Podcasts about Federal Communications Commission

In episode 268, Josh, Chris, and Mark break down the Federal Communications Commission's newly published proposed rule changes to the E‑Rate program. The conversation explains the scope of the public comment period, where the proposals came from, and what districts, consortia, and vendors should watch for over the coming months. The guys discuss what services could be removed from E‑Rate eligibility, the FCC's questions about screen time, CIPA filtering expectations, and how the Commission is reexamining the program's original connectivity goals. They also dig into the changes to consultant definitions and fee structures, managed internal broadband services (MIBS), and potential unbundling of hardware vs. service costs, and more. Carr Opens E-Rate Program Review to Ensure it Meets Congress's Vision  CoSN Statement Join us July 6th-10th, 2026 – GAMEIS Conference in Savannah, GA Join us at MidwestTechTalk ———— Sponsored by: Meter CyberNut CDWG Fortinet ClassLink NTP Extreme Networks Lightspeed Systems SMC Electric SMC Electric Testimony   CDWG - K12 Solutions & Services Overview Video: https://webobjects2.cdw.com/is/content/CDW/cdw/on-domain-cdw/videos/ssi/k12/mkt94999-k12-ssi-video-full-with-captions.mp4   CDWG - Strengthening K12 Cybersecurity: https://webobjects2.cdw.com/is/content/CDW/cdw/on-domain-cdw/videos/ssi/k12-cybersecurity/mkt94971-k12-cybersecurity-ssi-full-video-with-captions.mp4 ———— Join the K12TechPro Community (exclusively for K12 Tech professionals) Buy some swag (tech dept gift boxes, shirts, hoodies...)!!! Email us at k12techtalk@gmail.com OR our "professional" email addy is info@k12techtalkpodcast.com X @k12techtalkpod Facebook Visit our LinkedIn Music by Colt Ball Disclaimer: The views and work done by Josh, Chris, and Mark are solely their own and do not reflect the opinions or positions of sponsors or any respective employers or organizations associated with the guys. K12 Tech Talk itself does not endorse or validate the ideas, views, or statements expressed by Josh, Chris, and Mark's individual views and opinions are not representative of K12 Tech Talk. Furthermore, any references or mention of products, services, organizations, or individuals on K12 Tech Talk should not be considered as endorsements related to any employer or organization associated with the guys.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has long exercised significant authority over broadcast media beyond what is typically tolerated under the First Amendment. Under various chairs and presidential administrations, the FCC has overstretched its authority. Recent actions have drawn particular attention, such as when Chairman Brendan Carr publicly pressured and threatened to punish ABC/​Disney over a comment on Jimmy Kimmel Live. That incident does not exist in isolation, with friction between the commission and broadcasters steadily rising over the past 12 months over myriad issues including the unprecedented early review of ABC's broadcast licenses. The FCC points to the public interest standard and policies such as news distortion and the equal-time rule to justify its actions.How should such policies be considered in light of today's media ecosystem and the broader values of free expression? Please join us for an event that will discuss how the FCC's actions toward broadcast media are affecting free expression, what challenges these actions might face in courts, and how policymakers could prevent such abuse. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

Send us Fan MailIn this episode of The Data Diva Talks Privacy, Debbie Reynolds, "The Data Diva" speaks with Eric Null, Director, Privacy & Data Program at the Center for Democracy & Technology, about the current state of privacy in the United States and the ongoing effort to establish comprehensive federal privacy legislation. Eric shares his unique journey from studying classical clarinet performance to becoming a leading advocate for privacy and consumer rights, explaining how his work in technology policy, net neutrality, broadband privacy, and consumer protection shaped his perspective on privacy as an issue fundamentally connected to power and control.The conversation explores how information functions as a source of power in the digital age and why the collection, processing, and use of personal data can create risks ranging from manipulation and profiling to broader concerns about autonomy and control. Eric discusses his early work involving children's privacy, broadband privacy, and consumer protection, including efforts to strengthen privacy protections through the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. He explains how the growth of the "free" Internet business model has created an environment in which individuals often exchange large amounts of personal information in exchange for access to online services, incentivizing extensive data collection and monetization.Debbie and Eric examine the current U.S. privacy landscape, including the sector-specific approach taken by laws such as HIPAA, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and COPPA. They discuss the Federal Trade Commission's role as the primary federal privacy regulator and how the agency's authority has historically relied on preventing deceptive and unfair practices rather than establishing broad data rights. The discussion explores the limitations of the notice-and-choice model, in which organizations disclose their practices through privacy policies that consumers rarely read or meaningfully negotiate, and how network effects can limit the practical choices available to individuals seeking to participate in modern digital platforms.The episode also covers the repeated attempts to pass comprehensive federal privacy legislation, including the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA), the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA), and more recent proposals. Eric shares insights into the legislative challenges that have prevented these efforts from becoming law and discusses the policy debates surrounding data minimization, consumer rights, enforcement, and the relationship between privacy and broader concerns about the power of large technology companies. The conversation highlights why privacy remains one of the most important policy issues facing organizations, regulators, and consumers, and why meaningful reform continues to be difficult despite widespread public concern.By popular demand, Debbie Reynolds Consulting is now offering executive briefings on emerging data privacy risks and how companies can avoid them. To learn more, visit the Executive briefings page on my website.Support the showBecome an insider, join Data Diva Confidential for data strategy and data privacy insights delivered to your inbox. 

If your company relies on call centers to support your customers, you'll want to listen to this podcast.  The Federal Communications Commission just put out a sweeping proposal to require the significant onshoring of non-US based call center operations implementation of new customer service standards, such as language proficiency requirements.  FCC mandates would normally only apply to companies that the FCC historically regulates—telecom carriers, cable providers, and wireless and satellite companies, etc.—but in this recent proposal, there's a shocking twist: the Commission is exploring whether to use a somewhat obscure statutory provision to extend its call center customer service mandates and onshoring requirements to any business that uses a U.S. phone number—retailers, banks, healthcare providers, you name it.    In this 12-minute episode of Staying Connected, Tony Mangino and Andrew Brown discuss the proposed rules, why the FCC thinks it has the authority to mandate customer service standards and call center operations of companies it does not regulate, and what enterprise customers need to do before these rules reshape their costs and vendor relationships. If you would like to learn more about our experience in this space, please visit our  Communications Regulatory Advice and Advocacy webpage.

How the Trump administration has tried to put pressure on Disney for opinions expressed by Jimmy Kimmel and the hosts of The View—and how the Mouse is fighting back.Guest: Anna M. Gomez, commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission since September 2023.Want more What Next TBD? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen.Podcast production by Evan Campbell, Madeline Ducharme, Patrick Fort, Rob Gunther and Paige Osburn. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How the Trump administration has tried to put pressure on Disney for opinions expressed by Jimmy Kimmel and the hosts of The View—and how the Mouse is fighting back.Guest: Anna M. Gomez, commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission since September 2023.Want more What Next TBD? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen.Podcast production by Evan Campbell, Madeline Ducharme, Patrick Fort, Rob Gunther and Paige Osburn. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How the Trump administration has tried to put pressure on Disney for opinions expressed by Jimmy Kimmel and the hosts of The View—and how the Mouse is fighting back.Guest: Anna M. Gomez, commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission since September 2023.Want more What Next TBD? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen.Podcast production by Evan Campbell, Madeline Ducharme, Patrick Fort, Rob Gunther and Paige Osburn. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How the Trump administration has tried to put pressure on Disney for opinions expressed by Jimmy Kimmel and the hosts of The View—and how the Mouse is fighting back.Guest: Anna M. Gomez, commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission since September 2023.Want more What Next TBD? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen.Podcast production by Evan Campbell, Madeline Ducharme, Patrick Fort, Rob Gunther and Paige Osburn. Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

President Donald Trump posts a list of requirements for any deal to end the war with Iran peacefully, then says he is meeting in the White House Situation Room to make a final determination. Some media reports say he did not reach a decision; Russian military drone hits an apartment building in Romania. U.S., NATO & the European Union condemn it as a 'reckless act' by Russia; Week ends as it began outside the Delaney Hall Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in Newark, New Jersey, with protesters clashing with federal agents; former Attorney General Pam sits for a closed door interview with the House Oversight Committee on the process for releasing the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats on the committee say she pinned the blame for any mistakes on now Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. She says that is not true; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent gives a speech at the Reagan National Economic Forum in California titled “While America Slept”, arguing that U.S. policymaking has prioritized efficiency over resilience; Disney-owned ABC criticizes the Federal Communications Commission as it formally applies to renew early licenses for its eight broadcast TV stations, as the FCC  demanded. One station writing, "This effort to suppress speech under the guise of bureaucratic process must not prevail"; Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) says she will not run for reelection; Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) promotes a bipartisan bill he introduced this week to overhaul the business of college sports. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

UPM Technology, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThe lurid JP Morgan sex case has gotten more interesting: apparently, the bank offered a $1 million settlement to the banker who wanted an eight-figure settlement related to the lurid sex-harassment allegations he has made against a senior colleague. Something is weird here. Also this week:The Justice Department wants to stand in as the defendant in the case where E. Jean Carroll won a large judgment for comments Donald Trump made about her during his first presidential term, which would defeat her claim, since the government cannot be liable for defamation, the DOJ is also suing the DC Bar to stop professional discipline for Jeffrey ‘Oil Spill' Clark, and no, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro does not need to recuse herself from Cole Allen's case merely because she was present at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.That's for all listeners this week. Upgrade to hear about much more:* Another Trump tariff effort gets struck down because the Court of International Trade decided to actually form a view on what constitutes a balance-of-payments crisis.* ABC fighting back against the Federal Communications Commission, urged on by the commission's lone Democratic member (and Ken explains why they're even bothering to fight at the agency level before going to court.)* The fight over the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool, or “more aesthetic standing bullshit,” as Ken's notes describe it.* Richard Murdaugh's remarkable win in court (for now).* A silly lawsuit against Matt Damon, and* A misdo charge for Clav, who says he was merely following the guidance of a licensed airboat captain when he shot a (possibly already dead) alligator.

