Podcasts about federal circuit

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...

You wouldn't believe the whirlwind the courts have become with Donald Trump at the center stage these past few days. Just as September started, a major moment landed when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a 7-4 decision, struck down Trump's broad use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on nearly all imported goods. The judges ruled that Trump simply didn't have Congressional authority for such sweeping actions, but interestingly enough, the government has until October 14 to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in. On September 4, Trump's team went ahead and petitioned for that expedited Supreme Court review, and now the cases are set for arguments in the Supreme Court's early November session, starting November 3, putting Trump's trade legacy directly on the line.But tariffs aren't even the hottest legal fire Trump's grappling with. On Monday, September 8, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals out of New York cemented a staggering $83.3 million judgment against Trump for defaming E. Jean Carroll. Carroll, the former magazine columnist, accused Trump of sexual assault dating back to the 1990s, and his public denials—combined with reckless disregard for the truth—landed him in legal jeopardy. The appeals panel wasn't swayed by Trump's efforts to invoke presidential immunity or claim excessive damages. Instead, they declared the jury's awards both fair and reasonable, highlighting how Trump's statements about Carroll, calling her a liar and denying her allegations, were made with, at the very least, reckless disregard. And this follows a separate $5 million jury award Carroll won after Trump was found liable for sexual abuse. Trump's legal team has vowed to push that appeal to the Supreme Court, but for now, the massive judgment stands.Outside the courtroom, the Supreme Court itself is preparing for more Trump-centered drama. Not only are his tariffs and broader powers as the executive on the chopping block—his capacity to ramp up deportations and even send military troops into U.S. cities is now being tested in front of the highest bench. There's real tension over just how much power the President can wield, especially with a Supreme Court super majority that often leans toward a very expansive view of executive authority.Listeners, the wheels of justice are cranking at a furious pace. Court calendars have become minefields, filled with dates, stays, appeals, and new developments erupting almost daily. For Donald Trump, each week seems to bring a fresh legal cliffhanger, with the nation watching every twist and turn. That's it for this wild week in Trump's legal saga. Thank you so much for tuning in. Don't forget to 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.ai

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.

A review of the week's major US international tax-related news. In this edition:  US Congress returns to FY 26 funding deadline, possible tax legislation – Federal Circuit rules against Trump Administration's tariff policy – President Trump issues Executive Order on US-Japan trade agreement.

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.

Last Friday, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Trump did not have the authority to issue emergency tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), setting up a pivotal Supreme Court battle over the future of the policy tool.Chad Squitieri, professor of law at the Catholic University of America, argues IEEPA's grant to “regulate importation” clearly includes tariffs, while Peter Harrell, nonresident fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, counters that Congress never intended such a blank check. Oren moderates their discussion on how the courts will read the statute and what the ruling will mean for the balance of power between Congress and the White House.Further reading:“The President's Authority to Impose Tariffs” by Chad SquitieriAmicus Brief for Congressional Democrats Opposed to IEEPA Tariffs, co-authored by Peter Harrell“Conflating Taxes With Tariffs: Clear Error in the Federal Circuit's Tariff Opinion” by Chad Squitieri

This Day in Legal History: Frederick Douglass Escapes SlaveryOn this day in legal history, September 3, 1838, Frederick Douglass escaped from slavery, setting in motion a life that would fundamentally reshape American legal and political thought. Disguised as a free Black sailor, Douglass boarded a train in Baltimore and made his way north to freedom, ultimately arriving in New York City. His flight from bondage was not just a personal liberation—it was a direct challenge to the legal regime of American slavery, upheld at the time by both state laws and federal statutes such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. Douglass's successful escape, aided by forged documents and the relative leniency of northern vigilance at the time, highlights the tension between laws protecting property in human beings and the moral and constitutional arguments against such laws.Once free, Douglass became one of the most powerful legal thinkers of the 19th century, though he was never formally trained as a lawyer. Through his speeches, writings, and public advocacy, he shaped legal discourse on citizenship, equal protection, and constitutional interpretation. He directly influenced Reconstruction-era legal developments, including debates over the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. His 1852 speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” offered a searing legal and moral critique of the Constitution's complicity with slavery, while still asserting its potential as a freedom-promoting document when interpreted through a natural rights lens.Douglass's escape, and the career it made possible, also underscored the limits of law in the face of moral justice: in 1838, his very existence in the North was criminal under federal law. That reality would not change until the formal abolition of slavery in 1865. His advocacy helped lay the groundwork for a new legal order that could no longer reconcile itself with the ownership of people. September 3 is not just the anniversary of one man's flight—it marks a turning point in the long legal struggle to align American law with its professed ideals.President Donald Trump is prepared to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold his administration's use of emergency powers to impose broad tariffs, including those targeting fentanyl and “reciprocal” trade imbalances. This follows two significant legal defeats, including a 7-4 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president sweeping tariff authority. The court held that the statute, enacted in 1977, lacks any reference to tariffs among its regulatory tools, creating a serious challenge to the legal basis for Trump's actions.Despite the legal headwinds, Trump's team remains optimistic, noting the conservative 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and the Court's traditional deference in matters of foreign affairs. However, legal scholars suggest the case hinges on the major questions doctrine, which requires Congress to speak clearly when authorizing executive action with major economic or political impact. This doctrine was previously used to strike down President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan in 2023.Observers expect the Court to address whether IEEPA's silence on tariffs means such powers were never intended. If the Court rules against Trump, his administration is already eyeing fallback legal authorities, including Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Act, to keep tariffs in place. Meanwhile, nearly $66 billion in collected duties could be subject to refunds if importers challenge payments. A Supreme Court decision is likely by early 2026, with significant consequences for presidential trade powers.Trump to ask Supreme Court to save tariffs but faces tough legal questionsA U.S. federal judge ruled that Google can keep its Chrome browser and Android operating system, dealing a blow to antitrust enforcers who had hoped for more aggressive remedies. However, the judge ordered Google to begin sharing key search and advertising data with competitors in an effort to restore competition in online search. This decision follows a five-year legal battle in which Judge Amit Mehta previously found Google to be maintaining an illegal monopoly in search and related advertising. Despite that finding, Mehta declined to force structural changes like breaking up Google, citing recent advances in AI as creating new, organic competition.The ruling is a partial victory for Google and Apple, as it allows the two tech giants to continue their $20 billion annual deal that makes Google the default search engine on Apple devices. It also permits Google to maintain similar agreements with device makers like Samsung and Motorola, although exclusive contracts are now banned. Google stock jumped over 7% in after-hours trading following the decision.The court emphasized that AI companies like OpenAI are already better positioned to compete with Google than traditional search competitors have been in decades. The data-sharing order could benefit developers of AI-powered search tools and browsers, but the competitive impact may not be felt immediately. Google, while considering an appeal, expressed concerns that the order could undermine user privacy.The ruling is likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, where Mehta's restrained approach may stand a better chance of surviving appeal. The case is part of a broader government crackdown on Big Tech, which includes ongoing legal battles involving Google, Meta, Amazon, and Apple.Google keeps Chrome and Apple deal but must share data in big antitrust rulingThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that President Donald Trump unlawfully used the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport a group of Venezuelans he alleged were members of the Tren de Aragua gang. In a 2–1 decision, the court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the deportations, marking the first appellate ruling to directly address Trump's invocation of the centuries-old law through a March 14 presidential proclamation.Writing for the majority, Judge Leslie Southwick rejected the administration's claim that the gang's presence constituted a "predatory incursion" under the law, which only authorizes deportations during times of declared war or invasions. The court emphasized that neither condition was met. Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez joined Southwick, while Trump appointee Judge Andrew Oldham dissented.The ruling is a setback for the Trump administration, which had sought to use the Alien Enemies Act—a wartime measure—to conduct swift removals of alleged gang members without traditional due process. The Supreme Court had already intervened in May, halting removals on procedural grounds and criticizing the administration for providing only 24 hours' notice to detainees without clear instructions on how to contest deportation.The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the Venezuelans, hailed the decision as a vital check on presidential power, warning against executive overreach during peacetime. Legal experts expect the issue to eventually return to the Supreme Court. The administration may first seek a rehearing from the full Fifth Circuit.US appeals court rejects Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act to deport VenezuelansThe 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that had declared the federal machine gun ban unconstitutional, upholding the long-standing prohibition on such weapons. The case centered on Tamori Morgan, a Kansas man charged with possessing a machine gun and a conversion device known as a "Glock switch." A federal judge in Wichita, appointed by President Donald Trump, had previously dismissed the charges, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which required modern gun laws to align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.The appeals court, however, found that Bruen did not dismantle the existing legal framework established in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which protects weapons “in common use” for lawful self-defense. Writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Scott Matheson held that machine guns do not meet that standard and are primarily used for unlawful purposes, even if their usage is more widespread than official data suggests.Congress first regulated machine guns in 1934 and fully banned the possession of newly manufactured ones in 1986. The appellate ruling reinforces the idea that such weapons fall outside the Second Amendment's protections, despite recent expansions of individual gun rights. The court emphasized that even under Bruen, regulations do not require a perfect historical match—only a relevant analogue, which the machine gun ban has.US appeals court upholds machine gun ban, reversing trial judgeMy column for Bloomberg this week takes a hard look at the newly expanded federal Child Tax Credit (CTC) and asks whether it's really doing what it claims: reducing child poverty. On the surface, the policy looks like progress. The maximum credit is up to $2,200 and now indexed to inflation—something advocates have long called for. But dig into the mechanics, and a more troubling picture emerges.Despite the expansion, around 19 million children—28% of all kids in the U.S.—will remain ineligible for the full credit simply because their families don't earn enough. That's not a glitch; it's built into the law. The income phase-in structure means the poorest families, those most in need, get the least. In fact, a family of four has to make $41,500 to qualify for the full benefit—well above the federal poverty line of $32,150.This flawed design disproportionately affects Black, Latino, and Native American children, as well as kids in single-parent and rural households. And it's a bipartisan failure: Columbia University's data shows the exclusions cut across red and blue congressional districts almost evenly. That's part of what makes this so frustrating—lawmakers on both sides get to claim credit for “expanding” the CTC, even as millions of children continue to be left behind.Meanwhile, states are quietly filling the gap. Since the expiration of the more generous pandemic-era CTC in 2021, about a dozen states have implemented their own refundable credits. The results speak volumes. In Minnesota, for example, a $1,750 per-child credit is projected to lift 13,000 children out of poverty—nearly half the impact of the expanded federal credit in that state. Colorado and Vermont have seen similar success.The message here is that small, targeted, refundable state credits can work—and are working. Columbia's numbers prove that these policies are more than symbolic; they're helping real families. But that momentum could vanish if states assume Washington has solved the problem. The federal version may dominate headlines, but it's the state-level credits doing the actual heavy lifting.Tax policy doesn't usually offer much moral clarity, but this time it does. States have the tools to fight child poverty. The only real question is whether they'll use them—or wait around for Congress to deliver another “big, beautiful” fix that never arrives.Trump's New Child Tax Credit Deems Millions ‘Too Poor' to Qualify 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

On "Forbes Newsroom," Ilya Somin, a legal scholar and attorney, discussed his and the Liberty Justice Center's lawsuit against the Trump Administration, which argues the tariffs invoked using IEEPA are illegal, as well as the recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found most of the levies are illegal. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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.

