v. Florida, a Sixth Amendment challenge to the use of six-person juries in serious felony cases, on the theory that the historical understanding of “jury” in the founding era assumed twelve and that the Court's mid-twentieth-century cases approving six-person juries were wrong on the originalist analysis. The fourth is Maxwell v. Thomas, a federal habeas case asking whether the First Step Act‘s halfway-house and home-confinement provisions are properly enforceable through 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions, an issue with a real circuit split. None of these have been granted yet — they are relists, which means at least one Justice is interested but the Court has not yet decided whether to hear them — but the mix is the part to watch: it tells you what the Justices are circling without committing to. Expect at least one of these to be granted before the term ends.A random assortment of relists: prolonged detention, confessions of error, small juries, and new rules on habeas | SCOTUSblog This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Congress Repeals the Gold ClauseOn this day in 1933, Congress passed the Joint Resolution that voided the gold clauses written into nearly every long-term contract and bond obligation in the United States, both public and private. The resolution declared that any provision purporting to require payment “in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency” was “against public policy,” and that obligations could be discharged dollar for dollar in whatever legal tender currency was in force at the time of payment. It was a remarkable act of legislative power: a one-paragraph statute that rewrote the payment terms of millions of existing contracts overnight, in the middle of the Great Depression, to make Franklin Roosevelt's recent abandonment of the gold standard actually stick. The Supreme Court took up the inevitable challenge two years later in the Gold Clause Cases — Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio, Nortz v. United States, and Perry v. United States — and in February 1935 it upheld the resolution as applied to private contracts by a 5-4 vote, while telling the United States, in Perry, that it had violated its own contractual word in repudiating gold-payment promises on government bonds, but that the bondholder had suffered no compensable injury. The doctrinal residue of that compromise is still with us: Congress can use its monetary powers to alter private contract terms retroactively when monetary policy requires it, the rule that has quietly underwritten every major monetary intervention since, from Bretton Woods to the post-2008 emergency lending programs. June 5 is not a day most lawyers mark on the calendar, but the resolution Congress passed on this date is one of the cleanest examples in American law of a legislature using its enumerated powers to dissolve a contract term that had been considered, until that moment, untouchable.The Supreme Court on Thursday handed Hikma Pharmaceuticals — and the entire generic drug industry — a 9-0 win in a case that had been hanging over the so-called “skinny label” pathway for years. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for a unanimous Court in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., held that Amarin, the maker of the brand-name fish-oil drug Vascepa, had not plausibly alleged that Hikma actively induced infringement of Amarin's patents covering a still-patented cardiovascular use of the drug. The skinny label is a feature of Hatch-Waxman generic-drug law that lets a generic manufacturer copy only the unpatented uses of a brand drug by literally carving the patented uses out of its FDA-approved label, which is supposed to let cheaper generics reach the market for the unpatented indications even while patents on other indications are still in force. Brand companies have been trying for years to sue around that carve-out under the active inducement statute, 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by pointing to generic press releases, marketing language, or website descriptions and arguing that doctors could read those statements as encouragement to prescribe the generic for the still-patented use. The Federal Circuit had bought a version of that argument and revived Amarin's case. The Supreme Court rejected that approach, and the test that Justice Jackson articulated is meaningful: the question is not how doctors might interpret what a generic manufacturer said, but whether the manufacturer itself actively encouraged the infringing use. Neutral statements that could be read as instructions to infringe do not count. The practical effect is to shore up the skinny label pathway and make it harder for brand companies to weaponize induced infringement against generic competition. The decision was originally framed as a pharmaceutical-industry case, but its inducement standard will reach across patent law generally and into every industry where § 271(b) gets litigated.It's unanimous: SCOTUS agrees with Hikma in ‘skinny label' case vs. Amarin | Fierce PharmaAlso unanimous on Thursday: the Supreme Court in Sripetch v. SEC held that the Securities and Exchange Commission can obtain disgorgement of a wrongdoer's ill-gotten gains without having to prove that any individual investor lost money. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for a 9-0 Court, which is itself a small surprise given the Court's recent pattern of skepticism toward broad SEC remedial powers. The case came out of a penny-stock pump-and-dump scheme that Ongkaruck Sripetch ran across some 20 small companies — buy shares quietly, promote them aggressively, sell into the bubble — and the SEC won an order requiring him to disgorge roughly $3 million. Sripetch's argument on appeal was that disgorgement is supposed to be tied to investor harm, that the SEC had not shown specific pecuniary losses traceable to him, and that the order was therefore not the kind of equitable relief the Court approved in its 2020 Liu v. SEC decision. The Court disagreed, on traditional equity principles: disgorgement, the Court explained, is measured by the defendant's unjust gain, not the plaintiff's quantified loss, and equity has always been willing to strip a wrongdoer of profit even when the victim cannot mathematically prove harm. The practical importance for the SEC is enormous — the agency reports collecting roughly $1.4 billion in disgorgement in fiscal 2025 alone, and a contrary ruling would have forced the SEC into an evidentiary burden that pump-and-dump and insider-trading cases are notoriously bad at supplying. The opinion is also a reminder that the Court's recent administrative-state skepticism is not all in one direction: when the question is grounded in old equity doctrine, the same justices who narrowed SEC adjudication in Jarkesy are willing to leave the agency's remedial toolkit intact.US Supreme Court Backs SEC in Fight Over ‘Disgorgement' Power | US NewsThe third and most constitutionally significant of Thursday's rulings was FCC v. AT&T, in which the Supreme Court upheld 8-1 the Federal Communications Commission's longstanding practice of imposing forfeiture penalties on regulated carriers through its own in-house process, without first giving the carrier a jury trial. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority, with Justice Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter. The case grew out of the FCC's headline-making fines against AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint for selling access to real-time customer location data to third parties without consent — fines that ran nearly $200 million across the four carriers, with AT&T's portion at $57 million and Verizon's at $46.9 million. The carriers challenged the fines on Seventh Amendment grounds, arguing that the Court's 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy — which struck down the SEC's in-house adjudication of securities-fraud penalties as a violation of the jury-trial right — should reach FCC forfeitures too. The Court said no, on a structural distinction that matters: an FCC forfeiture order is not self-executing. The FCC cannot collect on its own. If a carrier refuses to pay, the matter is referred to the Justice Department, which then has to file a civil action in federal district court — a proceeding in which the carrier is entitled to a full jury trial and the government has to prove the violation de novo, with no deference to the FCC's findings. That collection-stage jury trial, Roberts wrote, is enough to satisfy the Seventh Amendment, even though the agency itself first issues the penalty. Justice Thomas's dissent argued the in-house process is no less coercive than the SEC adjudication the Court rejected in Jarkesy and would have extended Jarkesy here. The practical takeaway: agency in-house penalty proceedings survive after Jarkesy if there is a real, downstream jury-trial backstop. Expect every regulator with a similar two-step enforcement structure to point to this opinion the next time someone tries to push Jarkesy further.Court rules against cell service providers over right to jury trial in FCC proceedings | SCOTUSblog 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

DOCKET ALERTS:   The Trump administration is tapping out on the lawsuits defending executive orders attacking law firms. Too bad, so sad for the Vichy law firms that pledged a billion dollars in "conservative pro bono" work. Justice Gorsuch says we can't take guns away from drug users because the Founders were drunk all the time.   The Federal Circuit declines a request by the Trump administration to delay tariff refunds.   Kansas's revocation of trans citizens' drivers licenses draws its first court challenge.   And Virginia's redistricting referendum can go ahead. MAIN SHOW:   We discuss the history of the president's power to commence hostilities and explain why Trump and his goons are so deeply invested in claiming that the war in Iran — which isn't a war at all! — was defensive, not offensive. Plus Andrew's got a deep dive into the War Powers Resolution and how it might bring about an end to this nightmare.   We've got clips from 60 Minutes's very good story on the danger federal judges face when they go against the Trump administration.    Judges in the Western District of West Virginia join the list of jurisdictions telling DHS/DOJ that contempt charges are coming if they keep relying on crackpot legal theories to kidnap residents.   Judge John Tunheim issues class relief to refugees in Minnesota, barring DHS from interning them for recertification.   And for subscribers: a discussion of the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.   Trump Administration to Drop Defense of Law Firm Sanctions https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trump-administration-to-drop-defense-of-law-firm-sanctions-cb839c39   US v. Hemani Oral Argument https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-1234   V.O.S. Selections [Tariff mandate] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105.173.0_2.pdf   Doe v. Kansas [Trans drivers' licenses] https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/02/Complaint-1.pdf   Virginia redistricting election can move forward, court rules https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/virginia-redistricting-election-can-move-forward-court-rules   Federal judges who've ruled against Trump administration denounce threats against themselves, their families https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judges-whove-ruled-against-trump-administration-denounce-threats-60-minutes-transcript/   Judges in a Trump stronghold condemn ICE tactics https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/01/west-virginia-immigration-rulings-00804575   Dominguez Izaguirre v. Mason [West Virginia Habeas] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wvsd.243036/gov.uscourts.wvsd.243036.18.0.pdf   War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33   "Trump Can't Declare War On Iran (or Anyone)" [lawandchaospod.com] https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/trump-cant-declare-war-on-iran-or   Liz's YouTube video for Legal Eagle, "The Largest Bribe in American History" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE2pm3omzMI&t=3s   Nat'l Treasury Employees' Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587 (D.C. Cir. 1974) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4156385560315482496   INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2221871582286121199   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

This Day in Legal History: The Indian Removal Act of 1830On this day May 28, 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, authorizing the federal government to “negotiate” the relocation of Native American tribes east of the Mississippi to lands in what is now Oklahoma. On its face the statute framed displacement as voluntary, treaty-based, and compensated; in practice it became the legal scaffolding for the forced expulsion of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole nations, culminating in the Trail of Tears.The bill passed the House by just five votes, with Davy Crockett among its most prominent dissenters. The years that immediately followed produced the Marshall Court's foundational Indian law trilogy — Johnson v. M'Intosh, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, and Worcester v. Georgia — the last of which Jackson famously (and probably apocryphally) refused to enforce. The doctrinal residue of the Removal era is still in force today: tribes remain “domestic dependent nations,” Congress still claims a “plenary power” over them, and the Supreme Court is still relitigating what reservation boundaries actually mean — most recently in McGirt v. Oklahoma in 2020 and Haaland v. Brackeen in 2023. The 1830 Act was not the beginning of dispossession in North America, but it was the moment Congress took ownership of the policy and dressed it in the language of statute. Whatever else May 28 marks on the calendar, in legal history it marks the day removal became American law.Dutch coatings giant AkzoNobel, the maker of Dulux paint, told Sherwin-Williams and Nippon Paint Wednesday that their €12.5 billion ($14.6 billion) joint takeover proposal is not a “superior proposal” and that the board would stay the course on its already-agreed merger with Axalta Coating Systems. The rejected offer, made at €73 per share, would have carved AkzoNobel up — Nippon taking the decorative paints business, Sherwin-Williams taking industrial coatings — and was the second pass after an earlier bid that the board had swatted away in April.AkzoNobel's reasons read like a Dutch corporate-law primer: the offer “did not come close to adequately reflecting” long-term value, the deal-certainty risk around regulatory clearances was too high, and the “interests of AkzoNobel stakeholders” were not adequately safeguarded. That last word is the legal tell. Under Dutch law, a listed company's board is not bound by anything resembling Delaware's Revlon duty to maximize shareholder value in a sale; it answers to a stakeholder model that explicitly weighs employees, creditors, suppliers, and the long-term interests of the enterprise alongside the shareholders. That gives a Dutch board far more room to reject a premium cash bid than a comparable U.S. target would have, especially with a friendly all-stock merger of equals (the Axalta deal) already on the table.The combined AkzoNobel-Axalta entity, announced last November and worth roughly $25 billion, plans to list on the NYSE with dual HQs in Amsterdam and Philadelphia and Dutch tax residency — a structure that itself preserves the Dutch governance model post-close. The CMA in the U.K. has already opened a public comment period on the Axalta deal, and antitrust review is likely the live front to watch from here.AkzoNobel Snubs €12.5B Sherwin-Williams, Nippon Paint Bid | Law360The Trump administration is preparing to halt federal immigration and customs processing at airports located in jurisdictions it deems “sanctuary cities” or “sanctuary states,”, according to a report Reuters published. The mechanism, if implemented, would have Customs and Border Protection officers stop staffing inbound international arrival processing — meaning international passengers landing at, say, San Francisco, Boston, or Seattle would be unable to clear customs at those airports and would have to be diverted. The legal architecture here is unusual because CBP staffing decisions sit at the discretionary end of federal administrative law: the agency has wide latitude to deploy officers where it wants, and there is no statutory entitlement for any particular city to host a federal port of entry.That said, a decision to use that discretion as punishment for a state or municipality's refusal to honor ICE detainers would invite a familiar set of challenges — South Dakota v. Dole-style coercion arguments dressed up as preemption, anti-commandeering claims under Murphy v. NCAA and Printz v. United States, and APA challenges under State Farm to whatever administrative record the agency assembles. Several of the targeted jurisdictions have already won injunctions in earlier rounds of sanctuary-city funding fights, including against the prior conditioning of Byrne JAG grants on detainer compliance. The political move is obvious; the legal move is less so, and the administration will need to articulate a non-pretextual reason for the staffing change if it wants to survive arbitrary-and-capricious review. Whether airlines, airport authorities, or the states themselves will have standing to sue — and what kind of irreparable harm a redirected flight inflicts — is going to be the first set of questions a court has to answer.US draws up plans to halt immigration, customs processing at ‘sanctuary city' airports | ReutersThe Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Fourth Circuit's decision reviving the National Association of Immigration Judges' First Amendment challenge to a federal rule restricting what sitting immigration judges may say publicly about the agency that employs them. The per curiam opinion's holding is narrow but striking: the Fourth Circuit, the justices said, committed an abuse of discretion by reviving the suit on a theory neither party briefed, a “drastic departure from the principle of party presentation” laid out in cases like United States v. Sineneng-Smith. The party-presentation principle is one of those background structural rules that doesn't get a lot of airtime — the basic idea is that federal courts are passive instruments that decide the cases the parties bring them, not the cases judges wish the parties had brought — but here it became outcome-determinative.Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote separately to say the Fourth Circuit was also wrong on the merits because it ignored Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, the 2012 decision holding that the Civil Service Reform Act's administrative-channeling regime is the exclusive route for covered federal employees to challenge adverse employment actions, even constitutional ones. The practical effect is that the immigration judges' union now has to litigate its First Amendment claim through the Merit Systems Protection Board and then the Federal Circuit rather than in district court, and the case bounces back to the Fourth Circuit to redo the analysis on whatever ground the parties did actually raise. The Court also denied a cross-petition from the union. The case is Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges, No. 25-767; the merits cross-petition was No. 25-1009.Justices Order Redo In Immigration Judges' Free Speech Suit | Law360A Sixth Circuit panel on Tuesday affirmed the dismissal of an attempt by Right to Life of Michigan and a group of parents to block enforcement of Proposal 3, the 2022 Michigan ballot initiative that wrote a fundamental right to reproductive freedom into Article I, Section 28 of the state constitution. The panel did not reach the merits — the case stopped at standing — and the opinion, written by Judge John K. Bush, is a clean illustration of how high the Article III standing bar is for pre-enforcement challenges of this kind. Standing requires the plaintiff to show an injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, and the parents here couldn't make the traceability link work: their theory was that the amendment might allow schools or other actors to help minors obtain contraception or abortion care without parental consent, but the complaint identified no specific enforcement action by Governor Whitmer, Attorney General Nessel, or Secretary of State Benson that was causing or threatening any such injury.The panel reiterated the Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife framework and quoted approvingly the rule that a “general allegation” that an executive officer is “generally responsible for executing” state law does not, by itself, establish standing to sue that officer. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' attempt to bootstrap standing off the AG's and governor's authority to enforce Michigan's consumer protection and civil rights statutes, calling those allegations too speculative. This is going to be the template for the next several rounds of post-Dobbs challenges to state constitutional reproductive-rights amendments: the merits questions about scope and federal preemption will keep coming, but plaintiffs are going to need a concrete enforcement target to even get a hearing.6th Circ. Rejects Mich. Reproductive Rights Challenge | 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

And the Federal Circuit's Schoolhouse Rock moment is as damning as it is embarrassing. ----- Quinn Emanuel earned $3 million in sanctions from Judge Edward Chen, who described a "deeply disturbing" culture of lawyering. But worse, the judge ordered the team involved to complete an 8-hour ethics course that the firm itself must design. The Federal Circuit decided to put together a bizarre theme song and music video for themselves. Along the way, they managed to double down on their shadow impeachment of Judge Pauline Newman by erasing the still active judge from the video. New York has a long history of abusing pregnant women in custody and now we've learned that the courts arraigned a woman while she gave birth in the courtroom -- while she may or may not have been handcuffed.

