Podcasts about Federalist Society

Willie gets the latest on Iran from Newsnation's Leland Vittert. Then he talks to an author who says he was probed by aliens. Are schools still illegally making enrollment decisions based on race? Willie's guest says yes. But the Federalist Society's Sarah Parshall Perry says the issue goes deeper than that. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Willie gets the latest on Iran from Newsnation's Leland Vittert. Then he talks to an author who says he was probed by aliens. Are schools still illegally making enrollment decisions based on race? Willie's guest says yes. But the Federalist Society's Sarah Parshall Perry says the issue goes deeper than that. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Willie gets the latest on Iran from Newsnation's Leland Vittert. Then he talks to an author who says he was probed by aliens. Are schools still illegally making enrollment decisions based on race? Willie's guest says yes. But the Federalist Society's Sarah Parshall Perry says the issue goes deeper than that. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here in Episode 8 of Season 5, I interview Professor Sherif Girgis. A graduate of Princeton University, the University of Oxford, and Yale Law School, Girgis is a tenured professor of law at the Notre Dame Law School and a Spring 2026 visiting professor at Harvard Law School. A former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito and member of the American Academy of the Arts and Letters, he is co-author of two books: What is Marriage? Man, Woman, A Defense (2012), and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (2017). Using some of his recent articles and speeches—such as “The Future of Originalism” (2026)—we discuss the current state of constitutional jurisprudence. As an originalist and textualist reading of the Constitution has, thanks to advocacy groups like the Federalist Society, gone from a dissenting movement to the current governing theory of the Supreme Court, new problems have arisen that go beyond what early forerunners like Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia foresaw. We also discuss other (often competing) theories like living constitutionalism and living traditionalism, whether success has undone originalism, and what the future holds for this legal movement. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on our new Substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Here in Episode 8 of Season 5, I interview Professor Sherif Girgis. A graduate of Princeton University, the University of Oxford, and Yale Law School, Girgis is a tenured professor of law at the Notre Dame Law School and a Spring 2026 visiting professor at Harvard Law School. A former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito and member of the American Academy of the Arts and Letters, he is co-author of two books: What is Marriage? Man, Woman, A Defense (2012), and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (2017). Using some of his recent articles and speeches—such as “The Future of Originalism” (2026)—we discuss the current state of constitutional jurisprudence. As an originalist and textualist reading of the Constitution has, thanks to advocacy groups like the Federalist Society, gone from a dissenting movement to the current governing theory of the Supreme Court, new problems have arisen that go beyond what early forerunners like Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia foresaw. We also discuss other (often competing) theories like living constitutionalism and living traditionalism, whether success has undone originalism, and what the future holds for this legal movement. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on our new Substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Here in Episode 8 of Season 5, I interview Professor Sherif Girgis. A graduate of Princeton University, the University of Oxford, and Yale Law School, Girgis is a tenured professor of law at the Notre Dame Law School and a Spring 2026 visiting professor at Harvard Law School. A former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito and member of the American Academy of the Arts and Letters, he is co-author of two books: What is Marriage? Man, Woman, A Defense (2012), and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (2017). Using some of his recent articles and speeches—such as “The Future of Originalism” (2026)—we discuss the current state of constitutional jurisprudence. As an originalist and textualist reading of the Constitution has, thanks to advocacy groups like the Federalist Society, gone from a dissenting movement to the current governing theory of the Supreme Court, new problems have arisen that go beyond what early forerunners like Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia foresaw. We also discuss other (often competing) theories like living constitutionalism and living traditionalism, whether success has undone originalism, and what the future holds for this legal movement. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on our new Substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Here in Episode 8 of Season 5, I interview Professor Sherif Girgis. A graduate of Princeton University, the University of Oxford, and Yale Law School, Girgis is a tenured professor of law at the Notre Dame Law School and a Spring 2026 visiting professor at Harvard Law School. A former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito and member of the American Academy of the Arts and Letters, he is co-author of two books: What is Marriage? Man, Woman, A Defense (2012), and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (2017). Using some of his recent articles and speeches—such as “The Future of Originalism” (2026)—we discuss the current state of constitutional jurisprudence. As an originalist and textualist reading of the Constitution has, thanks to advocacy groups like the Federalist Society, gone from a dissenting movement to the current governing theory of the Supreme Court, new problems have arisen that go beyond what early forerunners like Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia foresaw. We also discuss other (often competing) theories like living constitutionalism and living traditionalism, whether success has undone originalism, and what the future holds for this legal movement. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on our new Substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Here in Episode 8 of Season 5, I interview Professor Sherif Girgis. A graduate of Princeton University, the University of Oxford, and Yale Law School, Girgis is a tenured professor of law at the Notre Dame Law School and a Spring 2026 visiting professor at Harvard Law School. A former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito and member of the American Academy of the Arts and Letters, he is co-author of two books: What is Marriage? Man, Woman, A Defense (2012), and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (2017). Using some of his recent articles and speeches—such as “The Future of Originalism” (2026)—we discuss the current state of constitutional jurisprudence. As an originalist and textualist reading of the Constitution has, thanks to advocacy groups like the Federalist Society, gone from a dissenting movement to the current governing theory of the Supreme Court, new problems have arisen that go beyond what early forerunners like Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia foresaw. We also discuss other (often competing) theories like living constitutionalism and living traditionalism, whether success has undone originalism, and what the future holds for this legal movement. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on our new Substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When conservatives wax poetic about their favorite Supreme Court justices from what one might call the “Federalist Society era” of Republican appointments, Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia take precedence. The oldest may prefer the late William Rehnquist, for a time the lone “originalist” on the court; the youngest may prefer Neil Gorsuch, the libertarian […]

When conservatives wax poetic about their favorite Supreme Court justices from what one might call the “Federalist Society era” of Republican appointments, Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia take precedence. The oldest may prefer the late William Rehnquist, for a time the lone “originalist” on the court; the youngest may prefer Neil Gorsuch, the libertarian radical appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017. But today's guest argues for Samuel Alito, appointed as George W. Bush's second choice for the vacancy created by the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor in 2005, as perhaps the most consequential of them all. Mollie Hemingway, editor-in-chief of The Federalist, joins us to discuss her latest book: Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution.Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the ConstitutionAlito: The fulcrum of the conservative CourtDemand JusticeProPublicaBrett Kavanaugh's Would-Be Assassin Gets Time Off for Trans Behavior

Joyce talks about:The Supreme Court -making adjustments to voting districts that were based on race. Dismantling the Voting Rights Act/ Republicans now able to go after democratic dominated districts. Bill Maher talks about the mismanagement of tax payer dollars and says the rich ARE paying their fair share of taxes. Will Republicans maintain control following the midterm elections? No go zones in London. UCLA protecting far left activist students who kept interrupting speech from DHS general counsel James Percival/Warns conservative group, the Federalist Society against revealing the student's identities to DHS for punishment/ F.I.R.E demands UCLA rescind the threat to the Federalist Society. Lack of trust in the government. Resurfaced clip of Ilhan Omar reading World War 11 instead of World War Two. Mayor Zohran Mamdani upset about balancing the budget. Jimmy Kimmel commentary. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What happens when confidential Supreme Court deliberations make their way into the press—most recently through a New York Times report based on leaked internal “shadow docket” materials? Join the Federalist Society for a timely briefing examining the Times’ reporting on internal Court memos and emergency docket decision-making, and what such leaks mean for judicial independence, institutional norms, and public trust in the Court. Featuring: Carrie Campbell Severino, President, JCN Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law and Faculty Co-Director for the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, Georgetown University Law Center (Moderator) Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange & Associates