The big things you need to know: First, 2Q earnings season wrapped up with downward pressure on 2026 sector EPS forecasts & Small Cap operating margin forecasts. Second, following Friday's news that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had ruled against the reciprocal tariffs, we think corporate uncertainty around tariffs will remain elevated.

Today on Truth in Politics and Culture China holds a summit of over 20 nations to strengthen their drive to become the world's leading economic and military power. India's attendance raises eyebrows in the U.S., but can this alliance last? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declared most of President Trump's tariffs unconstitutional. Next stop, the U.S. Supreme Court. And, why are progressives mocking Christian prayers when Christians are literally under fire?

A U.S. federal court on Friday ruled against the Trump administration's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs. The ruling raises major questions about the future of the broad import tariffs imposed under Donald Trump. What happened? On August 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled... Read More

This Day in Legal History: George Wallace Calls out the Alabama National GuardOn September 2, 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace once again attempted to defy federal court orders mandating school integration, this time at Tuskegee High School. Just months after his infamous “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” to block Black students from enrolling at the University of Alabama, Wallace ordered the Alabama National Guard to surround Tuskegee High in an effort to prevent the enrollment of thirteen Black students. The integration was ordered by a federal court in Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, a pivotal case that would eventually lead to sweeping desegregation across Alabama's public school system.Wallace's use of the state Guard was a direct challenge to federal authority and part of his broader campaign to maintain segregation under the banner of “states' rights.” In response, President John F. Kennedy swiftly invoked his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief and federalized the Alabama National Guard. Once under federal control, the troops were ordered to stand down and return to their barracks, removing the immediate threat of military-enforced segregation.The confrontation at Tuskegee High marked another flashpoint in the broader struggle between federal civil rights enforcement and Southern resistance. Wallace's actions highlighted the lengths to which segregationist officials would go to preserve Jim Crow, even in the face of binding federal court orders. The federal response signaled a growing willingness by the Kennedy administration to use executive power to enforce civil rights rulings on the ground. The Lee v. Macon litigation would go on to become one of the most significant desegregation cases in the post-Brown era, eventually placing all Alabama schools under court supervision. This incident at Tuskegee underscored both the volatility of the era and the legal system's central role in dismantling systemic segregation.Legal technology companies are facing increasing pressure to distinguish themselves from general-purpose AI models like ChatGPT and Claude, which continue to improve in accuracy, usability, and affordability. A recent MIT report highlighted a corporate lawyer who preferred using ChatGPT over a $50,000 specialized contract analysis tool, underlining the dilemma: why pay more for tools that may not perform better? While legal tech startups have attracted about $2.2 billion in investment since 2024—80% of it going to AI-focused ventures—they risk being outpaced unless they can offer superior user experience and domain-specific functionality.Specialized tools often rely on the same large foundation models that power general AI, making differentiation more difficult. However, legal tech firms argue their value lies not in the raw language models but in how they tailor those tools for legal workflows. For example, IP CoPilot identifies patentable ideas—a complex task not easily replicated by general AI. Some legal AI systems, such as Harvey (used by DLA Piper), have gained traction among attorneys, though many still favor ChatGPT.Studies comparing general and legal-specific tools show mixed results: while general models sometimes outperform on clarity or accuracy, niche tools often prove more valuable in daily legal work. Legal tech companies aim to stay ahead by integrating ethical compliance, user-centered design, and security into their offerings. Unlike general models, they can be customized to reflect a law firm's risk appetite or case strategy. Some legal AI tools also incorporate retrieval-augmented generation or are trained solely on legal data, increasing their relevance and precision.Legal Tech Battles to Set Itself Apart From General AI ModelsAs Congress returns from its August recess on September 2, lawmakers face an urgent deadline to fund the government before the current funding expires on September 30. Among the contentious issues is the fate of the IRS budget. House Republicans are pushing to cut $2.8 billion from the agency, particularly targeting funding for tax compliance and blocking resources for the IRS's Direct File tool, which allows free online tax filing. Democrats, meanwhile, are opposing the cuts, citing recent staff layoffs and the need to rebuild the agency's capacity. A temporary funding measure could delay decisions but would disrupt preparations for the next tax season.The Senate has yet to offer a formal counterproposal but has a history of softening House spending cuts, thanks in part to the chamber's 60-vote legislative threshold. Democrats are expected to advocate for continued funding, especially for auditing high-income taxpayers and improving customer service. IRS employees and their union are calling on Congress to fully fund the agency to strengthen enforcement and reduce the deficit.Complicating matters further, several leadership vacancies emerged over the summer, including the IRS chief and a top Treasury post. Nominations are moving slowly, with some being blocked by political disputes, such as over clean energy tax credits. At the same time, Republicans are already considering another tax bill, possibly to amend or expand provisions from the July tax law signed by President Trump. This includes industry-backed changes like increased deductions for pass-through entities and revisiting limits on gambling loss deductions. Expiring tax credits—such as ACA health insurance subsidies—could also trigger legislative action, particularly as midterm elections approach.IRS Funding on Tap as Congress Returns From Summer RecessU.S. District Judge Jia Cobb halted two Trump administration policies that sought to expand fast-track deportations across the country. These policies, enacted in January, allowed immigration authorities to deport non-citizens found anywhere in the U.S. without a court hearing if they couldn't prove two years of continuous residence. Traditionally, expedited removal applied only to migrants caught near the border shortly after entry, but the expansion would have affected millions more already living within the country.Judge Cobb ruled that this broadened approach violated the Fifth Amendment's due process protections, emphasizing that people who had settled in the U.S. had a stronger liberty interest in remaining and were entitled to more than a rushed removal process. She criticized the government for not adapting procedural safeguards for this larger and more established group of immigrants, calling the existing process “skimpy” and likely to result in wrongful deportations.The Department of Homeland Security defended the policy, claiming Trump had legal authority to enforce deportations. However, Cobb refused to delay her ruling pending appeal, effectively stopping the expanded deportation plan immediately. The lawsuit was brought by Make the Road New York, represented by the ACLU. Earlier in the month, Cobb had also blocked another Trump deportation policy targeting immigrants paroled into the U.S. under Biden's humanitarian programs.US judge halts Trump effort to expand fast-track deportations | ReutersA divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that most of President Trump's tariffs are illegal, significantly weakening a cornerstone of his second-term economic policy. The 7–4 decision found that Trump had overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which he used to justify new tariffs in April and February. The court emphasized that IEEPA does not grant the president explicit authority to impose taxes or tariffs, only to regulate or restrict imports during national emergencies.The ruling does not affect tariffs issued under other laws, such as those on steel and aluminum. However, it casts serious doubt on Trump's broader use of tariffs as leverage in foreign policy and trade negotiations. The decision stems from lawsuits brought by small businesses and Democratic-led states arguing that only Congress has the constitutional authority to impose tariffs, and that any delegation of this power must be narrowly defined.The appeals court allowed the tariffs to remain in effect until October 14 to give the administration time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump criticized the decision as partisan but predicted a reversal. Experts believe the administration was anticipating the ruling and may try to shift its legal strategy. This case now sets the stage for a major Supreme Court confrontation, especially as Trump also challenges the Federal Reserve's independence.Most Trump tariffs are not legal, US appeals court rules | 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

On today's Front Page: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy promised new strikes in Russia a day after Moscow carried out a fresh wave of bombardments, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit says that President Trump overstepped when he invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to set tariffs, and more.

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

In breaking news, an appeals court this afternoon struck down most of President Trump's sweeping tariffs, ruling them illegal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit says Trump overstepped his authority when he used emergency powers to impose "reciprocal" tariffs, as well as tariffs on imports from countries including China, Canada, and Mexico.The White House has announced the cancellation of $4.9 billion in foreign aid. President Trump used a maneuver known as a pocket rescission, which could bypass congressional approval. The president also canceled extended Secret Service protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris.In the wake of Wednesday's tragedy, President Trump's cabinet is urging lawmakers to prioritize mental and spiritual health. This comes as new evidence emerges in the Minneapolis church shooting that left two children dead and several others injured.

Most of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs were ruled illegal by a federal appeals court that found he exceeded his authority in imposing them, but the judges let the levies stay in place while the case is subject to further review.The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday upheld an earlier ruling by the Court of International Trade that Trump wrongfully invoked an emergency law to issue the tariffs. But the appellate judges sent the case back to the lower court to determine if it applied to everyone affected by tariffs or just the parties involved in the case.Friday’s 7-4 decision by the Federal Circuit could extend the suspense over whether Trump’s tariffs will ultimately stand. The case had been expected to next go to the Supreme Court for a final ruling. The administration could now turn to the justices, who have largely backed the president on other matters. But the White House could also let the Court of International Trade revisit the matter first.“ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social shortly after the decision was issued. For instant reaction and analysis, Bloomberg Balance of Power cohost Joe Mathieu speaks with Harvard Kennedy School's Ash Center Democracy Visiting Fellow Jeanne Sheehan Zaino and Stonecourt Capital Partner Rick Davis, both Bloomberg politics contributors. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Most of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs were ruled illegal by a federal appeals court that found he exceeded his authority in imposing them, but the judges let the levies stay in place while the case is subject to further review.The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday upheld an earlier ruling by the Court of International Trade that Trump wrongfully invoked an emergency law to issue the tariffs. But the appellate judges sent the case back to the lower court to determine if it applied to everyone affected by tariffs or just the parties involved in the case.Friday’s 7-4 decision by the Federal Circuit could extend the suspense over whether Trump’s tariffs will ultimately stand. The case had been expected to next go to the Supreme Court for a final ruling. The administration could now turn to the justices, who have largely backed the president on other matters. But the White House could also let the Court of International Trade revisit the matter first.“ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social shortly after the decision was issued. For instant reaction and analysis, Bloomberg Balance of Power cohost Joe Mathieu speaks with Harvard Kennedy School's Ash Center Democracy Visiting Fellow Jeanne Sheehan Zaino and Stonecourt Capital Partner Rick Davis, both Bloomberg politics contributors. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Earlier this month, a U.S. jury returned a stunning $58 million verdict for Sean MacMaster, who had been falsely accused of child sexual abuse. When MacMaster became embroiled in a child custody dispute, his former wife Johanna falsely accused him of child abuse. The woman went so far as to propose to Sean that agreeing to terminate his parental rights would be his "get out-of-jail-free card." The case represents one of the largest awards ever rendered for a wrongful allegation. A new survey conducted in Argentina, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States reveals that false allegations are more widespread than many people realize. Edward Bartlett, President of the International Council for Men and Boys (ICMB), a non-governmental organization working to assure gender equality for all, joins me to discuss the findings of this poll.The American Academy of Pediatrics currently recommends that all children ages 6 months to 23 months old receive a coronavirus vaccine as federal officials move to roll back recommendations. The American Academy of Pediatrics has urged parents to get their youngest children vaccinated for COVID-19, part of a broader effort by medical organizations to counter Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s criticism of the broad administration of coronavirus vaccines. Shaz Khan, author of The Ultimate Vaccine Timeline: A Fact-Packed History of Vaccines and Their Makers, joins me to discuss the issue.The gunman (whose name I am choosing not to post) who shot up a Catholic school's church blamed transgenderism, weed, and his mother's disapproval for his Autogynephilia, according to his uncovered writings. Autogynephilia was once defined as a paraphilia in which a man experiences sexual arousal from the thought or image of himself as a woman, but is now also considered to be a type of gender dysphoria by many in the mental health care industry. But no matter who and what he blamed for his actions, the political left and legacy corporate media want to blame the guns.  In a 7-4 ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the president exceeded his authority when he cited a 1977 emergency powers act to implement many of his tariffs. If upheld, tens of billions of dollars in tariff revenue would have to be returned.The recent populist movement involving the widespread display of English and British flags, known as "Flagging," has stirred debate, with supporters citing patriotism and critics expressing concern over its association with anti-immigration sentiment.Police have charged a teenage girl after she was allegedly caught brandishing bladed weapons in Dunbee, Scotland, to stop a man from following her and her sister. Become a supporter of Tapp into the Truth: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tapp-into-the-truth--556114/support Tapp into the Truth on Rumble. Follow, watch the older shows, and join the live streams.International Council for Men and BoysThe Ultimate Vaccine Timeline: A Fact-Packed History of Vaccines and Their MakersThe Ultimate Vaccine Timeline the websiteShaz Khan on SubstackHey snack warriors. You're busy, driven, pushing limits—and you need fuel that keeps pace. That's where One Way Jerky comes in. This isn't mystery meat—it's 100% real beef brisket, slow-smoked in the USA, tender, flavorful, and packed with protein to keep you going strong. Original, Sweet Teriyaki, Sweet & Spicy Mango, Spicy BBQ, and Hot Brisket—flavor profiles that range from savory-sweet to “painfully bold.” Right now, your first order ships free, and you can score 10% off with code TENDER. That's real brisket, zero compromise, delivered to your door. Craving that melt-in-your-mouth, high-protein snack? It's just one click away: TAPPINTOFOOD.COM.“Remember Pop Rocks? Now, imagine they gave you superpowers.” Please let me introduce you to Energy Rocks! Born from the grit and ambition of a competitive athlete who wanted a better, cleaner way to fuel the body and mind, without the hassle of mixing powders, messy bottles, or caffeine crashes. Energy Rocks is a reimagining of energy into something fun, functional, and fantastically effective. A delicious popping candy energy supplement that delivers a rapid boost of clean energy and focus — anytime, anywhere. No water. No mixing. No bulky bottles. Just open, pop it in your mouth, and get ready to rock. Making any time the right time to “Get in the Zone, One Pop at a Time.”Take This Quiz To Find Out The Best & Worst Foods To Avoid For Joint Pain!Do you wake up in the morning with stiff joints or pain in your hips, back, knees, or elbows? Then, chances are you're feeling the effects of chronic inflammation taking its toll on your body. The good news is that it is NEVER too late to help get this under control. And the best part is certain foods help you do this naturally, without the need for prescription medications.If recent events have proven anything, you need to be as prepared as possible for when things go sideways. You certainly can't count on the government for help. True liberty requires self-reliance. My Patriot SupplySupport American jobs! Support the show! Get great products at great prices! Go to My Pillow and use promo code TAPP to save! Visit Patriot Mobile or Call (817) 380-9081 to take advantage of a FREE Month of service when you switch using promo code TAPP! Morning Kick is a revolutionary new daily drink from Roundhouse Provisions that combines ultra-potent greens like spirulina and kale with probiotics, prebiotics, collagen, and even ashwagandha. Just mix with water, stir, and enjoy!Follow Tapp into the Truth on Locals Follow Tapp into the Truth on SubstackHero SoapPatriot DepotBlue CoolersKoa CoffeeBrainMDDiamond CBDSauce Bae2nd SkullEinstokBeanstoxBelle IsleMomento AIHoneyFund"Homegrown" Boone's BourbonBlackout Coffee Co.Full Circle Brewing Co.Pasmosa Sangria  

From Coke Morgan Stewart's decisive actions at the USPTO, to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's unexpected “patent tax” trial balloon, to the ongoing Federal Circuit drama — it felt impossible to figure out where to start telling the story. The only way to make sense of it all was to bring in three of our favorite journalists who cover these issues every day:* Eileen McDermott, Editor-in-Chief of IPWatchdog* Dani Kass, Senior Reporter at Law360* Michael Shapiro, Senior Reporter at BloombergTogether, we unpacked the biggest developments, why they matter, and how they're being covered — with behind-the-scenes stories and candid insights about what it's like to report on patents and IP.What We CoveredUSPTO's New Direction* Coke Morgan Stewart's rapid moves as acting director — especially at the PTAB* How she's balancing speed, decisiveness, and practical limitsPatent Tax Story* The Wall Street Journal report on a possible tax on patent value* Lutnick's role and Stewart's public comments walking a fine lineChoosing a USPTO Director & John Squires* Breaking news about John Squires' nomination and confirmation process* Early signals of what he'll prioritize as directorFederal Circuit & Judge Newman* How practitioner tips shape coverage of the court* Judge Pauline Newman's saga — and what it's like getting to know her personallyOn the Hill* Tillis, Coons, and the shifting dynamics in Congress* Prospects for PERA (101), PREVAIL (PTAB), and RESTORE (injunctions)Copyright & AI* The firing of Shira Perlmutter as head of the Copyright Office* Pushback against the office's AI guidanceBehind the Notebook* How these reporters choose stories and what they wish got more attention* Why they love covering the IP community, despite all the complexities* Impact of judges, public officials, and Bloomberg terminal users following their coverageThe discussion reveals how much these journalists shape — and are shaped by — the IP world itself. They're not just reporting on it; they're in constant dialogue with practitioners, policymakers, and innovators who live with these changes every day. Judges read their work, practitioners feed them stories, and policymakers react to their reporting.Chapters00:00 – Welcome & Guest Intros01:23 – What's your vantage point in the IP world?17:53 – How do you decide what's worth covering in IP news?22:49 – What's the mood in the patent community right now?32:33 – The proposed ‘patent tax': threat or opportunity?38:02 – The politics behind selecting a USPTO Director54:21 – Final thoughts and advice for the IP communitySubscribe & Support on YouTubeClause 8's new season is recorded from our brand-new studio — and, for the first time, every episode will be available in video. If you'd like to support the show and catch all the new video content, please subscribe for free on YouTube so we can reach even more people interested in the IP story. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

S&P Futures are weakening this morning following the news that President Trump removed Fed Gov Lisa Cook from her duties at the Fed. Political turmoil in France is also a source of concern as Prime Minister Bayrou called for a confidence vote on Sept 8th. Markets are also on watch for a potential ruling on Trump's tariff action. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is expected to make a ruling on President Trump's International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs ruling within the next few weeks. The key economic data point for today will be the Home Price Index. IBKR will be added to the S&P 500 on Thursday. After the bell today MDB, OKTA, BOX & PVH will be reporting. Tomorrow morning, WSM, SJM, DCI & ANI are scheduled to report.

This Day in Legal History: Organic Act Establishes the National Park ServiceOn August 25, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Organic Act, formally establishing the National Park Service (NPS) as a federal bureau within the Department of the Interior. This act marked a foundational moment in U.S. environmental and administrative law, as it created a centralized agency responsible for protecting and managing the country's growing number of national parks and monuments. Prior to this, national parks were overseen in a disjointed manner by various federal departments, often with limited resources or clear guidance. The Organic Act provided legal authority for the NPS to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein,” while ensuring they remained “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”This statutory language introduced a lasting legal standard—the dual mandate of conservation and public enjoyment—that has guided U.S. park policy ever since. The law empowered the federal government to enforce regulations, manage visitor access, and develop infrastructure while preserving natural and cultural resources. Over time, this act laid the groundwork for the modern administrative state's role in environmental regulation. It also reflected an early recognition that public land could and should serve both ecological and civic functions.The NPS Organic Act helped inspire future legislation, including the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It also fueled legal debates around resource extraction, tribal land claims, and federalism. With the stroke of Wilson's pen, the United States committed itself to a legal philosophy of stewardship, enshrining the idea that public lands are a shared national trust. This day in legal history commemorates the birth of a legal and cultural institution that continues to shape American land use and environmental governance.Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom advised Intel Corp. in securing an $8.9 billion government investment deal, which includes granting the U.S. a 10% equity stake in the chipmaker. The agreement, announced by President Trump, comes months after Skadden and eight other major law firms pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal services in coordination with the White House. These services support causes such as veterans' advocacy, fighting antisemitism, and promoting justice system fairness. The firms reportedly entered the arrangement, in part, to avoid being targeted by executive orders that had been used against competitors.Skadden's role reflects its ongoing alignment with the administration's industrial and legal policy efforts, particularly as Intel seeks revitalization. The Federal Circuit also recently ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) wrongly dismissed one of Intel's patent invalidity arguments against a competitor, bolstering Intel's broader legal position. Separately, Kirkland & Ellis, another participating firm, has been involved in U.S. trade negotiations with Japan and Korea, facilitated by Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn. The president has indicated he may rely further on these firms for legal matters related to tariffs, coal, and defense of law enforcement. Skadden's leadership emphasized internally that the firm retains full autonomy in client and case decisions.Skadden Steers Intel in Deal With Trump to Boost ChipmakerKilmar Abrego, a 30-year-old migrant whose wrongful deportation to El Salvador had made national headlines, was detained again by U.S. immigration authorities in Baltimore just days after being released from criminal custody in Tennessee. His 2019 asylum protections had barred deportation to El Salvador due to threats from gangs, but he was nonetheless removed in March in what officials later admitted was an “administrative error.” After months in a harsh Salvadoran prison, he was brought back to the U.S. in June to face criminal charges for transporting undocumented migrants, to which he has pleaded not guilty.Upon checking in with ICE in Baltimore, Abrego was arrested again and is now facing possible deportation—this time to Uganda, a country with no connection to him. U.S. officials have reportedly offered Costa Rica as a destination if he agrees to a guilty plea, but without that, Uganda remains the likely alternative, a move his legal team argues is unconstitutional and coercive. His lawyer described the tactic as the government using “Costa Rica as a carrot and Uganda as a stick.”Abrego has filed a federal lawsuit to prevent deportation without judicial review and is currently protected by a Maryland court order requiring 72-hour notice before any removal to a third country. His legal team is also seeking to dismiss the federal charges, alleging selective and retaliatory prosecution tied to his earlier challenge of the unlawful deportation. A Tennessee federal judge previously found him neither a flight risk nor a public threat, supporting his release. The case continues to spotlight the legal complexities and rights violations emerging under the Trump administration's immigration policies.Wrongly deported migrant Abrego again detained by US immigration officials | ReutersA U.S. federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's administration from withholding federal funds from over 30 sanctuary cities and counties, including Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, and Baltimore. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge William Orrick, expands a previous injunction from April that protected 16 jurisdictions. These cities had challenged two executive orders signed by Trump earlier in the year, arguing they unlawfully threatened to strip funding unless local authorities cooperated with federal immigration enforcement.Sanctuary jurisdictions typically limit how much local police assist with federal civil immigration arrests. Judge Orrick ruled that the executive orders posed an unconstitutional, coercive threat by conditioning federal funding on compliance with federal immigration preferences. His new order extends protections to additional cities that recently joined the lawsuit. He emphasized that any further actions or executive orders pursuing the same goal are likewise blocked under his injunction.The Trump administration had already appealed the earlier ruling, and the White House has not commented on the latest expansion. Separately, California Governor Gavin Newsom is suing over Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles following protests related to federal immigration enforcement.Judge blocks Trump from withholding funds from Los Angeles, other sanctuary cities | ReutersA recent legal dispute between Apple and medical device maker Masimo is testing the boundaries of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) authority in enforcing patent-related import bans. The case began when CBP seized five Apple Watches in Chicago due to an International Trade Commission (ITC) exclusion order, issued after Masimo successfully argued that Apple's blood-oxygen sensor infringed its patents. However, CBP later approved Apple's software workaround—which shifts blood-oxygen processing to a paired iPhone—without notifying Masimo, prompting the company to sue.Masimo argues CBP overstepped its enforcement role by effectively ruling on a patent dispute without an adversarial process, thereby undermining the ITC's authority. The lawsuit claims the workaround still infringes under the "doctrine of equivalents," which treats minor design changes as infringing if they achieve substantially the same result. Legal experts note that CBP is not equipped to handle complex questions of indirect or contributory infringement, which could occur when a product only violates a patent when used in combination with another device.The case raises due process concerns, especially as CBP's later ruling was issued ex parte—without Masimo's input—despite an earlier inter partes process. Legal observers see this as part of a larger structural flaw in how CBP and the ITC coordinate enforcement of exclusion orders. The ITC has acknowledged the lawsuit and may intervene, signaling that the dispute could influence broader agency practices. If successful, Masimo could seek enforcement penalties from the ITC, potentially up to $100,000 per day. This litigation follows a rare legal path similar to a 2013 Microsoft case against CBP that ended in settlement.Apple Watch Import Ban Work-Around Suit Tests Customs' IP Role 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

John is joined by Professor Mark Wu, the Henry L. Stimson Professor at Harvard Law School, an expert in international trade and international economic law.  They discuss the legal and geopolitical implications of President Trump's tariff strategy.  The President's approach is rooted in a belief that the post-1970s international trade regime, which the U.S. helped build, has been exploited by foreign powers to the detriment of American interests, particularly the manufacturing sector and working-class communities.  The administration intends to leverage America's market dominance and security alliances to pressure trading partners into more favorable terms, including opening their markets to exports and investing in America. To legally impose many of these tariffs, the President has relied on statutory authorities that Congress delegated to the executive branch, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (covering national security issues from the importation of goods), Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (covering unfair trade practices by  foreign countries), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which permits regulation of imports during a declared national emergency.  Unlike prior administrations, Trump has used IEEPA not only to declare national emergencies—such as the opioid crisis and trade deficits—but also to impose sweeping tariffs in response. These actions have sparked a series of legal challenges.  Several importers and states have filed suits arguing that the president overstepped his authority under IEEPA.  Courts are now scrutinizing whether this use of IEEPA constitutes an overly broad delegation of congressional power and whether the tariffs align with the IEEPA's statutory language.  The Court of International Trade ruled against the administration on this issue.  That case is now before the Federal Circuit, which heard the appeal en banc.  Whatever the outcome, the Supreme Court is likely to weigh in. Even if tariffs under the IEEPA are barred by the courts, the administration has other tools at its disposal to achieve the same outcome, including imposing tariffs under Section 232, imposing tariffs under Section 301, and seeking additional legislation from Congress authorizing tariffs against specific countries. Regardless of legal outcomes, the global trade regime has fundamentally changed.  There will be no going back to the pre-Trump regime.  Traditional alliances have been strained, other countries are adapting to long-term U.S. unpredictability, and legal precedents set here could impact more than trade law. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

It's been a wild week on the legal front for former President Donald Trump and his administration, bringing a cascade of courtroom drama that's anything but routine. Right now, no case seems more pivotal than the hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where all eleven judges—an extraordinary en banc session—are sizing up whether Trump actually had the authority to impose tariffs on foreign imports without Congress signing off. This stems from the consolidated lawsuits led by V.O.S. Selections and a coalition of twelve states, who claim the tariffs drowned their businesses in costs and snuffed out competition. Lawyers for both sides have traded blows, and judges appear skeptical of the administration's broad assertion of executive power. A permanent injunction has already blocked future tariffs, but Trump's team is fighting hard to overturn it, hoping the appeals court will side with the White House. The stakes here are sky-high, not just for trade policy but potentially for the limits of presidential power.Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, a lawsuit filed last Friday by a battalion of states accuses President Trump of unlawfully targeting gender-affirming care for minors, citing executive actions that closed clinics across California, New York, and Illinois. Hospitals are reportedly halting services in response to Trump's executive order. The coalition is challenging both the lawfulness and constitutionality of these actions, and the case has swept up top federal officials, including Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi.The legal frenzy doesn't stop there. The National Association of the Deaf is suing Trump for axing American Sign Language services during federal briefings. Their case in Washington, D.C. is making waves, demanding interpreters be restored and arguing that removing them violates disability rights and foundational First Amendment protections.Immigration has also burst onto center stage in California, with the Trump administration urgently petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn a federal judge's ban on immigration stops. The judge's order, handed down in Los Angeles, said agents can't detain people solely based on their race or the language they speak. At the core of the dispute is a massive sweep of undocumented immigrants from June, now dubbed the “largest Mass Deportation Operation” in history. Pro-immigrant groups rushed to court, arguing the raids trampled on Fourth Amendment protections. The government, for its part, insists these restrictions threaten immigration enforcement and is hoping the Supreme Court lifts the ban on these operations soon.And for those tracking every legal twist, the Trump Administration Litigation Tracker is following nearly 300 active cases across the nation, from executive orders on birthright citizenship to bans on DEIA initiatives. As rulings drop and appeals climb toward the highest courts, the next few weeks will be decisive.Thanks for tuning in. Join us again next week for more updates—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.ai

Executive Power: May the president impose economic tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act? - Argued: Fri, 01 Aug 2025 15:13:41 EDT

The Department of Justice has filed an ethics complaint against the Chief Judge of the District Court in DC, James Boasberg, and we've enlisted Kel McClanahan to help us figure out what (if any) evidence the Trump administration has to support its claims. Plus, Liz and Andrew listened to the Federal Circuit's oral argument over Trump's tariffs. And what does a disgraced former superlawyer have to do to get a pierogi in Martha's Vineyard?? For our subscribers, we chortle with glee at the return of the Super Best Election Lawyer in All the Land!   Links:   Boasberg Judicial Misconduct Complaint via Courthouse News https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/FINAL-Misconduct-Complaint-7.28.pdf EXCLUSIVE: Memo Reveals D.C. Judges Are Predisposed Against Trump Administration https://thefederalist.com/2025/07/16/exclusive-memo-reveals-d-c-judges-are-predisposed-against-trump-administration/   Newsom v. Trump [docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70496361/newsom-v-trump/?order_by=desc Biden v. Byrne [docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67990012/robert-hunter-biden-v-patrick-m-byrne/ Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, 18 U.S. Code § 1385 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385 VOS v. Trump (tariffs - US Court of International Trade) [via Court Listener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17080/gov.uscourts.cit.17080.55.0.pdf   VOS v. Trump (tariffs - Federal Circuit) - admin stay [via Court Listener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105.7.0.pdf Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

This Day in Legal History: Switzerland's Federal CharterOn August 1, 1291, the seeds of what would become modern Switzerland were planted with the signing of the Federal Charter, or Bundesbrief, by the cantons of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden. This wasn't the dramatic formation of a nation-state as we think of it today—it was three rural Alpine communities making a legal pact for mutual defense and cooperation in the face of growing Habsburg pressure. The document itself is barely over 300 words long, written in Latin, and mostly focuses on conflict resolution and how not to stab each other in the back (literally and figuratively). But make no mistake, this was a radical assertion of local legal autonomy during a time when imperial rule was the norm.The Federal Charter stands as an early example of federalism—three small political entities entering into a horizontal, legally binding agreement without ceding total sovereignty to a monarch or emperor. In legal terms, it was more covenant than constitution, but its emphasis on mutual aid, lawful arbitration, and collective security laid the groundwork for Switzerland's famously decentralized structure. The signatories agreed to resist foreign judges and unlawful acts of violence, a precursor to ideas we now enshrine in due process and the rule of law.This wasn't a flashy revolution. There were no declarations of independence or fiery speeches. Just some pragmatic legalese scratched onto parchment that said, in effect, “Let's have each other's backs, settle disputes fairly, and not get bossed around by some distant duke.” Over time, this unassuming agreement evolved into the Swiss model of federalism and neutrality that still defines the nation today. It's not just legal history—it's a reminder that even minimalist governance structures can have maximal staying power.Federal judges who issued rulings against Donald Trump's policies have come forward with disturbing accounts of harassment, threats, and violent intimidation. At a “Speak Up For Justice” event, five judges—including Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell—described receiving death threats, being targets of “swatting” incidents, and even having pizzas delivered to their homes under the name of a murdered judge's son. McConnell, who blocked a major White House funding freeze earlier this year, disclosed that he received six credible death threats and over 400 hostile voicemails. One threat involved someone searching the dark web for his address, saying they wanted "Smith & Wesson to pay him a visit."Judge John Coughenour, who ruled against Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship, recounted a terrifying police raid on his home due to a false murder report. The FBI later alerted him to a bomb threat. Despite being appointed by Republican President Reagan, Coughenour criticized political attacks on the judiciary as damaging to democratic institutions. The White House called the threats unacceptable and emphasized the importance of judicial safety. On the same day as the event, the Senate confirmed Trump's nominee Gadyaces Serralta to lead the U.S. Marshals Service, who pledged to prioritize judge protection.By mid-June, 408 threats against 297 judges had been logged in the fiscal year. Judge Esther Salas, whose son was murdered in 2020, praised the speaking judges for breaking their silence in defense of judicial independence.US judges recount death threats, 'swatting' after rulings against Trump | ReutersAccording to exclusive reporting done by Reuters, the U.S. State Department plans to allocate up to $7.85 million to support deportation operations in Costa Rica, marking a significant expansion of American-backed regional immigration enforcement. The funds, redirected from an economic development account, will be transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, which will coordinate with Costa Rican authorities to carry out deportations of migrants—especially those transiting through the country en route to the U.S.This arrangement resembles a 2024 Biden-era agreement with Panama, where the U.S. financed detention and deportation of migrants moving northward. The new Costa Rica program is framed as a capacity-building effort that will fund deportation logistics and training on asylum screening. Still, critics warn it could deny vulnerable populations fair access to asylum protections.The plan follows a Trump administration request earlier in the year for Costa Rica to accept 200 migrants from Africa, Asia, and Europe previously detained in the U.S. Many of them remain in Costa Rica, raising questions about long-term outcomes. Details on when deportations will begin or the final destination countries remain unclear.Officials have also acknowledged that some migrants are now traveling south through Costa Rica, fleeing northward crackdowns and the end of Biden's humanitarian parole options. The agreement does not require a direct connection between the migrant and the country to which they may be deported, a detail likely to fuel ongoing human rights concerns.Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has been visiting countries throughout Latin America to explore similar arrangements, suggesting this may be part of a broader regional deportation strategy under Trump's immigration policy.Exclusive: US plans to fund deportations from Costa Rica, document shows | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit closely examined whether President Donald Trump overstepped his authority by using emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on foreign imports. The legal challenge, brought by 12 Democratic-led states and five small businesses, centers on Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a 1977 law typically used for financial sanctions—to justify tariffs against countries like China, Canada, and Mexico. Judges on the panel, many of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents, expressed skepticism, with one noting the law “doesn't even say tariffs.”This is the first major appellate test of Trump's tariff authority, and it comes just as a deadline approaches for new tariff hikes. Trump has used tariffs aggressively in his second term as both an economic and geopolitical tool, citing trade imbalances and foreign inaction on fentanyl as justifications. The challengers argue that only Congress has the constitutional power to impose tariffs, not the president.While the court has allowed the tariffs to remain in place during the litigation, a final ruling could have major implications. A previous lower court decision had already questioned whether IEEPA allows for tariffs tied to longstanding trade deficits. Meanwhile, tariffs have become a significant revenue source, generating over $100 billion so far this fiscal year—money the administration may need after passing new tax cuts.The case won't affect tariffs enacted under other legal provisions, like those on steel and aluminum. Trump's legal team argues that restricting presidential tariff power would hinder trade negotiations. The president has recently secured agreements with the EU and Japan, and is currently working on deals with Mexico and others to avoid further tariff hikes.US appeals court scrutinizes Trump's use of tariffs as trade deadline looms | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a composer of some note.This week's closing theme is a bright and confident slice of Mozart at his most charming: the Piano Concerto No. 19 in F major, K. 459, first movement, Allegro. Written in 1784 during a period of remarkable productivity, this concerto is one of the six that Mozart composed that year alone—each one displaying a different facet of his evolving style. No. 19 stands out for its buoyancy and rhythmic vitality; it's elegant without being self-serious, energetic but never frantic.Mozart, still in his late twenties, was performing regularly in Vienna, dazzling audiences with works that showcased both his pianistic skill and his compositional inventiveness. This piece was likely written for one of his own concerts, tailored to suit both his technical flair and his subtle wit. The Allegro opens with a playful orchestral theme, crisp and sunny, which soon gives way to the piano's entrance—graceful, witty, and full of character.There's a conversational quality to the movement: the orchestra tosses out ideas, the piano responds, elaborates, jokes, and dances. But beneath its lightheartedness lies Mozart's usual sophistication: unexpected harmonic turns, rhythmic displacements, and crisp motivic development keep the listener alert. The movement doesn't strive for drama or tragedy—it's pure Mozartian joy, rendered in tight musical logic and unfailing charm.As a closer, it offers an ideal farewell note: upbeat, clean, and full of clarity. You leave the room a little taller, a little lighter, like the music has tidied your thoughts and restored your sense of order. Mozart's No. 19 may not be the flashiest of his concertos, but it radiates something rarer: calm confidence, musical humor, and the sense that everything—at least for a few minutes—is exactly where it should be.Without further ado, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 19 in F major, K. 459, first movement, the Allegro. 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

U.S. appeals court judges questioned on Thursday whether President Donald Trump's tariffs were justified by the president's emergency powers. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico.Trump said on Thursday he had agreed with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum to extend an existing trade deal with Mexico for 90 days and continue talks over that period with the goal of signing a new deal. "Mexico will continue to pay a 25% Fentanyl Tariff, 25% Tariff on Cars, and 50% Tariff on Steel, Aluminum, and Copper. Additionally, Mexico has agreed to immediately terminate its Non Tariff Trade Barriers, of which there were many," Trump said in a Truth Social post.Delta Air Lines said an Airbus A330-900 from Salt Lake City to Amsterdam was hit by serious turbulence on Wednesday, forcing the flight to divert to Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The airline said 25 passengers were taken to hospitals for evaluation and treatment. One passenger said people who weren't wearing seat belts were thrown about the cabin.

Since taking office in January, President Trump has leaned heavily on tariffs to address trade deficits & drug trafficking, invoking IEEPA — a 1977 law granting presidents emergency economic powers — to bypass Congress. The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs, rolled out via Executive Order 14257 in April, imposed a 10% duty on all imports, with higher rates (up to 50%) targeting 25 countries, including a tit-for-tat escalation with China peaking at 125% & continue to be a moving target. These tariffs disrupted supply chains, jacked up costs for importers, & sparked fears of retaliatory trade barriers. V.O.S. Selections, a group of small businesses, & a coalition of 12 states led by Oregon, argued the tariffs were an illegal power grab, violating IEEPA's limits & Congress' exclusive authority over commerce under Article I of the Constitution. The CIT agreed, handing plaintiffs a clean sweep on summary judgment.Now on appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, oral argument took place on July 31st, 2025. Now we wait for the Federal Circuit to rule. Next stop, the Supreme Court of the United States.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: Eisenhower Signs Act Creating NASAOn July 29, 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act into law, officially creating NASA. The legislation emerged in response to growing Cold War tensions and the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik the previous year. It marked a pivotal shift in U.S. federal priorities, establishing a civilian-led space agency to coordinate scientific exploration, aeronautics research, and peaceful uses of space. NASA began operations on October 1, 1958, absorbing the earlier National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and ushering in a new era of government-backed technological ambition.Over the decades, NASA has become a symbol of American innovation, from landing astronauts on the moon to deploying the Hubble Space Telescope. Its work has catalyzed advancements not only in spaceflight, but also in climate science, materials engineering, and telecommunications. The legal framework underpinning NASA reflects a national consensus that science and exploration are critical public goods deserving of federal investment and support.But 67 years later, that consensus is showing strain. Just yesterday, NASA announced that nearly 4,000 employees—about 20% of its workforce—are leaving the agency through the Trump administration's deferred resignation program. This mass exodus follows proposed budget cuts and internal restructuring driven by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a key player in Trump's effort to slash the federal workforce.The timing couldn't be worse. The administration has called for both sweeping workforce reductions and a significant budget cut of nearly 24% for FY 2026, even as it touts long-term funding increases in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Scientists and space advocates, including The Planetary Society, have criticized the inconsistency, calling it a direct threat to American leadership in space. A group of over 300 NASA employees echoed that concern in a public letter this week, denouncing the changes as "rapid and wasteful" and warning that they jeopardize the agency's mission.What began as a proud moment of bipartisan support for science and exploration now faces a political climate where expertise is undervalued and institutional stability is sacrificed for short-term optics.Nearly 4,000 NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation programIn her latest appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ghislaine Maxwell argues that her 2021 federal sex trafficking conviction should be overturned because it violated a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) originally struck between Jeffrey Epstein and federal prosecutors in Florida. Maxwell contends that the agreement, which shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal charges in exchange for his state-level plea, should have also barred her later prosecution in New York. The Justice Department disputes this, saying the NPA applied only to the Southern District of Florida and does not merit Supreme Court review. Maxwell's brief criticizes the DOJ for focusing on Epstein's misconduct rather than the legal scope of the deal, framing the issue as one of government accountability to its promises. The Second Circuit previously upheld her conviction, finding no evidence that the NPA was meant to apply nationally. However, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed a brief supporting Maxwell, arguing that even atypical agreements must be honored if made by the government. Political tensions surrounding the Epstein case continue to complicate matters, as Maxwell recently met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche amid renewed scrutiny of the Trump administration's handling of Epstein's prosecution. The Supreme Court is expected to consider whether to hear the case in late September.Ghislaine Maxwell Tells Supreme Court Epstein Deal Shielded HerThe Trump administration has filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, accusing him of violating judicial ethics by expressing concerns that the administration might defy court rulings, potentially triggering a constitutional crisis. The complaint centers on comments Boasberg allegedly made during a March meeting of the judiciary's policymaking body, which included Chief Justice John Roberts. The Justice Department argues that these remarks, later echoed in his rulings, undermined judicial impartiality—particularly in a case where Boasberg blocked the deportation of Venezuelan migrants using wartime powers under the Alien Enemies Act. The administration claims Boasberg acted on a political bias when he found probable cause to hold it in criminal contempt for defying his deportation order. The DOJ has asked the D.C. Circuit to reassign the case and refer the complaint to a special investigative panel. Boasberg, appointed to the federal bench by President Obama after an earlier nomination to the D.C. Superior Court by President George W. Bush, has not publicly responded. The D.C. Circuit stayed his contempt finding, and a final ruling is still pending.Trump administration files misconduct complaint against prominent judge Boasberg | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has extended the suspension of 98-year-old Judge Pauline Newman for another year, citing her continued refusal to undergo a full neuropsychological evaluation to assess her fitness to serve. Despite submitting medical reports from her own experts asserting she is mentally competent, the court concluded that those reports were insufficient and contained inaccuracies, including concerns about memory issues and fainting episodes. Newman's legal team criticized the court's swift decision, arguing that their evidence and arguments were not seriously considered following a recent hearing. Newman, a respected patent law jurist appointed by President Reagan in 1984, is the oldest active federal judge who has not taken senior status and has been a prominent dissenter on the Federal Circuit. The court originally suspended her in 2023 after Chief Judge Kimberly Moore raised concerns about her cognitive and physical condition. Newman sued over the suspension, but her case was dismissed; it is now under review by a separate federal appeals court. The latest ruling reaffirms the court's insistence on comprehensive testing before any reconsideration of her judicial role.US appeals court extends suspension of 98-year-old judge in fitness probe | ReutersDonald Trump has asked a federal court to expedite a deposition of Rupert Murdoch in his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over a July 17 article linking him to Jeffrey Epstein. The article claimed Trump sent Epstein a 2003 birthday greeting that included a suggestive drawing and cryptic references to shared secrets—allegations Trump calls fabricated. In a court filing, Trump's lawyers said he informed Murdoch before publication that the letter was fake, and Murdoch allegedly responded that he would “take care of it,” which they argue demonstrates actual malice—a necessary legal threshold in defamation cases involving public figures. Trump's team is seeking Murdoch's testimony within 15 days, and Judge Darrin Gayles has ordered Murdoch to respond by August 4. The article's release has intensified political scrutiny of Trump's handling of the Epstein investigation. Legal analysts note Trump faces an uphill battle given the stringent standards for proving defamation, especially against media outlets. Dow Jones, which publishes the Journal, said it stands by its reporting and intends to vigorously defend the case.Trump asks for swift deposition of Murdoch in Epstein defamation case | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the latest shift in federal tax law—the move from the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) regime to the net controlled foreign corporation tested income (NCTI) system—should push states to reassess their habitual conformity to the Internal Revenue Code. NCTI expands the scope of taxable foreign income for U.S. multinationals, reflecting a broader federal effort to combat base erosion and bolster global competitiveness. But when states automatically conform to these changes—especially through rolling conformity—they risk inheriting complex, federally motivated rules that don't align with their economic interests or legal authority.Rolling conformity is a mechanism by which a state automatically updates its tax code to reflect changes in the federal Internal Revenue Code as they occur, without requiring separate legislative action. While rolling conformity can reduce administrative friction, it's increasingly problematic in an era of aggressive and frequent federal tax rewrites. States adopting NCTI may find themselves without key federal mechanisms like foreign tax credits or Section 250 deductions, exposing them to potential legal challenges over extraterritorial taxation and apportionment. These lawsuits could be expensive, prolonged, and ultimately hinge on issues that federal tax policy has already moved past. I argue that states need to move beyond passive conformity and take an intentional, sovereign approach to tax policy—reviewing conformity statutes now, decoupling where necessary, and preparing to defend their fiscal independence in the face of Washington's rapid policy swings.Trump Tax Law Should Spur States to Split From Federal ‘Pendulum' 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: People v. Ruggles and the Transposition of a “Common Law Crime”On June 11, 1811, the New York Supreme Court of Judicature decided People v. Ruggles, a seminal case in early American constitutional law and one of the rare recorded convictions for blasphemy in U.S. history. John Ruggles was convicted for publicly declaring in a tavern that “Jesus Christ was a b*****d and his mother must be a w***e,” and was sentenced to three months in jail and fined $500. What made the decision historically significant was Chancellor James Kent's justification: he upheld the conviction by transposing the English common law crime of blasphemy into American jurisprudence, despite the existence of a state constitutional provision protecting religious freedom.Kent argued that the free exercise clause of the New York Constitution—similar to the First Amendment—guaranteed religious tolerance but did not protect speech deemed immoral or dangerous to public order. He defined blasphemy as “maliciously reviling God, or religion,” and asserted that Americans, like the English, required religion-based moral discipline to maintain social cohesion. Crucially, Kent held that blasphemy applied only to Christianity, stating that “we are a Christian people,” and that moral and legal norms in the U.S. were “ingrafted upon Christianity.”This decision represented a foundational moment in American law by carrying forward a religiously grounded common law principle into a supposedly secular, constitutional framework. Kent cited Sunday observance laws and other religious references in law as evidence that Christianity remained embedded in the legal culture. He acknowledged tolerance for other religions but did not extend legal protection to speech critical of Christianity.The decision aligned with Justice Joseph Story's later view that Christianity underpinned American common law, but stood in contrast to the secularist interpretation advanced by figures like Thomas Jefferson. Though Kent's reasoning carried weight in his era, it would eventually lose ground. In Burstyn v. Wilson (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court effectively invalidated blasphemy laws, ruling that speech critical of religion was protected under the First Amendment.A federal appeals court has ruled that President Trump's sweeping tariffs may remain in effect while legal challenges to their legality proceed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. paused a lower-court decision that found Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs. The court called the matter one of “exceptional importance” and took the rare step of assigning it to the full 11-judge panel, with oral arguments scheduled for July 31.The tariffs in question include broad duties on imports from most U.S. trading partners—nicknamed “Liberation Day” tariffs—as well as separate levies targeting Canada, China, and Mexico. Trump has claimed that the tariffs are justified under IEEPA due to threats like fentanyl trafficking and the ongoing trade deficit. Critics argue these are not legitimate emergencies under the law and that only Congress has the constitutional power to impose tariffs.The original ruling striking down the tariffs came from the U.S. Court of International Trade on May 28, in lawsuits brought by five small businesses and twelve states led by Oregon. That court found Trump's use of IEEPA overreached presidential authority and misapplied a law designed for national emergencies. While disappointed by the stay, the plaintiffs emphasized that no court has yet upheld Trump's broad claims under IEEPA.Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, US appeals court rules | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently dismissed two more employees who were involved in investigations concerning President Trump, bringing the total number of terminations related to those probes to 17 since Trump's return to power in January. One of the fired individuals had served as a lawyer on Special Counsel Jack Smith's team and previously prosecuted defendants involved in the January 6 Capitol attack. The other was a support staff member also tied to Smith's team. Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly ordered the dismissals. Although both had been reassigned to other DOJ divisions prior to their termination, their past involvement with the Trump investigations was cited as the likely reason for their firing.Earlier, on January 27, 14 attorneys were dismissed at once due to their work on Trump-related cases. In April, a longtime public affairs official who had represented Smith's team was also let go. The DOJ has not officially commented on the recent terminations. Trump has persistently claimed that the Justice Department unfairly targeted him for political reasons, though Smith's team consistently rejected that narrative in court. These firings raise new concerns about political influence over the DOJ's personnel decisions.US Justice Department fires two tied to Trump probes, people familiar say | ReutersA group of Tesla owners in France has filed a lawsuit against the automaker, claiming that CEO Elon Musk's public behavior and political alignments have caused them reputational harm. Represented by law firm GKA, about ten leaseholders are asking the Paris Commercial Court to cancel their vehicle contracts and recover legal costs. They argue that Tesla cars, once seen as eco-friendly innovations, are now perceived as far-right symbols due to Musk's vocal support for Donald Trump and Germany's far-right AfD party.The plaintiffs allege that Musk's political affiliations and controversial gestures—such as one during Trump's inauguration that was likened online to a Nazi salute because it was absolutely a Nazi salute—have made Tesla ownership socially and professionally damaging. The group also cites Musk's involvement in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a Trump-backed initiative to reduce public spending, as further evidence of his deep political entanglements. Public backlash against Musk has included protests and vandalism at Tesla showrooms across Europe and the U.S.This lawsuit comes amid declining Tesla sales in Europe, where customers are increasingly turning to competitively priced Chinese EVs. GKA emphasized that its clients purchased Tesla vehicles for their environmental and technological appeal, not as political statements. Tesla has not yet responded to the lawsuit. Musk recently acknowledged regretting some of his remarks on X, the platform he owns, after a public dispute with Trump.Some French Tesla drivers file lawsuit over harm allegedly caused by Musk's behaviour | 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

In this episode of Arguendo, Amy Odom and Amy Kretkowsi return from hiatus to unpack Deal v. Collins, a Federal Circuit case that challenges the reach of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). They explore the history and implications of legacy regulations on effective dates, dissect arguments presented by both sides, and consider how this case could shape the future of pending claim doctrine. They also discuss its potential impact on other cases. Tune in to learn more!For more information, visit our websites at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠cck-law.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and abkveteranslaw.com

The Court of International Trade—whatever that is—enjoined Trump's tariffs. But the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit imposed an administrative stay pending further briefing. We also cover:Defending a Zoom depo? If you refuse to go on camera and are accused of improper witness communication, you may be sanctioned. (Remote depos are a game-changer—woe betide the attorney who screws it up for the rest of us!)Case settled, but wire of settled funds intercepted by scammers. Who bears the burden depends on the circumstances—best practice is to put the wire info in the agreement itself.Fee awards, abuse of discretion, and dueling precedents: Cash v. County of LA vs. Snoeck v. Exactime.Supreme Court review granted in Maniago: Is a voluntary dismissal after a loss appealable?Appearing at sentencing, Tom Girardi's pants fall down—but he still gets 87 months.Big Oral Argument News: Remote oral arguments are now available statewide without need to show good cause.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Beware using the Judicial Council form dismissal

This week Trump got his ass kicked in courts no one's ever heard of! From tariffs to immigration, Harvard to WilmerHale, it's been a week of losing bigly. Andrew and Liz will break it down and explain what's next.   Links:   Harvard College v. Department of Health and Human Services [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69921962/president-and-fellows-of-harvard-college-v-us-department-of-health-and/   V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump [District Court Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69888953/vos-selections-inc-v-donald-j-trump   V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump [Federal Circuit Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70394463/vos-selections-inc-v-trump/   WilmerHale v. Trump [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69807328/wilmer-cutler-pickering-hale-and-dorr-llp-v-executive-office-of-the/   Jenner & Block v. DOJ [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69807126/jenner-block-llp-v-us-department-of-justice/   MTA v. Duffy (Congestion Pricing) [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69652290/metropolitan-transportation-authority-v-duffy/   D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security [Trial Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/   Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. [SCOTUS Docket] https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a1153.html   The Punch That Launched Trump's War on American Universities https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/trump-college-university-federal-funding-fight-91c2a274   How to Hide a Constitutional Crisis https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/legalistic-noncompliance/682927/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

This Day in Legal History: Trump Guilty on All CountsOn this day in legal history, May 30, 2024, President Donald J. Trump was convicted on all 34 felony counts in a criminal trial related to a hush money scheme during the 2016 presidential campaign. The case centered on falsified business records used to conceal payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, intended to silence her allegations of an affair in the run-up to the election. The charges—each tied to entries in the Trump Organization's internal ledger—were elevated to felonies on the basis that they were committed in furtherance of another crime, namely influencing the outcome of a federal election.The trial, held in New York State Supreme Court, marked an unprecedented legal moment in U.S. history: a former president, and presumptive candidate in the upcoming election, being found guilty of criminal conduct. Prosecutors argued that Trump orchestrated the payments to suppress damaging information and maintain his electoral chances, while his defense claimed the case was politically motivated and the records reflected routine legal expenses.The conviction did not bar Trump from running for office again, but it did raise serious constitutional, electoral, and logistical questions about the rule of law and the separation of powers. The verdict was reached by a jury of 12 New Yorkers after weeks of testimony from former aides, prosecutors, and key witnesses like Michael Cohen, Trump's onetime fixer.Trump's sentencing was scheduled for a future date, and appeals were expected. Reactions across the political spectrum were predictably polarized, with critics calling it accountability at last, while supporters denounced the trial as a miscarriage of justice. Legal scholars noted the symbolic weight of the decision in reaffirming that no one—including a former president—is above the law.The U.S. Department of Justice and several states are wrapping up a major antitrust case against Google, with closing arguments scheduled for Friday. At issue is whether Google must sell its Chrome browser and stop default search engine deals with companies like Apple and wireless carriers, which the DOJ says stifles competition. These proposals follow a prior court finding that Google unlawfully monopolized online search and advertising markets.Judge Amit Mehta, who is presiding over the case, expects to issue a ruling by August. The DOJ is also pushing for Google to share its search data, which could benefit AI companies. OpenAI has expressed interest in purchasing Chrome if a divestiture occurs and noted that access to Google's search data would improve its AI responses.Google argues that the DOJ's proposed remedies overreach and would unfairly advantage competitors. The company has already taken some steps, such as loosening default search engine deals with phone manufacturers like Samsung. However, the government wants a full ban on payments that secure Google's search dominance on devices.Google and DOJ to make final push in US search antitrust case | ReutersA federal appeals court has temporarily reinstated President Trump's wide-ranging tariffs after a lower trade court ruled they exceeded presidential authority. The stay, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, allows the tariffs—targeting imports from most trading partners and specifically Canada, Mexico, and China—to remain in effect while the appeals process unfolds. The plaintiffs and the government must submit legal arguments by early June.The U.S. Court of International Trade previously found that Trump misused the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which is designed for national emergencies, not trade disputes. The panel emphasized that Congress, not the president, holds constitutional power to impose tariffs. Trump and his administration remain defiant, vowing to pursue alternative legal pathways if needed. Trump criticized the ruling publicly, warning it would weaken presidential power and harm national interests.Financial markets responded cautiously, factoring in the likelihood of a drawn-out legal process. Some companies, like small businesses represented by the Liberty Justice Center, argue the tariffs threaten their survival due to disrupted supply chains. Broader economic impacts include $34 billion in losses and stalled negotiations with key partners. Notably, separate national security-based tariffs on steel, aluminum, and cars remain unaffected.Trump's tariffs to remain in effect after appeals court grants stay | ReutersTrump's latest tax-and-spending bill, dubbed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," includes a provision that could significantly limit federal courts' power to enforce contempt orders against the government. The measure, buried in the 1,100-page bill, would block courts from enforcing contempt if plaintiffs did not post a monetary bond when seeking an injunction—a practice rarely required in lawsuits against the government.The provision applies retroactively and would affect both lower courts and the Supreme Court. Critics say it could effectively prevent courts from holding government officials accountable for ignoring judicial orders, as most past injunctions didn't involve posted bonds. While the administration says the measure is aimed at deterring frivolous lawsuits, legal experts warn it undermines judicial authority and incentivizes noncompliance.This change comes after a Trump administration memo encouraged agencies to request bonds in litigation. Judges have previously flagged possible defiance of court orders by administration officials but have stopped short of issuing contempt rulings. In one recent case over tariffs, a judge set a bond at just $100, overruling a higher request by the government.The House narrowly passed the bill without any Democratic support. It now moves to the Senate, where some Republicans have expressed intentions to amend it. A group of House Democrats has already called for the contempt provision to be removed, arguing it would render courts ineffective in enforcing lawful orders.Trump's sweeping tax-cut bill includes provision to weaken court powers | ReutersThe U.S. Justice Department has asked a judge to dismiss the criminal fraud charge against Boeing tied to two deadly 737 MAX crashes that killed 346 people, following a new agreement with the company. Under the deal, Boeing avoids a felony conviction but will pay an additional $444.5 million into a victims' compensation fund and a $243.6 million fine, bringing the total to $1.1 billion. The sum includes investments in safety, compliance, and quality enhancements.This resolution has drawn strong criticism from families of crash victims and some lawmakers, who argue that Boeing should face trial. While most families have settled civil lawsuits and received billions in compensation, several legal representatives are planning to challenge the agreement. The Justice Department defended the deal, stating it ensures accountability and public benefit while avoiding a potentially uncertain trial outcome.As part of the agreement, Boeing's board must meet with victims' families, and the company will hire a compliance consultant instead of facing court-appointed oversight. The deal halts a planned June 23 trial over Boeing's alleged deception of U.S. regulators regarding a key flight control system implicated in the crashes.US asks judge to dismiss Boeing 737 MAX criminal fraud case | ReutersThis week's closing theme brings us to one of the towering figures of Classical music: Joseph Haydn. Born in 1732 and known as the “Father of the Symphony” and “Father of the String Quartet,” Haydn's influence shaped the musical landscape of his time and set the foundation for generations of composers to come, including his younger contemporaries Mozart and Beethoven. Though widely celebrated for his symphonic and chamber works, Haydn also made remarkable contributions to keyboard music—works that showcase both his wit and structural innovation.Our selection is the first movement, Vivace, from his Keyboard Concerto in D major, Hob. XVIII:11, arguably his most famous and frequently performed keyboard concerto. Composed in the mid-1770s, the piece bursts with energy and clarity, reflecting Haydn's mature style. The Vivace movement is bright, spirited, and rhythmically engaging, with a dialogue between soloist and orchestra that feels playful yet assured.What makes this concerto particularly special is its balance of accessibility and sophistication. The melodies are immediately appealing, but the musical craftsmanship runs deep—complex harmonic turns, sparkling ornamentation, and a joyful momentum that never wanes. In the Classical tradition, this was written for the harpsichord or fortepiano, but it's often performed on modern piano today, bringing a different resonance and brilliance to the sound.As we close the week, Haydn's Vivace offers a fitting send-off: lively, inventive, and rooted in a composer who, even two centuries later, continues to surprise and delight.Without further ado, Joseph Haydn's Vivace – Keyboard Concerto in D Major. 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

Bruce and Barry Markson explain why tariffs are still on the table according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

After the U.S. Court of International Trade strikes down some of Donald Trump's tariffs as a violation of his authority as president, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pauses the decision pending further arguments. So what happens next, and will Trump win on appeal to the Supreme Court? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A U.S. District Court judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration not to make any changes to Harvard's student visa program. That's after Justice Department attorneys said in a notice that the government will give Harvard University 30 days to provide evidence in response to the White House's move to strip the Ivy League college of its ability to enroll foreign students.The Trump administration filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after a federal trade court ruled that President Trump exceeded his authority by using emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners.

Chief Justice John Roberts recently called out the Trump administration for their threats to impeach judges who have ruled against them. In response to these threats to the judiciary, the Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition, composed of over twenty former federal district and circuit judges  appointed by Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama, defended the federal judiciary, as political impeachment attempts against judges increase and the federal courts system face heightened scrutiny. In this episode, Craig is joined by Chief Judge Paul R. Michel, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and member of Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition. Together, Craig and Judge Michel discuss the calls for impeachment of judges by the current administration, and how a coalition of judges is fighting back. Mentioned in this Episode: Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition

Chief Justice John Roberts recently called out the Trump administration for their threats to impeach judges who have ruled against them. In response to these threats to the judiciary, the Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition, composed of over twenty former federal district and circuit judges  appointed by Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama, defended the federal judiciary, as political impeachment attempts against judges increase and the federal courts system face heightened scrutiny. In this episode, Craig is joined by Chief Judge Paul R. Michel, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and member of Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition. Together, Craig and Judge Michel discuss the calls for impeachment of judges by the current administration, and how a coalition of judges is fighting back. Mentioned in this Episode: Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim involving "retired pay" under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation the Court was presented with the question of whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency. The Federal Circuit had initially held that Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller with the FAA and reserve officer in the coast guard was not entitled to differential pay for parts of his time when he had been called to active duty during the early and mid-2010s. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on April 30, 2025 a 5-4 court reversed the decision below. Justice Gorsuch penned the majority opinion, and Justice Thomas wrote the dissent, which was joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we break down and analyze the decision and the opinions, and discuss the potential ramifications of this case. Featuring: Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law (Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.The case was decided on April 30, 2025.Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller with the Federal Aviation Administration and a Coast Guard reserve petty officer, was called to active duty in July 2012 under 10 U-S-C §12301(d). He served until February 2017, primarily escorting vessels to and from harbor. Despite his active-duty service, Feliciano did not receive differential pay, which compensates federal civilian employees for the pay gap between their civilian and military salaries when called to active duty during a national emergency.Feliciano sought relief from the Merit Systems Protection Board, claiming he was unlawfully denied differential pay. The Board rejected his claim, and Feliciano appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He argued that under 5 U-S-C §5538(a) and 10 U-S-C §101(a)(13)(B), he was entitled to differential pay because he was called to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency. The Federal Circuit, referencing its decision in Adams v Department of Homeland Security, held that Feliciano needed to show a substantive connection between his service and a particular national emergency, which he failed to do.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and reversed the Federal Circuit's decision. The Court held that a federal civilian employee called to active duty under "any other provision of law . . . during a national emergency" is entitled to differential pay if the reservist's service coincides temporally with a declared national emergency. The Court determined that no substantive connection between the service and the national emergency is required. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger Picture The [DS] is still pushing the green new scam, they want to dim the sun in the UK. Everything they told us was a lie. Big fail. Trump is confirming the economic plan. The Federal Reserve days are numbered. Trump is reversing what the [CB] did in 1913, soon the Fed and IRS will cease to exist. The [DS] is doing what the patriots want, they are exposing the entire criminal syndicate and the Judges. The people are realizing that the entire system is corrupt and we cannot bring them to justice right now. Trump is setting the stage and preparing the Judges and courts for the Treasonous trials.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1914995234892546508 https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1915031726176317774   https://twitter.com/JohnStossel/status/1914782763301134428 John Stossel@JohnStossel My new climate video airs on Earth Day. As the media pushes panic, recall their record: 1988-experts say seas will cover the Maldives by 2018 2004-the Guardian says a secret report has European cities underwater by 2020 Didn't happen! Here's what alarmists get wrong today: https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1915165567314427915   https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1915164556336287861 Trump Wants Tariff Cases Moved to Federal Trade Court  President Donald Trump is calling to transfer legal cases filed against his tariffs to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), a strategy that eventually worked out for him during his first administration. The CIT, whose judges handle technical disputes against tariffs, ruled against Trump in lawsuits against his steel tariffs in 2018, but then he was able to appeal the case and win, reports Bloomberg News on Wednesday. Cases have been filed in California, Montana, and Florida against the president's current tariffs. Legal experts say that steering the lawsuits through the CIT could also work out for Trump, because even if the trade court rules against him, the appeals case would go through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has in the past deferred to presidents' authority on levying tariffs. Last week, Department of Justice attorneys argued to move the case in California, filed in a San Francisco federal court and brought by Gov. Gavin Newsom, to the CIT, located in New York. Source: newsmax.com https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1915033666746515623   of common sense and stop working with radical leftist groups that engage in lawfare designed to bankrupt the energy industry?   As of April 24, 2025, 21 states have average gas prices under $3 per gallon for regular gasoline, based on recent data. These states include: Mississippi ($2.68) Texas ($2.73) Oklahoma ($2.75) Louisiana ($2.76) Tennessee ($2.78) Kentucky ($2.79) Alabama ($2.80) Arkansas ($2.81) South Carolina ($2.82) Missouri ($2.83) Kansas ($2.84) Georgia ($2.85) Wisconsin ($2.86) Iowa ($2.87) North Carolina ($2.88) Florida ($2.89) New Mexico ($2.90) Ohio ($2.91) Colorado ($2.92) Massachusetts ($2.93) Rhode Island ($2.94) This information aligns with reports from AAA and other sources indicating that gas prices have been declining in many states, with 21 states currently averaging below $3 per gallon.  https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1915167742417654237 people.

Prosecution laches is an infrequently used equitable doctrine that bars enforcement of a patent when the patentee has unreasonably delayed prosecution in a way that prejudices others. It is most commonly used by accused infringers as a defense in patent litigation, although the USPTO can also use it as a basis for refusing allowance. Regardless, it is most often used against the backdrop of multiple continuation applications.Continuation applications are applications which all follow from (i.e., claim priority to) a single earlier application. Creating “families” of patent applications in this way is a very common practice and allows the patent owner to claim different embodiments of the original invention in response to changes in marketplace and/or technological evolution. In Sonos Inc. v. Google LLC, currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit, the district court, following a jury verdict in favor of the patentee, found Sonos’ patents unenforceable due to prosecution laches, despite Sonos diligently prosecuting continuation applications for 13 years, serially filing a continuation with each allowance. If upheld, the ruling will represent a notable change to patent practice with far-reaching effects for U.S. innovators of all stripes including, independent innovators, corporate innovators, and universities.This FedSoc forum will use the Sonos v. Google and other laches cases as needed to explore the conflict between prosecution laches and current continuation practice and much more.Featuring:Joseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP, LLCPaul Michel, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitGene Quinn, President & CEO, IPWatchdog, Inc.Moderator: Jeffrey Depp, Policy Consultant, Center for Strategic and International Studies--To register, click the link above.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.Parrish v. United States (April 21) - Federal Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch (April 22) - Taxes; Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.Mahmoud v. Taylor (April 22) - Religious Liberties, Education Law, Parental Rights; Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA (April 23) - Standing, Redressibility; Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.Soto v. United States (April 28) - Financial Procedure; Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim “involving … retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (April 28) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.Martin v. U.S. (April 29) - Supremacy Clause, Torts; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (April 29) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (April 30) Establishment Clause, Education Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires. Featuring: Thomas A. Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolSarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending EducationTim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan InstituteProf. Gregory Sisk, Pio Cardinal Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law, Professor and Co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawFrancesca Ugolini, Former Chief, DOJ Tax Division, Appellate Section(Moderator) Elle Rogers, General Counsel, United States Senator Jim Banks

Send us a textDavid Mandel and Ruth Reymundo Mandel share highlights from the 2025 Safe & Together Asia Pacific Coercive Control and Children's Conference in Melbourne, Australia. Listen in as they reflect on key moments and the impact of bringing together over 400 practitioners from across the region. Here are some of the highlights: • Commitment to equity through a hybrid format that allowed participation from remote locations despite the technical and financial challenges• First-ever family law track showcasing four years of work with the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia• Launch of e-learning resources for independent Children's Lawyers that will reach over 1,200 practitioners• Focus on decolonizing practice and centering indigenous perspectives through keynote speakers like Aboriginal lawyer Amanda Morgan• Workshop on ethically including survivor expertise in organizations without exploitation or tokenism Now available! Mapping the Perpetrator's Pattern: A Practitioner's Tool for Improving Assessment, Intervention, and Outcomes The web-based Perpetrator Pattern Mapping Tool is a virtual practice tool for improving assessment, intervention, and outcomes through a perpetrator pattern-based approach. The tool allows practitioners to apply the Model's critical concepts and principles to their current case load in realCheck out David Mandel's new book "Stop Blaming Mothers and Ignoring Fathers: How to transform the way we keep children safe from domestic violence." Visit the Safe & Together Institute websiteStart taking Safe & Together Institute courses Check out Safe & Together Institute upcoming events

Intellectual Property: May the USPTO refuse a trademark because it contains the word Fuck? - Argued: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 11:4:54 EDT