A major federal court decision just changed how VA must apply Special Monthly Compensation. In this episode, CCK Law partner Brad Hennings discusses Barry v. McDonough, in which the Federal Circuit made clear that VA cannot automatically limit veterans to a single intermediate SMC rate increase. For veterans with multiple severe service-connected disabilities, this could mean higher monthly compensation or even retroactive benefits. To whom does this apply? When should you take a closer look at your rating? And what types of SMC fact patterns are most affected? Tune in find out!For more information, visit our website at⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ cck-law.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow us on social media: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/CCKYTL⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/CCKFBL⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/CCKINL⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/CCKTL

This week, Scott sat down with co-host emeritus Benjamin Wittes and Brookings Senior Fellow Kari Heerman to talk through the week's big news in national security, including:“With Friends Like Xi.” This past week, top U.S. officials and business CEOs traveled with President Trump to Beijing for his summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The summit had a warm air to it, with Trump going so far as to call Xi his “friend,” a far cry from his hawkish stance toward China during the campaign and his prior administration. But Trump left having made relatively few concrete deals on the host of issues dividing the U.S. and China. Did Trump miss an opportunity here? Or is the seeming thaw in relations a positive sign for future cooperation?“Dirty Dancing: Havana Fights.” Cuba ran out of oil last week, but the Trump administration's pressure campaign against the island nation 90 miles off the coast of Florida has only intensified. On Monday, the U.S. announced new sanctions on three Cuban government agencies and 11 top officials amidst reports that the Department of Justice may seek an indictment against Raúl Castro, the 94-year-old brother of Fidel Castro and former president of Cuba. And surveillance flights over the island nation have reportedly increased in advance of an expected military build-up in coming weeks. How seriously should we take Trump's threats to pursue regime change in yet another country after Iran and Venezuela? And how long can Cuba hang on with its economic situation becoming more dire?“I've Got 122 Problems, and a Tariff is One.” On May 7, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down yet another round of Trump tariffs—this time, the across-the-board 10% Section 122 tariffs that President Trump had imposed after the Supreme Court invalidated the earlier tariffs he'd issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Specifically, the Court of International Trade ruled that the administration cannot meet the statutory requirements for using Section 122, though its ruling has since been stayed by the Federal Circuit pending appeal. Is this decision likely to stick? With another legal defeat, what options does the administration have left to follow through on Trump's trade policy?In object lessons, Ben appeases the AI overlords with a glowing review of his latest experiments with Claude. Scott appeases his inner middle-aged man with a reprised recommendation of A Man on the Inside. And Kari fears that Americans are far from appeasing friends and allies in other democratic countries.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.

This week, Scott sat down with co-host emeritus Benjamin Wittes and Brookings Senior Fellow Kari Heerman to talk through the week's big news in national security, including:“With Friends Like Xi.” This past week, top U.S. officials and business CEOs traveled with President Trump to Beijing for his summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The summit had a warm air to it, with Trump going so far as to call Xi his “friend,” a far cry from his hawkish stance toward China during the campaign and his prior administration. But Trump left having made relatively few concrete deals on the host of issues dividing the U.S. and China. Did Trump miss an opportunity here? Or is the seeming thaw in relations a positive sign for future cooperation?“Dirty Dancing: Havana Fights.” Cuba ran out of oil last week, but the Trump administration's pressure campaign against the island nation 90 miles off the coast of Florida has only intensified. On Monday, the U.S. announced new sanctions on three Cuban government agencies and 11 top officials amidst reports that the Department of Justice may seek an indictment against Raúl Castro, the 94-year-old brother of Fidel Castro and former president of Cuba. And surveillance flights over the island nation have reportedly increased in advance of an expected military build-up in coming weeks. How seriously should we take Trump's threats to pursue regime change in yet another country after Iran and Venezuela? And how long can Cuba hang on with its economic situation becoming more dire?“I've Got 122 Problems, and a Tariff is One.” On May 7, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down yet another round of Trump tariffs—this time, the across-the-board 10% Section 122 tariffs that President Trump had imposed after the Supreme Court invalidated the earlier tariffs he'd issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Specifically, the Court of International Trade ruled that the administration cannot meet the statutory requirements for using Section 122, though its ruling has since been stayed by the Federal Circuit pending appeal. Is this decision likely to stick? With another legal defeat, what options does the administration have left to follow through on Trump's trade policy?In object lessons, Ben appeases the AI overlords with a glowing review of his latest experiments with Claude. Scott appeases his inner middle-aged man with a reprised recommendation of A Man on the Inside. And Kari fears that Americans are far from appeasing friends and allies in other democratic countries.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.

In this episode, we sit down with Mr. Adam Caudle and Miss Dana Chase to dissect the 39-year litigation in Secretary of Defense v. Pratt & Whitney. We analyze the Federal Circuit's 2025 decision, which reaffirmed that a contracting officer's authority is not unlimited and that agreements violating mandatory FAR provisions are considered illegal and unenforceable. The discussion highlights the critical takeaway that while the revolutionary FAR overhaul encourages broader professional judgment, practitioners must still remain within the four corners of the FAR to ensure their agreements remain valid. Cases discussed: United Technologies Corp., Pratt & Whitney, ASBCA Nos. 47416, 50453, 50888, 01-2 BCA ¶ 31,592; Rumsfeld v. United Technologies Corp., 315 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003); United Technologies Corp., Pratt & Whitney, ASBCA No. 61623, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,111; Secretary of Defense v. Pratt & Whitney, 148 F.4th 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Learn more about The Quill & Sword series of podcasts by visiting our podcast page at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/thequillandsword. The Quill & Sword show includes featured episodes from across the JAGC, plus all episodes from our four separate shows: “Criminal Law Department Presents” (Criminal Law Department), “NSL Unscripted” (National Security Law Department), “The FAR and Beyond” (Contract & Fiscal Law Department) and “Hold My Reg” (Administrative & Civil Law Department). Connect with The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School by visiting our website at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/.

In this episode of Knobbe IP+, Knobbe Martens' ITC Litigation Co-Chairs Jonathan Bachand and Sheila Swaroop answer some of the most asked questions about IP enforcement and Section 337 investigations at the International Trade Commission: Who should consider the ITC when enforcing intellectual property rights, and why? What are exclusion orders, and how do they compare to district court injunctions? What is the domestic industry requirement, and how has the Federal Circuit's Lashify decision expanded it?   Jon and Sheila delve into these topics and more, including the ITC's recently proposed litigation funding disclosure requirement, in this can't-miss episode for in-house counsel and legal IP professionals interested in learning about effective ITC enforcement strategies.   A full transcript of the episode can be found here.

Crowell & Moring's “All Things Protest” podcast keeps you up to date on major trends in bid protest litigation, key developments in high-profile cases, and best practices in state and federal procurement. In this episode, Crowell's Christian Curran, Zachary Schroeder, and Bryan Dewan discuss a recent GAO sustain about final proposal revisions, along with two notable Federal Circuit opinions from May 2026 covering bid protest intervention and the discretion afforded to agencies in evaluating proposals.

This Day in Legal History: Plessy v. FergusonOn May 18, 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Plessy v. Ferguson, a case that became one of the most infamous constitutional decisions in American history. The dispute arose from a Louisiana law requiring separate railroad cars for Black and white passengers. Homer Plessy, who was of mixed race, deliberately sat in a whites-only rail car to challenge the law. After he was arrested, Plessy argued that the statute violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and held that racial segregation did not violate the Constitution as long as the separate facilities were considered equal. This became known as the “separate but equal” doctrine.In practice, the doctrine gave legal cover to segregation across the South and helped support the broader Jim Crow system. The Court treated segregation as a matter of public policy rather than as a badge of racial inferiority imposed by law. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote the majority opinion, reasoning that enforced separation did not necessarily imply inequality. Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented, warning that the Constitution should be color-blind and that the ruling would become as harmful as the Court's decision in Dred Scott. His dissent later became one of the most important statements in American civil-rights law. For nearly six decades, Plessy allowed governments to maintain racially separate schools, transportation, and public facilities.The decision was finally undermined in 1954, when the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education and rejected segregation in public education. Plessy remains a stark example of how constitutional interpretation can either protect civil rights or help entrench systems of inequality.A proposed class action filed in Washington federal court accuses Amazon of keeping money it allegedly collected from customers through prices inflated by now-invalidated Trump administration tariffs. The plaintiffs say Amazon could seek refunds from the federal government after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the tariffs, but has refused to do so because it wants to stay in President Trump's good graces. The lawsuit claims Amazon passed tariff costs on to shoppers, then failed to commit to returning that money even though other retailers have allegedly pursued refunds. The customers point to Amazon's abandoned plan to show tariff-related price increases on product pages as evidence that the company can identify both the tariff amounts and the consumers who paid them. They also claim Amazon backed away from that plan after criticism from the Trump administration and a call involving Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.The complaint alleges violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The plaintiffs say Amazon misled consumers by suggesting tariffs were not increasing prices, while allegedly raising prices on certain low-cost goods after the tariffs took effect. They also argue Amazon failed to tell customers it would not seek tariff refunds even if the tariffs were later found unlawful. The proposed class would include Amazon customers who paid tariff-related surcharges from February 4, 2025, through February 20, 2026. The suit estimates the class could include tens of millions of buyers and seeks to recover money the plaintiffs say belongs to consumers. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other major companies, including Nike, Sony, Nintendo, Costco, Temu, and FedEx.Amazon Skipped Tariff Refunds To Appease Trump, Suit Says - Law360The Federal Circuit held its biennial judicial conference in Washington, D.C., bringing together its active judges, agency leaders, district judges who have recently sat by designation, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Solicitor General D. John Sauer. Chief Judge Kimberly Ann Moore opened the event with lighter moments, including praise for Senior Judge Raymond C. Clevenger and the debut of an AI-generated Federal Circuit theme song meant to make the court feel more accessible. The conference did not address the ongoing suspension of Judge Pauline Newman, although she attended the event while continuing to challenge the suspension at the Supreme Court. Judge Moore said the court issued 630 opinions in 2025, its highest total in a decade, and noted an effort to use fewer one-line Rule 36 affirmances. Still, court leaders and practitioners criticized Rule 36 decisions, especially because they give lower courts and litigants little explanation.The judges also discussed en banc arguments, emphasizing that lawyers must stay focused because full-court arguments leave little time for extended exchanges with any one judge. A major theme was the renewed use of district judges sitting by designation, with 23 visiting judges helping decide nearly 200 cases since February 2024. Visiting district judges said the experience gave them a new appreciation for appellate work, the quality of Federal Circuit advocacy, and the process of narrowing trial records into appealable issues. Federal Circuit judges also described sitting on other courts, including in criminal sentencing matters, which several said gave them a deeper appreciation for the workload and human stakes faced by district judges. The judges offered practical advice to lawyers, urging them to narrow issues, address weaknesses directly, provide full context for citations, and make appropriate concessions. USPTO Director John Squires also appeared and defended his approach to discretionary denials of inter partes review petitions, saying he is returning the process to what Congress intended under the America Invents Act.Fed. Circ. Drops A Theme Song, Talks Guest Judges - Law360President Donald Trump has dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury Department, a move linked to discussions about creating a $1.8 billion compensation fund for people who claim they were unfairly investigated by prior administrations. The court filing did not describe any settlement, but Trump's lawyers said the case was still early enough that he could dismiss it without court permission or IRS approval.The dismissal was filed “with prejudice,” meaning Trump cannot bring the same claim again. Trump and his sons filed the lawsuit in January, accusing the IRS of failing to protect confidential tax information after his tax records were leaked. A former IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, was sentenced to prison for leaking Trump's tax information as well as records belonging to many others. Trump brought the case as a private citizen, not in his official role as president. The federal judge overseeing the case had already questioned whether a sitting president could properly seek personal monetary damages from an agency inside the executive branch.The dismissal follows settlements in lawsuits brought by Trump allies, including Michael Flynn and Carter Page. Shortly after Trump's filing, House Democrats submitted a brief accusing him of self-dealing and arguing that any attempt to use the court process to support a settlement should be closely reviewed.Trump drops lawsuit against IRS amid talks of establishing a $1.8 billion fund for allies | CNN Politics 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

A review of the week's major US international tax-related news. In this edition:  US Senate moves forward on budget reconciliation legislation – Senate Banking Committee approves crypto market structure bill – US officials offer updates on multiple international tax projects – Federal Circuit temporarily reinstates Trump Administration's 10% global import tariff – OECD to release guidance for upcoming 30 June global minimum tax filing deadlines.

This Day in Legal History: Frontiero v. RichardsonOn May 14, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Frontiero v. Richardson, a major case in the development of constitutional protections against sex discrimination. The case began when Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought dependent benefits for her husband. Under federal law at the time, a male service member could automatically claim his wife as a dependent, but a female service member had to prove that her husband depended on her for more than half of his support. Frontiero argued that this rule treated women in the military as less legitimate breadwinners than men. The Supreme Court agreed that the policy violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A plurality of the Court reasoned that sex-based legal classifications often reflected outdated assumptions about women's roles in family and public life.The decision came only a year after Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification, giving the case a larger political and constitutional backdrop. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then working with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, filed an amicus brief urging the Court to treat sex discrimination with the same suspicion it applied to race discrimination. The Court did not produce a majority for strict scrutiny in sex-discrimination cases, but Frontiero still marked a sharp move away from judicial tolerance of laws based on gender stereotypes. Justice William Brennan's plurality opinion emphasized that women had long faced legal and social discrimination, including restrictions on property ownership, voting, employment, and civic participation.The ruling helped establish that administrative convenience was not a sufficient reason for the government to impose unequal burdens on women. It also signaled that servicewomen were entitled to equal treatment within institutions, including the military, that had historically been structured around male service members. In later cases, the Court would settle on an intermediate scrutiny standard for sex-based classifications, but Frontiero remains one of the key cases that pushed constitutional law in that direction.The U.S. Department of Justice has settled an investigation into PayPal over a 2020 investment program aimed at supporting Black- and minority-owned businesses. The DOJ said PayPal's Economic Opportunity Fund gave preferences based on race, color, and national origin without being tied to a specific remedy for past discrimination. PayPal did not admit liability, and the settlement says the DOJ did not make a formal finding that the company violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or other federal law. As part of the agreement, PayPal will create a new small business initiative that waives processing fees on $1 billion in transactions.The fee waivers are valued at about $30 million and will apply to small businesses in farming, manufacturing, and technology, as well as businesses certified through the SBA's Veteran Small Business Certification Program. PayPal must also submit plans for the initiative, train employees on ECOA requirements, and report annually to the government. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the settlement as part of the Trump administration's broader effort to challenge corporate DEI programs. PayPal said it was pleased to launch the new initiative and emphasized its long history of helping small businesses use digital financial tools. The settlement follows another recent DOJ resolution with IBM over workforce diversity-related allegations, showing continued federal scrutiny of corporate DEI practices.PayPal Settles Gov't DEI Probe With Small Biz Program - Law360The SEC and Elon Musk are scheduled to appear before a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to defend their proposed $1.5 million settlement over Musk's 2022 purchase of Twitter. The SEC's lawsuit accused Musk of delaying his disclosure that he had acquired a 5% stake in Twitter, allegedly allowing him to save about $150 million before the market reacted. Musk later bought Twitter for $44 billion.U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan has not automatically approved the deal and said she must evaluate whether it is fair, in the public interest, and free from improper collusion or corruption. She ordered both sides to appear in court and be ready to suggest a schedule for briefing in support of the settlement. The SEC filed the case in January 2025, shortly before President Biden left office. Musk has argued the case was politically motivated and has said the late disclosure was accidental.The proposed settlement would not require Musk to admit wrongdoing or surrender the money the SEC claimed he saved. Although the amount is much lower than what the SEC initially sought, a source told Reuters it was still the largest SEC penalty for that type of disclosure violation.US SEC, Musk to argue for Twitter settlement before DC judge | ReutersU.S. law firms saw strong client demand and higher billing rates in the first quarter of 2026, but those gains were limited by rising expenses and lower productivity. According to the Thomson Reuters Institute's latest Law Firm Financial Index, the quarter was healthy overall but not as financially impressive as firms might have expected given the level of demand. The report suggests that 2026 may not match the strong profit growth many firms saw in 2025, though analysts said it is still too early to draw firm conclusions. Average demand rose 2.7% from the same period last year, which the report described as an unusually strong increase. M&A work grew 4.4%, while litigation and overall corporate work each rose 2.9%. Large firms continued to push billing rates sharply higher, with Am Law 100 firms raising rates by 9.8%, while midsized firms increased rates by 5.3%. But expenses climbed almost as quickly, with direct expenses up 8.1% and overhead up 8.3%. A major driver of overhead growth was spending on technology, including artificial intelligence tools.Geopolitical instability, including the war in Iran, has also created uncertainty, with deal activity slowing in March and restructuring work not rising as expected. The report frames the market as still strong, but with enough warning signs that firms may need to watch costs, productivity, and client demand closely in the next quarter.Rising US law firm expenses offset strong demand and rate hikes in first quarter - report | ReutersA U.S. appeals court has temporarily paused a lower court ruling that had favored three challengers to the Trump administration's 10% global tariff. The pause means the tariffs remain in effect for two businesses and Washington state while the appeal continues. The U.S. trade court had ruled against the tariffs last week but did not issue a broad order stopping their collection nationwide. The Trump administration appealed that decision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a short-term administrative stay while it considers whether to grant a longer pause. The challengers now have seven days to argue against keeping the lower court ruling on hold. Washington state qualified as an importer in the case because the University of Washington, a public research institution, paid tariffs. The tariff was imposed in February under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, after the Supreme Court struck down most of Trump's 2025 tariffs. Unless Congress extends it, the 10% global tariff is scheduled to expire in July.US appeals court pauses ruling against Trump's 10% global tariff | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Stay connected with us at americangroundradio.com, on Facebook, and Instagram. You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for May 12, 2026. We open with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez comparing ICE to Jim Crow — and we take it apart piece by piece. We play the clip, explain why this comparison isn't just historically wrong but actively dangerous, and make the case that when you tell people they are witnessing a rebirth of racial oppression rather than the enforcement of democratically enacted law, you are not making a policy argument anymore — you are issuing marching orders to people on the edge. We also point out the obvious — the party that wrote, enforced, and defended Jim Crow was the Democrat Party. AOC's party. And if she actually disagrees with how ICE operates, she has the power to change the law. She's in Congress. That's literally her job. In our Top 3 Things You Need to Know, the DOJ has announced criminal charges against two Singapore and India-based shipping companies and their technical superintendent for the 2024 collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore — six construction workers killed, $5 billion in economic damage, and pollutants released into the Chesapeake Bay. Then inflation jumped to 3.8% in April — the highest level in three years — driven primarily by energy costs related to the Iran conflict and the bottleneck at the Strait of Hormuz, with prices now rising faster than wages for the first time since Biden was president. And the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has blocked the federal government from continuing to collect President Trump's 10% global tariffs — with the underlying authority set to expire in July unless Congress acts. We think those tariffs are doomed and that Congress should fix it. Our American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson weigh in on the growing trend of no-phone parties on college campuses — events where phones get locked away and people actually talk to each other. We get into why this trend is catching on, why Chick-fil-A is now offering phone-free booths with free ice cream as an incentive for families who make it through a full meal without touching their devices, why phones have become security blankets as much as communication tools, and why one mama's husband's week-long phone detox challenge may be the most ambitious thing happening in American households right now. We dig into a Democrat Senate candidate in Michigan — Abdul El-Saeed — who has spent his entire campaign presenting himself as a physician. His LinkedIn says physician. His campaign literature says physician. His website says physician. Michigan and New York have no record of ever granting him a medical license. We ask the simple question — if you've been practicing medicine your entire career without a license, what do you call that? In our Digging Deep segment, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced a first-in-the-nation program called Golden State Start — 400 free diapers for every newborn in California, administered through an NGO called Baby to Baby. The state has budgeted $20 million for the program. Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton went to Target and discovered you can buy diapers for 16 cents each. The state is paying 50 cents each — more than three times the retail price. We follow the money and find that Baby to Baby is co-led by a woman who sits on the board of Gavin Newsom's wife's nonprofit, that its board includes Kim Kardashian, Jessica Alba, and other Hollywood mega-donors, and that the organization funnels money back to Democrat candidates. Newsom's free diapers aren't about babies. They're about political payback with your tax dollars. We also cover the mayor of Arcadia, California — Democrat Eileen Wang — who has resigned and agreed to plead guilty after being charged with acting as a foreign agent for communist China. A sitting American mayor, taking directives from the People's Republic of China and posting propaganda designed to influence American public opinion. We connect it to the broader pattern of Chinese infiltration into American politics and ask why it keeps happening in the same party. We also cover Representative Darrell Issa's resolution to expunge both of Donald Trump's impeachments from the historical record — laying out the evidence that the 2019 impeachment was built on fabricated testimony from a biased whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge, and that the 2021 impeachment violated the Constitution in multiple procedural ways including the Chief Justice refusing to preside. Both should be expunged. We note that most of the seven Republican senators who voted to convict are already out of Congress — and we mention one who is not. And we close with President Trump calling out a reporter on the White House lawn who accused his ballroom of doubling in cost without apparently knowing he had doubled the size. We give him full credit for the content of the correction — and only minor points off for the delivery. May your pursuit of happiness bring you joy. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts, visit AmericanGroundRadio.com, and join the conversation at 866-AGR-1776!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What happens when your relationship has ended, but neither of you can move out? This is something I am seeing more and more across Australia. Separation no longer always looks like one person packing a bag and moving into a new home. With the cost of living, rental shortages, mortgage pressure, children, leases, school zones and financial stress, many people are finding themselves separated but still living under the same roof. And while that might be the only practical option, it can also be emotionally exhausting. In this episode, I talk about the growing reality of separation under one roof and how you can move through it with more clarity, structure and support. This is not about pretending everything is fine. It is not about staying in the same relationship. It is about recognising that, for many people, physical separation is not immediately possible but emotional, practical, financial and legal separation can still begin. I explore how to create a same-roof separation plan, how to protect children from confusion and conflict, how to manage the emotional load, and why safety must always come first. This episode is for you if you are living in that difficult middle place: the relationship has ended, but the home, the mortgage, the lease, the children or the finances mean you are still sharing the same address. Resources: If you are in immediate danger, call 000. For domestic, family or sexual violence support in Australia, contact 1800RESPECT (1800737732). It is a national counselling, information and support service available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. For men using, or at risk of using, violent or controlling behaviour, the Men's Referral Service is available nationally on 1300 766 491. Separation under one roof is recognised in Australia, including by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia when couples have lived separately in the same home during the 12-month separation period required for divorce. The Court notes that extra information may be needed if you rely on that period when applying for divorce. Services Australia also recognises this situation and has a "Separated under one roof" form for people who are separated but still living with their ex-partner, so their relationship status can be assessed correctly for payments. Host: Nikki Parkinson, TEDx Speaker, Divorce Doula, Coach and Founder of The Divorce and Separation Hub. The Divorce and Separation Hub Website The Divorce and Separation Hub Instagram The Divorce and Separation Hub Facebook The Divorce and Separation Hub Linkedin Join our Divorce and Separation community HERE. Watch Nikki's TEDx Talk HERE. Loved This Episode? Support the podcast by subscribing, leaving a five-star review, and sharing it with someone who could use a little extra support right now. Do you have a question you want answered? Submit your question here. This episode is produced by Dan King of Dan King Productions. This episode is sposnored by Simple Separation, the smarter way to separate. Simple Separation is an online, fixed-fee service designed to help Australian couples finalise their divorce and separation respectfully, collaboratively, and without the stress of going to court. From property settlements and parenting plans to child support and divorce applications, everything you need is under one roof, saving you time, money, and unnecessary conflict. Book your free consultation today to find out if Simple Separation is right for your situation at simple-separation.com.au. Disclaimer I hope you enjoyed the podcast today. The information we discussed today was just that information only. It is not specific advice. If you take action following something you heard today, it is important to make sure you get professional advice about your unique situation before you proceed, whether that advice be legal, financial, accounting, medical or other advice. Please reach out to me if you have any questions or if there's another topic you'd like explored.

When Alice came down in 2014, much of the patent prosecution bar reacted with denial. Most practitioners hoped the USPTO, the Federal Circuit, or Congress would clean things up — and that adding some magic language to claims and specifications would eventually be enough.Eli Mazour and Ngai Zhang, separately, came to a different conclusion: there had to be a new, better way to obtain strong patents in the post-Alice world. They started comparing notes more than a decade ago, eventually converged on a shared approach, and now implement these strategies together at Foley & Lardner.On this episode of Clause 8, Eli and Ngai walk through what they actually do — their unique strategies for avoiding and overcoming Section 101 issues, why it's difficult for other attorneys to implement these strategies, and how they think their practice will be impacted in the age of AI.In this episode:* Why relying only on art unit prediction tools & wordsmithing is a losing strategy for § 101* Why claim 1 shouldn't be your broadest claim* How taking features out of independent claims helps advance prosecution - and how the strategy also leaves clients routinely surprised by how broad their issued claims end up* Examiner interviews as hostage negotiations: Ngai's framework based on Chris Voss's Never Split the Difference* Differing approaches that Ngai and Eli have on whether to push for an explicit on-the-record agreement before ending an interview* AI as a collaborator for patent drafting and prosecution* The importance of human interactions and communication for patent prosecution even in the age of AIWatch the full episode and read the companion post on Voice of IP: https://voiceofip.com/Subscribe to the Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/@clause8

This Day in Legal History: Butler ActOn March 13, 1925, the Tennessee General Assembly approved the Butler Act, a statute that made it unlawful for public school teachers to present any theory that denied the biblical account of human creation. The law specifically prohibited teaching that humans evolved from lower forms of life, reflecting growing tensions between scientific ideas and religious beliefs in early twentieth-century America. Tennessee lawmakers framed the statute as a way to protect traditional moral values in public education. Critics, however, immediately argued that the law restricted academic freedom and undermined the teaching of modern science.The controversy quickly escalated when a young teacher, John T. Scopes, agreed to challenge the statute. Scopes was charged with violating the Butler Act after he allowed evolution to be discussed in his classroom. His prosecution led to the famous 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial in Dayton, Tennessee. The trial drew national attention and featured two of the era's most prominent legal figures: Clarence Darrow for the defense and William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution. Their courtroom clash turned the case into a dramatic public debate over science, religion, and the role of government in shaping school curricula.Although Scopes was ultimately convicted and fined $100, the trial exposed deep cultural divisions within the United States. Media coverage portrayed the proceedings as a symbolic struggle between modern scientific thinking and religious fundamentalism. Over time, the Butler Act came to be seen by many as an example of government overreach into education and intellectual inquiry. Tennessee formally repealed the statute in 1967, decades after the trial had become a lasting symbol of the conflict between science and law.Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review her ongoing challenge to a suspension imposed by her fellow judges. In a petition filed Thursday, the 98-year-old judge argues that the D.C. Circuit wrongly ruled that courts cannot review many challenges to judicial suspension orders under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Newman contends that the statute should allow review when suspension decisions violate the law or the Constitution. Her petition claims the lower court misinterpreted the law by blocking challenges to actions that exceed the authority granted under the statute. Newman argues that her suspension effectively removes her from the bench without impeachment, which she says undermines constitutional protections for judicial independence and lifetime tenure.The Federal Circuit's judicial council first suspended Newman in 2023 after concerns that potential mental or physical health issues made her unable to perform judicial duties. The suspension followed her refusal to undergo medical evaluations requested by her colleagues and was characterized as serious misconduct. Although the suspension was initially set for one year, it has been renewed twice. Newman appealed through the internal judicial review process, but a national committee of judges upheld the suspension in 2024. She also challenged the suspension in federal court, arguing that parts of the judicial discipline law are unconstitutional. Both a district court and the D.C. Circuit dismissed the case, relying on a statutory provision stating that disciplinary orders under the act are final and not subject to judicial review. Newman now asks the Supreme Court to clarify whether courts may still review suspension orders that allegedly exceed legal or constitutional limits.Judge Newman Takes Suspension Battle To Supreme Court - Law36098-year-old judge asks US Supreme Court to hear case over her suspension | ReutersThe U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has begun the process of developing regulations for prediction markets, issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and asking the public for input on how the industry should be governed. The agency said the move is intended to support innovation while ensuring prediction markets operate within the framework of the Commodity Exchange Act. Interest in regulation has grown as more companies apply to register as designated contract markets, with many applications coming from prediction market platforms. These platforms allow users to trade on the outcomes of events such as sports games, elections, and entertainment awards.The CFTC is seeking feedback on several issues, including whether margin trading should be allowed, what types of event contracts might be harmful to the public interest, and whether individuals with insider knowledge should be restricted from trading on certain outcomes. At the same time, the agency released staff guidance reminding platforms to avoid contracts that could be easily manipulated, such as those tied to specific player injuries or actions by a single referee. The guidance also explains that platforms can list new contracts through a self-certification process, although the CFTC can intervene if it believes a contract violates the law.The regulatory effort comes amid ongoing legal disputes about who has authority over prediction markets. The CFTC maintains that it has exclusive jurisdiction, while several states have attempted to regulate or restrict these platforms under gambling laws. Meanwhile, members of Congress have introduced legislation that would ban certain types of event contracts, including those related to violence or death, and strengthen rules against insider trading on prediction markets.CFTC Proposes Prediction Markets Rule - Law360CFTC Seeks Public Comment on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Relating to Prediction MarketsThe Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against California seeking to block the state's Advanced Clean Cars I (ACC I) regulations, arguing that the rules unlawfully interfere with federal authority over vehicle fuel economy standards. The lawsuit, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation, targets California rules adopted in 2012 that require automakers to sell increasing numbers of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles. Federal officials claim the regulations effectively force manufacturers to meet stricter nationwide standards and function as a quota system for electric vehicles.According to the complaint, California cannot impose its own limits on vehicle emissions because the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act gives the federal government authority to set fuel-economy standards through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The administration argues that California's requirements could increase vehicle prices, reduce consumer choice, and disrupt the national auto market. Federal officials also say Congress revoked certain Clean Air Act waivers in 2025 that previously allowed California to enforce some emissions rules.California leaders strongly dispute the lawsuit and say the state is defending policies designed to reduce pollution and expand access to cleaner vehicles. State officials argue the federal government is attempting to undermine California's environmental regulations and its efforts to lead the transition to cleaner transportation. The lawsuit is part of a broader series of legal disputes between the federal government and California over vehicle emissions standards and electric-vehicle mandates.Feds Sue To Stop California's ‘Illegal' EV Regulations - Law360U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) told a federal court that it is making progress on a system to refund about $166 billion in tariffs that were ruled unlawful. According to a court filing, the agency's four-part refund system is between 40% and 80% complete, with the review portion the most developed and the mass-processing component the least finished. The system will include an online portal where importers and brokers can submit claims for reimbursement.The filing was submitted to the U.S. Court of International Trade in response to an order from a judge directing the government to begin refunding tariffs after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of the tariffs in February. The Court's decision invalidated tariffs collected since February 2024 but did not explain how refunds should be handled. CBP previously suggested building a new system to process claims rather than using its existing process, and officials say the new portal could begin accepting applications as soon as mid-April.More than 330,000 importers paid the tariffs on roughly 53 million shipments, though only about 21,000 importers are currently registered to receive refunds. Refunds will go only to the companies that originally paid the tariffs, and there is no legal requirement that businesses pass the money on to consumers. Some companies, including FedEx, have said they will reimburse customers, while Costco indicated it may lower prices using the refunded funds. Meanwhile, new legal disputes are emerging as businesses and states challenge additional tariffs imposed after the Supreme Court ruling.US customs agency says building system for tariff refunds is 40% to 80% complete | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

A review of the week's major US international tax-related news. In this edition:  IRS proposes removing final regs on p'ship related-party basis adjustment transactions – Alternative process proposed for digital asset brokers electronic statements – IRS may waive 2025 electronic filing requirement for US and foreign withholding agents – Treasury Secretary says 10%global tariffs will increase to 15% – US Customs and Border Protection outlines possible tariff refund and liquidation mechanics – Federal Circuit rejects tariff refund delay.

I never thought I'd be covering court battles like this, but here I am, glued to the latest twists in the legal wars swirling around President Donald Trump. Just yesterday, on March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court heard arguments in United States v. Hemani, where the Trump administration is defending a federal law banning illegal drug users from owning guns. Justice Elena Kagan grilled lawyers with hypotheticals about ayahuasca ceremonies, and even Justice Amy Coney Barrett admitted she'd never heard of the drug, asking if it was real. The justices seemed skeptical of challenges to the law's constitutionality, drawing parallels to everyday drug use to test the limits of Second Amendment rights, as reported in SCOTUSblog's live coverage.But that's just one front. Trump's unilateral military strike on Iran has sparked a firestorm over war powers. The New York Times' Charlie Savage detailed how accusations are flying that Trump violated the Constitution by launching the operation without congressional approval. It's reignited the age-old debate on who controls America's war machine—presidents have done it before, but critics say this crosses a line, paving the way for broader Supreme Court scrutiny.Over in the D.C. Circuit, things got wild with those executive orders targeting law firms like Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey. Trump hit them hard—terminating government contracts, yanking security clearances, barring access to federal buildings—because they represented his opponents, worked on voting rights, or challenged his 2020 election efforts. District judges, including Beryl Howell, called it chilling, a First Amendment nightmare that could scare lawyers from tough cases. The Justice Department stunned everyone by moving to dismiss the appeals on Monday, a huge win for the firms and the rule of law. But Tuesday, they flipped, filing to revive the fights without explanation. Democracy Docket reports the firms fired back, urging the court to reject the about-face. Pro-democracy watchers are alarmed—this isn't just about contracts; it's whether a president can weaponize government against his legal foes.Meanwhile, the Federal Circuit shot down the Trump team's plea to delay a tariff refund case by up to four months. After the Supreme Court's February 20 ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't let presidents slap on tariffs willy-nilly, Trump vented on social media about rehearing it. Bloomberg's Zoe Tillman notes the administration argued complexity demands caution, but companies are pushing back, saying delays hurt. Trump responded by imposing 10 percent tariffs on all countries starting February 24 using other laws, per Holland & Knight analysis.Down in New York, a federal court in the Southern District smacked down Trump's bid to kill the city's Congestion Pricing program. Earthjustice, representing Riders Alliance and Sierra Club alongside the MTA, won summary judgment. U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman ruled Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy couldn't override the democratic process that approved the tolls, which have cleaned the air, sped up streets, boosted transit, and added millions to the economy despite Trump's "disaster" label.And that's not all—Lawfare's tracker logs 298 active cases challenging Trump actions, from national security to the Alien Enemies Act deportations. State courts are buzzing too, with oral arguments on ghost guns and DOJ voter data grabs. Whew, listeners, these past few days have been a legal whirlwind, testing the courts like never before.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

DOCKET ALERTS:The Trump administration is tapping out on the lawsuits defending executive orders attacking law firms. Too bad, so sad for the Vichy law firms that pledged a billion dollars in “conservative pro bono” work.Justice Gorsuch says we can't take guns away from drug users because the Founders were drunk all the time.The Federal Circuit declines a request by the Trump administration to delay tariff refunds.Kansas's revocation of trans citizens' drivers licenses draws its first court challenge.And Virginia's redistricting referendum can go ahead.MAIN SHOW:We discuss the history of the president's power to commence hostilities and explain why Trump and his goons are so deeply invested in claiming that the war in Iran — which isn't a war at all! — was defensive, not offensive. Plus Andrew's got a deep dive into the War Powers Resolution and how it might bring about an end to this nightmare.We've got clips from 60 Minutes's very good story on the danger federal judges face when they go against the Trump administration. Judges in the Western District of West Virginia join the list of jurisdictions telling DHS/DOJ that contempt charges are coming if they keep relying on crackpot legal theories to kidnap residents.Judge John Tunheim issues class relief to refugees in Minnesota, barring DHS from interning them for recertification.And for subscribers: a discussion of the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.Trump Administration to Drop Defense of Law Firm Sanctionshttps://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trump-administration-to-drop-defense-of-law-firm-sanctions-cb839c39US v. Hemani Oral Argumenthttps://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-1234V.O.S. Selections [Tariff mandate]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105.173.0_2.pdfDoe v. Kansas [Trans drivers' licenses]https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/02/Complaint-1.pdfVirginia redistricting election can move forward, court ruleshttps://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/virginia-redistricting-election-can-move-forward-court-rulesFederal judges who've ruled against Trump administration denounce threats against themselves, their familieshttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judges-whove-ruled-against-trump-administration-denounce-threats-60-minutes-transcript/Judges in a Trump stronghold condemn ICE tacticshttps://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/01/west-virginia-immigration-rulings-00804575Dominguez Izaguirre v. Mason [West Virginia Habeas]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wvsd.243036/gov.uscourts.wvsd.243036.18.0.pdfWar Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33“Trump Can't Declare War On Iran (or Anyone)” [lawandchaospod.com]https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/trump-cant-declare-war-on-iran-orLiz's YouTube video for Legal Eagle, “The Largest Bribe in American History”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE2pm3omzMI&t=3sNat'l Treasury Employees' Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587 (D.C. Cir. 1974)https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4156385560315482496INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2221871582286121199Show Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court hand President Donald Trump a gut punch on live tariffs, but here we are, listeners, just days after their bombshell ruling on Friday, February 20, 2026. Picture this: I'm in my living room in Washington, D.C., coffee in hand, when the news breaks from SCOTUSblog and The New York Times—Justices Strike Down Trump's Tariffs. In the consolidated cases Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, a 6-3 majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president the green light to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies.Trump had declared emergencies over drug trafficking from Canada and massive trade deficits, hitting Canadian goods with 25% duties and more worldwide. But Roberts' opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said IEEPA lets the president regulate, block, or prohibit imports—not tax them with tariffs. The Court vacated one lower court ruling and affirmed another from the Federal Circuit, sending shockwaves through Wall Street and the heartland. Even among conservatives, there was drama: Justice Neil Gorsuch and Barrett concurred but split on details, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, arguing IEEPA's text and history backed Trump's power, and slamming the majority for ignoring the major questions doctrine in foreign affairs.By evening, Trump stormed to the podium outside the White House, as captured in that fiery CNBC Television clip. "I'm absolutely ashamed of certain members of the court," he thundered, calling some justices "disloyal to the Constitution" and "unpatriotic," swayed by "foreign interests." He ripped his own appointees—praising Kavanaugh's "genius" but blasting others as an "embarrassment to their families." No backing down, though. Trump vowed revenge, signing an executive order that very day titled "Ending Certain Tariff Actions," but pivoting to new weapons: a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, set to kick in within days for up to 150 days or longer. He teased Section 301 investigations for unfair practices by China and others, plus fresh Section 232 probes on steel, aluminum, cars, copper—you name it.Fast-forward to Tuesday, February 24, in his State of the Union address, as ABC World News Tonight reported, Trump doubled down, framing the ruling as a bump in his America First road. Politico and Axios chronicled the fallout: lawmakers from both parties reacted, businesses cheered lower costs, but Trump's base roared approval online. The Washington Times noted his promise of "other authorities" to fight back, while Fox News called it a "major test of executive branch powers." Even The Guardian dubbed it the end of Trump's "one-man tariff war."Here I am on February 25, still buzzing. This isn't just legalese—it's a clash reshaping trade, presidential power, and maybe the Court itself. Will new tariffs survive in the D.C. Circuit or Federal Circuit? Trump's already hinting at years of fights. Clark Hill and DLA Piper analysts say uncertainty reigns, but Trump's playbook is thick.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I never thought I'd be standing in the shadow of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on a crisp February morning in 2026, feeling the weight of a decision that just reshaped presidential power. But here we are, listeners, just two days ago on Friday, February 20, the nine justices handed down a bombshell in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and the consolidated case V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump. By a 6-3 vote, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion striking down the sweeping tariffs President Donald Trump imposed through executive orders, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president authority to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies like drug trafficking from Canada or massive trade deficits.Picture this: Trump had declared these threats "unusual and extraordinary," hitting Canadian goods with a 25% duty and broader tariffs on everything from electronics to steel, all under IEEPA's vague language about regulating importation. But Roberts, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said no way. The Court applied the major questions doctrine, arguing Congress never clearly delegated such huge economic power to the executive branch. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the Democratic appointees, signed on to parts rejecting the tariffs outright, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, insisting IEEPA's text, history, and precedents backed Trump all the way, calling it a "straightforward case" for presidential authority in foreign affairs.The ruling came fast—arguments were back in November 2025 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Federal Circuit—and it vacated lower court judgments, remanding one with instructions to dismiss. Importers like Learning Resources, Inc., who challenged the tariffs on toys and educational materials, celebrated outside the marble steps, while businesses nationwide breathed easier, spared from billions in extra costs.That same evening, President Trump took the stage in the White House Rose Garden, crowd roaring behind him, and unloaded. According to CNBC's live coverage, he called the decision "deeply disappointing," slamming certain justices as "ashamed," "unpatriotic," and "disloyal to our Constitution," hinting they were swayed by "foreign interests and a small political movement." He praised Justice Kavanaugh's "genius" dissent and his own appointee Justice Alito, but vowed to fight on. Trump announced he'd sign an executive order that day for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, effective in days, plus Section 301 investigations into unfair practices by countries like China. "We'll end up being in court for the next five years," he shrugged, but insisted America wouldn't lose.Across the country, reactions poured in. California Governor Gavin Newsom demanded immediate refund checks for Americans hit by the now-invalid tariffs, calling them "illegal" in a Sacramento presser. Legal experts at Holland & Knight law firm noted importers could now seek reimbursements, while SCOTUSblog broke it down: Roberts dissected IEEPA's two little words—"regulate... importation"—ruling they don't stretch to outright tariffs, a tool historically for Congress.As I wrap up this whirlwind from the past few days, it's clear this Supreme Court showdown isn't just about trade—it's a defining line on executive power, echoing Trump's past battles like Trump v. Vance in 2020, where the Court said no absolute immunity from state subpoenas. With Trump's three appointees—Gorsuch in 2017, Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett in 2020—shifting the bench to a 6-3 conservative tilt, yet ruling against him here, the tensions are electric.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