Chuck Todd surveys a dire geopolitical landscape where the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, fuel rationing has begun in many places around the globe, and the Trump administration is scrambling to extend a fragile ceasefire with Iran — sending JD Vance back to Pakistan for another round of talks, a move Chuck says signals genuine desperation to end a war that has become a generational foreign policy disaster. Heargues that Iran's control of the strait is now a greater deterrent than nuclear weapons ever were, that the Iranians know Trump is on the clock and that time is firmly on Tehran's side — meaning the best Trump can realistically hope for is a deal that looks remarkably like the Obama nuclear agreement he once shredded. Oil and stock markets appear divorced from reality while energy markets are in major distress, China's position has been strengthened enormously and Netanyahu has effectively suckered Trump into a mess that will define American foreign policy for a generation. He then unpacks a bombshell Atlantic report painting FBI Director Kash Patel as absent, unreliable, and allegedly drunk on the job — noting that just because it's a "hit piece" doesn't mean it's not true, that rank-and-file intelligence professionals don't trust the people leading their agencies, and that Patel himself believes he's about to be fired because Trump personally despises anecdotes about drinking. He closes with Virginia's redistricting referendum, which ends Tuesday and looks likely to pass, but he questions whether Democrats are making a smart investment — blowing enormous political capital and damaging Governor Abigail Spanberger's brand to pick up only two House seats, a tradeoff that may not be worth the cost. Then, Sarah Isgur — legal commentator, former DOJ spokesperson, and author of Last Branch Standing — joins the Chuck Toddcast for a comprehensive deep dive into the Supreme Court that challenges virtually everything the public thinks it knows about how the institution actually works. Isgur argues that the court's politics don't map neatly onto the current left-right spectrum, and that the court isn't really 6-3 but rather 3-3-3 — with a bloc of doctrinaire conservatives, a liberal minority, and a pragmatic center that includes Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts. She reveals that Elena Kagan plays a major behind-the-scenes role that the public rarely sees, and that over the past 20 years more than 90% of rulings have had a liberal justice in the majority (undermining the narrative of a runaway conservative court) The conversation turns to deeper structural concerns about the judiciary that Isgur argues are undermining the rule of law itself. She notes that today's justices all have eerily uniform résumés — a problem created by a system that essentially identifies future Supreme Court candidates by the time they're 18 and forces them to lead incredibly sheltered lives for both career and safety reasons — making them detached from the real world in ways that earlier, more varied courts were not. She is sharply critical of Congress for making the court the arbiter of fundamental rights, which has turned every confirmation into an existential battle — the refusal to take on issues like Roe legislatively forced them to the court, and now there's no real dialogue between the branches. They close by debating a provocative proposal: the confirmation threshold for justices should be raised to 60 or even 75 votes to force presidents to nominate consensus candidates, breaking the cycle of partisan warfare that has made the Federalist Society effectively a prerequisite for any aspiring conservative judge and turned the nomination process into something that is actively bad for both the court and the rule of law. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit America’s first war of choice: The Spanish American War. He also answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 04:00 We’re in a precious position. Strait of Hormuz closed & fuel rationing is coming 05:00 Expect some sort of extension of the current ceasefire agreement 05:45 JD Vance headed back to Pakistan for another round of talks 06:30 Sending Vance shows they’re serious about trying to end war 07:15 Trump is desperate to get out of the war 08:00 Control of Strait of Hormuz is a greater deterrent than nukes 09:00 Oil & stock markets seem divorced from reality 09:45 Energy markets are is major distress 10:45 Trump’s approval has slipped, public knows the war is going badly 11:30 Trump is talking tough, but his actions are cautious 12:30 Iranians know Trump is desperate and Iranians have serious leverage 14:00 Iranians know Trump is on the clock, and they have time on their side 14:30 China’s position has been strengthened by Iran war 15:45 U.S. is stretched too thin currently to defend Taiwan 17:00 Energy shock increases demand for clean energy, where China leads 18:15 Bibi suckered Trump into a generational foreign policy disaster 19:15 We’re likely stuck without a resolution to the war for awhile 20:15 Best Trump can hope for is redoing the Obama nuclear deal 21:30 Time is running out on the 60 day war powers resolution deadline 22:45 Trump has 5 weeks to get a deal before congress is forced to step in 23:30 Atlantic publishes story about Kash Patel being MIA & drunk 24:30 Patel denied everything, hoping for White House backup 25:30 Just because it’s a “hit piece” doesn’t mean it’s not true 26:15 People working at the FBI don’t trust the guy leading it 28:00 Atlantic paints a portrait of an FBI leader that’s completely unreliable 29:00 Patel’s ineptitude creates a national security threat to the U.S. 30:30 Rank & file intel professionals don’t trust the people in charge 31:45 Trump hates anecdotes about drinking, Patel’s days are numbered 32:30 Patel believes he’s going to be fired 34:00 Balloting for Virginia redistricting ends on Tuesday, looks like it will pass 34:30 Democrats expending political capital to only pick up two house seats 35:30 Redistricting fight has been terrible politically for Abigail Spanberger 38:00 New map will trim two very blue districts and export voters to swing districts 40:30 Blowing all this political capital for two seats doesn’t seem worth it 42:15 Livestream on Tuesday evening breaking down the results from VA 48:30 Sarah Isgur (Last Branch Standing) joins the Chuck ToddCast 50:15 The Supreme Court’s politics don’t map neatly to current left/right 51:30 Bono called Chuck a “radical centrist” 52:15 Brett Kavanaugh’s biggest regret was not getting selfie with Bono 54:00 Songs that best comment on American political culture 57:00 Incrimentalism more important than liberal/conservative 58:00 Kavanaugh & Kagan most similar to Chuck in philosophy 59:30 Kagan plays a major role on the court behind the scenes 1:00:30 The reputation of the solicitor general has changed under Trump 1:01:15 Earlier justices didn’t have the uniform resume of the current justices 1:03:00 Current justices are detached from the real world 1:04:15 Alito likely retiring this summer or next as Dems senate chances increase 1:05:15 White House is eager to get a Supreme Court opening 1:06:00 Trump may have his hands tied, Alito will want to approve successor 1:08:00 Alito will want someone like him to replace him 1:08:30 Unlikely Ted Cruz or Mike Lee will be nominated for the court 1:09:30 We’ve narrowed down who can be justices by the time candidates are 18 1:10:15 Justices have to lead an incredibly sheltered life for safety 1:12:15 The court isn’t really 6-3, it’s 3-3-3 1:14:15 Which justices are the most overtly political for their side? 1:15:30 Gorsuch had best opinion of the year on Trump’s tariffs 1:16:15 Congress has abdicated their duty, forced the court to legislate 1:17:15 There’s no dialogue between congress & court. Court gets final word 1:18:30 Congress didn’t have the guts to take on Roe, forced it to the court 1:20:15 Court has become the arbiter of rights, making confirmations existential 1:21:45 Rights of criminal defendants are compromised by an elected judiciary 1:22:45 Elections for judges create perverse incentive structures 1:24:15 Jackson & Kavanaugh share view of their role on the court 1:25:15 In past 20 years, over 90% of rulings had a liberal in the majority 1:27:00 Justice Thomas has been remarkably consistent in his rulings 1:29:00 Gorsuch consistently relies on the text and applies it 1:29:45 Thomas is a hardcore originalist 1:31:30 Chief Justice Roberts has eschewed any type of label 1:33:30 Kagan tries to keep the court out of issues unless they must intervene 1:34:45 Justices are taking fewer cases and writing more opinions than ever 1:35:45 The court speaks in too many voices now 1:37:30 Justice Alito’s favorite movie is “Being There” 1:38:45 Breyer was a 2nd backup choice for the court 1:40:30 The value of moderation vs. abstention 1:42:15 Should the confirmation threshold for justices be raised to 60 or 75? 1:45:00 Requirement to join the Federalist Society if you want to be a judge 1:46:00 Proposal for how to fix the confirmation wars 1:48:30 Current nomination process is bad for the court & rule of law 1:53:30 Court is last branch standing for now, haven’t seen result of 50 vote confirmation 1:56:30 Thoughts on Sarah Isgur’s proposal on SCOTUS confirmations 1:57:30 ToddCast Time Machine April 20th, 1898 - Spanish American War 1:59:00 U.S.S. Maine exploded in Havana harbor, conclusion was Spain did it 1:59:30 The facts didn’t lead to the conclusion, the conclusion came first 2:00:15 Hearst & Pulitzer were locked in a publishing war, competing for readers 2:01:00 William McKinley didn’t want war, but pressure kept building 2:02:00 It was a War of Choice, and the press pushed leaders into war 2:02:30 Congress demanded that Spain leave Cuba 2:03:30 U.S. begins blockage of Cuba, basically kicking off the war 2:04:15 Congress backdated their declaration of war 2:05:00 Teddy Roosevelt’s rise scared establishment Republicans 2:05:30 The war produced Roosevelt’s presidency 2:06:30 It was a war of choice, until it felt like there was no other option 2:07:00 Wars of choice never end well 2:07:30 Ask Chuck 2:07:45 As Trump’s support erodes, any chance the 25th amendment gets invoked? 2:11:30 Does Federalist 10 still hold up? Is there a case for a constitutional convention? 2:18:00 A Top 5 list of races where you think the election projections are off? 2:24:30 Did I hear a dog in the background in your Wednesday episode? 2:26:45 Can you bring on a late night host like Colbert, Oliver or Maher? 2:29:30 What can and can’t be done with the huge fundraising hauls Dems are getting? 2:36:30 Thoughts on the NBA playoffsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sarah Isgur — legal commentator, former DOJ spokesperson, and author of Last Branch Standing — joins the Chuck Toddcast for a comprehensive deep dive into the Supreme Court that challenges virtually everything the public thinks it knows about how the institution actually works. Isgur argues that the court's politics don't map neatly onto the current left-right spectrum, and that the court isn't really 6-3 but rather 3-3-3 — with a bloc of doctrinaire conservatives, a liberal minority, and a pragmatic center that includes Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts. She reveals that Elena Kagan plays a major behind-the-scenes role that the public rarely sees, and that over the past 20 years more than 90% of rulings have had a liberal justice in the majority (undermining the narrative of a runaway conservative court) The conversation turns to deeper structural concerns about the judiciary that Isgur argues are undermining the rule of law itself. She notes that today's justices all have eerily uniform résumés — a problem created by a system that essentially identifies future Supreme Court candidates by the time they're 18 and forces them to lead incredibly sheltered lives for both career and safety reasons — making them detached from the real world in ways that earlier, more varied courts were not. She is sharply critical of Congress for making the court the arbiter of fundamental rights, which has turned every confirmation into an existential battle — the refusal to take on issues like Roe legislatively forced them to the court, and now there's no real dialogue between the branches. They close by debating a provocative proposal: the confirmation threshold for justices should be raised to 60 or even 75 votes to force presidents to nominate consensus candidates, breaking the cycle of partisan warfare that has made the Federalist Society effectively a prerequisite for any aspiring conservative judge and turned the nomination process into something that is actively bad for both the court and the rule of law. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Sarah Isgur (Last Branch Standing) joins the Chuck ToddCast 01:45 The Supreme Court’s politics don’t map neatly to current left/right 03:00 Bono called Chuck a “radical centrist” 03:45 Brett Kavanaugh’s biggest regret was not getting selfie with Bono 05:30 Songs that best comment on American political culture 08:30 Incrimentalism more important than liberal/conservative 09:30 Kavanaugh & Kagan most similar to Chuck in philosophy 11:00 Kagan plays a major role on the court behind the scenes 12:00 The reputation of the solicitor general has changed under Trump 12:45 Earlier justices didn’t have the uniform resume of the current justices 14:30 Current justices are detached from the real world 15:45 Alito likely retiring this summer or next as Dems senate chances increase 16:45 White House is eager to get a Supreme Court opening 17:30 Trump may have his hands tied, Alito will want to approve successor 19:30 Alito will want someone like him to replace him 20:00 Unlikely Ted Cruz or Mike Lee will be nominated for the court 21:00 We’ve narrowed down who can be justices by the time candidates are 18 21:45 Justices have to lead an incredibly sheltered life for safety 23:45 The court isn’t really 6-3, it’s 3-3-3 25:45 Which justices are the most overtly political for their side? 27:00 Gorsuch had best opinion of the year on Trump’s tariffs 27:45 Congress has abdicated their duty, forced the court to legislate 28:45 There’s no dialogue between congress & court. Court gets final word 30:00 Congress didn’t have the guts to take on Roe, forced it to the court 31:45 Court has become the arbiter of rights, making confirmations existential 33:15 Rights of criminal defendants are compromised by an elected judiciary 34:15 Elections for judges create perverse incentive structures 35:45 Jackson & Kavanaugh share view of their role on the court 36:45 In past 20 years, over 90% of rulings had a liberal in the majority 38:30 Justice Thomas has been remarkably consistent in his rulings 40:30 Gorsuch consistently relies on the text and applies it 41:15 Thomas is a hardcore originalist 43:00 Chief Justice Roberts has eschewed any type of label 45:00 Kagan tries to keep the court out of issues unless they must intervene 46:15 Justices are taking fewer cases and writing more opinions than ever 47:15 The court speaks in too many voices now 49:00 Justice Alito’s favorite movie is “Being There” 50:15 Breyer was a 2nd backup choice for the court 52:00 The value of moderation vs. abstention 53:45 Should the confirmation threshold for justices be raised to 60 or 75? 56:30 Requirement to join the Federalist Society if you want to be a judge 57:30 Proposal for how to fix the confirmation wars 1:00:00 Current nomination process is bad for the court & rule of law 1:05:00 Court is last branch standing for now, haven’t seen result of 50 vote confirmationSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On March 24, 2026, Professor John O. McGinnis joined William & Mary Law School's Federalist Society to present a lecture on “Why Democracy Needs the Rich: The Hidden Benefits of Wealth in a Free Society.” The event was co-sponsored by the Institute of Bill of Rights Law and the Center for the Study of Law and Markets. Professor McGinnis is the George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.

Secretary Rubio brings Lebanon and Israel together for the first time in decades to talk peace, and we have President Trump to thank for that. Plus, the president will likely get another SCOTUS pick, but will he listen to the Federalist Society? He should.

In this two‑part deep dive, we wade back into the shadowy waters of Opus Dei—an organization that somehow manages to be a bank‑adjacent power broker, a cult‑coded spiritual discipline factory, and, according to ongoing legal cases in Argentina, an alleged human‑trafficking operation all at once. We trace the group's reach from the “Little Sisters” labor‑trafficking lawsuits to the celibate numeraries practicing mortification rituals straight out of a Dan Brown fever dream, and then into the political tentacles stretching through Washington, D.C., the Federalist Society, Project 2025, and beyond. With whistleblowers, ex‑members, Vatican pushback, and a suspicious number of billion‑dollar friends, Opus Dei emerges less like a prayer group and more like a shadow network with influence in finance, government, and conservative Catholic power structures. Also: tentacles. So many tentacles.National Catholic Reporter, "The Case Against Opus Dei" (January 2025).

The GENIUS Act of 2025 was a watershed moment in the legal framework for stablecoins, but now implementing regulations are due in July, and many key questions are far from settled. How will the regulation will be carried out, how will systemic risks be addressed, how big a role will banks play in stablecoins, what role will stablecoins assume in the broader payment system, how will yield-bearing arrangements using stablecoins be treated, who will bear the regulatory costs? On March 31, 2026, the Federalist Society's Financial Services Practice Group will convene a panel of leading practitioners, regulators, and policy thinkers to examine these questions and the implementation landscape ahead. Featuring:Hon. Michael S. Barr, Member, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve SystemHon. Summer Mersinger, Chief Executive Officer, Blockchain AssociationAlex Pollock, Senior Fellow, Mises InstituteGreg Xethalis, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, Multicoin Capital (Moderator) Gary Kalbaugh, Partner, Cahill Gordon & Reindel

Today's Headlines: Trump held a press conference yesterday that was, by his standards, relatively contained. He threatened to decimate every bridge in Iran by midnight, said he could "take out" the country "in one night," and when asked if bombing civilian infrastructure constitutes a war crime, said he's "not concerned at all." He also threatened to jail reporters who don't reveal sources from the rescued pilot story, and went on his standard NATO rant — adding that his desire to leave NATO "all began with Greenland." France quietly pulled its entire $15 billion gold reserve out of the U.S. and moved it to Paris.  A 45-day ceasefire proposal from Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey was rejected by Iran, and Trump said he won't extend his 8pm (or was it midnight?) deadline. The Strait remains closed to U.S. ships and the humanitarian cost is mounting: critical medical supplies, food, and aid are piling up at Dubai's port, with clinics across the Middle East, Africa, and Asia facing shortages. The cost of shipping goods now exceeds the value of the goods themselves in some cases. The Supreme Court cleared the way for the DOJ to dismiss Steve Bannon's contempt of Congress conviction — because why the heck not? Justice Samuel Alito was briefly hospitalized in March after getting sick at a Federalist Society dinner held in his honor. The Supreme Court didn't mention it until CNN asked. Artemis II made its historic moon flyby, and the crew named a previously unnamed bright spot "Carroll" after Commander Reid Weisman's late wife. Texas Rep. Tony Gonzalez, already under ethics investigation, now has a second staffer alleging he sent her hundreds of explicit texts she rebuffed. Savannah Guthrie returned to the Today Show after two months — her mother Nancy still has not been found. Kanye's Wireless Festival has now lost Pepsi, Diageo, PayPal, and Rockstar Energy as sponsors. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode:  WaPo: At White House Easter Egg Roll, Trump tells the children about the war WaPo: Trump threatens to jail reporters if they don't turn over Iran source The Guardian: Trump's homeland security secretary mulls removing customs agents from airports to punish sanctuary cities – as it happened Mining: France pulls last gold held in US for $15B gain - MINING.COM The Hill: US, Iran receive draft ceasefire proposal: Reports NPR: Medical supplies are stuck in Dubai, as clinics around the world face shortages SCOTUS: Court-allows-steve-bannon-to-move-forward-on-dismissal-of-criminal-charges-against-him CNN: Exclusive: Justice Samuel Alito was taken to a hospital last month in previously undisclosed incident BBC: Emotional crew names Moon crater after commander's late wife NBC News:  Second staffer says Rep. Tony Gonzales sent her sexually explicit text messages NPR: Savannah Guthrie returns to the 'Today' show months after her mother's disappearance Rolling Stone: Wireless Festival Loses Diageo and Rockstar Energy Sponsorships Over Kanye West Booking Subscribe to the Betches News Room and join the Morning Announcements group chat. Go to: betchesnews.substack.com Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“Why does someone need to be the first trillionaire? The damage it's doing just to get to that level is extreme.” — Glen GalaichExcessive wealth disorder. It sounds like a disease — which, at least according to Glen Galaich — CEO of the Stupski Foundation and author of Control: Why Big Giving Falls Short, it is. There's $2 trillion sitting in American charitable accounts Galaich says, mostly invested in hedge funds and real estate. Foundations are legally required to distribute only 5% a year — the bare minimum — and invest the remaining 95% to ensure they can make that back and live forever. The system rewards perpetuity over impact. The money is stuck — like most other things in America. And this philanthropic wealth is predicted to grow to $18 trillion by 2050 — twice the size of the annual federal budget. A truly excessive wealth disorder.Galaich wants to unstick the system. When a donor puts money in a private foundation, they receive up to a 70% tax exemption. The public is forgoing taxation in return for public stewardship. But donors still think it's their money. That's Galaich's Control problem. Carnegie pioneered this idea that the wealthy know best how to distribute their wealth. The Sacklers perfected its dark arts. Bill Gates sits somewhere in between. While billionaires like Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen reject it entirely.Galaich's own foundation is giving up control — returning all its resources to communities by 2029. In Hawaii, he gave $15 million to people who actually lived there. They moved all of it within five months to health clinics on neighbouring islands that had never had discretionary money. His deeper frustration is with progressive philanthropy's failure to coordinate. Conservative donors give around two issues — free markets and liberty — in coordinated fashion. Progressive philanthropy, in contrast, is fragmented, fearful, and obstinately sitting on its capital. There's a new institute in the Bay Area called the Excessive Wealth Disorder Institute. The disease is real. And so is its cure.•       $2 Trillion Is Sitting in Charitable Accounts: Mostly invested in hedge funds and real estate. Philanthropic wealth in the US is predicted to grow from $2 trillion to $18 trillion by 2050 — twice the size of the annual federal budget. Foundations are required to give only 5% a year. The rest grows. The money isn't moving because the system rewards perpetuity over impact.•       It's Not Their Money Anymore: When a donor puts money in a private foundation, they receive up to a 70% tax exemption. The public is forgoing taxation in return for public stewardship. But donors still think it's their money. That's the control problem at the heart of Galaich's book — and why so much of big giving serves the donor, not the community.•       Excessive Wealth Disorder Is Real: Galaich cites the Excessive Wealth Disorder Institute in the Bay Area. Why does someone need to be the first trillionaire? The damage done to society just getting to that level — environmental, human, democratic — is extreme. And the Giving Pledge is collapsing: Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen have pulled out. Andreessen argues his investments are his philanthropy.•       The Hawaii Example: Stupski gave $15 million to people from Hawaii who lived and worked there. They moved all of it within five months to health clinics on the neighbouring islands that had never had discretionary money. Palliative care, community outreach, home visits — none of which Medicaid allowed. That's what happens when you let go of control.•       Progressive Philanthropy Can't Coordinate. Conservatives Can: Conservative donors give around two issues — free markets and liberty — and they give in coordinated fashion over long periods. That's how you get the Federalist Society, Heritage, ALEC, and possibly Donald Trump. Progressive philanthropy is fragmented, siloed, and in a state of fear that the current administration will freeze their assets. The left has moved into protection mode when it should be distributing. About the GuestGlen Galaich, PhD, is the CEO of the Stupski Foundation, one of the nation's most ambitious philanthropic spend-down efforts. He hosts the Break Fake Rules podcast and writes the Who Gives? Substack. Control: Why Big Giving Falls Short is published by Wiley, with a foreword by Ibram X. Kendi.References:•       Control: Why Big Giving Falls Short by Glen Galaich (Wiley, 2026) — the book under discussion.•       Who Gives? Substack — Galaich's newsletter on reforming philanthropy.•       Episode 2845: Let's Ban Billionaires — Noam Cohen on the Know-It-Alls. Galaich picks up where Cohen left off.About Keen On AmericaNobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters:(00:31) - Introduction: Noam Cohen, banning billionaires, and the tide turning (02:33) - What is philanthropy? Carnegie and the love of humanity (05:04) - Sloan, Rockefeller, Stanford: the first generation of know-it-all givers (06:49) - Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen pull out of the Giving Pledge (09:05) - The Sacklers: the worst argument for philanthropy (09:57) - Bill Gates: for or against control? (11:53) - It's not their money anymore: the public stewardship illusion (14:00) - Andreessen vs. community: who decides what people need? (15:33) - The Stupski model: $374 million returned to communities (18:47) - Hawaii: $15 million moved in five months to clinics that never had discretionary funds (21:27) - Can philanthropy save democracy? (24:22) - Democracy Forward and the $2 trillion sitting in accounts (29:38) - Excessive Wealth Disorder: why does anyone need to be a trillionaire? (33:00) - Progressive philanthropy's failure to coordinate (35:14) - The Monty Python troll: the CEO as gatekeeper to the donor

Amy Littlefield — investigative reporter for The Nation and author of the new book Killers of Roe: My Investigation into the Mysterious Death of Abortion Rights — joins the Chuck Toddcast for a fascinating deep dive into the decades-long campaign that dismantled abortion rights in America, framed through the lens of an Agatha Christie-style murder mystery where the killers turn out to be the people you least suspect. Littlefield reveals that the death of Roe was not a single blow but death by a thousand stab wounds from multiple suspects: a Catholic hospital system that now controls one in six beds in America with reproductive care restrictions, an evangelical movement that amassed enormous political power in the Reagan era, a Democratic Party that was deeply complicit — the Hyde Amendment passed through a Democratic-majority Congress and real women died as a result — and operatives like Leonard Leo, who hand-delivered Trump a list of Supreme Court justices guaranteed to overturn Roe. Littlefield argues that anti-abortion activists brilliantly copied the playbook of the civil rights movement, that fighting against something is inherently more galvanizing than defending something, and that reproductive rights groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL were constantly outflanked by a more organized, more disciplined opposition that understood single-issue voters could be leveraged for outsized political power. The conversation turns to the future of reproductive rights in a post-Dobbs America — and the picture is more complicated than either side admits. Littlefield points out that the number of abortions has actually increased since the Dobbs decision, that anti-abortion ballot initiatives consistently lose even in conservative areas, and that there's 80% public support that could be leveraged if the movement reframed its message around freedom rather than choice and connected reproductive rights to economic concerns. But she warns that anti-abortion activists aren't done: they want birth control and IVF outlawed next, and anti-women political movements are gaining momentum globally. Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code CHUCKTODDCAST at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/chucktoddcast Refresh your wardrobe with Quince. Go to https://Quince.com/chuck for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Amy Littlefield joins the Chuck ToddCast 01:30 Why did you choose the murder mystery framing for this book? 02:45 1 in 6 beds is in a Catholic hospital that have reproductive care restrictions 04:15 Agatha Christie’s style was an inspiration for the book 07:15 We know the political side of the story, wanted to tell the activist story 08:45 Getting the Roe decision required a strong grassroots movement 09:15 The Catholic church has a strong organizational operation 10:30 Reproductive rights wasn’t a left vs. right issue in the 70s and 80s 12:45 Democrats have been complicit in the erosion of reproductive rights 13:45 The Hyde amendment got through a Democratic majority congress 14:45 Evangelicals amassed huge political power in the Reagan era 15:30 Reagan flipped his position on abortion during his presidency 17:15 Abortion and guns are the two single-issue voting issues 18:00 Republicans extracted huge power out of single issue voters 19:15 People are willing to compromise other values for anti-abortion position 20:00 Anti-abortion activists know they don’t have majority support 21:30 Was “choice” the worst word they could pick? Why not frame it as freedom? 24:15 Examining the first deaths after the passage of Hyde amendment 25:00 Why didn’t deaths due to the Hyde amendment galvanize voters? 27:30 Justices didn’t want 5-4 on Roe so they came up with convoluted argument 28:30 A flawed legal rationale isn’t why Roe fell 30:00 The abortion rights fight has always been in the states 31:45 The debate has been over codifying Roe or codifying a right 33:45 Repealing the Hyde amendment was biggest win in years for abortion rights 35:30 Planned Parenthood has had an oversized role in defending abortion rights 36:15 Would there be a Federalist Society without Roe? 37:00 Leonard Leo handed Trump the names of justices that would overturn Roe 38:15 Anti-abortion activists copied the playbook of the civil rights movement 39:45 Is there anybody on the pro-abortion rights side that deserves blame for Dobbs? 41:00 Reproductive rights groups like PP and NARAL were constantly outflanked 42:00 Fighting against something is more galvanizing than defending something 43:30 Anti-abortion ballot initiatives consistently lose, even in conservative areas 46:00 Conservatives have laid claim to the words “freedom” and “patriot” 48:15 Does the codification of abortion rights happen by the 2030s? 50:15 Reproductive rights aren’t talked about in an economic framing 52:00 Can abortion rights movement draft off heavy support for birth control? 52:30 Anti-abortion activists want to see birth control and IVF outlawed 54:30 Will activists go to congress for an answer or will it be a long campaign? 55:30 Number of abortions has gone up since the Dobbs decision 57:30 Death of Roe was death by a thousand stab wounds from many suspects 59:30 Anti-abortion and anti-women political movements are gaining momentum 1:00:45 Republican women look uncomfortable with position they’ve been put in 1:02:45 People sharing their stories with abortion is incredibly importantSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chuck Todd opens with the bluntest assessment yet of the Iran war as it enters its third week: America's position as leader of the free world is unraveling in real time, the risk of mission creep is enormous, and we are now seeing exactly why every previous president chose not to attack Iran. Trump is ranting and begging allies to help secure the Strait of Hormuz. He notes that Trump is even angling for a joint operation with China to police the strait — a surreal proposition given the broader geopolitical rivalry — and that Trump is learning the hard way why you don't alienate allies before starting a war that requires their help. The Director of Counterterrorism has resigned over the conflict, DNI Tulsi Gabbard is performing rhetorical contortions to signal she doesn't believe in the war while keeping her job, and the administration has entered what Chuck calls the "cover your ass" stage. He argues that Trump's coalition has been fracturing for six months, that America is demonstrably less secure today than before the strikes began, and that this war — which has confirmed to the world that America is truly alone — could ultimately prove more damaging than Vietnam or Iraq. He closes by noting softening poll numbers for Republicans like Lindsey Graham and Vivek Ramaswamy, and that Maine Governor Janet Mills has gone sharply negative against progressive challenger Graham Platner in their Senate primary — a sign that the vetting process is heating up in ways that will ultimately be healthy for the party. Then, Amy Littlefield — investigative reporter for The Nation and author of the new book Killers of Roe: My Investigation into the Mysterious Death of Abortion Rights — joins the Chuck Toddcast for a fascinating deep dive into the decades-long campaign that dismantled abortion rights in America, framed through the lens of an Agatha Christie-style murder mystery where the killers turn out to be the people you least suspect. Littlefield reveals that the death of Roe was not a single blow but death by a thousand stab wounds from multiple suspects: a Catholic hospital system that now controls one in six beds in America with reproductive care restrictions, an evangelical movement that amassed enormous political power in the Reagan era, a Democratic Party that was deeply complicit — the Hyde Amendment passed through a Democratic-majority Congress and real women died as a result — and operatives like Leonard Leo, who hand-delivered Trump a list of Supreme Court justices guaranteed to overturn Roe. Littlefield argues that anti-abortion activists brilliantly copied the playbook of the civil rights movement, that fighting against something is inherently more galvanizing than defending something, and that reproductive rights groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL were constantly outflanked by a more organized, more disciplined opposition that understood single-issue voters could be leveraged for outsized political power. The conversation turns to the future of reproductive rights in a post-Dobbs America — and the picture is more complicated than either side admits. Littlefield points out that the number of abortions has actually increased since the Dobbs decision, that anti-abortion ballot initiatives consistently lose even in conservative areas, and that there's 80% public support that could be leveraged if the movement reframed its message around freedom rather than choice and connected reproductive rights to economic concerns. But she warns that anti-abortion activists aren't done: they want birth control and IVF outlawed next, and anti-women political movements are gaining momentum globally. Finally, Chuck lists his ToddCast Top 5 statewide campaigns from the state of Illinois and answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code CHUCKTODDCAST at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/chucktoddcast Refresh your wardrobe with Quince. Go to https://Quince.com/chuck for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 05:00 Iran war keeps getting worse for Trump, risk of mission creep is high 05:15 America’s place as “Leader of the Free World” is unraveling 06:00 The military part is going well, the diplomatic part is a disaster 06:45 We’re seeing the reasons previous presidents didn’t attack Iran 07:30 Director of Counterterrorism resigns over the war 09:00 Trump is either not getting the truth or being told what he wants to hear 10:00 Gabbard argues Trump has mandate despite not getting 50% of the vote 11:00 Gabbard says only Trump can determine what is an "imminent threat” 11:45 Gabbard wants she signal she doesn’t believe in war, but keep her job 12:45 We’re in the “cover your ass” stage of the war 15:30 Many MAGA true believers like Joe Kent & MTG wanted no more wars 18:00 If you can’t serve the president, resigning is the right thing to do 18:45 We’re less secure today than before the war started 19:30 Trump’s coalition has been fracturing for six months 21:30 Trump’s ranting and begging for help with the Strait of Hormuz 23:00 Strait of Hormuz has always been the Iranian regime’s leverage 24:00 Securing the strait requires boots on the ground 24:45 Trump is learning the hard way why you don’t alienate allies 26:30 If the regime stays in place, it’ll look like Trump retreated 27:30 This war has been confirmation that America is alone 29:15 This war could be more damaging that Vietnam or Iraq 2 30:00 We need real diplomacy and there hasn’t been any of it 30:45 Trump angling for joint operation with China which is… weird 31:15 Trump wants a way out, but boxed himself in 32:30 We’re starting to see softening support for other elected Republicans 33:15 Polls show Lindsey Graham & Vivek Ramaswamy’s support way down 34:30 Janet Mills decides to go sharply negative against Graham Platner 36:45 The vetting in the primary will be healthy for the Democrats 41:30 Amy Littlefield joins the Chuck ToddCast 43:00 Why did you choose the murder mystery framing for this book? 44:15 1 in 6 beds is in a Catholic hospital that have reproductive care restrictions 45:45 Agatha Christie’s style was an inspiration for the book 48:45 We know the political side of the story, wanted to tell the activist story 50:15 Getting the Roe v. Wade decision required a strong grassroots movement 50:45 The Catholic church has a strong organizational operation 52:00 Reproductive rights wasn’t a left vs. right issue in the 70s and 80s 54:15 Democrats have been complicit in the erosion of reproductive rights 55:15 The Hyde Amendment got through a Democratic majority congress 56:15 Evangelicals amassed huge political power in the Reagan era 57:00 Ronald Reagan flipped his position on abortion during his presidency 58:45 Abortion and guns are the two single-issue voting issues 59:30 Republicans extracted huge power out of single issue voters 1:00:45 People are willing to compromise other values for anti-abortion position 1:01:30 Anti-abortion activists know they don’t have majority support 1:03:00 Was “choice” the worst word they could pick? Why not frame it as freedom? 1:05:45 Examining the first deaths after the passage of Hyde amendment 1:06:30 Why didn’t deaths due to the Hyde amendment galvanize voters? 1:09:00 Justices didn’t want 5-4 on Roe so they came up with convoluted argument 1:10:00 A flawed legal rationale isn’t why Roe fell 1:11:30 The abortion rights fight has always been in the states 1:13:15 The debate has been over codifying Roe or codifying a right 1:15:15 Repealing the Hyde amendment was biggest win in years for abortion rights 1:17:00 Planned Parenthood has had an oversized role in defending abortion rights 1:17:45 Would there be a Federalist Society without Roe? 1:18:30 Leonard Leo handed Donald Trump the names of justices that would overturn Roe 1:19:45 Anti-abortion activists copied the playbook of the civil rights movement 1:21:15 Is there anybody on the pro-abortion rights side that deserves blame for Dobbs 1:22:30 Reproductive rights groups like PP and NARAL were constantly outflanked 1:23:30 Fighting against something is more galvanizing than defending something 1:25:00 Anti-abortion ballot initiatives consistently lose, even in conservative areas 1:27:30 Conservatives have laid claim to the words “freedom” and “patriot” 1:29:45 Does the codification of abortion rights happen by the 2030s? 1:31:45 Reproductive rights aren’t talked about in an economic framing 1:33:30 Can abortion rights movement draft off heavy support for birth control? 1:34:00 Anti-abortion activists want to see birth control and IVF outlawed 1:36:00 Will activists go to congress for an answer or will it be a long campaign? 1:37:00 Number of abortions has gone up since the Dobbs decision 1:39:00 Death of Roe was death by a thousand stab wounds from many suspects 1:41:00 Anti-abortion and anti-women political movements are gaining momentum 1:42:15 Republican women look uncomfortable with position they’ve been put in 1:44:15 People sharing their stories with abortion is incredibly important 1:47:00 Abortion may take a backseat to economy, but could affect midterms 1:48:45 ToddCast Top 5 statewide races in Illinois 1:49:45 Illinois has produced 2 presidents and sent 4 governors to prison 1:51:30 #1 Barack Obama’s 2004 senate campaign 1:57:00 #2 1992 senate campaign 2:00:00 1960 United States presidential election 2:03:00 1984 Paul Simon vs. Charles H. Percy 2:05:30 1986 Democratic primary chaos 2:09:00 Honorable mentions 2:11:00 Ask Chuck 2:11:15 Are we normalizing the denigration of female journalists by Donald Trump? 2:15:30 Why do politics feel so much harder now, and we can’t find agreement? 2:17:30 Did gutting Department of State lead to evacuation debacle in middle east? 2:21:15 Did Abigail Spanberger tee up a wave in the next election with gun control legislation?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It might seem counterintuitive but conservative movements in the US are repeatedly shaped by donors, think tanks, and institutions not organic grassroots uprisings. Name the popular movement and 9 times out of 10 there's money interests behind it. And when the movement is genuinely organic, it's almost immediately co-opted by elites. Subscribe on Patreon to support making this show, get premium only episodes, and listen to our entire back catalog. From the Powell Memo through think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the rise of the Christian Right, and the legal infrastructure built by groups like the Federalist Society. The business elites, donors, media ecosystems, and culture-war politics fused neoliberal economics with religious nationalism and racial grievance. The throughline is continuity: each new “movement” is a remix of the same elite strategy: mobilize popular resentment while consolidating wealth and power at the top. All this makes you wonder whether there has ever been a genuinely conservative movement in the US.

For the ad-free version of this episode, subscribe to Politicology+ at https://politicology.com/plus In part two of this series, Ron talks to Rebecca Roiphe (Joseph Solomon Distinguished Professor of Law at New York Law School) about critical legal studies, the attacks on our understanding of what the law is and how it should function from across the political spectrum.  They focus on how the chilling actions of the Trump Administration stem from a belief that law is merely an instrument of power, and why that belief is corrosive—to the everyday practice of law and to liberal democracy itself. They discuss: (08:00) Understanding liberalism vs progressivism (09:08) Fairness in the legal system  (16:43) The role of the Federalist Society and its shift at Harvard  (21:19) The Trump Administration's legal philosophy (25:39) The independence of the Justice Department  (28:33) The impact of executive orders targeting law firms  (32:33) The future of legal representation  Follow Ron and Rebecca on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RonSteslow https://x.com/rroiphe Email your questions to podcast@politicology.com or leave us a voicemail at ‪‪(703) 239-3068‬ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jenin Younes rose to prominence on the right by defending medical professionals like Jay Bhattacharya who claimed that they were being censored over opposition to vaccination and masking mandates. Younes worked for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a group described as libertarian, and appeared at events with the Federalist Society. As the political winds have shifted, she says that the Trump Administration's attacks on free speech are worse than anything that she saw during the Biden Administration. Younes is currently the national legal director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. David Remnick speaks with her about her unlikely trajectory and about how her commitment to free speech—regardless of which side of the aisle the issue arises from—has left her in a uniquely lonely political position. New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Join host David Remnick as he discusses the latest in politics, news, and current events in conversation with political leaders, newsmakers, innovators, New Yorker staff writers, authors, actors, and musicians.

CLE credit for this event will be available at On-Demand CLE. Anticipated availability date: March 15th.This webinar brings together current and former General Counsels from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of War (Defense), and the Department of the Navy. Drawing on their experience, practice, and diverse career paths, the panel will explore the practice of law within the Department of War and the individual services; the opportunities, challenges, and rewards of this dynamic field of law and policy; the skills and competencies critical to success both within government service and beyond; and how this unique area of practice broadens Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) as attorneys and equips them for successful transitions to civilian practice.This program serves as the inaugural webinar of the Armed Services Legal Network. To learn more about this new initiative of the Federalist Society, click here. If you are currently a JAG or a veteran practicing law and are interested in participating in the Network, please contact us at Networks@fedsoc.org.CLE InfoFeaturing:Hon. James Baehr, General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs; Lieutenant Colonel, USMC Reserve; Former Military JudgeHon. Paul C. Ney, Former General Counsel of the Department of Defense and currently Partner, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLPHon. Robert J. Sander, Former General Counsel of the Department of the Navy, Former Acting General Counsel of the Army, and currently Founding Partner, The Sander Group, PLLC(Moderator) Toby Curto, Colonel, U.S. Army

Our show today is being sponsored by Free Float Analytics, the only platform measuring board power, connections, and performance for FREE.Story of the Week (DR):Epstein: The tech brosReid Hoffman (2,658 Files)Bill Gates (2,592 Files)Peter Thiel (2,281 Files)Elon Musk (1,116 Files)Kimbal too (100+ files)Larry Page (314 Files)Sergey Brin (294 Files)Mark Zuckerberg (282 Files)Jeff Bezos (196 Files)Eric Schmidt (193 Files)Epstein: the lack of US-based corporate fallout MMHead of firm founded by Mandelson to quit after Epstein releasesBenjamin Wegg-Prosser, the chief executive of the lobbying firm co-founded with Peter Mandelson, has announced his resignation after information in the Jeffrey Epstein files detailed apparent links between the company and the convicted sex offender.‘Ignore It.' How the Elite Consoled Jeffrey Epstein Over His Crimes.A Revolt Inside Paul Weiss Over the Epstein Files Took Down Brad KarpOn Wednesday, an exclusive group of 10 or so Paul Weiss partners met unbeknown to their longtime chairman, Brad Karp, to discuss whether he could continue to lead the law firm.The partners, who manage the firm and refer to themselves as the “Deciding Group,” were grappling with the release of new emails suggesting Karp had a more extensive relationship with Jeffrey Epstein than they realized, including in the months before the convicted sex offender's death. Karp led one of the country's biggest law firms for 18 years and had survived a maelstrom less than a year ago when he struck a first-of-its-kind settlement with President Trump on his firm's behalf. He wouldn't survive a second controversy as the firm's leader. World Economic Forum investigates its CEO over Epstein linksCEO Borge BrendeWasserman Group CEO issues public apology after being mentioned in Epstein filesCasey WassermanPeter Attia, longevity doctor named in Epstein files, no longer listed on advisory board on sleep tech company's websiteBut still at CBS: but Bari Weiss hates cancel cultureElon Musk announces SpaceX's acquisition of AI startup xAIRecord-Breaking $1.25 Trillion ValuationGoal: Orbital AI Data CentersConsolidation of the "Muskonomy"DisneyJosh D'Amaro (Incoming CEO): Currently the Chairman of Disney Experiences (Parks and Resorts), D'Amaro will officially become CEO on March 18, 2026, following the Annual Shareholder Meeting. He is a 28-year Disney veteran credited with driving the $36 billion revenue growth in the parks segment.Disney's next CEO often dresses like Bob Iger. Is it a good idea to copy your boss's style?Dana Walden (New President & CCO): In a historic move, Walden (formerly Co-Chair of Disney Entertainment) has been named President and Chief Creative Officer. Reporting directly to D'Amaro, she will oversee the creative direction of the entire company, ensuring brand consistency across all storytelling platforms.Same Old Disney: Woke Exec Elevated to Top Position as ‘Head Storyteller'Bob Iger (Senior Advisor): Iger will step down as CEO on March 18 but will remain as a Senior Advisor and Board Member until his formal retirement on December 31, 2026, to ensure an "orderly transition."PayBase SalaryTarget BonusAnnual EquityOne-Time AwardTotal Year 1Josh D'Amaro$2.5M$6.25M$26.25M$9.7M$44.7MDana Walden$3.75M$7.5M$15.75M$5.26M$32.26MGoodliest of the Week (MM/DR):DR: Judge rules Texas anti-ESG law is unconstitutionalMM: 38% of Companies' Emissions Trajectories Are Aligned with Global Climate Goals: MSCIAssholiest Triggeringiest of the Week (MM):Nike among the first targeted by EEOC for DEI activity DRThe charge: Specifically, on May 24, 2024, EEOC Commissioner (now Chair) Andrea R. Lucas issued Charge No. 551-2024-04996, alleging that Respondent NIKE may have violated Title VII “by engaging in a pattern or practice of disparate treatment against White employees, applicants, and training program participants in hiring, promotion, demotion, or separation decisions (including selection for layoffs); internship programs; and mentoring, leadership development, and other career development programs.”This is crazy to me: EEOC counsel signatory GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS - a black woman who signed off on this lawsuit was the subject of an entire article on the amazing power of Title VII for the civil rights movement in July of 2024. Reams has been at EEOC since 1972, and Biden made her acting general counsel.Trump took over, appointed Andrea Lucas as chair who DEMOTED Reams to Associate General Counsel to make room for Catherine Eschbach, a Federalist Society who has SIX YEARS EXPERIENCE AT A LAW FIRM who got her Bachelor's in 2010 and her law degree in 2015 (a whole 10 years experience!), but had this to say upon her appointment: “President Trump made clear in his executive order on eliminating DEI that EO 11246 had facilitated federal contractors adopting DEI practices out of step with the requirements of our Nation's civil rights laws and that, with the rescission of EO 11246, the President mandates federal contractors wind those practices down within 90 days. As director, I'm committed to carrying out President Trump's executive orders, which will restore a merit-based system to provide all workers with equal opportunity.”All the other lawyers signing were white, and I can only guess Reams had no choice but to sign unless she decided to do MLK dirty 60 years after seeing him in collegeBut literally, the EEOC discriminated against a black lawyer who was in charge to put white lawyers in charge to bring discrimination cases against companiesNOT TO MENTION, here is Nike's workforce composition in 2024:57% white, 50% male overall65% white, 55% males for management77% white, 62% male for leadershipThe EEOC workforce demographics as of 2022, when it was WOKEST:60% white, 56% maleNIKE IS WHITER THAN THE EEOC FROM MANAGEMENT UPBlackrock and every Wall Street bank that quit Net Zero AllianceRather than sticking it out and fighting, knowing that you were correct and legally able to invest however you wanted and associate with anyone you wanted, you all cowered when Texas passed the first law saying you “discriminate against” fossil fuels and generated an arbitrary “black list”Now, this: Texas anti-ESG law declared unconstitutional by US judgeIn a decision made public on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Alan Albright said the law violated First Amendment free-speech protections because it punished businesses for speaking about fossil fuels and associating with organizations that oppose fossil fuels.First Amendment! The very first one! You didn't even have to read ALL the amendments to figure out which Stewardship whiningThe UK Investment Association stewardship working group, a group that included Aegon, BlackRock, Fidelity, M&G, Schroders, Artemis, CCLA, Legal and General, and Royal London Asset Management, put out a paper: Realigning Stewardship: Delivering sustainable value through StewardshipThe group wants you to know some things about stewardship, specifically:Stuff happening in the future is too far away for us to care now: “The need for realism over what stewardship can achieve – There are potential time horizon trade-offs between achieving real world outcomes on sustainability themes such as climate change and delivering financial returns to clients. These trade-offs need to be actively considered. Additionally, there are concerns that targeted sustainability goals may not always be realistic, and that government and other stakeholders may have developed unrealistic expectations of stewardship's capacity to deliver systemic change.”Translation: if we actually invested for climate and were stewards of climate in our portfolios given that climate change will totally fuck up everything we know and invest in, we'd have to give up on, like, AI and oil and stuff… we can't really do that because there's too much money and stonks and rockets and whatever, so we'll give up on climate, but just like, for NOW, later we'll fix it by asking nicelyDespite historically having voted 96% in favor of virtually EVERYTHING: “There is an undue focus on voting as a barometer of good stewardship, which does not reflect the role of all stewardship mechanisms.”Translation: we get no credit for talking about this for a decade and voting for everything - like, NONE. Stewardship teams are seen as cost centers, not alpha generation. But we should get credit for talking about stuff in the hopes that things change over a long period of time.We are poor: “There are different costs associated with the process of stewardship for both investors and companies, who have finite resources.”Translation: I mean, PLENTY of resources for CEO pay that outstrips inflation and massive AI investments to displace workers and stuff, but you know… poor.OMG, stop whining… the vote IS THE MECHANISM YOU'VE NEVER USED! Your owners WANT YOU TO and you vote with management at a higher rate than people in the US believe in the moon landing!Headliniest of the WeekDR: The meritocracy is officially a lie: Elon Musk's hiring advice: 'Don't look at the résumé — just believe your interaction'DR: It's official, we are right about everything: Disney's Bob Iger achieves an essential feat for outgoing CEOs: giving his successor a clean slateMM: Hillary Clinton wants testimony on Jeffrey Epstein in public: 'Let's stop the games'MM: My neighborhood is pushing back against sidewalk delivery robots. The fight's coming to your town nextPicture of the week from inside a Cracker Barrel, which is getting its mojo back:Who Won the Week?DR: The Epstein Bros (see Matt's winner)MM: White men (again) - I am already filing a lawsuit against that girl in high school who wouldn't make out with me for discriminating against white men with ugly glasses and long noses. It's racism of the highest order.PredictionsDR: The best we can hope for are shareholder derivative lawsuits against boards who failed to oversee the "reputational risk” of their Epstein tech bro directors and CEOs. MM: When I saw this: Elon Musk says it's hard to convince engineers with families to move to SpaceX's 'technology monastery' in Texas, it was clear: Elon Musk will re-reincorporate SpaceX in a really nice suburb somewhere near or around San Francisco in an effort to re-re-rehire talent (who may actually have families), after which a single white man who moved to Texas to join SpaceX will sue the company for discrimination against single white men who move to Texas, forcing Musk to re-re-reincorporate in Texas again.

Allegations of politically motivated “debanking” have intensified debate over how federal regulation, supervisory practices, and concerns about “reputation risk” influence banks’ decisions about which customers to serve. In recent months, the President issued an Executive Order directing agencies to reexamine supervisory and risk-management frameworks, while the banking regulators themselves have taken steps related to supervision, anti-money-laundering obligations, and the treatment of reputation risk—often implicating questions surrounding confidential supervisory information. At the same time, Congress and stakeholders across the financial sector continue to grapple with the scope and meaning of federal “fair access” standards and what they might require of banks going forward.With these developments unfolding in parallel, important questions remain unresolved. What role should the government play in shaping banks’ customer relationships? How should supervisory expectations be calibrated, and what legal clarity—whether legislative or regulatory—might be needed to strike the proper balance?Please join the Federalist Society on Wednesday, January 7, at 12 PM ET for a virtual discussion exploring these issues and examining where regulators and lawmakers may go from here. Featuring: John Berlau, Senior fellow and Director of Finance Policy, Competitive Enterprise InstituteTabitha Edgens, Executive Vice President & Co-Head of Regulatory Affairs, Bank Policy InstituteBrian Knight, Senior Counsel, Corporate Engagement Team, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) John Heltman, Washington Bureau Chief, American Banker

OA1226 - We begin with a review of the unprecedented lawsuit that Minnesota has filed against ICE with the extreme leftist radical demand that they obey the law and U.S. Constitution. How much power do states have to limit federal operations, and what are the chances a court order might put some guardrails on the largest enforcement operation in ICE history? We then consider the legal and political merits of articles of impeachment filed against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. Finally: we honor the passing of civil rights hero Claudette Colvin, whose bravery as a 15-year-old on a Montgomery, Alabama bus nine months before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat put the final nail into the “separate but equal” justification for racial segregation established by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson. State of Minnesota v. Noem, complaint filed 1/12/2026 “House Resolution 935: Impeaching Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense for the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors,” Rep. Shri Thaneder (12/9/2025) “House Resolution 944: Impeaching Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services  for high crimes and misdemeanors,” Rep. Haley Stevens (12/10/2025) “House Resolution ___: Impeaching Kristi Lynn Arnold Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, for high crimes and misdemeanors,” Rep. Robin Kelly (1/13/2026) “Firm Tied to Kristin Noem Secretly Got Money from $220 Million DHS Ad Contracts,” ProPublica (11/14/2025) “Impeachment: The Constitution's Fiduciary Meaning of ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors,'” Robert G. Natelson, The Federalist Society (6/19/2018) “Claudette Colvin, who refused to move seats on a bus at start of civil rights movement, dies” (NPR, 1/13/2026)  Browder v. Gayle, 142 F.Supp. 707 (1956)(aff'd per curiam by U.S. Supreme Court 12/20/1956) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Chief Justice John Roberts famously told the country that, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, he would act like an umpire—just there to call balls and strikes. To help answer the question of how Umpire Roberts Court has fared, Harry spoke with Lisa Graves about her new book, Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights, in which Graves makes the case that Roberts has acted less as an umpire than a political loyalist. In the conversation, Harry and Lisa discuss Roberts's background as a movement conservative at DOJ, his nomination and ascension as Chief Justice, and his tenure now entering its third decade. They also delve into the modern Federalist Society, unpacking how Roberts and his fellow conservative justices align—or don't—with its ideology. With the Supreme Court wielding unprecedented influence over American policy, this discussion provides a clear look at how we arrived at the Court we have today. Read Lisa's book: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/lisa-graves/without-precedent/9781645030676/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of our "Who We Are" series, Ilya Shapiro, James Copland, and Rafael Mangual discuss the work of the Manhattan Institute and City Journal in the context of conservative legal thought and jurisprudence. They examine the rise and influence of the conservative legal movement—tracing its roots, chronicling some of its internal debates, and examining how it has reshaped American law, courts, and legal education. They also examine how the Federalist Society transformed legal education and elite institutions, and why significant challenges remain for conservatives seeking to achieve lasting legal change.

In this Best Of episode, we revisit our 2023 conversation with Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. We talked to Sen. Whitehouse about his book, “The Scheme,” which examines how dark money and radical right wing activists worked tirelessly to gain control of the Supreme Court. Sen. Whitehouse lays out all the key players in this effort, including The Federalist Society and Leonard Leo, the main architect of this mission. By filtering dark money through dozens of agencies and blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, the right wing has a chokehold on the SCOTUS majority. As a result, we've seen rulings that are horrible for abortion rights, climate change, voting rights, and so much more. Sen. Whitehouse also explains some of the ways that the extremist takeover of the judicial system can be reigned in, but it's going to be a fight.  READ Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's book, “The Scheme”: https://thenewpress.org/books/9781620978344/

David McIntosh, attorney, former U.S. Congressman (IA-2), co-founder of the Federalist Society, and President of the Club for Growth, joins the discussion on what's behind America's affordability challenges. McIntosh highlights how Club for Growth economists and leaders have been calling on Republicans to focus on kitchen-table economic issues like cost of living and affordability heading into the 2026 election cycle, noting that voters consistently weigh economic concerns above all else and want real, pro-growth solutions. Drawing on his long record advocating limited government, lower taxes, regulatory relief, and free-market reforms, he explains how high prices for housing, healthcare, energy, and essentials have squeezed families, and why policy matters when it comes to wages, prices, and overall economic freedom

This Day in Legal History: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr's Kid Sworn in as JusticeOn December 8, 1902, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was sworn in as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, beginning one of the most storied judicial careers in American history. Appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt, Holmes brought not just legal brilliance but a fierce sense of independence to the bench—qualities that would define his nearly 30-year tenure. He would become known as “The Great Dissenter,” not because he loved conflict, but because he saw the Constitution as a living document that demanded humility, skepticism of dogma, and above all, respect for democratic governance.Holmes shaped modern constitutional law, particularly in his groundbreaking First Amendment opinions. In Schenck v. United States (1919), he famously coined the “clear and present danger” test, establishing a foundational limit on government power to suppress speech. Though that decision upheld a conviction, Holmes's dissent later that year in Abrams v. United States marked his turn toward a much broader vision of free expression—one that laid the groundwork for modern civil liberties jurisprudence.A Civil War veteran wounded at Antietam, Holmes served with the Massachusetts Volunteers and carried shrapnel in his body for the rest of his life. His long memory gave him historical depth: legend holds he met both Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy—Lincoln as a young Union officer in Washington, and JFK decades later when the future president visited the aged Holmes on his 90th birthday. While the Lincoln meeting is plausible and widely accepted, the Kennedy encounter is well documented—photos exist of JFK visiting Holmes in 1932, shortly before the justice's death.Holmes's legal philosophy emphasized restraint, often reminding fellow jurists that the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” He resisted turning the judiciary into a super-legislature, warning against confusing personal preference with constitutional mandate. His opinions, dissents, and aphorisms—“taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” among them—still echo in courtrooms and classrooms today.By the time he retired in 1932 at age 90, Holmes had become an icon: not just a jurist, but a symbol of intellectual honesty and constitutional humility. His December 8 appointment wasn't just another judicial swearing-in—it was the beginning of a philosophical legacy that still defines the boundaries of American legal thought.Amit Agarwal, a former clerk to Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, will soon find himself arguing against the very ideology he once clerked under—defending limits on presidential power in a case that could gut a nearly century-old precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935). He'll be representing former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who sued after President Trump gave her the boot, and whose case now tees up a potentially seismic shift in how presidents control independent agencies.At issue is whether the president can remove members of independent commissions—like the FTC—at will, or whether statutory “for cause” protections, created by Congress and upheld since the New Deal, still mean anything. If the Supreme Court overturns Humphrey's Executor, it would blow a hole in the legal framework that has shielded multi-member agencies from raw political interference since Roosevelt tried—and failed—to remake the FTC in his own image.Let's pause here: Humphrey's Executor isn't just some dusty New Deal relic. It drew a sharp line between executive officers who serve the president directly and independent regulators who are supposed to be immune from daily political whims. The Court in 1935 said: no, FDR, you can't just fire an FTC commissioner because he's not singing from your hymnbook. That ruling became the backbone of modern agency independence—from the Fed to the SEC to the NLRB. Without it, the next president could dismiss any regulatory head who doesn't toe the party line. You want crypto rules to mean something? Food safety? Banking supervision? Say goodbye to all that if we pretend these agencies are just White House interns with better titles.But here's where it gets interesting: Agarwal is making the conservative case for restraint. Now working at Protect Democracy, he's arguing that letting presidents fire independent commissioners at will isn't a win for constitutional governance—it's a power grab that warps the original design. He's invoked Burkean conservatism—the idea that practical experience should trump theoretical purity—and warns that blind devotion to the “unitary executive theory” threatens institutional integrity more than it protects separation of powers.And Agarwal isn't alone. A collection of conservative legal scholars, former judges, and ex-White House lawyers—some with deep Federalist Society credentials—have filed briefs supporting his position. Their argument? That Humphrey's Executor is an “originalist” decision, faithful to the Founders' ambivalence about concentrated executive power, especially in domestic administration.Still, let's be honest: the Court is unlikely to be swayed by this internal dissent. The Roberts Court has already chipped away at agency independence in decisions like Seila Law (2020) and Loper Bright (2024), where it let Trump fire the CFPB director and overturned Chevron deference respectively. With a solid conservative majority, and multiple justices openly embracing a muscular vision of presidential control, the writing may already be on the wall.Which is precisely what makes Agarwal's stand so notable. This isn't some progressive legal activist parachuting in from the ACLU (though his wife did work there). This is someone who backed Kavanaugh publicly, donated to Nikki Haley, and spent years rising through the conservative legal pipeline—only to conclude that this version of executive power isn't conservative at all. It's reactionary.So what happens if Humphrey's goes down? Beyond the short-term question of whether Slaughter gets her job back, the bigger issue is how much power presidents will wield over what were supposed to be politically insulated regulatory bodies. Will a ruling in Trump's favor mean future presidents can purge the Fed board? Fire NLRB members mid-term? Flatten the independence of enforcement agencies? The Court may claim it's just restoring “constitutional structure,” but don't be surprised if that structure starts to look a lot like one-man rule.Agarwal, to his credit, is saying: not so fast. Sometimes conserving means preserving. And sometimes defending the Constitution means restraining the people who claim to speak for it the loudest.Ex-Alito, Kavanaugh Clerk Defends Limits on Trump's Firing PowerFight over Trump's power to fire FTC member heads to US Supreme Court | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily barred the Justice Department from using evidence seized from Daniel Richman, a former legal adviser to ex-FBI Director James Comey, in any future attempts to revive criminal charges against Comey. The move comes just weeks after the original case was dismissed due to the lead prosecutor's unlawful appointment.At issue is whether federal prosecutors violated Richman's Fourth Amendment rights by searching his personal computer without a warrant during earlier investigations into media leaks tied to Comey's 2020 congressional testimony. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sided with Richman—for now—saying he's likely to succeed on the merits and ordering the government to isolate and secure the data until at least December 12.The contested materials had been used to support now-dropped charges that Comey made false statements and obstructed Congress regarding FBI leaks about the Clinton and Trump investigations. But Richman, once a special FBI employee himself, argues the search was illegal and wants the files deleted or returned.The Justice Department, undeterred, is reportedly considering a second indictment of Comey. But between shaky prosecutorial appointments and constitutional challenges like this one, their case is rapidly sliding into legally questionable territory.US federal judge temporarily blocks evidence use in dismissed Comey case | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a controversial book removal case out of Llano County, Texas, effectively allowing local officials to keep 17 books off public library shelves—titles that deal with race, LGBTQ+ identity, puberty, and even flatulence.The justices let stand a divided 5th Circuit ruling that found no First Amendment violation in the county's decision to pull the books. That decision reversed a lower court order requiring the books be returned and rejected the plaintiffs' argument that library patrons have a constitutional “right to receive information.” The 5th Circuit held that libraries have wide discretion to curate collections, and that removing titles doesn't equate to banning them altogether—people can still buy them online, the court reasoned.The dispute began in 2021 when local officials responded to complaints by residents, ultimately purging books including Maurice Sendak's In the Night Kitchen (due to nude illustrations), as well as works on slavery and gender identity. Opponents of the removal sued, citing free speech violations. But the case now stands as a significant blow to that theory—at least in the 5th Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene leaves unresolved a key question: does the First Amendment protect not just the right to speak, but the right to access certain information in public institutions? For now, in parts of the South, the answer appears to be no.US Supreme Court turns away appeal of Texas library book ban | 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

Steve Gruber sits down with Seena Saiedian, a panelist at the Free Iran Convention 2025 and J.D. candidate at the University of Virginia School of Law. Seena shares insights from his work advocating for freedom and democracy in Iran, his experiences as a Karsh-Dillard Scholar, editor on the Virginia Law Review, and Symposium Chair for the Federalist Society, and highlights what attendees can expect from this year's convention. The conversation explores the importance of civic engagement, international human rights, and the ongoing fight for liberty in Iran.

And Kirkland tries a little tenderness. FedSoc does not. ----- The news that Kirkland had to teach its lawyers how to stop being mean to the private equity industry is incredibly funny. We're not saying Kirkland is getting a bad rap here, but when did corporate clients become such fragile snowflakes? The Federalist Society's annual meeting brought together the leading minds of the Trump legal movement to call for a "war" to impeach the federal judges -- many of them longtime conservatives themselves -- for not appropriately facilitating the administration. And the DOJ completes its humiliation in the D.C. sandwich thrower case by failing to secure even a misdemeanor conviction. 

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

Sarah Isgur and David French recap the Federalist Society's antisemitism panel at last week's National Lawyers Conference before interviewing Judge Jennifer Elrod about the judicial funding crisis.  The Agenda:—Court denies review on Obergefell—Contrasts between Tucker Carlson and the Federalist Society—Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on sex designations on passports—The president issued pardons for Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, et al.—Ohio school pronoun policy likely violates First Amendment—A federal judge retires—A shutdown going on since July Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You might want to think of this totally gonzo episode as the 3WHH-Squared, as it was taped live during happy hour Friday night in a very noisy Washington Hilton Hotel at the annual conference of the Federalist Society, where John and I are present and making a general nuisance of ourselves. Lucretia was supposed to […]

You might want to think of this totally gonzo episode as the 3WHH-Squared, as it was taped live during happy hour Friday night in a very noisy Washington Hilton Hotel at the annual conference of the Federalist Society, where John and I are present and making a general nuisance of ourselves. Lucretia was supposed to be in Hawaii this week on some kind of junket or super-secret mission, but the government shutdown interposed itself.) As we did last year, we simply invited a handful of legal luminaries to drop by our not-so-quiet corner, with cocktails in hand, to kick around whatever is on our mind. We were delighted to have Judge William Pryor of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals drop by briefly before having to run off to host a dinner for his clerks; Roger Pilon, long-time director of constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, hung around to heckle everyone; Ilan Wurman, one of the rising young stars of the conservative legal academy, fell into our snare as well, and Hadley Arkes, who needs no introduction here. (Would any such gathering be complete without Hadley dropping by? To ask the question is to answer it, of course, as any disquisition on necessary truths from Aristotle to Kant would know.)The highlight of this gaggle was Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University (and one of John's principal mentors at Yale Law way back when, which may explain a few things), to talk about his brand new and highly readable book, Born Equal: Remaking America's Constitution, 1840-1920. Since we were recording out in the open at the Washington Hilton, this episode is a bit . . . authentic, to so speak. We ask the indulgence of listeners to its many irregularities.

Heidi Boghosian is an attorney, author, and co-host of Law and Disorder podcast and radio show. She joins Steve to discuss how the US surveillance state is a tool of class discipline and repression. From the Federalist Society pipeline to post-9/11 “safety” theater, both parties helped build a digital police state that criminalizes poverty, protest, and anyone messing with profits. And let's not forget the copaganda about “crime” and “illegals” to keep folks scared while manufactured austerity produces the very crises the state then punishes. Classic ruling class two-step. Silicon Valley's tech bros are kind of like bouncers. Thiel, Apple, Google et al. snort up our data, rig information flows (algorithms, anyone?) then lobby to block regulation. The “nothing to hide” line is an ideological bait and switch. The killer is inside the house! There's no easy fix. Heidi urges immediate digital self-defense – the OPSEC basics, privacy tools, scam awareness. Meanwhile the ruling class isn't losing sleep over your “I voted” sticker. We should be thinking in terms of local organizing and building counter-hegemony. (Heidi references the Young Lords. Look ‘em up!) Heidi Boghosian is a New York-based attorney and activist. She's the author of "Spying on Democracy" (2013), "I Have Nothing To Hide" (2021), and "Cyber Citizens: Saving Democracy with Digital Literacy" (June 2025). Heidi is co-host of the radio show and podcast, Law and Disorder. Find her work at lawanddisorder.org and heidiboghosian.com

SEASON 4 EPISODE 23: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (2:30) SPECIAL COMMENT: Here we go again. Trump is talking about his own mortality or career mortality or heaven or all of the above… AGAIN at the same time he’s talking about declaring insurrections and jailing more political opponents, like Mayor Johnson and Governor Pritzker and any one of a dozen judges including at least one he appointed – not prosecuting them, just jailing them - and, as if it could GET any worse, he specifically segued from the issue of wanting to prove to God that he’s been good to how great all those weapons are at his naval base. The missiles are flying, hallelujah, hallelujah. Plus he's written: “Chicago Mayor should be in jail for failing to protect Ice Officers! Governor Pritzker also." Look, you and I know it should be TRUMP in jail because he’s not only broken laws, he’s nearly COLLECTED THE COMPLETE SET of broken laws. But the process of convincing Trump that he's not crazy, that his predictions are coming true, that Portland is ablaze, is how Stephen Miller and the others manipulate him into eroding American democracy a little more every damn day. And this has worked since at least 2016 and I was told about it by Ed Rollins in 2017. It's the Trump personal feedback loop. And when the interruptors in that loop get in the way, they get bought out and destroyed. CNN first, The Washington Post, and now CBS News and the "B" stands for "Bari Weiss" who once told The Federalist Society that it was ok if it didn't believe her and her wife's marriage was legal because they all shared what really mattered: a desire for lower taxes. Let me expand upon the death of CBS News and her disastrous debut at its helm by retelling the story of the miniature version enacted at the CBS flagship station in LA when I worked there in 1991: The Mystery Of The Broken Number 3 CBS Pencils. B-Block (37:00) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: What is wrong with these dweeb MAGAs? Ken Paxton can't keep his pants on, every other day there's some new story causing his wife to again decide to divorce him, and he's just announced "undercover operations" against leftists. Hey, Pal, if you did anything BESIDES undercover operations you wouldn't be dismissed as a sex pest. Poor Derrick Van Orden continues his descent: now he's yelling at people for not learning how the Senate votes the way he learned about it in the 4th Grade (all of what he learned was wrong). And the Bad Bunny Super Bowl blowback reaches Marjorie Taylor Greene who demands a law making English the official language which is going to be trouble for her since she doesn't speak it. C-Block (45:00) THURSDAYS WITH THURBER: It's one of those weeks, plus my back is gone, one of my eyes is fighting me: it's time to bring back the first Thurber story I ever read aloud to an audience, the oddly soothing "A Box To Hide In."See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's Hump Day on the Majority Report On Today's Show: Trump posts to Truth Social that Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson should be imprisoned for hindering ICE agents. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) co-signs Donald Trump's calling for Pritzker's and Johnson's imprisonment CBS Chicago reports that ICE has been making false 911 call and filing phony police reports in an attempt to agitate local authorities. The IDF has seized nine more boats attempting to break the Israeli blockade on aid for Palestinians. Greta Thunberg posts a video on social media pleading for people to stay focused on the genocide and Palestinians and to not make the flotilla members the center of the narrative. Editor of Bolts Magazine, Daniel Nichanian joins the program to discuss his Cheat Sheet for the 2025 General Elections. In the Fun Half: We revisit a talk that new head of CBS news Bari Weiss gave to the Federalist Society in 2023 where she exhibits her only talent, flattering conservatives. After receiving a $20 billion bailout, Argentina's president Javier Milei throws an arena rock show, even singing himself Pam Bondi is once again humiliated, this time by Senator Dick Durbin as he presses her on Epstein. Stephen Crowder doesn't understand why his fellow podcasters are turning on Trump. Dave Rubin goes on a misogynist rant about Greta Thunberg. All that and more The Congress switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: DELETEME: Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to www.joindeleteme.com/MAJORITY and use promo code MAJORITY at checkout. WILD GRAIN: Get $30 off your first box + free Croissants in every box. Go to Wildgrain.com/MAJORITY to start your subscription. NAKED WINES: To get 6 bottles of wine for $39.99, head to NakedWines.com/MAJORITY and use code MAJORITY for both the code and PASSWORD. SUNSET LAKE:  Head to SunsetLakeCBD.com and use the code JustTreats25 to save 30% on all their gummies for sleep, focus, and relaxation Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.co

Inez Stepman of the Independent Women's Forum fills in for Jim on the Thursday 3 Martini Lunch. Join Inez and Greg as they explain why the government shutdown gives President Trump the opportunity for DOGE 2.0, how the assassination of Charlie Kirk gives college administrators more ability to stifle conservative speech on campus, Hamas asking for absurd changes to the Gaza plan, and Islamist terrorism in England.First, they welcome President Trump's plans to cut parts of government through powers he holds during this government shutdown. Inez explains what Trump and OMB Director Russell Vought can do in this situation and how it is long overdue.They also focus briefly on the Dems' demand for extending Obamacare subsidies. Inez details how the high cost of health care is just one of countless ways the right has been proven right about the disaster of Obamacare.Next, they revisit Inez's concerns from last month that the Charlie Kirk assassination would give colleges and universities a more plausible reason to reject conservative speakers on campus. The security needs are just too expensive. New York University Law School is proving her right. NYU Law refused to allow the campus chapter of the Federalist Society to host Ilya Shapiro on October 7. NYU officials say the likelihood of intense protests is just too great. Inez reveals why this is just the tip of the iceberg.Finally, they shake their heads as Hamas reportedly like the Trump plan for Gaza, except for the part about Hamas leaving Gaza and being demilitarized. Inez says it will likely be up to the Arab supporters of the deal to force Hamas to comply. Inez and Greg also react to the Islamist terrorist attack in England, where two people were stabbed to death outside a synagogue on Yom Kippur. Inez reveals just how bleak the outlook is for the UK unless major policy changes happen very soon.Please visit our great sponsors:Get 20% off your first purchase of classic menswear. Visit https://MizzenAndMain.com with promo code 3ML20—shop online or visit a Mizzen and Main store in select states. Build your fall sanctuary of comfort with Boll and Branch. Save 20% plus free shipping on your first set of sheets at https://BollAndBranch.com/THREEMARTINI —offer ends soon, exclusions apply.

In this episode of 'Straight White American Jesus,' host Brad Onishi welcomes Leah Litman, a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School , author of "Lawless," and co-host of the podcast 'Strict Scrutiny.' They discuss the political nature of the Supreme Court. Litman highlights conservative grievances, the rise of conspiracy theories influenced by these grievances, and the implications for judicial decisions affecting voting rights, LGBT equality, and reproductive rights. They explore the detrimental impact of originalism and the influence of the Federalist Society on judicial appointments. The conversation concludes with potential reforms to democratize the Supreme Court, including court expansion and ethics codes. Subscribe for $5.99 a month to get bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 800-episode archive, Discord access, and more: ⁠⁠https://axismundi.supercast.com/ Lawless: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Lawless/Leah-Litman/9781668054628 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Trump helped reshape the federal courts during his first term in office. And he relied heavily on the Federalist Society in that effort, which helped him zero in on judges with a conservative, originalist interpretation of the constitution.Now the nominations machinery is restarting, and Trump's most controversial judicial nominee is only one step away from the federal bench.His name is Emil Bove. During his first term, Trump appointed scores of originalists to the federal bench– a victory for the conservative legal movement.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.Email us at considerthis@npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

America is turning 250. And we're throwing a yearlong celebration of the greatest country on Earth. The greatest? Yes. The greatest. We realize that's not a popular thing to say these days. Americans have a way of taking this country for granted: a Gallup poll released earlier this week shows that American pride has reached a new low. And the world at large, which is wealthier and freer than it has ever been in history thanks to American power and largesse, often resents us. We get it. As journalists, we spend most of our time finding problems and exposing them. It's what the job calls for. But if you only focus on the negatives, you get a distorted view of reality. As America hits this milestone birthday, it's worthwhile to take a moment to step back and look closely at where we actually are—and the reality of life in America today compared to other times and places. That reality is pretty spectacular. Could Thomas Jefferson and the men gathered in Philadelphia who wrote down the words that made our world—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”—ever have imagined what their Declaration of Independence would bring? The Constitution. The end of slavery—and the defeat of Hitler. Astonishing wealth and medical breakthroughs. Silicon Valley. The most powerful military in the world. The moon landing. Hollywood. The Hoover Dam. The Statue of Liberty (a gift from France). Actual liberation (a thing we gave France). Humphrey Bogart and Tom Hanks. Josephine Baker and Beyoncé. Hot dogs. Corn dogs. American Chinese food. American Italian food. The Roosevelts and the Kennedys. The Barrymores and the Fondas. Winston Churchill (his mom was from Brooklyn). The Marshall Plan and Thurgood Marshall. Star Wars. Missile-defense shields. Baseball. Football. The military-industrial complex. Freedom of religion. UFO cults. Television. The internet. The Pill. The Pope. The automobile, the airplane, and AI. Jazz and the blues. The polio vaccine and GLP-1s, the UFC and Dolly Parton. The list goes on because it's really, truly endless. Ours is a country where you can hear 800 languages spoken in Queens, drive two hours and end up among the Amish in Pennsylvania. We are 330 million people, from California to New York Island, gathered together as one. Each of those 330 million will tell you that ours is not a perfect country. But we suspect most of them would agree that their lives would not be possible without it. So for the next 12 months, we're going to toast to our freedoms on the page, on this podcast and in real life. And we're doing it the Free Press way: by delving into all of it—the bad and the good and the great, the strange and the wonderful and the wild. And today—on America's 249th birthday—we're kicking off this yearlong event with none other than Akhil Reed Amar. Akhil has a unique understanding of this country—and our Constitution. Akhil is a Democrat who testified on behalf of Brett Kavanaugh, is a member of The Federalist Society, who is pro-choice but also anti-Roe—and these seeming contradictions make him perfectly suited to answer questions about the political and legal polarization we find ourselves in today. Akhil is a constitutional law professor at Yale and the author of the brilliant book The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760–1840. He also hosts the podcast Amarica's Constitution, and you might recognize his name from his work in The Atlantic. I ask him about the unique history that created our founding document, the state of the country, our political polarization, the American legal system, and what this country means to him. The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

From Supreme Court infiltration to human trafficking, secretive Catholic cult Opus Dei wields dangerous power. Gareth Gore exposes its operations here!Full show notes and resources can be found here: jordanharbinger.com/1170What We Discuss with Gareth Gore:Journalist Gareth Gore discovered secretive Catholic cult Opus Dei's control of Spain's Banco Popular through archived records after the bank's 2017 collapse — revealing decades of financial manipulation.Opus Dei recruits girls as young as 11 from poor communities, promising education but enslaving them as unpaid domestic workers in "hospitality schools" worldwide.The organization has deeply penetrated US political circles, with connections to Supreme Court justices through Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo — potentially influencing major rulings.Members endure physical self-harm rituals, live under surveillance, and submit to "chat" sessions that collect compromising personal information for manipulation.The good news: the vast majority of Opus Dei members are genuinely good people who'd be horrified to learn about the trafficking and manipulation happening in their organization's name. New Pope Leo isn't just aware of Opus Dei's shenanigans — he began actively working to dismantle its power structure within hours of taking office.And much more...And if you're still game to support us, please leave a review here — even one sentence helps! Sign up for Six-Minute Networking — our free networking and relationship development mini course — at jordanharbinger.com/course!Subscribe to our once-a-week Wee Bit Wiser newsletter today and start filling your Wednesdays with wisdom!Do you even Reddit, bro? Join us at r/JordanHarbinger!This Episode Is Brought To You By Our Fine Sponsors:The Cybersecurity Tapes: thecybersecuritytapes.comCaldera Lab: 20% off: calderalab.com/jordan, code JORDANOura Ring: 10% off: ouraring.com/jordanWayfair: Start renovating: wayfair.comQuince: Free shipping & 365-day returns: quince.com/jordanSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.