There is an invisible resource that powers our smartphones and connects our devices: spectrum airwaves. But regulations governing these airwaves were set decades ago, long before the age of smartphones and autonomous vehicles. With technology changing at a rapid pace, are these regulations for this finite resource outdated? What is the growing importance of airwave spectrum in an economy that is increasingly wireless? And what does a property-rights regime for spectrum look like in practice?Shane is joined by Professor Thomas Hazlett, author of the best-selling book The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technology, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone (2017) and a leading voice in telecommunications, media, and the internet. He is currently the H. H. Macaulay Endowed Professor of Economics and director of the Information Economy Project at Clemson University. He previously served as chief economist at the Federal Communications Commission. His extensive knowledge makes for an excellent conversation.

Satya Nadella explains why Microsoft feared becoming "the next IBM" in dramatic testimony from the Elon Musk vs OpenAI trial, while Apple warns Canada that proposed surveillance legislation could weaken encryption security for everyone. In this episode of Hashtag Trending, Jim Love covers Amazon Web Services' new cloud desktop service for AI agents — and why vision-based automation may cost far more than expected when compared with direct API access. Apple pushes back against Canada's proposed Bill C-2, warning that mandated lawful-access capabilities could create exploitable security backdoors. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission also reverses course, allowing certain previously approved routers to continue receiving security updates through at least January 1, 2029, avoiding a security headache for millions of users. Then we close with the courtroom battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI, where Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella delivers one of the most revealing moments yet. Chapters 00:00 This is Hashtag Trending – May 13, 2026 00:24 Headlines 00:38 AWS Gives AI Agents Cloud PCs 01:35 Why Vision-Based AI Can Get Expensive 03:02 Apple Warns Canada on Encryption Bill C-2 04:42 FCC Router Security Update Reprieve 05:48 Why You Should Update Your Router Now 06:28 Satya Nadella Testifies in Musk vs OpenAI Trial 08:52 The Hockey Analogy Recap 09:53 Wrap Up #AI #OpenAI #Microsoft #SatyaNadella #ElonMusk #Apple #Encryption #Cybersecurity #AWS #ArtificialIntelligence #Canada #TechNews

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, an in-depth investigatory show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (5/6/26). As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant. !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2q643"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");   Rumble("play", {"video":"v77fqym","div":"rumble_v77fqym"}); Source Links (In Chronological Order): Iran Destroyed Over 228 US Military Targets, The Failed False Flags & Trump's Insider Information (20) Glenn Greenwald on X: "When Somali Americans were accused of fraud in Minnesota, there was endless discourse about what it supposedly revealed about Somali and Muslim culture. Will those who led that discussion do the same for this massive fraud ring and the monolithic group the FBI just arrested?

From emergency alerts to disaster communications, the systems that keep the public informed depend on secure communications networks. Here to explain how the FCC is approaching cybersecurity through the lens of public safety and why preparedness matters as much as regulation is Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission, Zenji Nakazawa.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Christina Hello, everyone, I'm Christina Darnell, the managing editor of MinistryWatch. Welcome to the MinistryWatch podcast. In today's extra episode, I talk with Warren Smith about some news items that are slightly (even significantly) outside of our normal charity and philanthropy “beat.” So, Warren, what's up first? Warren  The National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) has formally asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to investigate comments aired by Jimmy Kimmel during the April 23, 2026, broadcast of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Kimmel's comments were, as a lot of his comments are, thoroughly tasteless. But if they are not protected speech, clearly covered by the First Amendment, then we are all in trouble. Christina And you think it is particularly ironic that the NRB is filing this complaint. Warren I do, because the NRB claims to be a champion of free speech.  The organization claims to be a “nonpartisan, international association of Christian communicators” whose mission is to “protect the free speech rights of our members to speak Biblical truth by advocating those rights in governmental, corporate, and media sectors.” But in recent years, some of its largest members, and the organization itself, has been little more than an unpaid public relations arm for the Republican Party. Christina There was also news this week about a little-known arena of pro-life work: embryo adoption, sometimes called “snowflake adoption.” Warren The National Embryo Donation Center (NEDC) just announced the addition of two new affiliate clinics, bringing its embryo adoption and donation services closer to families across the country. Dr. Craig Sweet of Embryo Donation International, will serve as the NEDC's affiliate physician in Fort Myers, Florida, and Dr. Valerie Shavell & her physician partners of The Fertility Center will serve in Grand Rapids, Michigan, with each performing frozen embryo transfers for NEDC patients in their respective regions. Christina Embryo adoption is often described as a “life-affirming” option because it gives embryos a chance to be born rather than destroyed. Embryos have been donated from all 50 states. Warren Recipients have traveled from across the United States, U.S. territories, and about a dozen foreign countries, including as far away as China, to participate in the program. The NEDC's website is www.embryodonation.org. Christina We have another abortion related story this week. Warren In the years since Roe was overturned, the number of abortions has grown to record levels, with two-thirds of them being chemical abortions. Christina The recent Supreme Court decision restoring abortion pill access via telehealth is another huge blow to the pro-life movement, erasing any gains made by the overturning of Roe. Warren This seems a good moment to state what should be obvious, and that is that we will not eliminate abortion by passing laws. We will eliminate abortions when we change the hearts and minds of Americans about abortion. That means persuading people who disagree with us, not beating them into submission to achieve political goals that do not make a difference. Beating people up makes them less likely, not more likely, to listen to you. Thus endeth the lesson. Christina Southern Baptists released new membership data this week. Warren Southern Baptist churches saw sustained growth in attendance and baptisms, but the two-decade membership decline continued in 2025, according to a statement from the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Total SBC membership fell by more than 3 percent from 2024 to 2025, dipping to 12,331,954, according to the Annual Church Profile (ACP) compiled by Lifeway Research in cooperation with Baptist state conventions. Christina Fewer members belong to Southern Baptist congregations, but more people are attending worship services and small groups and are being baptized. That seems contradictory. Warren It does. These seemingly contradictory data probably reflect efforts by the SBC in recent years to clean up their roles. They were listing people as members who were, in some cases, dead or who had long since joined other churches. There's also probably a bit of generational difference in attitudes relative to church membership and attendance. Older generations are more likely to be members but not attend. Younger generations are more likely to attend for longer periods before becoming members. Christina On average, nearly 4.5 million people attend a Southern Baptist church each week, while more than 2.6 million participate in a small group Bible study or Sunday School class—both up more than 3% compared to 2024 and up for the fourth consecutive year. Warren Meanwhile, the number of baptisms increased by nearly 5 percent to well over a quarter of a million, marking five consecutive years of growth and surpassing pre-COVID levels. Christina Any final thoughts before you go? Warren It was great to visit with readers and donors in Los Angeles and Jacksonville recently. I will be speaking at the annual convention of the Evangelical Press Association in Nashville next week, and I will be holding a reader lunch in Franklin. For precise location, send me an email at wsmith@ministrywatch.com. I will also be in Dallas and Knoxville later in May. I will be speaking at Summit Ministries in Manitou Springs in June, so I will be doing reader lunches in Denver and Colorado Springs during that trip. Let me know if you would like to join us. My email is wsmith@ministrywatch.com. Christina That brings to a close this EXTRA episode of the podcast. The producer for today's program is Jeff McIntosh. I'm Christina Darnell, along with Warren Smith. Until next time, may God bless you.

This week, the Federal Communications Commission wants to be heard, but is what they're saying worth hearing? Nielsen Ratings Show Notes Paramount, In Request For FCC Funding OK, Notes It Will Be 49.5% Foreign-Owned After WBD Merger Foreign Ownership Rules and Policies for Common Carrier, Aeronautical En Route and Aeronautical Fixed Radio Station Licensees | Federal Communications Commission Paramount-Warner Bros. $110 Billion Deal Hit With Consumer Suit More State Attorneys General, Including Some Republicans, Join Antitrust Lawsuit Against Nexstar-Tegna Merger; Ohio Reaches Settlement Trump's FCC Orders ABC to File Broadcast TV License Renewals Within 30 Days in Wake of Jimmy Kimmel's Melania Joke Broadcast group says FCC Disney license review creates significant uncertainty | Reuters Amazon to televise 3 marquee Duke basketball games as part of landmark deal - ESPN ‘The Boys' Spinoff ‘Gen V' Canceled After Two Seasons on Prime Video 'Hazbin Hotel' Renewed for Fifth and Final Season at Prime Video 'Scrubs' & 'Shifting Gears' Renewed By ABC, 'R.J. Decker' Remains On The Bubble Stranger Things: Tales From '85 Will Return for Season 2 'Clueless' Sequel Series With Alicia Silverstone Not Moving Forward At Peacock What We've Been Doing The Finn Family Moomintroll, by Tove Jansson Margo's Got Money Troubles Widow's Bay Scrubs Dungeon Crawler Carl: A Parade of Horribles

Ralph welcomes six authors to discuss their books: “Beyond Nuclear” founder Linda Gunter; trial lawyer Sean Simpson; law professor Elizabeth Burch; naturalist David Schmidt; industrial hygienist Marc Axelrod; and educator and advocate Jonathan Kozol.Linda Gunter is the founder of the US-based non-profit Beyond Nuclear and serves as its international specialist. Previously, she was a journalist at USA Network, Reuters, and The Times. She launched, and writes for Beyond Nuclear's online magazine, Beyond Nuclear International. And she is the author of No To Nuclear: Why Nuclear Power Destroys Lives, Derails Climate Progress and Provokes War.We need to reduce the most carbon, the fastest, for the least cost—and that's renewables every time. But it's also an issue of: as we divert funds towards nuclear power (new reactors, which are not here now, they're just aspirational ideas on paper, none of the designs have certifications or licenses yet) as we divert time and our money towards waiting for something that will perhaps take a decade or two (or never) to materialize, and as we squeeze out renewables in the process, what do we do? We continue to burn fossil fuels. So actually, choosing nuclear as an answer to climate makes the climate crisis worse.Linda GunterSean Simpson is an attorney specializing in civil jury trials, representing individuals who have been harmed by someone else's carelessness or intentional wrongdoing. He is the author of Punitive Damages: The Lawyer's Tool for Shaping Society.[Punitive damages are] typically not covered by insurance. But oddly enough, there's a trend coming now where these corporations—because they're in control, we've let them have the reins, and now they're getting insurance companies to sell them coverage to cover their punitive damages, which is totally a 180. If somebody else is going to pay your punishment for you, it's not going to sting your rump if somebody gets spanked on somebody else's behind.Sean SimpsonElizabeth Burch is a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, and co-author of Perceptions of Justice in Multidistrict Litigation: Voices from the Crowd. She is the author of The Pain Brokers: How Con Men, Call Centers, and Rogue Doctors Fuel America's Lawsuit Factory.Imagine that you are sitting in your kitchen and you get a phone call one night. And you answer, and the person on the other end of the line knows an inordinate amount of information about you—they know your name, they know your birth date, they know the name of your doctor, the name of your hospital, the date and type of medical implant that you had put in you. And then they tell you that you have a ticking time bomb in you. And if you don't have this removed immediately (that in this case was pelvic mesh, which is designed to deal with incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse) that you are going to die. But not to worry, they are setting up appointments down in South Florida to have the mesh removed. What they don't say is all of the important things.Elizabeth BurchDavid Schmidt is lifelong San Francisco Bay Area resident, naturalist, and environmental historian. He worked as a writer in the public affairs office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in San Francisco from 1991 to 2021, led dozens of hikes for the Greenbelt Alliance in the region's extensive public parklands, and volunteered on habitat restoration projects for the Golden Gate National Parks and the California Native Plant Society. He is the author of San Francisco Bay Area: An Environmental History.I think [the environmental movement in the Bay Area] is the most successful regional environmental movement in US history. Its victories have had a tremendous impact on protecting the natural landscape, the agricultural landscape. And this is a landscape that is famous for its scenic beauty. It's among the world's most biodiverse landscapes with more than a thousand species of plants and wildlife. And persistence pays off. That is the theme that comes across time and again with environmental victories is: persistence pays off.David SchmidtMarc Axelrod is an award-winning front line industrial hygienist and workplace safety professional. He has developed and implemented programs to protect people from industry's most hazardous technologies. He has worked for employers including Boeing, Kaiser Permanente, UCLA and the City of Beverly Hills. He is the author of The Flame Bucket: Adventures in Workplace Safety.You can lie down in the flame bucket and stop a [rocket] launch, but you can only do it once. So I decided that we had a very risky program [at the city of Beverly Hills]. It was for testing our commercial drivers for alcohol and drugs. And somehow they got a big percentage of them, almost a third of them, got left out of the program. And I can see, being backstage, what happens in city government where people leave and people come and how these kinds of things can occur. But when they do happen, what you've got to do is stop everything, blame the people that left, and then fix it right away. But this program—even though people knew that there was a big gap in it, they just didn't want to fix it. But I knew as City Safety Officer, I was responsible. So after months of delay, I said, “Listen, these drivers can't drive anymore. They can't do their safety functions without a clearance test from our drug and alcohol program.” And so that got their attention, and we quickly fixed the program, and I got a lot of thank yous. And then a few days later, I was fired.Marc AxelrodJonathan Kozol is a leading advocate for child-centered learning, equality, and racial justice in our nation's schools, and he travels and lectures about educational inequality and racial injustice. Mr. Kozol is the author of nearly a dozen books about young children and their public schools, including Death at an Early Age, An End to Inequality: Breaking Down the Walls of Apartheid Education in America, and We Shall Not Bow Down: Children of Color Under Siege: An Invocation to Resistance.My book is not simply a polite description of these problems. It's probably the most militant book I've ever written. It's an open call for militant resistance. And, you know, I get condemned for that, but I'm not afraid to say that I'm an unregenerate activist, and I'm too old to change my stripes.Jonathan KozolNews 5/1/26* Perhaps the biggest news of the week is the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais to gut Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which preserved majority-minority congressional districts. In practice, this ruling gives conservative Southern states license to draw these districts out of existence. Jonathan Cervas, a political scientist at Carnegie-Mellon University who has served as a special master in multiple Voting Rights Act cases, is quoted in AP saying “The Voting Rights Act as a means to protect minority voters from vote dilution is essentially dead.” In the Washington Post, NAACP President Derrick Johnson called the decision “a devastating blow to what remains of the Voting Rights Act, and a license for corrupt politicians who want to rig the system by silencing entire communities,” and “a major setback for our nation and…the hard-won victories we've fought, bled, and died for.” In practice, this ruling is sure to set off a new round of redrawing congressional districts, likely resulting in a net gain of 12 seats – half of the Southern Section 2 districts – for the GOP. In Louisiana itself, CNN reports Governor Jeff Landry has halted House primaries, where “Early voting was scheduled to begin Saturday and overseas ballots had already gone out.” Moreover, “Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields, whose district is at the center of the Supreme Court's redistricting decision, said…Landry had told him he anticipated issuing an executive order to suspend the House election and call a new one.”* Speaking of Southern congressional districts, in Florida's 20th district, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick has “defiantly” filed to run again in the special election for her former district, per NOTUS. Cherfilus-McCormick resigned her seat in Congress last week just minutes before the House Ethics Committee was scheduled to “recommend punishment on an array of charges.” She had previously been found guilty of “25 ethics violations, including allegedly stealing $5 million dollars in federal disaster-aid funds used to bolster her 2021 campaign,” following an extensive investigation running for two years and including “issuing 58 subpoenas, interviewing 28 witnesses and reviewing over 33,000 documents.” Elijah Manley, the young progressive running for the seat, is quoted saying “Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick resigned in disgrace moments before her colleagues were set to expel her from Congress…The last thing our community needs is a second round of chaos and instability. She should focus on her legal troubles.”* In more positive news from Congress, Rep. Greg Casar announced this week that the Congressional Progressive Caucus he chairs is issuing a new Affordability Agenda, bringing together a slew of bills sponsored by progressives – on topics ranging from housing to groceries to prescription drugs and more – into a unified package. In an introduction, the Caucus emphasizes that “Americans are facing a cost-of-living crisis and…At the same time, Democrats are searching for a vision that wins back the trust of working families and provides a mandate to deliver the big changes our country needs in 2026.” The question now is whether the Democratic Party will take up this banner and run with it or once again spurn their progressive base.* Meanwhile, the Trump administration is occupied with their continuing efforts to persecute comedians for anodyne jokes. The latest on this front is the Federal Communications Commission ordering the Walt Disney Company's ABC to seek early broadcast license renewals for the eight TV stations it owns, following a joke about Melania Trump on Jimmy Kimmel's late night show, NPR reports. The joke, a “mock speech for an alternative White House Correspondents' Dinner,” which went “Our first lady Melania is here. So beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow,” aired three days before the actual White House Correspondents' Dinner and the corresponding security threat. Kimmel has stressed that the joke was about the age difference between the President and First Lady “not, by any stretch of the definition, a call to assassination. And they know that.” FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez, sole Democrat still on the commission, issued a statement calling this “the most egregious action this FCC has taken in violation of the First Amendment to date…As part of its ongoing campaign of censorship and control, the White House called publicly for the silencing of a vocal critic, and this FCC has now answered that call.”* Another scandalous act of corruption from inside the federal government came to light this week with Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a special operations soldier stationed at Fort Bragg being charged with insider trading. Specifically, Van Dyke is charged with three counts of violating the Commodity Exchange Account, one count of wire fraud and one count of an unlawful money transaction for using classified government information to win over $400,000 via prediction betting site Polymarket vis-a-vis the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, per the Hill. U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton, also heading up the prosecution of President Maduro, is quoted saying “Prediction markets are not a haven for using misappropriated confidential or classified information for personal gain.” For their part, Polymarket has announced tightened insider trading rules, but continues to insist that “When we identified a user trading on classified government information, we referred the matter to the DOJ & cooperated with their investigation,” and that Van Dyke's arrest is “proof the system works.”* In more news related to Latin America, a new poll shows leftist Senator and presidential candidate Iván Cepeda with a substantial lead, according to the City Paper Bogotá. In polls of the first round, Cepeda drew 44.3%, while his rivals, Abelardo de la Espriella and Paloma Valencia drew 21.5% and 19.8% respectively, an impressive showing for Valencia who has nearly doubled her support since the last poll was taken. In the second round, polling shows Cepeda besting both rivals, 54.6% to 42.6% against de la Espriella and a narrower 51.2% versus 46.6% against Valencia. A Cepeda victory would continue the leftward trend in Colombian politics begun with the election of Gustavo Petro in 2022, a remarkable turnaround for one of the most stalwart conservative countries in the region.* Elsewhere on the globe, a new poll shows Jeremy Corbyn – the British left icon, former Labour Party leader and founder of Your Party – in danger of losing his long-held seat in the riding of Islington North. Corbyn, who was first elected to the seat in 1983, was able to keep his seat as an independent MP even after his expulsion from the Labour Party following the hostile takeover of the party by the centrist Keir Starmer regime. Yet now, with Your Party coming apart at the seams, the Greens look poised to capture the seat. However, the Canary notes that this poll only asked voters about their partisan voting intentions, with no mention of individual candidates. This means even if voters in Islington North are more sympathetic to the Greens overall, they could still return Corbyn himself to Parliament. Nevertheless, this poll gives some indication of how successfully the Greens have outmaneuvered Your Party, even in what should be their most solid riding.* Another iconic British public figure – King Charles III – is in America this week for a royal visit in which he addressed a joint session of Congress, met with President Trump and enjoyed a White House dinner. On Wednesday, the King attended a wreath-laying ceremony at Ground Zero in New York City, along with New York Governor Kathy Hochul, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill and, most strikingly, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. This unlikely pairing has clearly piqued the interest of the press, who asked Mayor Mamdani what he would talk about with the King if they were to have a private moment together. While the duo did not ultimately have a private meeting, Mamdani responded that he would “probably encourage [the King] to return the Kohinoor diamond,” which POLITICO identifies as “an enormous bauble set into a royal crown on display in the Tower of London,” noting that the diamond has “become a point of contention between England and India.”* In more local news, with the protracted California gubernatorial primary on the horizon at last, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees or IATSE, has thrown their weight behind progressive billionaire Tom Steyer, Variety reports. This piece notes Steyer's pledge to keep film and television production in Los Angeles along with his outspoken criticism of the merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. as well as his proposal to levy a tax on AI computations and use the proceeds to “fund training for displaced workers.” IATSE represents around 50,000 workers in California and 130,000 workers nationwide. Steyer has amassed considerable union support in his bid for perhaps the second most powerful political executive position in the country after the presidency, including the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers, and the California Nurses Association. Steyer's closest Democratic rival in the open primary, former Congressman, state Attorney General and HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra is racking up endorsements as well, including from Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and powerful California politicianss such as Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas. With a close race between the top four leading Democrats and Republicans, the June 2nd primary is sure to conclude with a photo finish.* Finally, in Washington DC, the Democratic Mayoral primary continues to grow more acrimonious. This week, former Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie, the candidate backed by corporate donors and the DC political establishment, criticized progressive Councilmember Janeese Lewis-George in a fundraising email for supposedly accepting “dark money from outside interest groups.” Which groups you may ask? Local unions, representing tens of thousands of DC workers, including local branches of the AFL-CIO, UFCW, transit workers, teachers, the building trades and more. In a stinging rebuke, the unions excoriated McDuffie for his “disturbing pattern of anti-union talking points and votes” including opposition to wage increases for DC restaurant and child-care workers – while simultaneously accepting donations from “MAGA developers…[and] utility and energy executives.” Moreover, Axios reports Safe & Affordable DC, a labor-aligned super PAC, is launching a half-million dollar ad blitz attacking McDuffie on his record of favoritism towards the utilities at a moment when bills are higher than ever. Tensions mounted even higher this week, when the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance opened an investigation to determine whether Lewis George's campaign is collaborating too closely with her union allies – an allegation she has dismissed as “baseless.” It is worth noting that DC progressives have had this accusation leveled at them in the past, only for it to indeed prove baseless. Expect this race to get more heated, and more expensive, the closer we get to the June 16th primary.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

May 2, 2026, 8 AM; In the name of disentangling race from voting, the Supreme Court has made it virtually impossible for Black voters to challenge gerrymandered congressional maps. For decades, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act acted as a guardrail, preventing Southern legislatures from carving Black voters out of political power. Within hours of that ruling, states across the South began moving to redraw their maps ahead of the midterms. President and CEO of Democracy Forward Skye Perryman and Melissa Murray join The Weekend to discuss how this will affect voting and the midterms. For more, follow us on social media: Bluesky: @theweekendmsnow.bsky.social Instagram: @theweekendmsnow TikTok: @theweekendmsnow To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Federal Communications Commission has ordered The Walt Disney Company's ABC to seek early broadcast license renewals for the eight TV stations it owns. The move follows criticism from first lady Melania Trump who objected to a joke about her made by late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel. President Trump followed up with a social media post calling for Kimmel to be fired, as NPR's Mandalit del Barco reports.Support NPR and hear every episode of Trump's Terms sponsor-free with NPR+. Sign up at plus.npr.org.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

The AI arms race is shifting from apps to infrastructure, devices, and pricing models.On this week's Tech Field Day News Rundown, Alastair Cooke is joined by guest co-host Guy Currier to break down the IT news of the week with a variable degree of snark. Google unveils its Virgo network, a massive AI backbone built to connect over 100,000 chips and push scale to a new level, while the Federal Communications Commission expands WiFi and hotspot rules, signaling long-term changes for power users and home networking.Meanwhile, OpenAI is exploring an AI-first smartphone that could replace traditional apps with persistent agents. GitHub shifts Copilot to usage-based pricing, reflecting the real cost of AI at scale, as Qlik pushes further into agent-driven analytics and automation.On the security side, Microsoft integrates Claude Mythos into its development lifecycle to catch vulnerabilities earlier. This and more on the Tech Field Day News Rundown with Alastair Cooke and Guy Currier. Time Stamps: 0:00 - Cold Open0:22 - Welcome to the Tech Field Day News Rundown0:54 - Google Unveils Virgo Network to Power Next-Gen AI Infrastructure3:46 - FCC Expands WiFi Router Ban to Hotspots and 5G Devices6:55 - OpenAI Targets Smartphones with Bold AI-First Device Plan9:14 - GitHub Copilot Shifts to Usage-Based Pricing for AI13:09 - Qlik Expands AI-Powered Data Platform with Agentic Automation15:26 - Microsoft Integrates Anthropic Mythos AI to Strengthen Cybersecurity19:13 - Google Cloud Next 2026: AI Agents, TPUs, and Massive Growth25:24 - ⁠The Weeks Ahead: Upcoming Tech Field Day Events27:03 - Thanks for Watching the Tech Field Day News RundownTune in every Wednesday for the IT news of the week with a variable degree of snarkiness. Guest Host: ⁠Guy Currier⁠, Research Director for ⁠The Futurum Group⁠Follow our hosts ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Tom Hollingsworth⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Alastair Cooke⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Stephen Foskett⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Follow Tech Field Day ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠on LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠X/Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Bluesky⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, and on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mastodon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

This Day in Legal History: Sirhan Sirhan SentencedOn April 23, 1969, Sirhan Sirhan was formally sentenced to death for the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, a crime that had shaken the United States the previous year. The sentencing came after a highly publicized trial in Los Angeles, where prosecutors argued that the killing was deliberate and politically motivated. Evidence presented at trial included eyewitness accounts placing Sirhan at the scene and actively firing the fatal shots. His own recorded statements, which expressed hostility toward Kennedy, played a key role in establishing intent. The defense raised questions about Sirhan's mental state, but these arguments did not overcome the prosecution's narrative of premeditation.The jury ultimately found him guilty of first-degree murder, leading to the imposition of the death penalty under California law at the time. The sentence reflected both the gravity of the crime and the broader national trauma surrounding political assassinations in the 1960s. However, the legal status of capital punishment in California soon shifted dramatically. In 1972, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Anderson, which held that the death penalty as then applied violated the state constitution. As a result, Sirhan's sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, aligning his case with others affected by the ruling.The Sirhan case remains significant in legal history for its intersection with issues of political violence and criminal accountability. It also illustrates how broader constitutional developments can reshape individual sentences long after a trial concludes. Debates about his culpability and mental state have persisted, raising ongoing questions about the standards for criminal responsibility. At the same time, the case is frequently cited in discussions about the fairness and consistency of the death penalty. It stands as a reminder of how legal systems respond to acts that carry both criminal and profound national consequences.Anthropic has asked a federal court in California to rule in its favor in a copyright lawsuit brought by major music publishers, including Universal Music Group, over the use of song lyrics to train its AI chatbot, Claude. The company argues that its use of copyrighted lyrics qualifies as “fair use” because it is transformative, meaning the material was used to help the AI understand language rather than to reproduce songs. Anthropic claims this kind of use supports innovation across fields like science, business, and education.The publishers, including Concord and ABKCO, disagree and argue that the AI system can generate outputs that resemble or compete with their lyrics, potentially harming the market for original works. They originally filed the lawsuit in 2023, alleging that Anthropic copied lyrics from hundreds of songs by well-known artists without permission. This dispute is part of a broader wave of legal challenges against AI companies, including OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms, over how training data is used.Anthropic is seeking summary judgment, which would allow it to win the case without a full trial if the judge agrees that its actions were legally protected fair use. The outcome could be highly influential, as courts are currently split on whether AI training on copyrighted material is permissible. The company also emphasizes that copyright law is intended to benefit the public by encouraging innovation, not just to compensate creators.At the center of the case is a key legal question: whether copying large amounts of copyrighted material to train AI systems can be considered transformative use under copyright law. This issue is likely to shape future rulings as similar cases continue to move through the courts.Anthropic seeks pivotal court win in music publisher lawsuit over AI training | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Labor has introduced a proposed rule to clarify when multiple employers can be held jointly responsible for wage and hour violations. The rule, titled Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, is designed to create a clearer and more consistent standard across federal law. Officials say the goal is to resolve conflicting interpretations among federal courts and make compliance easier for businesses.According to acting Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling, the proposal aims to both simplify regulations for employers and strengthen protections for workers. The rule would mark the agency's first formal guidance on joint employment since the prior regulation from an earlier administration was rescinded without replacement. Unlike that earlier version, the new proposal would apply to multiple statutes, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.The Department believes a uniform standard will reduce confusion, encourage better business practices, and ensure workers can recover wages or benefits even if one employer fails to pay. Wage and Hour Division Administrator Andrew Rogers emphasized that clearer rules can improve enforcement and reduce litigation.The proposal is currently open for public comment through June 22 and follows earlier signals that the agency planned to revisit joint employer standards.BREAKING: DOL Unveils Joint Employer Rule Proposal - Law360The U.S. Supreme Court signaled that it may side with the Federal Communications Commission in a dispute over how the agency issues fines to wireless carriers. The case involves major companies like Verizon Communications and AT&T, which argued that the FCC's internal enforcement process violates their constitutional right to a jury trial. The fines stem from findings that the companies failed to properly protect customer location data, resulting in penalties totaling over $100 million.During oral arguments, several justices expressed doubt about the companies' claims, suggesting that the FCC's forfeiture orders are not final or binding unless enforced in court. This distinction appeared central, as it implies companies still have the option to challenge the penalties before a judge and jury. Justices, including Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson, compared the process to a legal choice—either accept the penalty or contest it through litigation.Some members of the Court, however, raised concerns about whether companies may feel pressured to comply due to uncertainty or reputational harm. John Roberts suggested the issue might be more about public perception than a direct legal burden, while Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether the FCC had been fully clear about the non-binding nature of its orders.The dispute comes amid broader scrutiny of federal agency power, especially following a 2024 decision limiting enforcement proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Despite that precedent, the justices did not appear ready to apply the same reasoning to the FCC's system. Lower courts had previously split on the issue, prompting Supreme Court review.A final decision is expected by late June and could clarify how far federal agencies can go in using internal processes to impose financial penalties.US Supreme Court leans toward FCC in clash with wireless carriers over fines | 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

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, (April 20) - Corporations & Securities; Issue(s): Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm.T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., (April 20) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Standing; Issue(s): Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court.Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.,(April 21) - Communications & Technology; Issue(s): Whether the Communications Act of 1934 provisions that govern the Federal Communications Commission’s assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.Bondi v. Lau, (April 22) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the United States.Chatrie v. United States, (April 27) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.Monsanto Company v. Durnell, (April 27) - Energy & Environmental Law; Issue(s): Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, (April 28) - International Law & Human Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting; and (2) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., (April 29) - Patent Law / Intellectual Property Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether, when a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a “generic version” and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) are enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use; and (2) whether a complaint states a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use.Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, (April 29) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian and Haitian nationals.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Communications Act of 1934 provisions that govern the Federal Communications Commission's assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.

FCC v. AT&T | 04/21/26 | Docket #: 25-406 25-406 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. AT&T DECISION BELOW: 149 F.4th 491 CONSOLIDATED WITH 25-567 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2026 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq ., empowers the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assess monetary forfeiture penalties for certain violations of the Act or the FCC's regulations by issuing a notice of apparent liability, giving the regulated party an opportunity to respond in writing, and then issuing a final decision. If the regulated party declines to pay and the government sues to collect the penalties, the regulated party is entitled to a de novo jury trial in a federal district court. Alternatively, the subject of an FCC forfeiture order may pay the monetary penalty and file a petition for review in a court of appeals, thereby triggering a judicial-review proceeding in which no jury is available. The question presented is as follows: Whether the Communications Act provisions that govern the FCC's assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-60223

This Day in Legal History: John Adams Sworn in as VPOn April 21, 1789, John Adams was sworn in as the first Vice President of the United States, becoming one of the earliest officials to assume office under the newly ratified U.S. Constitution. His inauguration followed the formation of the new federal government and helped signal that the Constitution was not merely theoretical but fully operational. At the time, the role of Vice President was not yet clearly defined, leaving Adams to shape many of its early norms through practice rather than precedent. The Constitution assigned him the duty of presiding over the Senate, placing him at the intersection of the executive and legislative branches. This hybrid function raised early questions about separation of powers, a core principle embedded in the constitutional structure. Adams himself reportedly found the position frustrating, as it carried limited executive authority while restricting his participation in Senate debates. Despite these limitations, his service helped establish procedural expectations for how the Vice President would engage in legislative affairs.The peaceful assumption of office by Adams also reinforced the legitimacy of the new constitutional system at a time when its durability was uncertain. It demonstrated that leadership transitions could occur within a stable legal framework rather than through upheaval or force. This moment contributed to the broader development of constitutional governance by modeling adherence to formal legal processes. Early officeholders like Adams played a critical role in translating the Constitution's text into functioning institutions. His tenure also highlighted ambiguities in the document, many of which would later be addressed through political practice and constitutional amendments. Over time, the vice presidency evolved into a more active executive role, but its foundation was laid during this initial transition period. Adams's swearing-in remains a key example of how early constitutional actors shaped the practical meaning of the nation's governing document.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit directed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to revisit its denial of a whistleblower award to an anonymous claimant. The court granted a partial win to the individual, sending the case back to the agency for a clearer explanation of its reasoning. Although the court's full opinion remains sealed, earlier oral arguments suggested the judges were focused on whether the claimant's actions met the legal definition of “voluntary” under Dodd-Frank Act. The SEC had previously rejected the claim, stating that it only learned of the information after contacting the individual, who had first shared allegations with the media. The claimant argued that this sequence should not disqualify them from receiving an award.Whistleblower awards under Dodd-Frank apply when provided information leads to enforcement actions with penalties exceeding $1 million, with awards ranging from 10% to 30% of collected sanctions. Because of this structure, the denied award in this case could amount to a significant financial loss. The court's decision signals concern that the SEC may not have adequately justified its interpretation of the law. The ruling does not guarantee the claimant will receive an award but requires the agency to reconsider and better articulate its position. The case highlights ongoing tension over how strictly the SEC defines eligibility requirements for whistleblowers. It also underscores the importance of transparency in agency decision-making when financial incentives and legal protections are at stake.DC Circ. Orders SEC Rethink Of Whistleblower Claim - Law360A Reuters investigation found that Tesla, Inc. has paid little to no U.S. federal income tax over most of its history, including reporting a zero-dollar tax bill for 2025 despite generating substantial revenue. While some of these low tax obligations are explained by earlier business losses and government incentives for clean energy, the report highlights another major factor: profit shifting through foreign subsidiaries. Specifically, Tesla units in the Netherlands and Singapore recorded about $18 billion in profits that were not taxed in those countries and likely avoided U.S. taxation as well. Experts cited in the report estimate this strategy may have reduced Tesla's U.S. tax burden by more than $400 million.The mechanism appears tied to transferring intellectual property rights to overseas entities, allowing profits tied to those assets to be recorded in lower-tax jurisdictions. One Dutch-linked entity, structured as a partnership, reportedly had no employees and functioned mainly as a conduit for income. These arrangements are legal and commonly used by multinational corporations, though they remain controversial and are often criticized as exploiting gaps in international tax systems. The findings contrast with past public comments by Elon Musk, who has expressed skepticism about using aggressive tax loopholes. The report found no evidence that Tesla violated tax laws, but it underscores ongoing debates about corporate tax practices and transparency.Musk scorned “shady” loopholes, yet offshore tax tricks likely saved Tesla hundreds of millions | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily blocked the $6.2 billion merger between Nexstar Media Group and Tegna Inc., finding that challengers are likely to prove the deal would harm competition. The ruling came from a California federal court, which issued a preliminary injunction stopping the companies from integrating while lawsuits from DirecTV and several state attorneys general move forward. The court said the merger could lead to higher fees for distributors, fewer choices for consumers, and reductions in local journalism. It also warned that combining the companies would increase leverage to threaten “blackouts,” where broadcasters pull channels during fee disputes, potentially leaving viewers without access to sports and local news.The judge emphasized that Nexstar must keep Tegna operating as an independent competitor for now, noting that further integration could cause irreversible harm, including layoffs and station closures. Although the deal had already received approval from regulators like the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice, the court found that oversight did not sufficiently address antitrust concerns. State officials and DirecTV argue the merger would create the largest local TV station owner in the U.S., reaching a vast majority of households and concentrating too much control in one company. Nexstar has said it will appeal the decision and continues to defend the merger as beneficial for local broadcasting.To understand the stakes, it helps to know what these companies control. Nexstar is already the largest owner of local TV stations in the U.S., operating more than 200 stations affiliated with major networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox, and it also owns the cable network NewsNation. Tegna owns dozens of local TV stations across major markets, many of which also carry network programming and produce local news. DirecTV, while not a broadcaster, distributes these channels to subscribers and would be directly affected by any increase in fees. Together, Nexstar and Tegna would control over 250 stations nationwide, raising concerns about pricing power, reduced competition, and the future of local news coverage.Nexstar-Tegna Deal Blocked Amid DirecTV, AGs' Challenge - Law360My column for Bloomberg this week argues that states rushing to tax prediction markets are trying to regulate something they haven't yet clearly defined. That uncertainty creates a real risk: policymakers could end up taxing the wrong base entirely. Until there is clarity about what these platforms actually are, restraint is the more defensible approach.Prediction markets have grown rapidly, with trading volume skyrocketing in just a few years. That growth has drawn attention from lawmakers at both the state and federal levels, but the central question remains unresolved. If these platforms are gambling, then state sports betting frameworks might apply. If they function more like financial instruments, they fall under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. And if they are neither, forcing them into an existing category may create more confusion than clarity.I explain that the case for treating them like gambling platforms is understandable, since users are effectively betting on real-world outcomes. But the comparison breaks down when you look at how these platforms operate. Unlike sportsbooks, they don't act as “the house” or take on risk. Instead, they function more like exchanges, matching users who take opposite sides of a contract and earning revenue through transaction fees rather than betting outcomes.This distinction matters for tax policy. Sportsbooks are typically taxed on gross gaming revenue, which reflects the house's winnings after payouts. That model assumes operators profit from users losing bets. Prediction markets don't fit that structure, because they don't generate meaningful gaming revenue in the traditional sense. Treating trading volume as taxable revenue risks overstating the size of the tax base.At the same time, the CFTC has asserted federal authority and begun challenging state efforts in court. As these disputes move through the judiciary, there is a growing possibility of conflicting rulings that could ultimately require resolution by the Supreme Court of the United States. Even if states succeed in the short term, their tax systems could rest on shaky legal ground.I also emphasize that prediction markets are inherently borderless digital platforms, which makes fragmented state-by-state regulation difficult to sustain. If they are closer to financial exchanges than local gambling operations, a coherent federal framework may be more appropriate.A more durable solution would be a federal system that taxes platform fees rather than mischaracterized gaming revenue. But that approach would require policymakers to explain why prediction markets deserve distinct treatment from other financial intermediaries. Once the gambling analogy is set aside, that justification becomes harder.None of this eliminates a role for states, particularly in areas like consumer protection and fraud enforcement. But the core questions—what prediction markets are, how they generate income, and how they should be taxed—are national in scope and should be treated that way. 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

Episode Notes On March 19, the Federal Communications Commission authorized Nexstar Media Group to finalize its acquisition of TEGNA Media Group, potentially creating the most expensive and largest broadcast media company in U.S. History. However, there have been many appeals of the decision, as it could have lasting implications for the media that students at the University consume and study.

Stephen Colbert has recently found himself at the center of a free speech controversy after CBS reportedly barred him from airing a televised interview with a Democratic candidate, citing concerns over the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) "equal time" rule. While Colbert ultimately bypassed the restriction by releasing the segment on YouTube, the incident highlights broader tensions regarding editorial independence under the current political climate. Parallel to these broadcast concerns, new legislative efforts in California have sparked debate over the future of independent reporting; specifically, a proposed bill authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta seeks to criminalize the sharing of identifying information of immigrant service providers. While proponents argue this measure protects workers from harassment, critics like Nick Shirley claim it could effectively "criminalize investigative journalism" by penalizing citizen journalists who document public interactions in high-stakes environments.

By Doug Green “The missing layer in stopping scam calls is verified identity—knowing with certainty who is behind the call.” In a recent Telecom Reseller podcast, I spoke with Keith Buell, General Counsel and Head of Global Public Policy at Numeracle, about the Federal Communications Commission's latest Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on caller ID and what it means for service providers. At the center of the discussion is a growing consensus in Washington: authentication alone is not enough. While frameworks like STIR/SHAKEN have improved call authentication, they do not fully address the problem of identity—specifically, verifying the entity originating the call. Numeracle has been focused on this issue since 2018, working at both the regulatory and industry levels to address the gap between authentication and identity. As Buell explained, the company's mission is to ensure that legitimate calls reach consumers while protecting enterprises and service providers from reputational and regulatory risk associated with misidentified or spam-labeled calls. The FCC's NPRM reflects this shift in thinking. The proposal emphasizes stronger caller authentication, greater transparency, and more robust Know Your Customer (KYC) processes. The goal is to reduce illegal robocalls while preserving the ability for legitimate businesses to communicate effectively with customers. Central to this effort is the concept of traceable, verifiable caller identity. Numeracle has been actively engaged in shaping this conversation. The company submitted formal comments supporting the FCC's objectives, while advocating for end-to-end identity verification that can scale across the ecosystem. In addition, Numeracle has met with FCC leadership, including Chairman Carr, Commissioner Gomez, and staff from key bureaus such as the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau. A key theme in those discussions is the need for practical, standards-based solutions that do not disrupt legitimate communications. As Buell noted, the challenge is to balance enforcement with enablement—ensuring bad actors are stopped without inadvertently blocking trusted enterprise traffic. To address this, Numeracle recently introduced KYC as a Service (KYCaaS), a fully managed solution designed to help service providers implement standardized identity verification processes. The offering enables carriers to collect, validate, and maintain customer identity data in alignment with evolving FCC requirements, while also creating an auditable trail that supports compliance. More importantly, KYCaaS is positioned as a proactive approach. Rather than reacting to regulatory enforcement after the fact, service providers can establish a framework for verified identity that reduces risk and improves call deliverability. For service providers, the message is clear: the regulatory environment is shifting toward verified identity as a foundational requirement. Those who move early to implement scalable KYC processes will be better positioned to maintain compliance, protect their brands, and ensure their communications reach customers. Learn more at: https://www.numeracle.com/kycaas

The Justice Department is investigating the National Football League over alleged anticompetitive practices that harm consumers, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday citing anonymous sources familiar with the probe, although the exact scope of the investigation was not immediately clear and not confirmed by investigators or the league. KEY FACTS Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have written to federal regulators, including the DoJ and the Federal Communications Commission, in recent months detailing high costs placed on consumers due to the NFL's exclusive deals with streaming platforms and cable channels. The NFL has historically been protected from some antitrust regulation by the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. Both the Justice Department and the NFL declined to comment on the Journal's report, and neither organization immediately returned a request for comment from Forbes. KEY BACKGROUND In March, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, asked the Justice Department to examine the NFL's practice of simultaneously licensing the rights to broadcast games to “subscription streaming platforms, premium cable networks, and technology companies.” The Utah senator said this practice might no longer be protected as “sponsored telecasting” of games as protected in the Sports Broadcasting Act, which was written when games were only available on broadcast television available to all. According to Lee's letter, a person who wanted to watch every NFL game last season would have had to pay almost $1,000 on various cable and streaming service subscriptions, as well as fees for high-speed internet or satellite connections. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Patrick Ryan, D-N.Y., sent their own letter to the FCC in April, asking regulators to examine whether acquisitions and “forced bundling” have forced consumers to pay higher prices for packages including games they don't want. Read the full story on Forbes: By Zachary Folk https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2026/04/09/federal-investigators-probing-nfl-for-alleged-anticompetitive-practices-report-says/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Jackie Robinson Signs with DodgersOn April 10, 1947, Jackie Robinson signed his contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers, marking a pivotal moment in both sports and legal history. At the time, racial segregation was deeply entrenched in American society, including in professional athletics, where informal but rigid “color lines” excluded Black players. Robinson's signing, orchestrated by Dodgers executive Branch Rickey, directly challenged this exclusionary system. Although no court decision mandated integration in baseball, the move carried significant legal implications by undermining accepted norms of segregation.Robinson's entry into Major League Baseball occurred just years before landmark civil rights rulings, including Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. His success on the field helped shift public opinion, demonstrating that integration was both possible and beneficial. This cultural shift played an indirect but meaningful role in supporting broader legal challenges to segregation. At the same time, Robinson faced hostility, threats, and discriminatory treatment, highlighting the gap between evolving social practices and existing legal protections.The federal legal framework addressing discrimination was still underdeveloped in 1947, with major statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nearly two decades away. Robinson's breakthrough contributed to the growing momentum for such legislation by exposing the injustice and inefficiency of segregated systems. His experience also illustrated the limits of private action in achieving equality without formal legal enforcement mechanisms. Over time, his role became part of a larger narrative demonstrating how social change can precede and influence legal reform.Robinson's signing stands as an example of how non-judicial actions can shape the development of law by altering public attitudes and expectations. It underscores the interplay between private institutions and constitutional principles, particularly in the realm of equal protection. The event remains a key reference point in discussions about the relationship between cultural progress and legal change in the United States.A California federal judge has ordered another evidentiary hearing in the ongoing dispute between Epic Games and Google over proposed changes to an antitrust injunction governing Android app distribution. U.S. District Judge James Donato expressed frustration that each revised proposal introduces new elements, warning the parties that the court will not continue reviewing endless iterations. The latest proposal follows Epic's earlier trial victory, where a jury found Google had monopolized the Android app marketplace.Although the companies claim their revised plan better aligns with the original injunction, the judge raised concerns about potential anticompetitive effects. In particular, he questioned Google's idea of a “registered app store” program, suggesting it might create barriers for rival app stores. He also flagged possible issues with fees that could undermine competition. As a result, the court will require more detailed explanations before deciding whether to approve the changes.The dispute stems from litigation filed in 2020 challenging restrictions that limited alternative app stores and required developers to use Google's billing system. After Epic's win, the court imposed an injunction requiring Google to open its platform to competitors. While the revised proposal keeps some pro-competition measures—such as allowing alternative billing and preventing exclusionary deals—it has drawn mixed reactions.Supporters argue the new terms still promote competition, but critics, including Microsoft and advocacy groups, say the changes weaken the original order. They highlight concerns about new fees and provisions that could make it harder for competitors to enter the market. Some also argue that shifting key terms into private agreements reduces judicial oversight. Judge Donato indicated this upcoming hearing will likely be the final step before a decision, emphasizing the need to resolve the matter without further revisions.‘Not Going To Keep Doing This,' Judge Warns Epic, Google - Law360The U.S. Department of Justice has launched an investigation into whether the National Football League is engaging in anticompetitive practices that could harm consumers. While the exact scope of the probe is unclear, it appears to focus on how the league distributes broadcasting rights for its games. Concerns have grown among regulators, lawmakers, and broadcasters about the increasing shift of sports content from free television to paid streaming platforms.Critics argue that this trend makes it harder and more expensive for fans to watch games, with some estimates suggesting it could cost over $1,500 annually to access all NFL broadcasts across multiple services. The NFL has defended itself by noting that most of its games are still available on free broadcast television, particularly in local markets. Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission has also begun reviewing the broader migration of live sports to subscription-based platforms.The issue has drawn political attention, including a request from Senator Mike Lee for federal agencies to examine whether the NFL's longstanding antitrust exemption should still apply. That exemption, established by a 1961 law, allows leagues to bundle and sell broadcasting rights collectively.US Justice Department opens probe into NFL over anticompetitive practices, source says | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled that the U.S. Department of Defense failed to comply with a prior court order protecting journalists' access and reporting rights at the Pentagon. U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman found that the department's revised media policy effectively recreated the same unconstitutional restrictions it had already been ordered to remove. The dispute arose after The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes challenged rules limiting journalists' ability to seek information from government sources.Although the Pentagon changed the wording of its policy, the judge said the new language still prohibited routine journalistic practices, such as requesting non-public information. He rejected the government's argument that the revisions fixed the issue, calling them a clear attempt to sidestep the court's ruling. The opinion also criticized a provision that presumed journalists acted improperly if they offered anonymity to sources, noting that this is a standard practice in reporting.The judge further found that the Pentagon undermined the order by restricting reporters' physical access, including closing a designated workspace and requiring constant escorts inside the building. He dismissed the government's security justification, stating that existing screening procedures were never removed and that the new limitations appeared designed to weaken press access.Ultimately, the court ordered the government to restore prior conditions and comply fully with its ruling. Judge Friedman emphasized that the policy violated First Amendment protections by chilling press freedom and limiting the flow of information to the public. He warned that suppressing political speech and controlling media access are hallmarks of authoritarian systems, underscoring the constitutional importance of an independent press.‘Mark Of Autocracy': Court Says Pentagon Defied Press Order - Law360US judge says Pentagon violated court order to restore press access | ReutersA U.S. trade court is considering whether President Donald Trump's 10% global tariff on imports is lawful. The tariffs, introduced in February, are being challenged by a coalition of 24 states and small businesses, who argue that the policy exceeds presidential authority and improperly bypasses Congress. The case is being heard by a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade.The Trump administration defends the tariffs as a valid response to ongoing trade deficits, relying on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision allows temporary tariffs during serious balance-of-payments issues. However, the challengers argue that the law was intended for short-term economic emergencies, not persistent trade imbalances, and that the administration is stretching its meaning.The dispute comes shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down many of Trump's earlier tariffs imposed under a different statute, ruling he had overstepped his authority. Plaintiffs claim the new tariffs are an attempt to work around that decision using a different legal justification.US trade court weighs legality of Trump 10% global tariff | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Welcome to your weekly UAS News Update. We have three stories for you this week, a major confirms nobody is replacing DJI in the consumer market, the FCC opens public comments on drone spectrum reforms, and Oregon tells the FCC to build drone test sites in the mountains.First up this week, a major report from The Verge confirms what we have been saying for months: nobody is coming to save the consumer drone market. According to the report, massive defense contracts have absorbed almost every American company that might have built affordable consumer drones. For example, Skydio confirmed they will not return to the consumer market, and the U.S. Army recently ordered $52 million worth of their X10D tactical drones. Why build a $500 consumer drone when the Pentagon is spending millions? We did see the Antigravity A1 hit the market recently, which is an 8K 360-degree drone that sold 30,000 units shortly after launch. But Antigravity is still a Chinese company, so they face the exact same supply chain exposure. Meanwhile, the Zero Zero HoverAir Aqua is reportedly dead in the water after failing to get FCC certification before the December ban. When volunteer fire departments or Search and Rescue can't afford a $10,000 enterprise system, they rely on affordable consumer drones. As we've said time and time again, this isn't a problem we're going to feel right now… This will be a major problem in 2-3 years. Speaking of, the Federal Communications Commission has released Public Notice DA 26-314, asking our drone industry what needs to be fixed to help the United States lead the global drone race. The notice covers six policy areas, but spectrum access is the biggest one. Right now, most U.S. drones operate on unlicensed 2.4 and 5.8 gigahertz bands, which are the same crowded frequencies used by your home Wi-Fi router. The FCC is asking if the industry should shift to the licensed 5030 to 5091 megahertz band. They previously allocated a 10-megahertz block at 5040 to 5050 megahertz for direct frequency assignments, but this has sat dormant. The FCC also wants to speed up experimental licensing and address Counter-UAS rules. Currently, Section 333 of the Communications Act prohibits willful interference with radio communications, preventing any counter-drone system that jams a signal. Comments are due by May 1st. We will have to see if they can create a credible framework before current exemptions expire in 2027.And our third story, all interconnected this week, The Oregon Department of Aviation has drafted an eight-point response to the FCC public notice. But instead of just asking for abstract reforms, Oregon is telling the FCC exactly where to build new UAS innovation zones. They identified three specific test corridors in real terrain: one in the Cascades near Oakridge, another along the Columbia River Gorge, and a third in southeast Oregon. Oregon argues that testing drones in flat, controlled academic labs does not produce data that transfers to real-world conditions. For example, wildfire response or emergency medical delivery are dealing with mountain passes, line-of-sight obstructions, and weather. Oregon also backed the push toward the 5030 to 5091 megahertz band for command and control links, emphasizing that safety-critical operations cannot rely on unlicensed bands. They also asked the FCC for a simple waiver process for trusted deployment of foreign drones during this transition period. That's all this week, join us in Post Flight where we share our opinions that may or may not be suitable for YouTube, and we'll see you next week! https://dronexl.co/2026/04/06/fcc-da-26-314-drone-spectrum-licensing-public-notice/https://dronexl.co/2026/04/07/oregon-fcc-drone-dominance-test-sites/https://dronexl.co/2026/04/07/verge-dji-ban-nobody-replacing-consumer-drones/

The Department of Health and Human Services is reshuffling its top officials for data, artificial intelligence, and technology back under its chief information officer, undoing a 2024 reorganization of those roles under the Biden administration. In a Tuesday announcement, HHS said the department's chief AI officer, chief technology officer, and chief data officer would move from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy/Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, known as ASTP/ONC, back to the Office of the Chief Information Officer. The department is also ending the dual title of ASTP/ONC and reverting it back to just ONC. According to the press release, the reversal is aimed at reinforcing “OCIO's statutory responsibility for enterprise IT, cybersecurity, and data operations.” The move, the department said, also enables ONC to focus on its mission of health IT policy standards and certification. HHS CIO and acting CAIO Clark Minor said in a statement included in the release that the move allows the department to “move faster on shared platforms, protect our systems more effectively, and support ONC and the operating divisions with the technology capabilities they need to innovate for patients.” The Biden-era reorganization was first announced in July 2024 and generally moved functions away from the OCIO, with a goal of clarifying and consolidating those responsibilities. The Federal Communications Commission has tapped the Food and Drug Administration's former chief digital officer as its new IT chief, the independent agency announced Monday. Farhan Khan, who left the FDA for a private-sector role in August 2025, takes over as the FCC's chief information officer following the retirement of Allen Hill last October. Deputy CIO Don Tweedie had been serving in the role in an acting capacity since then. At the FDA, Khan oversaw digital transformation projects for the agency, managing a $200 million budget and team of more than 400 staffers, according to the FCC's press release. Khan began his federal career as a team lead with the Department of Justice in 2009, per his LinkedIn profile. He later served as the Department of Transportation's director of infrastructure, the FDA's CTO, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s IT infrastructure operations chief, and the U.S. Army's director of architecture and integration for the senior executive service. As the FCC's CIO, Khan — who holds a master's degree from George Washington in information systems — will be charged with overseeing the agency's overarching technical priorities, leading modernization efforts and securing data. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

We discuss a petition submitted to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposing the allocation of low band VHF frequencies to the GMRS and potentially FRS users. Plus, a shout out to President Radio for exceptional customer service! We'll also take some of your comments and questions from our blog and our forum at twowayradioforum dot com. Intro :00 Billboard 1:11 VHF Frequencies on the GMRS? 1:25 Recently, a petition was submitted to the Federal Communications Commission to change that. It proposes allocating portions of this low-band spectrum to GMRS and potentially FRS users. Could such a change be made, and if so, is it a viable solution? Shout Out to President Radio 26:25 This is why we are proud to be an Authorized President Dealer. Questions and Answers 29:08 Comments and questions from our blog and members of the Two Way Radio Forum. Check out and join the forum! It's free! Wrap up and Close 35:12 Send in your comments and questions for Danny and Rick to show[at]buytwowayradios.com. Feedback on this and other topics will be read by the hosts and included in future episodes of the show. If we read your comment about this episode on a future episode, we may send you a free t-shirt or some swag! Visit us at www.twowayradioshow.com! © 2026 Cricket Ventures, LLC. All rights reserved. [related_products is_auto_added="1"] The post TWRS-210 – VHF For the GMRS? appeared first on Buy Two Way Radios.

-The Federal Communications Commission has released a notice today designating any consumer routers manufactured outside the US as a security risk. -This potential ad revenue from Apple's Map App could seriously bolster Apple's services business, which currently generates $100 billion a year for the company. This division accounts for around 25 percent of annual revenue but faces challenges in both the short-term and long-term -The drone delivery startup has been rapidly expanding to metro areas across the US, but is now targeting the tech-friendly Silicon Valley region. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Donald Trump is furious over coverage of his Iran war. During a speech, he let out a rambling tirade at the media, and in a revealing turn, he talked about Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr's latest threats to revoke network licenses. Trump went off script, spewing unhinged falsehoods about the press's 2024 coverage and strangely declaring Carr's campaign a great success while urging him to keep it up. This essentially confirmed that Trump does expect Carr to ramp up the use of government power to punish news organizations whose war coverage displeases him—something the MAGA movement fully wants. We talked to New Republic staff writer Matt Ford, author of a great piece on the need for post-Trump accountability. He explains the flimsy legal basis for Carr's efforts, why they're mostly failing, what all this shows about Trump-MAGA contempt for the Constitutional order, and the prospects for post-Trump accountability for his subordinates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donald Trump is furious over coverage of his Iran war. During a speech, he let out a rambling tirade at the media, and in a revealing turn, he talked about Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr's latest threats to revoke network licenses. Trump went off script, spewing unhinged falsehoods about the press's 2024 coverage and strangely declaring Carr's campaign a great success while urging him to keep it up. This essentially confirmed that Trump does expect Carr to ramp up the use of government power to punish news organizations whose war coverage displeases him—something the MAGA movement fully wants. We talked to New Republic staff writer Matt Ford, author of a great piece on the need for post-Trump accountability. He explains the flimsy legal basis for Carr's efforts, why they're mostly failing, what all this shows about Trump-MAGA contempt for the Constitutional order, and the prospects for post-Trump accountability for his subordinates. Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donald Trump is furious over coverage of his Iran war. During a speech, he let out a rambling tirade at the media, and in a revealing turn, he talked about Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr's latest threats to revoke network licenses. Trump went off script, spewing unhinged falsehoods about the press's 2024 coverage and strangely declaring Carr's campaign a great success while urging him to keep it up. This essentially confirmed that Trump does expect Carr to ramp up the use of government power to punish news organizations whose war coverage displeases him—something the MAGA movement fully wants. We talked to New Republic staff writer Matt Ford, author of a great piece on the need for post-Trump accountability. He explains the flimsy legal basis for Carr's efforts, why they're mostly failing, what all this shows about Trump-MAGA contempt for the Constitutional order, and the prospects for post-Trump accountability for his subordinates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This past weekend, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission threatened to revoke broadcasters' licenses over their coverage of the war in Iran. Last month, Stephen Colbert said he had to drop an interview with a Senate candidate because of F.C.C. guidance that targeted political interviews on late-night shows. Jim Rutenberg, a writer at large for The New York Times, explains how the Trump administration is trying to shape media coverage to fit its agenda. Guest: Jim Rutenberg, a writer at large for The New York Times and The New York Times Magazine. Background reading:  Under President Trump, the F.C.C. has used obscure regulatory powers to crack down on network TV. How a century-old rule is scrambling late-night TV. Photo: Tierney L. Cross for The New York Times For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.  Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Over the weekend, Donald Trump unleashed two crazed tirades at the media over Iran. In one, he angrily accused news organizations of rooting for the United States to “lose the war.” In another, he openly urged his Federal Communications Commission chair to employ state power against media outlets that displease him. And in a weird rant to reporters, he angrily rebuked other countries for refusing to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. All this comes as a New York Times expose reveals shocking details about Trump's failings: In internal conversations, he appeared disconnected from basic realities about the strait and unable to grasp why his alienating of our allies is working against him. He also apparently got badly played by Benjamin Netanyahu. We talked to international relations expert Molly McKew, author of a good piece on the stakes of the moment. She explains how Trump's treatment of allies is backfiring on him, why Trump might attempt a domestic press crackdown, and what to expect next in the war. Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Watch 'The Josh Philipp Show': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvZXfpct8kgMajor news networks could lose their licenses to broadcast in the United States. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is now threatening to deplatform several outlets over accusations that they are spreading fake news and not operating in the public interest.We'll discuss this topic and others in this episode of “Crossroads.”Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Over the weekend, Donald Trump unleashed two crazed tirades at the media over Iran. In one, he angrily accused news organizations of rooting for the United States to “lose the war.” In another, he openly urged his Federal Communications Commission chair to employ state power against media outlets that displease him. And in a weird rant to reporters, he angrily rebuked other countries for refusing to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. All this comes as a New York Times expose reveals shocking details about Trump's failings: In internal conversations, he appeared disconnected from basic realities about the strait and unable to grasp why his alienating of our allies is working against him. He also apparently got badly played by Benjamin Netanyahu. We talked to international relations expert Molly McKew, author of a good piece on the stakes of the moment. She explains how Trump's treatment of allies is backfiring on him, why Trump might attempt a domestic press crackdown, and what to expect next in the war.  Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Over the weekend, Donald Trump unleashed two crazed tirades at the media over Iran. In one, he angrily accused news organizations of rooting for the United States to “lose the war.” In another, he openly urged his Federal Communications Commission chair to employ state power against media outlets that displease him. And in a weird rant to reporters, he angrily rebuked other countries for refusing to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. All this comes as a New York Times expose reveals shocking details about Trump's failings: In internal conversations, he appeared disconnected from basic realities about the strait and unable to grasp why his alienating of our allies is working against him. He also apparently got badly played by Benjamin Netanyahu. We talked to international relations expert Molly McKew, author of a good piece on the stakes of the moment. She explains how Trump's treatment of allies is backfiring on him, why Trump might attempt a domestic press crackdown, and what to expect next in the war. Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The war in Iran has essentially closed the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil transfer point, sending oil prices over $100 a barrel with the potential to go even higher. And yet, the odds of the Trump administration suddenly pivoting to invest in renewable energy are pretty much zero. Last year, the Department of Justice submitted a brief urging the Supreme Court to take up a case that could limit cities' and states' ability to sue oil and gas companies for environmental damage — and the court has agreed to hear it. For more on what's at stake here, we spoke with Mike Meno. He's the communications director for the Center for Climate Integrity, an advocacy organization that works with communities to hold Big Oil accountable.And in headlines, the head of the Federal Communications Commission makes another thinly veiled threat, the Kennedy Center Board is expected to vote on President Trump's grand renovation plans today, the department tasked with keeping Americans safe at home is still shut down.Show Notes: Check out the Center For Climate Integrity  Call Congress – 202-224-3121 Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/y4y2e9jy What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/ For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

The Federal Communications Commission is investigating ABC over its show The View's airing of an interview with a Texas politician. Stephen Colbert moved his interview with the same candidate off broadcast, all because of the FCC's "equal time" rule. We discuss the rule, possible changes to it, and how it could all affect the way Americans get their information.This episode: voting correspondent Miles Parks, media correspondent David Folkenflik, and senior political editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Howie Kurtz on the U.S. Men's Olympic Hockey Team securing the gold in a dramatic overtime victory over Canada, another assassination attempt against President Donald Trump being thwarted at his Mar-a-Lago residence, and an Federal Communications Commission commissioner calling for broadcasters to air more “patriotic” content.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Late night host Stephen Colbert has accused CBS of spiking an interview for fear of backlash from the Federal Communications Commission. On this week's On the Media, hear about the MAGA movement trying to shift television to the right. Plus, the legal theory that the FCC is using to put pressure on the networks. [01:00] Host Brooke Gladstone speaks with  Jim Rutenberg, writer-at-large for The New York Times, about how Trump's FCC is reviving a nearly century-old rule to crack down on late-night talk shows. Rutenberg explains why MAGA's embrace of the FCC's regulatory powers to go after “liberal bias” in the media signals a shift within the Republican party.  [25:44] Brooke sits down with Daniel Suhr, the president of a legal advocacy group called the Center for American Rights and the architect behind the legal theory that the FCC is using to put pressure on TV networks. They discuss his goal to make network TV look more like the AM radio band.   Further reading / watching: “How a Century-Old Rule Is Scrambling Late-Night TV,” by Jim Rutenberg “The MAGA Plan to Take Over TV Is Just Beginning,” by Jim Rutenberg “The FCC's Public Notice on ‘Bona Fide News,'” by Daniel Suhr “The end of an agency,” by Daniel Suhr “Straight Talk on FCC 'Jawboning'” by Daniel Suhr The Divided Dial: Episode 3 - The Liberal Bias Boogeyman On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

Human touch feels good — but it may also do far more than we realize. From a reassuring hand on the shoulder to a long hug or massage, deliberate touch can trigger measurable biological responses in the body. This episode begins with what science reveals about why touch matters and what happens when we don't get enough of it. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/everyone-top/202108/the-vital-importance-human-touch It's easy to assume that the big moments shape our lives — but what if tiny, seemingly meaningless choices matter just as much, or even more? A few minutes, a small decision, or a random event can quietly ripple outward in ways we never see. Brian Klaas joins me to explain how chance, chaos, and randomness shape our lives — and how understanding this can actually help you make better choices. Brian is an associate professor in global politics at University College London, a contributing writer for The Atlantic, and author of Fluke: Chance, Chaos, and Why Everything We Do Matters (https://amzn.to/3SrRj31). “Big Tech” companies influence how we communicate, shop, work, and even think — yet they operate with surprisingly little oversight. Who should be setting the rules for companies with that much power? And what happens if no one does? Tom Wheeler explains why tech regulation matters, what's at stake, and who should be in charge. Tom served as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission during the Obama administration and is author of Techlash: Who Makes the Rules in the Digital Gilded Age? (https://amzn.to/47OunPU). And finally, could what kids eat affect their risk of asthma, eczema, or other allergic conditions? Research suggests a link between fast food consumption and respiratory allergies. We wrap up with what scientists have found and why it matters. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.3005803 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices