Podcasts about federal circuit

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 Tennessee formally repealed the statute in 1967, decades after the trial had become a lasting symbol of the conflict between science and law.Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman has asked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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for January 20, 2026Federal Circuit Courts Block Trump DOJ from Obtaining California and Oregon Voter DataWe have an update on the Trump Department of Justice efforts to force states to turn over voter and personal information for inclusion in its SAVE database.  Federal district judges in California and Oregon blocked DOJ's actions, finding neither federal nor state law compelled the states to do so.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:American Democracy Minute - (Sept. 2025) Justice Department Sues Maine & Oregon for Withholding State Voter Registration and Voting Data from Trump Administration Oregon Capital Chronicle - Trump Justice Department sues Oregon, Maine for not turning over voter dataU.S. District Court for Central California (via Court Listener)  - United States v. Shirley WeberNPR - A federal judge dismisses the DOJ's effort to get voter data from CaliforniaCourthouse News Service - Judge rules Oregon won't need to hand over unredacted voter rolls to Trump admin Brennan Center for Justice - Tracker of Justice Department Requests for Voter Information Oregon Attorney General - AG Rayfield Releases Statement Following Voter Data Court HearingGroups Taking Action:Common Cause, ACLU, League of Women Voters CA, Our OregonRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #California #Oregon #TrumpDOJ #VoterData

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After almost a year of an escalating trade war, U.S. President Donald Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea last week. While official statements from both sides framed the summit as a positive move forward in a period of growing political, economic and military tensions on the international scale, it may also mark a distinct change in the U.S. approach. The Trump administration had imposed extremely high tariffs on Chinese exports to the US this year. China then imposed its own retaliatory tariffs.But despite Trump's triumphalist language around the meeting, the U.S. continues to place economic restrictions on China. It will restrict China's access to NVIDIA's latest Blackwell generation of chips, despite CEO Jensen Huang saying last week he hoped to be able to sell the chips in China. And the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this week about Trump's tariffs against Chinese and other international goods, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington ruled over two months ago, on August 29th, that the President overreached his executive power in imposing the tariffs by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.Ultimately - and despite a perhaps temporary lowering of temperatures - the trade war is far from over and may spill into other significant geopolitical areas.Support the show

This week has been nothing short of historic, and unpredictable, if you've been following the court trials involving Donald Trump. With the date ticking into November 2025, each day seems to add a new layer. I want to get you right to the heart of the action.Earlier this week, the Supreme Court docketed one of the most closely watched cases of this term: Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., among others. The case comes directly from the Federal Circuit, with the Supreme Court ordering oral arguments to begin on November 5, just three days from now. This trial isn't just high stakes for Trump; it's a moment where the nation's top legal minds are converging to address questions that could redefine executive power and the limits of presidential authority. The process has been expedited, with amicus briefs from political advocacy groups and multiple parties chiming in. The Court has consolidated related cases and allotted a tight one-hour argument slot, so every moment in that courtroom will count.But the Supreme Court isn't the only bench where Trump's legal fate has been debated. Over in Rhode Island, Judge John J. McConnell Jr. made headlines when he ruled against the Trump administration's attempt to suspend funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Judge McConnell, in a tense emergency hearing, stated that stopping SNAP payments would cause not just legal harm, but immediate suffering for families, especially with the holiday season closing in. He ordered the administration to immediately deliver contingency funds for November's payments, and demanded Trump's team clarify exactly how this would be done. Legal analysts pointed out that Judge McConnell cited the Administrative Procedure Act, calling the administration's suspension arbitrary and capricious. The ripple effect reached local governments, nonprofits, and small businesses, all of whom joined a coalition lawsuit, describing how a funding lapse would devastate their communities.Meanwhile, the Brennan Center for Justice reminds us that Trump is facing three separate prosecutions, on top of the Supreme Court action and the SNAP controversy. Not to mention that just last year, in May 2024, he was convicted of felonies in New York. Each of these threads—Supreme Court showdowns, federal benefit disputes, and ongoing criminal trials—puts the former president at the center of America's legal and political storms.Before I go, I want to thank you for tuning in. Don't miss next week, as we break down the oral arguments at the Supreme Court and track every twist in Trump's legal journey. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

It's late October 2025, and I'm sitting here at my desk, sorting through yet another thick stack of court filings, headlines, and political tweets—the most newsworthy legal battles in the country right now center on Donald Trump, and trust me, if you've been listening to the news these past few days, you already know it's a lot. Let me bring you up to speed.We start with the Supreme Court. Right now, Trump finds himself as the lead petitioner in a consolidated case on the docket as Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al., No. 25-250. This case, originally heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, was docketed by the Supreme Court on September 4, 2025. The Justices granted certiorari and set the case for oral arguments in the first week of November, with argument specifically scheduled for Wednesday, November 5, 2025. One hour is allotted for oral argument, and the docket is loaded with amicus briefs from groups like Advancing American Freedom, Washington State Amici, and We Pay the Tariffs.But the Supreme Court case is just one thread of a much larger web. Out west, in Portland, Oregon, things have reached a fever pitch. The State of Oregon and the City of Portland sued President Trump, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, in the United States District Court. The case, 3:25-cv-01756-IM, centers on the federal government's deployment of National Guard troops to Portland—over the objection of Oregon Governor Tina Kotek. According to the court opinion, on September 27, 2025, Trump posted on Truth Social, directly ordering Hegseth to provide troops to protect Portland from what he called Antifa and other domestic terrorists, authorizing “full force, if necessary.” By the next day, Secretary Hegseth federalized 200 members of the Oregon National Guard.The reaction was immediate. The plaintiffs filed for a temporary restraining order on September 28, arguing that the President's actions violated federal law, including the Posse Comitatus Act and 10 U.S.C. § 12406, and trampled on Oregon's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Governor Kotek pushed back hard, insisting that Portland had not seen the kind of violent, sustained protests Trump described for months—local law enforcement had handled earlier summer disruptions, and by late September, protests outside key locations like the ICE facility were small and uneventful. Trump, however, doubled down in a Truth Social post on October 1, saying that conditions in Portland were deteriorating, “lawless mayhem” was taking hold, and that the National Guard was needed to restore order.While this Oregon drama unfolds, there's another story developing behind closed doors. The Lawfare Litigation Tracker notes that a coalition of states is suing the Trump administration over the suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November 2025. This case hasn't hit the headlines as hard, but for thousands of families, it's a life-or-death matter—another legal flashpoint in an increasingly litigious era.Now, by the time you hear this, today is October 29, 2025, and the Supreme Court's reply brief is due tomorrow, October 30. The nation is waiting—and not just on the legal questions. The constitutional balance between federal and state power is being tested, and the President's use of the military at home is under a microscope. Legal scholars from Trade Scholars in Economics, Politics, and Law—alongside former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Anderson Hills and former WTO Deputy Director-General Alan William Wolff—have filed briefs that may influence the Justices' thinking. And for everyday listeners, there's a nervous feeling in the air, a sense that all it takes is one more Tweet or court order to send everything spiraling.Let me close by saying thanks for tuning in. No matter where you stand on these issues, we're all trying to make sense of the storm, and stories like these define the moment. Come back next week for more—until then, this has been a Quiet Please production. For more on the week's biggest stories, visit Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The Supreme Court is gearing up for what could be one of the most significant cases of the November term, and it directly involves President Donald Trump. Just last month, on September 9th, the Court made the unusual decision to grant certiorari and expedite a case involving the Trump administration, consolidating it with another related matter. The case, officially docketed as number 25-250, pits Donald J Trump, President of the United States, against V.O.S. Selections, Inc. and other parties.What makes this particularly noteworthy is the speed at which everything is moving. The Supreme Court rarely fast-tracks cases, but they've done exactly that here, setting oral arguments for Wednesday, November 5th, 2025. That's less than three weeks away. The case originated from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which issued its decision on August 29th. Within days, Trump's legal team filed a petition for certiorari and immediately requested expedited consideration. The Court granted both the motion to expedite and the petition on September 9th, consolidating it with case number 24-1287.The briefing schedule has been incredibly compressed. Respondents in the consolidated case and petitioners had to file their opening briefs by September 19th. Amicus curiae briefs, those filed by interested parties not directly involved in the case, were due by September 23rd. The response briefs from the petitioners and respondents were due tomorrow, October 20th, with supporting amicus briefs due by October 24th. Reply briefs must be filed by October 30th, just days before the oral arguments begin.Meanwhile, in Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton secured a victory in the Fifteenth Court of Appeals on October 15th against what he called a radical, open borders group that allegedly illegally told people not to vote for President Trump. This development adds another layer to the ongoing legal battles surrounding the Trump administration.The Supreme Court has allocated one hour for oral argument in the consolidated cases, which is standard for cases of significant importance. The Court has already received the record electronically from the Federal Circuit and from the United States Court of International Trade, making everything available through PACER, the federal court electronic records system.What remains unclear from the public docket is the specific nature of the questions presented, though the involvement of V.O.S. Selections and the routing through both the Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit suggests this may involve trade or tariff issues. Multiple amicus briefs have been filed, including one from Advancing American Freedom and various state respondents, indicating broad interest in the outcome.With oral arguments set for November 5th, we're likely to see intense preparation from both sides over the next two weeks. The Court's decision to expedite and consolidate these cases signals their recognition of the urgency and importance of the issues at stake.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Be sure to come back next week for more updates on this developing story and other important legal matters. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more information, check out Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

In April, President Trump declared a national emergency and assumed the power to levy tariffs, introducing uncertainty into global trading by reneging on previously negotiated agreements. One of the attorneys representing the challengers to the president's decree in Trump v. VOS is Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell, a constitutional law expert and former Tenth Circuit judge. The case, which the U.S. Supreme Court has expedited, is set to have ramifications well beyond trade. As McConnell wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed: “The tariff litigation is shaping up as the biggest separation-of-powers controversy since the steel seizure case in 1952…Understandably, most of the commentary has focused on the practical ramifications for the president's trade negotiations and the American economy. But the cases may be even more important for the future of a fundamental component of the Constitution's architecture: the separation of powers, intended by the founders to prevent any of the government's three branches from becoming all powerful.” McConnell joins Pam Karlan and Diego Zambrano for a discussion about this important case, exploring whether presidents have the authority to tax through tariffs without clear congressional approval, the historical and constitutional roots of "no taxation without representation," and the seismic ramifications of a redefinition of the limits of executive economic power.Links:Michael McConnell >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PagePam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

It's Friday, October 3, 2025, and the legal drama swirling around Donald Trump is at a fever pitch once again. For listeners who have been following every twist and turn, the past few days have been loaded with developments across federal courtrooms, appellate panels, and even the Supreme Court. Let's jump right to the heart of the matter.Earlier this week, a major story unfolded as the Supreme Court formally consolidated two headline cases involving Donald Trump—one titled “Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al.” The Court granted a motion to expedite these cases, fast-tracking them for oral argument the first week of November this year. The eyes of the country, political analysts included, are already zeroing in on November 5, when those arguments will hit center stage in the nation's highest court.These Supreme Court cases aren't happening in isolation. They stem from recent decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and also from the ongoing legal battles over claims tied to presidential immunity, Trump's 2020 election interference allegations, and disputes over the appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith. The litigation landscape is as broad as ever—with criminal indictments, civil fraud appeals, and constitutional questions all converging.Just days ago, the Supreme Court declined to take immediate action on Trump's unusual request regarding firing a sitting Fed governor. This non-decision keeps the issue simmering, hinting at possible future conflicts over the extent of presidential power—a subject at the core of Trump's legal defense in several other cases.Meanwhile, in federal courts, new briefs and motions are flooding in. Trump's legal team is vigorously pushing arguments about presidential immunity and contesting the legitimacy of Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment. These questions fuel both legal debate and political intrigue, as deadlines for briefs and responses keep stacking up on the master calendar. For example, Trump's next major opening brief in his Second Circuit appeal regarding the New York case is due October 14.Political allies and opponents alike are watching, as each court ruling has ripple effects on Trump's standing, campaign ambitions, and broader constitutional precedents. What's especially dramatic now is that deadlines for amicus curiae briefs and oral arguments across several circuits are colliding with arguments in the Supreme Court—a rare, high-octane moment in legal history.Every day seems to bring a new motion, a fresh appeal, or another layer to these battles. From consolidating appeals in the New York civil fraud case to new filings aimed at Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution, Trump's legal calendar looks more crowded than ever.To all those tuning in, thank you for sticking with this intricate, high-stakes story. Join me again next week as these cases unfold and fresh developments emerge. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

  Host: Annik Sobing Guest: Jason Kenner (Partner, Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg P.A.) Published: September 15, 2025 Length: ~25 minutes Presented by: Global Training Center Billions at Stake: The Legal Fight Over IEEPA Tariffs In this week's Simply Trade Roundup, host Annik Sobing welcomes back Jason Kenner, litigation partner at Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg and former senior counsel at the DOJ's International Trade Field Office, to unpack the latest in the escalating legal fight over IEEPA tariffs. Jason explains the Federal Circuit's August 29th ruling, the implications of striking down both the fentanyl and reciprocal tariffs, and why the case is now on an expedited path to the Supreme Court. With billions of dollars in duties hanging in the balance, importers are left asking: should they still pay, can refunds be expected, and how should they prepare if the Court rules against the tariffs? What You'll Learn in This Episode: The Court of Appeals Ruling – Why the Federal Circuit struck down key tariffs but vacated the universal injunction. Expedited Supreme Court Review – Why both the government and importers want a fast-track decision. Importer Impact – Whether tariffs must still be paid and what refund strategies are possible. Protecting Your Position – Why importers must safeguard liquidations and maintain airtight documentation. The Bigger Picture – How the major questions and non-delegation doctrines could reshape presidential tariff powers. Key Takeaways: Despite lower court rulings, importers must still pay IEEPA tariffs until the Supreme Court rules. Protecting liquidations and documentation is critical to preserve potential refund rights. The Supreme Court's decision could redefine the scope of presidential tariff authority. Businesses should prepare for long timelines and roadblocks even if tariffs are struck down. Importers may need to consider filing their own cases in light of the vacated universal injunction.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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

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  

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

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.