This Day in Legal History: Jacobson v. MassachusettsOn this day in legal history, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), a case that defined the balance between individual liberty and public health. The dispute arose during a smallpox outbreak when Massachusetts authorized local governments to require vaccinations. Henning Jacobson refused the vaccine, arguing that the mandate violated his personal liberty under the Constitution. The case presented a fundamental question: how far can the state go in protecting the health of its citizens?In a 7–2 decision, the Court upheld the compulsory vaccination law. The justices reasoned that individual freedoms are not absolute. Writing for the majority, the Court explained that the Constitution permits reasonable regulations to protect public health and safety. This authority stems from the state's “police power,” a broad power to enact laws for the welfare of the community. The Court emphasized that liberty does not include the right to act in a way that harms others. During an epidemic, the government may impose measures necessary to prevent disease from spreading.The decision established an enduring precedent for public health regulation. It has been cited in later cases involving quarantine laws, vaccine mandates, and emergency health orders. More than a century later, Jacobson remains central to debates about the limits of government authority in times of crisis.A federal judge in California sharply reduced a jury pool in a class action securities trial against Elon Musk after many potential jurors said they could not be impartial. Out of 92 candidates, 38 were dismissed after admitting they could not fairly judge the case, prompting Musk's attorney to argue that strong personal hostility toward his client was affecting the process. The lawsuit, brought by former Twitter investors, alleges that Musk made misleading statements in 2022 to depress the company's stock price while negotiating its purchase. Musk denies the allegations.Judge Charles R. Breyer reminded jurors that their verdict must be based only on evidence presented at trial, not personal opinions about Musk. Several prospective jurors expressed strong views, both positive and negative, and some were removed for cause. One man who said he believed Musk should be in prison but could be fair in a civil case was not selected. Others who openly supported Musk or dismissed class actions as frivolous were also excluded. By the end of the day, a nine-member jury was seated.The case centers on claims that Musk's tweets about the deal being “on hold” and about the percentage of fake accounts misled investors. The judge previously ruled that investors plausibly alleged securities law violations and certified a class of affected shareholders. He also denied early summary judgment motions, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The upcoming trial will determine whether Musk's public statements violated federal securities laws during the 2022 acquisition process.‘Hate' For Musk Quickly Narrows Jury Pool In Twitter Deal Trial - Law360Jeffrey Epstein's estate has agreed to pay up to $35 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging that two of his longtime advisers helped facilitate his sex trafficking scheme. The proposed agreement was disclosed in a federal court filing in Manhattan and must still be approved by a judge. The lawsuit, filed in 2024, targeted Darren Indyke, Epstein's former personal lawyer, and Richard Kahn, his longtime accountant, who serve as co-executors of the estate.Attorneys for the victims claimed the two men assisted Epstein by managing a network of corporations and financial accounts that concealed his activities and enabled payments to victims and recruiters. As part of the settlement, neither Indyke nor Kahn admitted wrongdoing. Their attorney stated they were prepared to contest the claims at trial but chose to settle to bring closure and resolve remaining potential claims against the estate.The estate has already distributed substantial sums to victims. A compensation program previously paid out $121 million, and an additional $49 million has been resolved through other settlements. According to defense counsel, the new agreement will offer a confidential path to compensation for individuals who have not yet settled claims.Epstein died in a New York jail in 2019, and his death was ruled a suicide.Epstein estate agrees to $35 million settlement in victim class action | ReutersThe Trump administration announced plans to scale back federal limits on mercury and other hazardous air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants. Officials said easing these standards would help utilities manage costs and maintain reliable baseload electricity as power demand rises, particularly from artificial intelligence data centers. The move targets updates made during the Biden administration to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which built on regulations first adopted in 2012.The Biden-era revisions would have significantly reduced allowable mercury emissions and cut releases of toxic metals such as arsenic, nickel, and lead. Supporters of those rules argued they would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in public health savings by lowering exposure to harmful pollutants. The Supreme Court previously declined to pause the updated standards while legal challenges proceeded.Environmental and public health advocates warn that weakening the rule could increase health risks, especially for children and other vulnerable populations, since mercury exposure can impair neurological development. The EPA, however, stated that the original 2012 rule already provides sufficient public health protection and that the newer requirements impose costs exceeding their benefits.The rollback aligns with broader administration efforts to support coal power, including declaring an energy emergency, granting temporary exemptions to dozens of coal plants, and revisiting prior climate-related regulatory findings. Coal plants currently produce less than one-fifth of U.S. electricity but remain significant sources of hazardous air pollution.Trump EPA to weaken rule limiting harmful mercury, air toxics from coal plants | ReutersA federal judge in California ruled that PepsiCo and its Frito-Lay division can block a proposed class action brought by convenience store owners alleging unfair pricing practices. The stores claimed the company favored large national retailers by offering them better wholesale prices, in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, which prohibits certain forms of price discrimination. The lawsuit sought to represent thousands of independently owned California stores that said they lost significant sales as a result of the alleged practices.U.S. District Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani determined that the plaintiffs failed to show that all proposed class members suffered the same type of injury, a key requirement for class certification under federal law. She explained that price discrimination claims typically require detailed, transaction-specific evidence, making broad class treatment difficult. The court agreed with the defendants' argument that resolving the claims would require individualized inquiries into each store's circumstances.Although the judge rejected the class action request, she did not dismiss the underlying lawsuit. Instead, she allowed the plaintiffs to revise and refile their class allegations. Attorneys for the convenience stores said they plan to amend the complaint to provide additional detail about how Frito-Lay allegedly disadvantaged smaller retailers.PepsiCo, Frito-Lay win US court order barring class action in snack pricing lawsuit | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize President Donald Trump to impose broad tariffs under a declared national emergency. In a majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court emphasized that the Constitution assigns the power to levy taxes and duties exclusively to Congress, not the executive branch. The case arose after President Trump declared national emergencies related to drug trafficking and trade deficits and then imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from numerous countries, including Canada, Mexico, and China.Small businesses and several states challenged the tariffs, arguing that IEEPA permits the president to “regulate” importation but does not explicitly authorize the imposition of duties. Lower courts agreed, and the Federal Circuit largely affirmed those rulings before the cases reached the Supreme Court. The majority concluded that the statutory term “regulate . . . importation” cannot be read to include the power to impose taxes, especially given Congress's consistent practice of clearly and specifically granting tariff authority in other statutes. The Court also relied on the “major questions” doctrine, reasoning that such sweeping economic authority requires clear congressional authorization, which IEEPA does not provide.The justices rejected arguments that emergency powers or foreign affairs concerns justified a broader interpretation. They noted that no prior president had used IEEPA to impose tariffs in its nearly 50-year history. As a result, the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's decision invalidating the tariffs and directed dismissal of a related case for lack of jurisdiction.Justices Strike Down Trump's Emergency TariffsThis week's closing theme is by Louis Spohr.This week's closing theme features music by Spohr, a composer who stood at the crossroads between the Classical and early Romantic eras. Born in 1784, Spohr was a celebrated violinist, conductor, and teacher whose reputation in his lifetime rivaled many of his contemporaries. Though his name is less familiar today, he played an important role in shaping early nineteenth-century orchestral and chamber music. His style combines Classical clarity with the expressive warmth that would define the Romantic movement.Spohr wrote four clarinet concertos, each showcasing the instrument's growing technical and expressive range. The Clarinet Concerto in F minor reflects both virtuosity and lyricism, qualities that made the clarinet increasingly popular in concert halls of the time. The first movement, Allegro assai, opens with dramatic orchestral energy before introducing the soloist in sweeping, agile lines. The music balances precision with expressive phrasing, demanding both technical control and emotional depth from the performer.Throughout the movement, Spohr allows the clarinet to sing as much as it dazzles. Rapid passages are paired with moments of lyrical calm, highlighting the instrument's wide tonal palette. The dialogue between soloist and orchestra feels conversational rather than combative, giving the concerto an elegant cohesion. As our closing theme, this Allegro assai offers drive, color, and a glimpse into a composer once central to Europe's musical life.Without further ado, Louis Spohr's Clarinet Concerto in F minor, the first movement, the Allegro assai – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

IEEPA tariffs are found Unconstitutional, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (2026).Today, Feb 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in two combined cases that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the President the power to impose tariffs on imports. This decision stopped tariffs set by President Trump to fight drug trafficking and trade deficits.Soon after becoming president, Trump declared national emergencies under IEEPA. He cited two big threats: Drug influx & Trade deficits.Businesses and states sued, saying IEEPA doesn't allow tariffs. One case started in a D.C. district court, which blocked the tariffs temporarily. The other went to the Court of International Trade (CIT) and was upheld by the Federal Circuit appeals court. They said IEEPA's words about "regulating importation" don't cover unlimited tariffs. The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to set taxes and duties, including tariffs (Article I, Section 8). The Framers wanted Congress to control "the pockets of the people." Presidents have no natural right to impose tariffs in peacetime. The government argued IEEPA lets the President "regulate... importation," which they said includes tariffs of any size, length, or scope. But the Court disagreed, using these key points:Major Questions Doctrine: The Court is wary of laws that vaguely give away huge powers. Tariffs affect the economy massively, trillions in trade and billions in revenue. Congress wouldn't hide such a big handover in unclear words. In 50 years of IEEPA, no president had used it for tariffs. Past laws delegating tariff power were always clear and limited. This claim was too extreme, especially for the "power of the purse."Word Meanings in IEEPA: The law lists powers like "investigate, block, regulate, direct, nullify" imports or exports. It doesn't mention tariffs or duties. "Regulate" usually means to control or restrict, not to tax. Taxes are separate, Congress always says so explicitly when giving tax powers. If "regulate" included taxes, it might violate the Constitution's ban on export taxes. The other words in the list are about sanctions or controls, not raising money.No Exceptions: Even in emergencies or foreign affairs, Congress must clearly say if it's giving away tariff power. Tariffs aren't just regulation; they're taxes with big economic and political effects.The Court vacated (canceled) the D.C. case for jurisdictional reasons and affirmed (upheld) the Federal Circuit's ruling. IEEPA can't be used for tariffs. This protects Congress's role in trade policy.The opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts, with parts joined by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett. It stresses separation of powers and careful reading of laws.This program is brought to you by DAT Freight & Analytics. Since 1978, DAT has helped truckers & brokers discover more available loads. Whether you're heading home or looking for your next adventure, DAT is building the most trusted marketplace in freight. New users of DAT can save 10% off for the first 12 months by following the link below. Built on the latest technology, DAT One gives you control over every aspect of moving freight, so that you can run your business with speed & efficiency. This program is also brought to you by our newest sponsor, GenLogs. GenLogs is setting a new standard of care for freight intelligence. Book your demo for GenLogs today at www.genlogs.io today!

This Day in Legal History: Powell v. AlabamaOn February 16, 1932, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Powell v. Alabama, a case that would become a cornerstone of modern criminal procedure. The appeal arose from the notorious Scottsboro Boys prosecutions in Alabama, where nine young Black men were accused of raping two white women aboard a train. The trials moved with alarming speed, and the defendants were sentenced to death after proceedings that offered little meaningful access to legal counsel. In some instances, lawyers were appointed on the day of trial, leaving virtually no time to prepare a defense.The case forced the Court to confront whether such rushed representation satisfied the requirements of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. When the decision was issued later that year, the Court held that in capital cases, state courts must provide defendants with effective assistance of counsel. The justices emphasized that the right to be heard would mean little without the guiding hand of an attorney. The ruling did not yet create a broad right to counsel in all felony cases, but it marked a significant expansion of constitutional protections in state criminal proceedings.Powell signaled that fundamental fairness in state trials was subject to federal constitutional scrutiny. It also laid important groundwork for later decisions that would extend the right to counsel beyond capital cases. The case remains a defining example of how procedural safeguards can shape the legitimacy of the criminal justice system.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived part of Google's challenge to a Wildseed Mobile LLC patent covering the creation and transmission of “hot links” through text messages. A three-judge panel vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that had upheld one remaining claim of the patent, while invalidating the others. The appellate court found that the board failed to properly analyze Google's argument that the claim was invalid in light of prior art.The disputed claim involved generating a hot link using either an SMS message or an instant message. Although Google addressed both aspects in its petition, the board focused only on the SMS portion and did not meaningfully address the instant messaging limitation. The Federal Circuit said the board neither evaluated whether prior art covered the instant messaging element nor explained why it declined to do so. Because of that omission, the panel sent the case back to the board for further review.Wildseed had accused Google of infringing the patent based on how advertisements function on YouTube. The lawsuit was initially filed in Texas in 2022 but later moved to federal court in California, where proceedings were paused pending the outcome of the PTAB review. In 2024, the board had already invalidated claims in two related Wildseed patents involving video ads and smartphone notifications.Google's Hot Link Patent Claim Challenge Revived At Fed. Circ. - Law360Federal prosecutors have unveiled additional details in a criminal case accusing Cleveland Guardians pitchers Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz of participating in a pitch-fixing scheme tied to sports betting. A superseding indictment filed in New York alleges that Clase exchanged coded text messages with associates and bettors before games to signal when he would throw specific pitches. The messages reportedly used poultry-themed language such as “rooster” and “chicken” to disguise the scheme. In one example, an associate allegedly texted Clase about throwing a “rock at the first rooster,” to which Clase responded affirmatively.Prosecutors claim that bettors used this advance information to place successful proposition bets on pitch speed, winning hundreds of thousands of dollars. According to the indictment, bettors earned at least $400,000 on wagers involving Clase and about $60,000 on wagers involving Ortiz. The players allegedly agreed to accept bribes of at least $12,000 each. Authorities also allege that some coordination occurred in person, including meetings at Clase's home, and that payments were routed through intermediaries.The updated indictment adds Robinson Vasquez Germosen, who prosecutors say acted as a middleman and later lied to FBI agents about his knowledge of the scheme. He is charged with making false statements. Clase and Ortiz previously pleaded not guilty, and their attorneys maintain that the allegations are unproven and will be challenged at trial.MLB Pitcher Sent ‘Coded' Texts For Rigged Pitches, Feds Say - Law360 UKA long-running dispute over ownership of a goldendoodle named Tucker has concluded with a private sealed-bid auction ordered by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The case, Callahan v. Nelson, involved former partners Karen Callahan and Joseph Nelson, who had jointly acquired the dog while dating but could not agree on ownership after their 2022 breakup. Because the couple was never married, they could not rely on Delaware's family law statute that allows courts to consider a pet's well-being when dividing marital property.After conflicting rulings in lower courts, the matter reached the state's premier business court, where Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David applied a property “partition” remedy. Rather than ordering shared custody or considering the dog's best interests, the court required a single blind bidding process between the parties. The higher bidder would keep Tucker, and the other would receive the payment. The exact amount of the winning bid was not disclosed. Nelson ultimately submitted the top bid and retained the dog.The court explained that, absent statutory authority to weigh the animal's welfare, traditional property principles favored an auction as the cleanest solution. A neutral attorney oversaw the process and noted that the dog's value was subjective and personal, not easily tied to market measures. Callahan's attorney said she was disappointed but would not seek to block the result, adding that the case sets helpful precedent for resolving similar pet ownership disputes.A key legal element in the case is the use of partition, an equitable remedy typically applied when co-owners of property cannot agree on how to divide it. Instead of physically splitting the property or forcing continued joint ownership, the court may order a sale and distribute the proceeds.Ex-Boyfriend Wins Tucker the Goldendoodle in Sealed Bid Auction This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Bruno Hauptmann ConvictedOn February 13, 1935, a New Jersey jury convicted Bruno Hauptmann of kidnapping and murdering the infant son of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh. The crime had transfixed the nation for nearly three years and was widely labeled the “Crime of the Century.” The child was taken from the Lindbergh home in 1932, and despite a ransom payment, was later found dead. Public outrage was immediate and intense, with newspapers covering nearly every development in the investigation and trial.Hauptmann's prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including ransom notes and expert testimony linking his handwriting to those notes. The government also introduced evidence tying marked ransom bills to Hauptmann's possession. The trial raised early concerns about the reliability of forensic handwriting analysis and the influence of media attention on jury impartiality. Critics then and now have questioned whether the intense publicity compromised due process protections.The case also reshaped federal criminal law. In response to the kidnapping, Congress enacted the Lindbergh Law, formally known as the Federal Kidnapping Act. The statute made it a federal offense to transport a kidnapping victim across state lines, expanding federal jurisdiction over what had traditionally been a state crime. That shift reflected a broader trend during the early twentieth century toward increased federal involvement in criminal enforcement.Today, the Hauptmann conviction remains a staple in criminal law courses, not only for its tragic facts but also for its lasting procedural and constitutional implications.Goldman Sachs' chief legal officer, Kathy Ruemmler, resigned after newly released Justice Department documents detailed her past communications with Jeffrey Epstein. CEO David Solomon announced that he accepted her resignation, which will take effect on June 30. Ruemmler said the media attention surrounding her prior legal work had become a distraction. The disclosures showed she exchanged numerous emails with Epstein between 2014 and 2019 and received gifts from him, including luxury items. Some emails revealed that she advised Epstein on how to respond to press inquiries about his treatment by prosecutors.The documents also noted that Epstein attempted to contact her by phone on the night of his 2019 arrest on sex trafficking charges. Ruemmler stated that she knew Epstein only in her capacity as a defense attorney and denied any knowledge of ongoing criminal conduct. Before joining Goldman, she led the white-collar defense practice at Latham & Watkins and previously served as White House counsel during the Obama administration.The broader document release has drawn attention to Epstein's connections within major financial institutions, including UBS and JPMorgan. Ruemmler's departure marks one of the most prominent banking exits linked to the renewed scrutiny of Epstein's network.Top Goldman Sachs lawyer Ruemmler resigns after Epstein disclosures | ReutersA federal judge in Minnesota ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement improperly interfered with detainees' access to their attorneys during a recent enforcement operation. U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel found that ICE's practices during “Operation Metro Surge” effectively denied thousands of people meaningful legal access. The order requires ICE to stop quickly transferring detainees out of Minnesota and to permit attorney visits and confidential phone calls. The ruling will remain in effect for 14 days while the case proceeds.The class action lawsuit was filed on January 27 on behalf of noncitizen detainees. According to the court, many individuals were moved out of state without notice, making it difficult or impossible for lawyers to locate them. In some instances, detainees were transferred so often that ICE itself lost track of their whereabouts. Judge Brasel concluded that while ICE did not formally deny the right to counsel, its actions in practice severely limited that right.The court also cited evidence that detainees were given limited phone access, sometimes sharing a small number of phones among dozens of people, with calls occurring in nonprivate settings. One asylum seeker with a valid work permit was held for 18 days despite a court order requiring his earlier release and was transferred across multiple states without explanation. The judge rejected ICE's claim that it lacked sufficient resources, noting that the agency had committed substantial personnel and funding to the enforcement effort.ICE blocked detainees' access to lawyers in Minnesota, judge finds | ReutersPresident Donald Trump announced four new judicial nominations, including a White House attorney selected for a seat on the U.S. Court of International Trade. The nominee, Kara Westercamp, currently serves as associate counsel in the White House and previously worked at the Justice Department. If confirmed, she would join a nine-member court that handles disputes involving U.S. trade laws, including challenges to tariffs. Her nomination comes as numerous companies contest Trump's sweeping global tariffs and seek refunds on duties already paid.Retailers and manufacturers such as Costco, Goodyear, and Revlon have filed lawsuits arguing that the tariffs exceed presidential authority. Earlier rulings from the trade court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit blocked most of the tariffs, and the U.S. Supreme Court is now reviewing the matter. Trump has publicly criticized the earlier decisions.In addition to Westercamp, Trump nominated Katie Lane to a federal district court in Montana, Sheria Clarke to a district court seat in South Carolina, and federal prosecutor Evan Rikhye to a 10-year term on the District Court of the Virgin Islands. All nominees must be confirmed by the Senate.Trump nominates White House lawyer to court hearing tariff cases | ReutersFormer CNN anchor Don Lemon is scheduled to appear in federal court in Minnesota to enter a plea related to charges stemming from his coverage of a protest at a St. Paul church. The protest targeted President Donald Trump's immigration enforcement surge in the state. Lemon, now an independent journalist, livestreamed the January 18 demonstration, which disrupted a worship service at Cities Church.Federal prosecutors charged him with conspiring to violate civil rights and with obstructing access to a house of worship under a statute also used in cases involving abortion clinic protests. His attorney argues that the prosecution infringes on Lemon's First Amendment rights and characterizes the case as an attack on press freedom. Trump publicly supported the charges, while Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that authorities would protect the right to worship without interference.The protest occurred during broader demonstrations against federal immigration actions in Minnesota, where thousands had gathered to oppose the crackdown. Lemon was seen on video speaking with activists before and during the disruption and interviewing participants and congregants inside the church. Another journalist, Georgia Fort, faces similar charges and has denied wrongdoing, stating she was reporting rather than participating.Journalist Don Lemon to enter plea in Minnesota ICE protest case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach.Bach stands as one of the central figures of the Baroque era, revered for the structural clarity and spiritual depth of his music. Born in 1685 into a long line of musicians, Bach spent much of his career serving as a church organist and cantor in German cities such as Arnstadt, Weimar, and Leipzig. Though not widely celebrated outside musical circles during his lifetime, his reputation has since grown to near-mythic status. His compositions balance intellectual precision with emotional resonance, blending intricate counterpoint with lyrical expression.This week's closing theme is his Cello Suite No. 1 in G major, BWV 1007, likely composed around 1720 during his tenure in Köthen. The suite opens with one of the most recognizable preludes in all of classical music, built from flowing arpeggios that unfold with quiet inevitability. Written for unaccompanied cello, the piece demonstrates Bach's ability to imply harmony and depth through a single melodic line. The suite follows the traditional Baroque dance structure, moving from Prelude through Allemande, Courante, Sarabande, Menuets, and Gigue.For many listeners, the Prelude evokes clarity, order, and calm—qualities that make it a fitting close to the week. Its simplicity is deceptive; beneath the surface lies careful architecture and subtle harmonic movement. The work fell into relative obscurity until the twentieth century, when cellist Pablo Casals famously revived it and brought it to concert stages worldwide. Today, it remains a cornerstone of the cello repertoire and a touchstone of Baroque artistry. As a closing theme, it offers both reflection and renewal, ending not with flourish but with quiet confidence.Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G major, BWV 1007–enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Intellectual Property: When are techniques for training machine learning models patentable? - Argued: Mon, 02 Feb 2026 11:6:27 EDT

In this episode of Arguendo: The Veterans Law Podcast, Amy Kretkowski and Amy Odom examine Hamill v. Collins, a closely watched Federal Circuit case addressing whether the Appeals Modernization Act's enhanced notice requirements can coexist with the long-standing implicit denial doctrine. They explore the legal background of the case, the statutory framework governing VA decision notices, the arguments presented by both sides at oral argument, the broader implications for veterans seeking benefits, and more.Note: The case “Hamill v. Collins” was decided on February 4, 2026. This episode was recorded prior to this decision but accurately predicted its outcome. For more information, visit our websites at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠cck-law.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and abkveteranslaw.com

Hey folks, imagine this: it's early 2026, and I'm glued to my screen in my Washington D.C. apartment, coffee going cold as the Supreme Court ramps up for what could be the biggest clash yet with President Donald Trump. Just days ago, on January 28th, News4JAX aired a riveting breakdown on Politics & Power, hosted by Bruce Hamilton alongside a constitutional law scholar, dissecting how Chief Justice John Roberts subtly defended the court's independence in his end-of-2025 year-end report. Roberts leaned hard on history over politics, but they warned 2026 is the real showdown—cases testing if Trump can unilaterally rewrite citizenship laws, slap massive tariffs worldwide, and even fire Federal Reserve governors like Lisa Cook.Let me take you back a bit. Trump's second term kicked off January 20, 2025, and he hit the ground running with executive orders that shook everything up. By February and April, he'd unleashed tariffs on imports from nearly every country—10 to 50 percent reciprocal hits, tweaking them for toys from China or steel from Europe. Two Illinois companies, Learning Resources, Inc., and hand2mind, Inc., weren't having it. They sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president carte blanche for unlimited tariffs. The district court sided with them in May, issuing a preliminary injunction. The Court of International Trade echoed that without the injunction, and by August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shot down Trump's appeal. Boom—the Supreme Court grabbed it for expedited review, hearing oral arguments on November 5, 2025, right in the thick of their term that started October 6.SCOTUSblog's been all over it, noting the justices are in winter recess now, not back on the bench until February 20. That's when we might get the tariffs ruling—unless they drop it early like they did with Trump v. Anderson in 2024, zipping out a decision before Super Tuesday primaries. Trump's fighting tooth and nail, calling the stakes massive for America's economy.But tariffs are just the appetizer. There's Trump v. Barbara, straight from Oyez, challenging Executive Order No. 14,160 that aims to gut birthright citizenship—can he really end it by fiat? Then there's the Lisa Cook drama. Trump tried firing the Federal Reserve Governor over alleged mortgage fraud, claiming dual primary residences in D.C. and Atlanta. Lower courts blocked it, saying no full hearing yet, and the Supreme Court agreed across ideologies: Cook stays put until it's sorted. The Ninth Circuit's National TPS Alliance v. Noem ruling ties in too—Trump's team, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed January 25, 2025, moved fast to vacate Haiti's Temporary Protected Status extension set to expire August 2025.And don't get me started on Kilmar Orega or those nationwide injunctions Trump hates—judges in far-off districts halting his policies for the whole U.S. without everyone getting a say. Britannica lists these as marquee 2025-26 term battles: Learning Resources v. Trump, plus Chiles v. Salazar, Louisiana v. Callais, Little v. Hecox—all probing separation of powers. Experts on that News4JAX show predict Trump might lose big on delegation doctrine; Congress, not the president, sets agency rules. It's midterm election year, Trump's termed out, politically weaker—courts historically push back harder then. The Supreme Court's legitimacy hangs in the balance, walking that tightrope between executive muscle and judicial check.Whew, listeners, what a whirlwind these past days. From tariff showdowns to citizenship overhauls, Trump's vision collides head-on with the robes in black. Thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

This Day in Legal History: Schenck v. United StatesOn January 9, 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in Schenck v. United States, a foundational case in American free speech law. Charles Schenck, the general secretary of the Socialist Party, had been convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 for distributing leaflets urging resistance to the military draft during World War I. The case raised critical constitutional questions about the boundaries of the First Amendment in times of national crisis. Schenck's defense argued that his actions were protected political speech. However, the government maintained that his words posed a threat to wartime recruitment and national security.The Court would go on to unanimously uphold Schenck's conviction in a decision authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Although the ruling came in March 1919, the arguments heard on January 9 and 10 set the stage for what became a pivotal moment in legal history. In his opinion, Holmes introduced the “clear and present danger” test, writing that the First Amendment does not protect speech that creates a clear and present danger of causing substantive evils Congress has a right to prevent. He famously noted that the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.This standard marked the beginning of a more nuanced approach to free speech jurisprudence, where context and consequences mattered. It reflected the tensions between civil liberties and national security during wartime. Although later cases would refine or move away from the “clear and present danger” test, Schenck remains a foundational precedent in American constitutional law. The case also marked the rise of Holmes as a central figure in shaping First Amendment doctrine.The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue at least one opinion this Friday, potentially including a highly anticipated decision on the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. The case represents a significant test of presidential authority, especially in the context of Trump's use of emergency powers under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump imposed these tariffs after returning to office in 2025, targeting nearly all U.S. trading partners and citing national emergencies such as trade deficits and drug trafficking, including fentanyl, as justification.During oral arguments in November, justices from both ideological sides expressed skepticism about the legal basis for the tariffs. Lower courts previously ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority, prompting his administration to appeal. Trump has defended the tariffs as strengthening the U.S. economy and warned that a ruling against them would severely harm the country.The case was brought by affected businesses and a coalition of 12 states—mostly led by Democrats—arguing that the tariffs were unlawfully broad. The outcome could have major implications for global trade and executive power. The Supreme Court, which currently holds a 6-3 conservative majority, is also considering other significant cases, including a challenge to part of the Voting Rights Act and a First Amendment dispute over a Colorado ban on “conversion therapy” for LGBT minors.Supreme Court set to issue rulings as Trump awaits fate of tariffs | ReutersA federal appeals court has ruled in favor of New York Yankees star Aaron Judge and the Major League Baseball Players Association, rejecting a Long Island man's attempt to trademark the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes The Judge.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's decision that Michael Chisena's filings infringed on Judge's common law trademark rights.Chisena filed for the trademarks in 2017 during Judge's breakout rookie season, claiming he planned to use them on clothing. He denied any connection to professional sports and insisted he had never seen Judge play. However, the USPTO's appeals board cast doubt on his good faith, noting the suspicious timing of the filings and their close link to Judge's rising fame.Judge and the MLBPA opposed the applications in 2018, arguing they would likely confuse consumers by associating the phrases with Judge's well-known public persona. They emphasized that the baseball star's last name, with its clear legal overtones, naturally lent itself to those phrases, which had become synonymous with him early in his career.The appeals court affirmed that Judge had built strong common law trademark rights through commercial use, and that Chisena's applications lacked merit. Chisena, who represented himself in court, also lost a related claim involving an image of a gavel and scales over a baseball diamond.Yankees' Judge clinches win in ‘All Rise,' ‘Here Comes The Judge' trademark case | ReutersLuigi Mangione, accused of killing UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson in a high-profile Manhattan shooting in December 2024, is set to appear in federal court Friday to challenge the possibility of facing the death penalty. Mangione, 27, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges including murder, stalking, and firearms offenses, and remains in custody while awaiting trial.His attorneys will argue before U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett that prosecutors failed to meet legal standards for the firearm-related murder charge—the only count that could result in a death sentence. They are also seeking to dismiss the entire indictment, claiming Mangione's constitutional rights were violated, which they argue should disqualify the government from pursuing capital punishment.While New York outlawed the death penalty in 2004, the ban applies only to state prosecutions. Because Mangione is being tried in federal court, the death penalty remains a legal possibility. He also faces separate charges at the state level, where a conviction could carry a life sentence.Judge Garnett has yet to decide on either the motion to dismiss the death-eligible charge or the broader request to throw out the indictment. No trial date has been set for the federal or state proceedings.Mangione, suspect in health insurance CEO murder, fights death penalty charge in court | ReutersVice President JD Vance announced the creation of a new assistant attorney general role focused on fighting fraud involving taxpayer money. The position will have nationwide jurisdiction and is intended to strengthen federal oversight and enforcement against misuse of public funds. Vance stated that a nominee for the role will be named in the coming days, signaling the administration's commitment to addressing financial misconduct within programs funded by taxpayers. The announcement was made during a White House press briefing, reflecting a broader effort to enhance government accountability—at least, ostensibly.Vance announces new assistant attorney general role to combat taxpayer fraud | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.This week's closing theme features one of the most charming and instantly recognizable pieces in the classical repertoire: the first movement of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – “Andante grazioso.” Composed around 1783, likely in Vienna or Salzburg, this sonata showcases Mozart's extraordinary ability to blend elegance, wit, and emotional nuance with apparent ease. The opening movement is not a fast-paced sonata-allegro form, as one might expect, but rather a gentle theme and variations, a structure that allows Mozart to explore the same musical idea through shifting textures, moods, and embellishments.“Andante grazioso” lives up to its title—graceful and moderately paced, it opens with a lilting, almost courtly theme that feels both poised and playful. As the variations unfold, Mozart's genius becomes more apparent: he adds rhythmic complexity, dynamic contrasts, and increasingly virtuosic flourishes, while always keeping the original melody in sight. The movement is accessible but never simplistic, classical in form yet deeply expressive.K. 331 is the same sonata that ends with the famous “Rondo alla Turca,” but it is in this opening Andante that we see Mozart at his most refined and imaginative. He draws the listener in not through drama, but through balance, warmth, and an almost conversational intimacy between performer and listener. This piece has been beloved for centuries, not only by pianists but also by those new to classical music.As we close the week, the delicate ornamentation and unhurried beauty of “Andante grazioso” offers a kind of musical exhale—a moment of elegance and clarity in contrast to the noise of modern life. It's a quiet reminder of why Mozart remains one of the most enduring voices in Western music.Without further ado, Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – “Andante grazioso” – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Have you ever thought about writing the perfect legal brief? Guest David N. Greenwald has, so much so that the retired Cravath, Swaine & Moore partner wrote a book on the subject: Sentence, Paragraph, Argument, Brief: Meeting the Four Challenges of Legal Writing. The book is the culmination of a 30-year legal career, beginning with a clerkship and the lessons learned under the guidance of the Hon. Richard A. Posner, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Reading, digesting, and understanding everything related to each brief proved to be the foundation of good legal writing, Greenwald says. Throughout his career, Greenwald intentionally honed his skills, from writing briefs to eventually, as a partner, editing them. With each paragraph and edit, he focused on the construction and flow of each argument. Writing, Greenwald explains, is a linear process, putting ideas and sentences in a logical progression. A brief, he says, is a special kind of writing that must be learned. It starts with a statement of fact or history, building a narrative. But it's also a work focused on clarity, without surprises or suspense. Hear Greenwald's discussion of the art, and science, of legal writing and the principles of a clear, persuasive argument. Have a question, comment, or suggestion for an upcoming episode? Get in touch at MRogson@SkywardInsurance.com and JAReeder@JonesDay.com. Resources: Hon. Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge (Retired), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on C-SPAN  2026 Women in Litigation CLE Conference American Bar Association American Bar Association Litigation Section  “Sentence, Paragraph, Argument, Brief: Meeting the Four Challenges of Legal Writing,” by David N. Greenwald

Have you ever thought about writing the perfect legal brief? Guest David N. Greenwald has, so much so that the retired partner from the firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore wrote a book on the subject, titled “Sentence, Paragraph, Argument, Brief: Meeting the Four Challenges of Legal Writing.” The book is the culmination of a 30-year legal career, beginning with a clerkship and the lessons learned under the guidance of the Hon. Richard A. Posner, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Reading, digesting, and understanding everything related to each brief proved to be the foundation of good legal writing, Greenwald says. Throughout his career, Greenwald intentionally honed his skills, from writing briefs to eventually, as a partner, editing them. With each paragraph and edit, he focused on the construction and flow of each argument. Writing, Greenwald explains, is a linear process, putting ideas and sentences in a logical progression. A brief, he says, is a special kind of writing that must be learned. It starts with a statement of fact or history, building a narrative. But it's also a work focused on clarity, without surprises or suspense. Hear Greenwald's discussion of the art, and science, of legal writing and the principles of a clear, persuasive argument. Have a question, comment, or suggestion for an upcoming episode? Get in touch at MRogson@SkywardInsurance.com and JAReeder@JonesDay.com. Resources: Hon. Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge (Retired), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on C-SPAN  2026 Women in Litigation CLE Conference American Bar Association American Bar Association Litigation Section  “Sentence, Paragraph, Argument, Brief: Meeting the Four Challenges of Legal Writing,” by David N. Greenwald Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's been a whirlwind few days in Washington, and if you've been following the court trials involving Donald Trump, you know the intensity hasn't let up one bit. Let me jump right into the heart of it, because November 2025 has unfolded with major courtroom drama that's kept the political world riveted.Just weeks ago, Donald Trump's legal teams found themselves before the Supreme Court. The docket for case 25-250, now consolidated with another major suit, set arguments for the first week of November—exactly when crowds gathered outside the Supreme Court building and the eyes of the nation shifted to DC. The consolidated cases stemmed from decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and involved Trump as petitioner, with V.O.S. Selections, Inc., and several states as respondents. For the federal government, arguments were delivered by D. John Sauer, the Solicitor General, while Neal K. Katyal spoke for the private parties and Benjamin N. Gutman for the state parties.These cases focused on conflicts arising from Trump administration executive orders and the use of federal authority. One hotly debated issue centered on the attempted federalization of the Oregon National Guard, a move contested on grounds of state law and constitutional authority. Lawfare's coverage pointed out the complexity: Judge Cobb's earlier opinion clarified federal authority but stopped short of granting the mission powers Trump's administration sought. As for the emergency motions, everything hinged on the pending Supreme Court decision involving Illinois v. Trump, keeping parts of these cases temporarily on hold.More controversy erupted just days before arguments, when a coalition of nonprofits and municipal governments sued the Trump administration for suspending Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November 2025. As Lawfare reported, the litigation tracker was practically overflowing—with over two hundred seventy cases still awaiting rulings, legal challenges to Trump's executive actions flooded the judiciary.The tension ratcheted up further when, according to Politico, President Trump called for several Democratic lawmakers to be arrested and tried for “seditious behavior” after they released a video urging public protest. These remarks shocked Capitol Hill and fueled even fiercer political divisions while legal experts debated whether such accusations had any real standing under federal sedition laws.Just Security's own litigation tracker highlighted yet another legal wrinkle: a new policy from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, barring law firms from representing clients in active litigation against Trump administration policies. The American Bar Association responded swiftly with a federal suit, calling the policy a clear violation of legal norms and a blow to independent counsel rights.And, in an unexpected development, a federal court permanently blocked Trump's executive order to dismantle a federal agency for America's libraries, as the American Library Association announced last Friday. That ruling capped the week's legal rollercoaster and drew praise from advocates for public services.So, listeners, the court trials involving Donald Trump haven't just been about one issue—they've covered everything from the scope of federal authority to separation of powers, sedition, and executive overreach. Each ruling and every new filing continues to shape the legal landscape and will have lasting impacts on governance and American democratic norms.Thank you for tuning in. Make sure to come back next week for more updates on high-stakes court drama. This has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The past few days have brought an intense swirl of courtroom drama and constitutional debate surrounding former President Donald Trump, and this week the atmosphere reached a fever pitch that's gripped the nation's attention. Let me take you right into the heart of how the legal system and political theater collided in these ongoing trials.It all began early November when the Supreme Court set oral arguments for the first week—Wednesday, November 5th—on a consolidated case stemming from Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, against V.O.S. Selections, Inc. and related respondents. These cases originated in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and have been expedited due to their potential to impact national policy and presidential authority. Neil K. Katyal represented private parties, while the federal government's side was argued by Solicitor General D. John Sauer. State governments had Benjamin N. Gutman, from Oregon, standing at the center of the disputes.The Supreme Court's action is just one part of the broader legal storm surrounding Donald Trump. Over on another front, advocacy groups and cities banded together to sue the Trump administration over the abrupt suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits—impacting millions during a critical point of the year. The Lawfare litigation tracker highlighted how these challenges aren't isolated but rather woven into a relentless stream of court filings, procedural maneuvering, and constitutional questions about executive reach.Just Security's litigation tracker has catalogued a slew of lawsuits challenging President Trump's executive orders during 2025. At the core of many is Executive Order 14164, which authorized drastic penal conditions for certain incarcerated individuals and triggered immediate pushback from civil liberties groups. Several lawsuits allege these actions violated the First and Fifth Amendments—the right to free speech, due process, and equal protection are being cited again and again. Another case challenges his directive restricting access to gender-affirming medical care for individuals under 19. That order spurred hospitals, physicians, and advocacy organizations into federal court, arguing that Trump's policy violates constitutional protections and federal statutory rights.Most recently, just yesterday, Trump made headlines by calling for six Democratic lawmakers to face arrest and trial on charges of “seditious behavior” after they produced a video he claimed encouraged unrest. Politico reported this sharp escalation, prompting fresh legal debate about the limits of presidential power, especially when it comes to targeting political opponents.It's been a week that saw every branch of government—judicial, legislative, and executive—locked in a tense public showdown. Lawyers, clerks, and justices are poring over volumes of legal briefs while the media and public crowd every entrance of the Supreme Court. The stakes are extraordinarily high: the future of multiple federal policies, the reach of the presidency, and the very boundaries of constitutional rights.Thank you for tuning in to this special update on the latest court trials involving Donald Trump. Come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production and for more check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The past week has felt like history unfolding in real time as the legal battles surrounding Donald Trump reached new levels of intensity. On November 5, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a consolidated case officially captioned Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. versus V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al. The energy outside the Court that morning was electric—reporters crammed along the steps, protesters mixing with supporters, and everywhere the sense that the stakes were nothing short of monumental for American law and politics.Inside, Solicitor General D. John Sauer represented the federal government, with the private parties represented by Neal Katyal, and state officials argued by Oregon's Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman. The arguments themselves were brisk and sharp, with justices pressing all sides on technical legal points—but everyone knew that far more was at issue than the particularities of statutory interpretation or regulatory procedure. The docket has been moving at lightning speed since September when the writ of certiorari was granted and motions to expedite were quickly approved. The records from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Court of International Trade were all submitted electronically, ensuring nothing would delay decision-making heading into the final stretch of the year.Meanwhile, Trump's legal calendar continues to look like a maze of overlapping cases and critical deadlines, according to the tracker maintained by Just Security. The Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, which has already seen Judge Cannon dismiss the superseding indictment on the controversial ground of unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith, is now in the hands of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefs from both sides keep piling up, with government replies due in mid-November—not a moment for rest if you are in Trump's legal team or the Justice Department.Crucially, the Supreme Court has set aside time in the first week of November for argument on these cases, signaling just how urgent and consequential the Court considers them. This scheduling urgency means that Trump's fate in several high-profile matters could reverberate throughout the nation well before the next round of campaign events truly ramps up.In the background, courtroom drama continues elsewhere—New York and Georgia, among other jurisdictions, stay active with election interference and fraud cases. Trump's attorneys juggle appeals, motions for dismissal based on presidential immunity, and arguments about federal and state powers. Each proceeding brings new headlines and fuels around-the-clock coverage on every major network.As the Supreme Court weighs its decision and other appellate courts deliberate, the only certainty is more twists and more turbulence ahead. The legal world and political observers alike are bracing for impact as we wait for rulings that could define not just Donald Trump's future, but the shape of presidential powers and accountability for years to come.Thanks for tuning in. Be sure to come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

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

The California Supreme Court's long-awaited "Taking Offense" decision on gender pronouns in elder care facilities introduces a new “captive audience” exception to the First Amendment. Tim worries this new judicial carve out may creep to other forums; Jeff is unperturbed. Tim also shares insights from the Federalist Society National Conference, before examining a significant appellate-fee ruling.Taking Offense v. State (Cal., Nov. 6, 2025, No. S270535) **holds that advocacy groups lack taxpayer standing under CCP §526a to challenge state laws, but still issued 100+ pages addressing the merits through a "captive audience" framework.Captive audience concerns: Tim highlights potential "mission creep" with a “captive audience” rationale, potentially extending beyond elder care facilities to courthouses, government offices, and other venues where First Amendment protections could be weakened.“Bloodthirsty originalism”: From the Federalist Society conference, Judge Bumatay advocated less deference to stare decisis in favor of constitutional fidelity, while Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh addressed courage and civility in legal practice.Discovery fee windfall: In Baer v. Tedder, the court authorized recovery of $113,000 in appellate attorney fees for successfully defending a $10,000 discovery sanction, creating economics similar to anti-SLAPP appeals.AI arbitration arrives: The American Arbitration Association announced a pilot program offering AI resolution of construction disputes with human oversight, signaling that AI's impact on legal practice may be just "a couple of years away" rather than decades.Oral argument mastery: Federal Circuit judges advised narrowing issues to increase credibility, welcoming judicial interruptions as opportunities, and viewing argument time as the court's time for conversation rather than presentation.Tune in for practical insights on appellate strategy, the evolving legal landscape, and how to prepare for significant changes in legal practice in the coming years.

Today is November 12, 2025, and the nation's attention lately has been glued to the explosive court battles swirling around Donald Trump—courtrooms packed, legal fireworks almost daily. Just last week, on November 5, the Supreme Court held oral arguments in the consolidated Trump v. V.O.S. Selections case, a landmark proceeding. This latest legal clash traces back to the Federal Circuit's decision at the end of August, and the intensity ramped up quickly when the Trump team filed a writ of certiorari in early September, pushing for an expedited review. The Supreme Court agreed to speed things up, setting the stage for arguments early this month.Picture the scene: inside the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued for the federal government from Washington, D.C., while Neal K. Katyal—always composed, representing private parties—stood at the opposite lectern. Multistate briefs and amicus filings came from unexpected quarters, including the State of Oregon's Solicitor General, Benjamin Gutman, who stepped into the spotlight for the state parties. The courtroom was buzzing, not only with media and legal analysts, but also with advocates and critics dissecting every argument about presidential authority and the power to impose—and potentially rescind—controversial tariffs and executive orders.On the streets outside, the talk was all about how these court decisions could shift the fate of Trump's economic legacy. According to Politico, even as tariffs sit on trial, negotiations between U.S. and foreign trade partners are pressing forward, and there's widespread speculation that Trump, regardless of what the justices decide, may try to reimpose tariffs in some other fashion. The policies at stake have high global stakes but also direct impact on American businesses and workers.Simultaneously, civil rights litigation continues to dog Trump's latest tenure. The Just Security litigation tracker highlights cases filed over the past year—like National Association of the Deaf v. Trump, where the administration's move to stop ASL interpreters at public press briefings spurred a lawsuit that's now awaiting a court decision. There's also a series of cases against executive orders targeting law firms and advocacy organizations, raising alarms about overreach and potential retaliation against anyone opposing Trump's policies. Groups like the ACLU are still in the fight. The Supreme Court recently allowed the Trump administration to enforce a highly contentious passport policy that critics—including the ACLU of Massachusetts—strongly oppose, calling it discriminatory.With so many cases running hot, questions about executive power, civil liberties, and the practical limits of presidential authority are in sharper focus than ever. Each ruling and hearing over these past few days seems to weigh not only on Trump himself, but also on the broader direction of U.S. democracy. Thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please Production, and for more, check out quietplease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe [CB] by lying about the job numbers and the everything else hurt every American. You can see what their true intentions are. Judge Cobb blocked Trump from firing Cook.There is no inflation, the Fed is cornered like a wild animal. Supreme Court grants cert of tariff cases. The D's are truly the domestic terrorists. They do not want a discussion, if you are against them they will kill you. Charlie Kirk was assassinated, pray for his family. The [DS] wants a war, they want the people to riot, this is what they are trying to do. The [DS] is now pushing war with Russia. Trump knows the [DS] never wanted peace, they are following the 16 year plan. Now Poland says Russia flew drones into their country. The narrative has begun and they will push it to the next level, Sum Of All Fears, Peace Through Strength.   Economy https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/1965478988434035196 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1965595653389570061   accountable to NOBODY.   Trump is Appealing the ruling of course   Trump's Federal Reserve board nominee is approved by Senate committee A Senate committee is approving the nomination of White House economic adviser Stephen Miran to the Fed's board of governors, setting up a likely approval by the full Senate, which would make Miran the third Trump appointee to the seven-member board Source: elpasoinc.com https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1965760429948654078 Big: Supreme Court Grants Cert on Tariff Cases, Expedites Proceedings    the Supreme Court has been quite busy this week already, with multiple orders issued pertaining to cases involving the Trump administration. In addition to issuing an administrative stay on the USAID funding cases on Tuesday afternoon, the court also granted the Trump administration's petition for certiorari on the tariff cases, agreeing to take up the matter just a week-and-a-half after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a rather stunning ruling affirming the Court of International Trade (CIT) decision which set aside five of President Trump's executive orders imposing tariffs.   As indicated, the court is scheduling oral argument in the case(s) for the first week of November. The next question is what that will mean for the court of appeals, which withheld its mandate until October 14 to allow for an appeal to be filed — and, of course, what steps the administration might take in the interim to mitigate the effect of the court of appeals decision on its trade policy.   Source: redstate.com Political/Rights https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1965852079307759991 https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1965852790854680733 https://twitter.com/ChrisLoesch/status/1965865387972767805    https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1909391943802703899  left is being whipped into a violent frenzy. Any setback, whether losing an election or losing a court case, justifies a maximally violent response. This is the natural outgrowth of left-wing protest culture tolerating violence and mayhem for years on end. The cowardice of local prosecutors and school officials have turned the left into a ticking time bomb...

For this week's Rapid Response Friday we take up three major judicial rulings pushing back against executive overreach on three completely different topics: removals under the Alien Enemies Act, the use of the National Guard to conduct domestic law enforcement, and the  imposition of tariffs as an executive action under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Also: it turns out a DC grand jury really can't indict a ham sandwich, and why Brazil is so much better at prosecuting insurrectionists than the US is. Fifth Circuit's decision in W.M.M. et al (9/2/25) Judge Charles Breyer's decision in Newson v. Trump (9/2/25) Federal Circuit's decision in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump (8/29/25)

It's Friday, September 5th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Museum honors victims of genocide against Jews in Romania The Romanian city of Iași hosts the Pogrom museum, which was created to honor the victims the largest genocide against the Jews that took place on Romanian territory, preceding the deportations to Transnistria and the concentration camps at Auschwitz, reports Evangelical Focus. The museum was opened in the former headquarters of the Romanian police on June 29, 2021, the 80th anniversary of the killing of over 13,200 Jews in the yard of that building. In a story which aired on Alfa Omega TV, a Romanian broadcaster, the reporter explained, “Jews from the ages of 18 and up, were summoned, lured into a trap by being told to come and receive a pass for free movement. Romania had entered the war, and they could not move freely without that pass. However, they were met by Romanian and German soldiers who mercilessly machine-gunned them.” Before the genocide of the Jews, they brought in several Jews to dig the pits. The mass graves in which thousands of those Jews are buried can be visited in a field close to the museum. In addition to those who were executed, over 4,000 Jews were loaded into the so-called “death trains.” Initially, they put 40–50 people in a wagon, but the stationmaster refused to “waste wagons.” So, he packed in up to 100–120 people per train, standing pressed together. In the midst of this tragedy, there were “Christians from various denominations and even a colonel from the Romanian army, who saved Jews in those days.” DC sues Trump over National Guard The District of Columbia sued the Trump administration on Sept. 4 over its deployment of the National Guard to the nation's capital, reports The Epoch Times. The lawsuit alleges that the deployment violates the district's semi-sovereign status known as Home Rule, whereby the city has jurisdiction over its own affairs but Congress can override its decisions. The lawsuit states, “In so doing, [President Donald Trump] has run roughshod over a fundamental tenet of American democracy—that the military should not be involved in domestic law enforcement.” In a statement to The Epoch Times, the White House criticized the lawsuit and defended the deployment of the National Guard. White House Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson said, “President Trump is well within his lawful authority to deploy the National Guard in Washington, D.C., to protect federal assets and assist law enforcement with specific tasks. This lawsuit is nothing more than another attempt—to the detriment of DC residents and visitors—to undermine the President's highly successful operations to stop violent crime in DC.” Trump asks Supreme Court to quickly take up tariffs case The Trump administration took the fight over tariffs to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, asking the justices to rule quickly that the president has the power to impose sweeping import taxes under federal law, reports American Family Radio News. The government called on the court to reverse an appeals court ruling that found most of President Donald Trump's tariffs are an illegal use of an emergency powers law. It's the latest in a series of Trump administration appeals to a Supreme Court he helped shape, and one that is expected to put a centerpiece of the president's trade policy before the justices. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit left the tariffs in place for now, but the administration nevertheless called on the high court to intervene quickly. Cheerleader charged with delivering, harming, & hiding her baby A University of Kentucky cheerleader is facing multiple charges after police found her dead newborn infant hidden in a closet, wrapped in a towel, and concealed inside a black trash bag, drawing reactions from activists on both sides of the abortion debate, reports the Christian Post. Laken Snelling, age 21, was arrested on Sunday and charged with abuse of a corpse, tampering with physical evidence and concealing the birth of an infant, according to the Lexington Police Department. During an appearance in court on Tuesday, Snelling pleaded not guilty. The American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs said, "This heartbreaking and tragic incident is all the more painful as Kentucky has a safe haven law that allows parents to surrender their children, no questions asked.” Indeed, Kentucky's Safe Infants Act allows parents to leave a newborn baby under 30 days old at a police station, fire station, an emergency medical services provider, or a staffed place of worship without fear of prosecution or allegations of neglect.  In a video posted on her Instagram on Tuesday, pro-abortion writer Jessica Valenti was upset that police and the media in Kentucky said that Snelling had delivered an infant. Listen. VALENTI: “I really need reporters to stop using the word ‘baby' or ‘infant' until they actually know what happened in this case, because we don't know yet. We only know what police are telling us.” Oddly enough, Valenti believes that if a woman has a miscarriage that it somehow diminishes the value of the baby, and therefore, no one should call her baby a baby. In Psalm 139:13-14, Scripture quite clearly affirms the humanity of the child, no matter how early in gestational development and no matter the cause of death. King David wrote, “For You, [God], created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise You, [God], because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well.” Christian song “Whisper and the Wind” amassed 23 million streams And finally, you might recognize the name Bodie Kuljian from the 22nd season of The Voice back in 2022 when he won second place. The married 32-year-old singer-songwriter, who is also the father of three young children, signed with Provident, a Christian record label.  No Skips is his first full-length album, which releases today. The project comes after a string of chart-topping singles, millions of streams, and Dove Award nominations.  In fact, his song entitled  "Whisper and the Wind" amassed more than 23 million global streams, and won Bodie the grand prize in the International Songwriting Competition. Take a listen to an excerpt from this song that honors God as the One who fulfills us and guides us. (audio of song's opening) “When I'm feeling my feet are tired From running so hard for miles You are the air I really need When life is a rollercoaster And I start to lose composure You're in the drops and in between And every time I'm stuck in indecision Losing my vision You close the distance And I don't need to see it to believe it For my whole life, You've been that all I've needed And I, I've felt You in the fire and the rain So help me learn to listen when You're speaking 'Cause love is not a secret that You're keeping And I, I've felt You when walls are caving in Yeah, You're with me in the whisper and the wind” (Check out the rest of the lyrics) Isaiah 41:10 says, “Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with My righteous right hand.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, September 5th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger Picture Euro zone is feeling inflation, retail sales have fallen more than expected, Germany is in a recession, what changed? Trump cancels another windmill project, the fishermen are rejoicing. Trump says its possible that tariffs will allow us to remove income tax. We did not have income tax before 1913, we relied on tariffs.  The [DS] is struggling, their entire push to release the fake Epstein information is failing and it will boomerang on them. The D's are panicking, they cannot stop the evidence of their crimes from coming out. The D's try to shutdown RFK Jr in regards to covid and vaccines, they failed. Big Pharma moves forward with damage control in regards to Trump statement, down they go. Justice is coming, soon.   Economy Euro zone retail sales fall more than expected in July  Retail sales growth in the euro zone slowed further in July, raising doubts that healthy domestic consumption could continue to offset a hit to economic growth from U.S. tariffs, data from Eurostat showed on Thursday. Retail sales in the 20 nations sharing the euro fell by 0.5% on the month, underperforming expectations for a 0.2% monthly drop, while sales were 2.2% higher than a year ago, below the 2.4% rise seen in a Reuters poll of economists. Source: reuters.com https://twitter.com/AudreyLStreb/status/1963395245581738175 https://twitter.com/WallStreetMav/status/1963557662441799898  keeping it on the road.  BREAKING: DOJ Opens Criminal Invesitgation into Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook Over Mortgage Fraud Allegations   The new DOJ investigation comes amid a lawsuit from Cook over Trump's firing of the embattled Fed Governor with cause. Source: thegatewaypundit.com Trump Administration Files IEEPA Tariff Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court – Asks for Expedited Review  U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer has asked the Supreme Court to accept the case by next week, hear arguments in early November and “expedite” its ultimate ruling “to the maximum extent feasible.” [Appeal Here] with [Expedited Review Request Here] [SOURCE] From the request for expedited consideration, “The en banc Federal Circuit's erroneous decision has disrupted highly impactful, sensitive, ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations, and cast a pall of legal uncertainty over the President's efforts to protect our country by preventing an unprecedented economic and foreign-policy crisis,” Sauer notes. Adding comments from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, “The recent decision by the Federal Circuit is already adversely affecting ongoing negotiations. World leaders are questioning the Presi-dent's authority to impose tariffs, walking away from or delaying negotiations, and/or imposing a different calculus on their negotiating positions.” Source: theconservativetreehouse.com https://twitter.com/akafaceUS/status/1962693207135060122 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1963274029009400223   GONE...the tariffs are VITAL to the success of this country." Political/Rights NEW: President Trump Fires ANOTHER San Francisco Immigration Judge Who Granted Asylum in Nearly Every Case

What should “public health in a free society” look like, and what limits should courts impose on executive trade powers? This week's panel covers the shakeup at the CDC, asks whether America really needs a Surgeon General, and unpacks a blockbuster ruling from the Federal Circuit declaring most of President Trump's global tariffs illegal.Featuring Ryan Bourne, Gene Healy, Jeffrey A. Singer, & Scott LincicomeAdam Thierer, “Breaking the Government's Grip on the Medical Debate,” Cato at Liberty (August 28, 2025) J.A. Singer, “Unnecessary Relics,” Policy Analysis (July 2025)Thomas A. Berry, Brent Skorup, and Charles Brandt, “V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump,” Legal Briefs (July 8, 2025)Brent Skorup, Ilya Somin, and Walter Olson, “Tariffs, Emergencies, and Presidential Power: A Conversation with Ilya Somin and Walter Olson,” Multimedia Event (May 27, 2025) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a 7–4 decision that President Donald Trump had overstepped his authority in imposing tariffs unilaterally, upholding a lower court decision. The appeals court's decision targeted the tariffs Trump justified by declaring a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), including the “reciprocal tariffs” Trump imposed on all U.S. trading partners, but does not apply to the industry-specific duties that the president invoked under a different authority. Additionally, the court did not rule on whether the IEEPA justified any presidential tariffs. The Trump administration plans to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Tangle LIVE tickets are available!We're excited to announce that our third installment of Tangle Live will be held on October 24, 2025, at the Irvine Barclay Theatre in Irvine, California. If you're in the area (or want to make the trip), we'd love to have you join Isaac and the team for a night of spirited discussion, live Q&A, and opportunities to meet the team in person. You can read more about the event and purchase tickets here.Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: How do you think the Supreme Court will respond to the administration's appeal? Let us know!Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A federal appeals court Friday struck down many of President Donald Trump's historic tariffs, saying he unlawfully leaned on emergency powers to impose the import taxes. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize tariffs like the ones Trump used the law for earlier this year, the Federal Circuit said in an unsigned opinion upholding a lower-court ruling against Trump's tariffs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices