Current United States federal appellate court
POPULARITY
73 episodes with fifth circuit
61 episodes with fifth circuit
63 episodes with fifth circuit
39 episodes with fifth circuit
34 episodes with fifth circuit
12 episodes with fifth circuit
10 episodes with fifth circuit
8 episodes with fifth circuit
18 episodes with fifth circuit
14 episodes with fifth circuit
7 episodes with fifth circuit
8 episodes with fifth circuit
8 episodes with fifth circuit
9 episodes with fifth circuit
10 episodes with fifth circuit
8 episodes with fifth circuit
15 episodes with fifth circuit
5 episodes with fifth circuit
7 episodes with fifth circuit
6 episodes with fifth circuit
7 episodes with fifth circuit
6 episodes with fifth circuit
8 episodes with fifth circuit
6 episodes with fifth circuit
3 episodes with fifth circuit
3 episodes with fifth circuit
5 episodes with fifth circuit
3 episodes with fifth circuit
8 episodes with fifth circuit
3 episodes with fifth circuit
3 episodes with fifth circuit
5 episodes with fifth circuit
5 episodes with fifth circuit
5 episodes with fifth circuit
7 episodes with fifth circuit
3 episodes with fifth circuit
In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Texas death-row inmate have standing to sue the state over its refusal to grant access to DNA testing under a law that allows such testing only when the person can demonstrate that exculpatory results would have prevented their conviction?The case was decided on June 26, 2025. The Supreme Court held that Petitioner Ruben Gutierrez has standing to bring his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim challenging Texas's postconviction DNA testing procedures under the Due Process Clause. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the majority opinion of the Court.Prisoners convicted in state court have a liberty interest in demonstrating their innocence with new evidence under state law. When states create postconviction procedures, they can create rights to other procedures essential to realizing those rights. Under Skinner v Switzer, a prisoner may bring a § 1983 due process claim alleging that a state's DNA testing statute unconstitutionally prevents him from obtaining testing, even though he cannot directly challenge state court denials of his testing motions. To bring such a suit, the prisoner must demonstrate judicial standing to sue.The standing analysis follows Reed v Goertz, which requires three elements. First, Gutierrez adequately alleged an injury: the prosecutor's denial of access to DNA evidence. Second, prosecutor Saenz caused this injury by refusing to release evidence in his custody for testing. Third, if a federal court declares Texas's procedures unconstitutional, that judgment would eliminate Saenz's justification for denying testing, thereby removing the barrier between Gutierrez and the evidence. The declaratory judgment would change the parties' legal status and redress Gutierrez's injury by eliminating the allegedly unlawful basis for the denial.The Fifth Circuit erred in two fundamental ways. First, it improperly focused on the limited declaratory judgment the District Court ultimately issued rather than on Gutierrez's broader complaint. Gutierrez's complaint challenged not just Article 64's limitation to actual innocence claims, but multiple barriers the statute creates—including its virtually insurmountable standard for parties to crimes, its refusal to consider new evidence, and its prohibition on testing solely to challenge death eligibility. Standing depends on the allegations in the complaint, not on the particular relief a district court later grants.Second, the Fifth Circuit wrongly transformed the redressability inquiry into speculation about whether the prosecutor would ultimately provide the evidence. Under Reed, a declaratory judgment need only eliminate the prosecutor's reliance on the challenged provision as a justification for denying testing. The Court rejected the notion that redressability requires certainty about the ultimate outcome. That a prosecutor might find other reasons to deny testing—just as the prosecutor in Reed had multiple grounds for denial—does not defeat standing to challenge specific reasons as unconstitutional. Courts regularly allow plaintiffs to challenge improper legal grounds for discretionary decisions even when the decision-maker might reach the same result for different reasons.
Sarah Isgur returns to her home state of Texas to join a panel of leading constitutional scholars for a deep dive into the most significant Supreme Court decisions of the term. Alongside experts Jonathan Adler, Daniel Epps, and Frederick Lawrence, she examines key cases and explores the growing influence of politicians and the media on how the court is viewed by the public. The Agenda:—Is there a play in the joints between religion clauses and the First Amendment?—Why is it called United States. v Skrmetti?—The Fifth Circuit is the new Ninth Circuit—Will the court rein in excesses of state criminal justice? This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton concerned Texas Law H.B. 1181, and what precedent should apply in considering its impact on free speech. Passed in 2023, the law requires commercial entities, including social media platforms, "that knowingly and intentionally publish or distribute material on an Internet website... more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors" to age-gate their content, and to verify the age of their users, ensuring they are 18 years of age or older.Soon after the law passed, plaintiffs sued, claiming the law violated their right to free speech. Drawing on a line of cases including Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), they argued that since the law impacted constitutionally protected speech, strict scrutiny should be applied and the TX law failed that test. The Fifth Circuit denied that argument, instead applying a rational basis test, drawing from the precedent of Ginsburg v. New York (1968).The Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer the question of whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech, and heard oral argument on January 15, 2025.On June 27, 2025, a 6-3 Court issued its decision, holding that the correct answer was to apply intermediate scrutiny, and that the Texas law survived intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdened adults' protected speech.Join us for a Courthouse steps decision program where we will break down and analyze the decision, opinions, and what the potential impacts may be.Featuring:Darpana Sheth Nunziata, General Counsel, Center for Individual Rights
Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I provide an update on the status of Congress' cuts to the NFA tax for silencers and short-barrelled firearms as the bill gets close to passage. We also unpack the Department of Justice's decision not to appeal a Fifth Circuit ruling that invalidated the federal 21-year-old age minimum for purchasing handguns from licensed dealers.
On June 20, 2025, the Fifth Circuit returned its decision in the Louisiana Ten Commandments case (here), upholding the District Courts order blocking the law from going into effect. This was followed by a petition on June 26 for a rehearing en banc by the State (here). At the same time, Texas passed its on bill (here) requiring displays of the Ten Commandments in classrooms. On June 24, that law was challenged in the Northern District of Texas (here) by a group of parents seeking to stop the bill from going into effect. Needless to say, our topic today is very timely, discussing the history of public displays of the Ten Commandments in public schools. My guests are Mark David Hall and Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, who wrote an article on the topic pending publication in the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal entitled Ten Commandments in the Public Square and Public Schools (draft here). Mark David Hall (bio) joined the faculty of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University in 2023. He is one of the most outstanding scholars of early America, whose many distinguished publications have argued persuasively for the crucial importance of Christianity in the flourishing of America's experiment in ordered liberty. Andrea Picciotti-Bayer (bio) is Director of the Conscience Project. A Stanford-educated lawyer, she has dedicated her legal career to civil rights and appellate advocacy. She got her start as a trial and appellate attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Prior to leading the Conscience Project, she served as the legal advisor for the Catholic Association, filing amicus briefs with federal courts of appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court in key religious freedom and free speech cases. Resources noted by the guests: RFI, John Witte's book, and The Sacred Rights of Conscience (Liberty Fund) book. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento.
Immigration: May the president use the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport suspected gang members from Latin America? - Argued: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 12:18:48 EDT
This week, we're looking into a bit of a Second Amendment legal mystery. Recently, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled silencers aren't "arms" and, therefore, don't enjoy constitutional protections. But then the Department of Justice (DOJ) changed hands and changed its mind on the case. In response, the panel took the unusual step of withdrawing its opinion. But we don't know what it plans to do next. That's why we've got federal litigator and legal commentator Gabriel Malor back on the show to give his view on what may be coming. A lot of other commentators and several gun-rights groups have taken the withdrawal as a strong sign the panel plans to reverse itself on whether silencers, often called suppressors, are arms. But Malor said that's unlikely to happen. He noted the DOJ's new position in the case doesn't actually argue silencers are arms, just that they enjoy some level of Second Amendment protection. He also said the panel thoroughly considered the arms question in its initial opinion and is unlikely to reverse, given no new facts or arguments are being presented. Malor also pointed out the panel addressed the basic argument DOJ is now backing and found it lacking, though it spent comparatively little time on that part of the case in its initial opinion. He said the panel is likely going to delve a bit deeper into the DOJ's new argument before returning the same basic ruling. Special Guest: Gabriel Malor.
In This Episode David and Oddball are back from LibertyCon with stories to tell (and Erin was stuck in traffic and needed a well-deserved night-off). Besides LibertyCon stories, the gang discusses: a would-be spree killer at a Michigan Church thwarted by church security; the Fifth Circuit is revamping their argument against suppressors being "Arms" per the Second Amendment; the Ninth Circuit declaring California's one-gun-a-month law unconstitutional; the progression of the NFA items in Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill"; the potential merger of the ATF with the DEA is dead, although we don't know much more than that at the time of recording; and the ATF falling on hard times, with the potential to lay off 500 employees. Did you know that we have a Patreon? Join now for the low, low cost of $4/month (that's $1/podcast) and you'll get to listen to our podcast on Friday instead of Mondays, as well as patron-only content like mag dump episodes, our hilarious blooper reels and film tracks. Show Notes Liberty Con Man Opens Fire into a Michigan Church, Deacon Runs Him Over with a Truck to Stop the Attack Fifth Circuit Withdraws Flawed Suppressor Decision in FPC-Backed Challenge to NFA 9th Circuit appellate court declares one gun a month law unconstitutional (Nguyen v Bonta Senate parliamentarian rules that the ATF/DEA in the big beautiful bill violates the Byrd Rule Looks like the ATF is laying off over 500 employees
FIRE staff responds to the Court's decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton that addresses a Texas law requiring age verification for accessing certain sexual material online. Joining us: Will Creeley — Legal director Bob Corn-Revere — Chief counsel Ronnie London — General counsel Timestamps: 01:21 How the case wound up at the Supreme Court 06:57 Bob's experience with arguing strict scrutiny in the courts 09:32 Ronnie's perspective on the ruling 10:22 Brick + mortar stores vs. online sites 12:07 Has the Court established a new category of partially protected speech? 13:36 What speech is still subject to strict scrutiny after the ruling? 15:55 What does it mean to address the “work as a whole” in the internet context? 17:24 What modifications to the ruling, if any, would have satisfied FIRE? 18:06 What are the alternatives to address the internet's risks toward minors? 20:16 For non-lawyer Americans, what is the best normative argument against the ruling? 22:38 Why is this ruling a “canary in the coal mine?” 23:36 How is age verification really about identity verification? 24:42 Why did the Court assume the need to protect children without citing any scientific findings in its ruling? 26:17 Does the ruling allow for more identity-based access barriers to lawful online speech? 28:04 Will Americans have to show ID to get into a public library? 29:30 Why does stare decisis seem to mean little to nothing to the Court? 32:08 Will there be a problem with selective enforcement of content-based restrictions on speech? 34:12 Could the ruling spark a patchwork of state laws that create digital borders? 36:26 Is there any other instance where the Court has used intermediate scrutiny in a First Amendment case? 37:29 Is the Court going to keep sweeping content-based statutes in the “incidental effect on speech” bucket? 38:14 Is sexual speech considered obscene? 40:33 How does the ruling affect adult content on mainstream social media platforms like Reddit and X? 43:27 Where does the ruling leave us on age verification laws? Show notes: - Supreme Court ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf - FIRE statement on FSC v. Paxton ruling: https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-free-speech-coalition-v-paxton-upholding-age-verification-adult-content - FIRE's brief for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.thefire.org/news/supreme-court-agrees-review-fifth-circuit-decision-upholding-texas-adult-content-age - FIRE's amicus brief in support of petitioners and reversal: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/amicus-brief-support-petitioners-and-reversal-free-speech-coalition-v-paxton
The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – Louisiana's law mandating Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms was invalidated by the Fifth Circuit, upholding parents' First Amendment protections. Judges concluded that mandating religious texts oversteps parental authority in guiding children's faith. Meanwhile, Governor Greg Abbott approved a similar Texas mandate, likely propelling this debate to the Supreme Court...
It's Tuesday, June 24th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson and Adam McManus Syrian suicide bomber A suicide bomber entered an Orthodox Church in Damascus, Syria on Sunday killing 22 people and wounding at least 63 others, reports ABC News. The ISIS terrorist group has claimed responsibility. No increased nuclear radiation levels after U.S. bombing in Iran The International Atomic Energy Agency reports no increase in off-site radiation levels at the three Iranian sites bombed by the United States and Israel. The neighboring Kuwait government has also confirmed that “no abnormal radiation levels have been detected in any of the member states.” The whereabouts of 400 kilograms of highly enriched Uranium in Iran is still a mystery. Israel bombed Iran's Evin Prison Israel continues its bombardment on Iran, including a bombing of the notorious Evin prison, where a number of Christians are held, and have been tortured over the last several decades. Trump: Israel & Iran agreed to cease-fire to end “12-Day War” On Monday, President Donald Trump announced that Israel and Iran had agreed to a cease-fire, declaring an end to what he referred to as “The 12 Day War,” reports The Epoch Times. In a Truth Social Post, Trump wrote, “It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE … for 12 hours, at which point the War will be considered ENDED!” Both sides will wind down their final military operations within 12 hours, beginning what Trump expects to be “PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL” on both sides. The conflict will be declared over within 24 hours. However, The New York Times indicated that there is no confirmation yet from Israel and Iran. Russia bombed Ukraine with 16 missiles and 352 drones The Russian army unleashed a heavy bombardment on Kiev, Ukraine yesterday involving 352 drones and 16 missiles, reports Reuters. At least 10 Ukrainians died in the attack. This follows another attack last week which killed 28 people. Zelensky assassination plot foiled Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was the target of an assassination plot to be carried out by a Polish elderly man who had first been recruited by the Soviet Union decades ago, reports Newsweek. The man was activated to take out Zelensky at Poland's Rzeszów–Jasionka Airport using either a first-person view drone or a sniper rifle. The would-be assassin was a firm believer in Soviet ideology. The assassination plot was foiled by a joint effort of Ukraine's SBU, the main internal security agency, and the Polish internal security service known as ABW. Americans less isolationist Americans are moving away from isolationism according to a recent survey by the Ronald Reagan Institute. In the last three years, Americans who believe the United States should be more engaged in international events has seen a 24% increase. Specifically, 69% of Republicans, 64% of Democrats, and 73% of MAGA/Trump Republicans want to see more engagement internationally. A supermajority of Americans – 84% -- state their support for preventing the Islamic Republic from gaining access to nuclear weapons. Only 57% of Americans would agree with the statement that “the United States is better served by withdrawing from international events and focusing on problems here at home.” The major shift in American opinions on this has occurred since the November election. Russia economy expanded by 4.3% last year Despite international pressures, the Russian economy expanded by 4.3% last year. This compares to a 1.1% bump for the United Kingdom, and a 2.8% bump for the U.S. economy last year. Supreme Court temporarily allows deportations to third countries In a 6-3 decision on Monday, the Supreme Court temporarily lifted a lower court order blocking the Trump administration from deporting illegal immigrants to so-called third countries to which they have no connection, reports The Epoch Times. The unsigned order came in the case known as Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. Michigan church shooting prevented A heavily-armed man attempted a massacre at the Wayne, Michigan Crosspointe Community Church, reports CBS News. Thankfully, he didn't make it into the building. A parishioner rammed him with his truck, and the security team engaged him in the parking lot. The suspect was pronounced dead when police arrived on the scene. One security guard took a shot in the leg. Based on national news sources, there are 1-2 church shootings per year in this country. That's 1 out of 380,000 churches. Psalm 27:1-2 is always the right mindset. It says, “The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; Of whom shall I be afraid? When the wicked came against me to eat up my flesh, my enemies and foes, they stumbled and fell.” Ohio pro-life legislators want to protect babies from conception Several Ohio legislators are floating a bill that outlaws the willful murder of a child from the point of conception. The "Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act,” introduced by state Representatives Levi Dean and Johnathan Newman, would overturn the 2023 referendum amendment that legalized abortion in Ohio. In Psalm 22, the psalmist confesses, “You … took me out of the womb; You made me trust while on my mother's breasts. I was cast upon You from birth. from my mother's womb You have been my God.” Older Americans more likely to have Biblical worldview George Barna's 2025 American Worldview Inventory report has been released and he concludes that only 1% of adults under 30 have a Biblical worldview. That compares with 5% for adults over 50, and 8% for adults over 65. Also, 69% of young Gen Z Americans believe abortion is morally acceptable. That's up from 60% for the Gen X and Boomer generations. Then, 73% of Gen Zers agree that sex outside of marriage is okay. That's up from 59% with the Boomer Generation. Fifth Circuit deems Louisiana Ten Commandments law unconstitutional The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Louisiana's law requiring the posting of The Ten Commandments in public schools, reports Courthouse News Service. The Louisiana law required schools which receive public funding to post a framed copy of The 10 Commandments in the classrooms. Observatory identified and photographed 10 million galaxies The Rubin Observatory, located in South America's Andes Mountain, has completed its first 10 hours of operation and identified 2,104 new asteroids never seen before, and photographed 10 million galaxies, reports the BBC. The observatory features a 28-foot telescope and an ultra-wide, ultra-high definition camera. Sperm donor passed cancer gene to 67 children In other science news, a sperm donor in Europe has passed a cancer gene on to 67 children. Already, at least ten of the children have signs of cancer, all of them born between 2008 and 2015. The case was discussed at the annual conference of the European Society of Human Genetics. Dr. Edwige Kasper, a specialist in genetic predisposition to cancer at the Rouen University Hospital in Rouen, France, said, “The variant would have been practically undetectable in 2008 when the individual started to donate sperm.” U.S. housing prices spike Housing prices in the U.S. are still reaching record highs. The median price of homes sold last month was $423,000, up 1.3% from May of 2024. 7 Worldview listeners gave $2,828.30 to fund our annual budget And finally, toward our final $123,500 goal by Monday, June 30th to fully fund The Worldview annual budget for our 6-member team, 7 listeners stepped up to the plate. Our thanks to Nathan in Cleveland, Tennessee who gave $25, N.B. in Ripon, North Yorkshire, England who gave $30, and Logan and Bianca in Manzini, Eswatini, Africa who gave $70. And we're grateful to God for Gloria in Westminster, Colorado who gave $103.30, Payton in Georgetown, Texas who pledged $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600, Amy in Eldorado, Wisconsin who gave $1,000, and Pamela in Sierra Madre, California who also gave $1,000. Those 7 Worldview listeners gave a total of $2,828.30. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please. (Drum roll sound effect) $65,401.55 (People clapping and cheering sound effect) Still need to raise $58,098.45! Looking for 9 Super Donors! That means by this coming Monday, June 30th, we need to raise a whopping $58,098.45 in just 7 days. Oh my! I've got butterflies in my stomach. Is there 1 businessperson who could donate $10,000? 3 businesspeople who could give $5,000? 5 businesspeople who could contribute $2,500? If so, those donations would total $37,500. Then we would need another 8 people to pledge $100/month for 12 months for a gift of $1,200. And another 16 people to pledge $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600? Please, go to TheWorldview.com and click on Give on the top right. If you want to make it a monthly pledge, click on the recurring tab. If everybody does something – no matter how big or small – we will knock this relatively modest budget out of the park. Attention donors from this year: Send email urging others to donate! Lastly, I would love to feature a 2-3 sentence email from those who have already given this year, whose names I will not cite, with your encouragement for your fellow listeners to consider a last minute gift. Just include your city and state send it to Adam@TheWorldview.com Speak from your heart about why you gave and why you would urge others to join you to fund The Worldview in 5 Minutes. Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, June 24th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.
Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about new rulings out of the Fifth Circuit upholding a lifetime gun ban for someone who committed a traffic crime and the Second Circuit against a white collar criminal. We also provide new reporting on the ATF's recent use of masked agents to conduct operations. Finally, we update everyone on a new concealed carry reciprocity agreement between Pennsylvania and Virginia before covering some big stories from outside of The Reload.
In Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court addressed what context courts need to consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment. Some circuits, including the Fifth Circuit (which decided Barnes before it reached the Supreme Court), as well as the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits, had adopted the “moment of threat” […]
In Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court addressed what context courts need to consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment.Some circuits, including the Fifth Circuit (which decided Barnes before it reached the Supreme Court), as well as the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits, had adopted the “moment of threat” doctrine. This approach focuses solely on whether there was an imminent danger that created a reasonable fear for one’s life in the immediate moments preceding the use of force. In contrast, other circuits, including the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, held that courts must consider the “totality of the circumstances” when assessing whether the use of force was justified.The Court heard oral argument on January 22, 2025, and on May 15 issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Kagan, vacating the Fifth Circuit and remanding. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what it may mean for excessive force claims moving forward.Featuring:Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime
In this episode of Debtwired!, Brian Resnick, partner in Davis Polk's restructuring group and head of the firm's Liability Management & Special Opportunities practice, joins Debtwire co-managing editor, Madalina Iacob, to discuss the current state of restructurings, how LMEs have evolved in the past year, what creative workaround structures he has seen post the Fifth Circuit decision in Serta, and the evolution of Davis Polk's preeminent restructuring practice.Brian also shares with us how he transitioned to law from being a Juilliard-trained professional musician playing on Broadway and Saturday Night Live, and how he co-produced a Tony Award-winning Broadway show.
Summary The conversation covers various aspects of self-defense, particularly focusing on the legal implications and societal perceptions surrounding the use of firearms in self-defense situations. It discusses specific cases, the importance of having legal support, and the role of firearms in ensuring personal safety. The dialogue also touches on road rage incidents and the emotional dynamics involved in such confrontations, emphasizing the need for responsible gun ownership and training. Additionally, the conversation reflects on the significance of Memorial Day in relation to gun rights advocacy and the ongoing legal battles surrounding firearm regulations. In this conversation, Mark Walters and Mark Smith discuss the recent developments surrounding the Second Amendment, particularly focusing on the Fifth Circuit's controversial decision regarding suppressors. They analyze the implications of the Trump administration's position on gun rights, the disconnect in government regulations, and the broader context of Second Amendment rights. The discussion highlights the importance of legal precedents and the ongoing battle for gun rights in America. Takeaways Self-defense cases are complex and vary greatly by situation. Having legal support is crucial in self-defense scenarios. Firearms can be essential for home defense and personal safety. Media often overlooks positive self-defense stories. Public perception of firearms is influenced by societal narratives. Victimhood culture can affect views on self-defense. Road rage incidents can escalate quickly and require caution. Emotional states can impact decision-making in self-defense situations. Responsible gun ownership includes training and awareness. Advocacy for gun rights is vital in the current political climate. The Fifth Circuit's decision has sparked significant controversy. The Trump administration's position marks a significant shift in favor of gun rights. Suppressors are now recognized as protected arms under the Second Amendment. The right to acquire firearms is essential to the Second Amendment. Training with firearms is now considered a protected right. The burden of proof for gun control laws has shifted to the government. The National Firearms Act's regulations on suppressors are under scrutiny. There is a disconnect in the government's stance on suppressors. Legal precedents play a crucial role in shaping Second Amendment rights. The future of suppressor legislation remains uncertain but hopeful. Keywords self-defense, firearms, legal support, road rage, gun rights, home defense, media representation, public perception, Memorial Day, advocacy, Second Amendment, suppressors, Fifth Circuit, Trump administration, gun rights, DOJ, firearms legislation, constitutional law, gun control, legal analysis
Summary The conversation covers various aspects of self-defense, particularly focusing on the legal implications and societal perceptions surrounding the use of firearms in self-defense situations. It discusses specific cases, the importance of having legal support, and the role of firearms in ensuring personal safety. The dialogue also touches on road rage incidents and the emotional dynamics involved in such confrontations, emphasizing the need for responsible gun ownership and training. Additionally, the conversation reflects on the significance of Memorial Day in relation to gun rights advocacy and the ongoing legal battles surrounding firearm regulations. In this conversation, Mark Walters and Mark Smith discuss the recent developments surrounding the Second Amendment, particularly focusing on the Fifth Circuit's controversial decision regarding suppressors. They analyze the implications of the Trump administration's position on gun rights, the disconnect in government regulations, and the broader context of Second Amendment rights. The discussion highlights the importance of legal precedents and the ongoing battle for gun rights in America. Takeaways Self-defense cases are complex and vary greatly by situation. Having legal support is crucial in self-defense scenarios. Firearms can be essential for home defense and personal safety. Media often overlooks positive self-defense stories. Public perception of firearms is influenced by societal narratives. Victimhood culture can affect views on self-defense. Road rage incidents can escalate quickly and require caution. Emotional states can impact decision-making in self-defense situations. Responsible gun ownership includes training and awareness. Advocacy for gun rights is vital in the current political climate. The Fifth Circuit's decision has sparked significant controversy. The Trump administration's position marks a significant shift in favor of gun rights. Suppressors are now recognized as protected arms under the Second Amendment. The right to acquire firearms is essential to the Second Amendment. Training with firearms is now considered a protected right. The burden of proof for gun control laws has shifted to the government. The National Firearms Act's regulations on suppressors are under scrutiny. There is a disconnect in the government's stance on suppressors. Legal precedents play a crucial role in shaping Second Amendment rights. The future of suppressor legislation remains uncertain but hopeful. Keywords self-defense, firearms, legal support, road rage, gun rights, home defense, media representation, public perception, Memorial Day, advocacy, Second Amendment, suppressors, Fifth Circuit, Trump administration, gun rights, DOJ, firearms legislation, constitutional law, gun control, legal analysis
Good morning, I'm reporting live on the recent legal developments involving former President Donald Trump. The past few days have seen significant movement in several high-profile cases.Just three days ago, on May 22, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Trump v. Wilcox, with Justice Kagan delivering the opinion. This case represents one of many ongoing legal battles the Trump administration is currently facing.That same day, two transgender service members filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration challenging President Trump's ban on transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military. This case, identified as 1:25-cv-01918, adds to the growing list of litigation against the administration.Last week, on May 16, the Supreme Court delivered a per curiam opinion in the case between AARP and President Trump. The Court vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case back for further consideration. At issue was President Trump's March 14 Proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act, with the Court enjoining the government from removing named plaintiffs or putative class members under this act pending further court orders.The Supreme Court also recently ruled on Trump's authority to remove agency heads without cause. This decision, while temporary, represents a significant expansion of presidential power over the federal bureaucracy.These recent court battles come after a long string of legal challenges that began years ago. Trump has faced numerous criminal and civil cases, including the classified documents case in Florida where Judge Cannon granted Trump's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment in July 2024, challenging Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment.The New York civil fraud case also saw defendants, including Trump, filing appeals against Justice Engoron's earlier decisions. In Georgia, Trump's former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows petitioned the Supreme Court following the 11th Circuit's decision regarding his attempt to move his state criminal case to federal court.The Manhattan District Attorney's case against Trump has also seen continued legal maneuvering, with Trump attempting to remove the case to federal court in August 2024, though his filing was initially rejected as deficient.As Trump continues his presidency in 2025, these legal challenges represent a consistent theme of his time in office - a presidency defined not just by policy decisions but by unprecedented legal battles that continue to test the boundaries of executive power and the American judicial system.The coming days and weeks will likely bring further developments in these cases as the courts continue to grapple with complex constitutional questions surrounding presidential authority and accountability.
Good morning, folks. The legal world surrounding Donald Trump continues to evolve rapidly, with several significant developments in just the past week. Today, May 23rd, 2025, we've seen some major court decisions that will shape the political landscape in the months ahead.Just this morning, a federal judge in Florida—one who was actually nominated by Trump himself—indicated that the president does have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs. However, interestingly, the judge decided to punt the actual lawsuit to another court rather than making a final ruling on the case.Last week, on May 16th, the Supreme Court issued an important decision in a case between the AARP and President Trump. The Court vacated a judgment from the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case, while also issuing an injunction preventing the government from removing certain detainees under the AEA pending further court orders. This stems from Trump's presidential proclamation issued on March 14th this year.Then just yesterday, May 22nd, another Supreme Court case emerged involving President Trump against Gwynne A. Wilcox and others, with Justice Kagan issuing an opinion on an application for stay.These recent cases add to an already complex legal calendar for the former and now current president. Earlier legal battles from 2024 continue to reverberate through the system. Trump's classified documents case in Florida saw Judge Cannon grant his motion to dismiss a superseding indictment last July, with the government quickly appealing to the 11th Circuit.The New York civil fraud case appeals are moving forward as well, with defendants appealing both Justice Engoron's September 2023 summary judgment and his February 2024 final decision. The consolidation of these appeals means they'll proceed with a single record and set of briefs.There's also ongoing litigation regarding Trump's attempt to remove Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's state prosecution to federal court. His second notice of removal was initially rejected as deficient, and after Judge Hellerstein denied his request for leave, Trump appealed to the Second Circuit.The legal challenges facing the Trump administration extend beyond the president himself, with cases like Washington v. Department of Transportation regarding a federal funding freeze still pending in Maryland District Court as of earlier this month.As these cases continue to unfold, they'll undoubtedly shape both policy and politics during this tumultuous presidential term. The courts remain a crucial battleground for defining the limits of executive power in the Trump administration.
Good morning, I'm reporting live on this Monday, May 19, 2025, with the latest developments in Donald Trump's legal battles.Just three days ago, on May 16, the Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in A.A.R.P. v. Trump, vacating a Fifth Circuit judgment and remanding the case back for further consideration. The Court has temporarily enjoined the government from removing named plaintiffs or putative class members under the AEA pending the Fifth Circuit's order. This stems from President Trump's March 14th Proclamation, which has been legally challenged on multiple fronts.Earlier this month, on May 5th, we saw movement in Pacito v. Trump, where a District Court ordered a compliance framework forcing the government to follow preliminary injunction orders related to refugees. This case directly challenges Trump's controversial suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which has left thousands in limbo since his return to office.The legal calendar for Trump remains packed across multiple jurisdictions. His classified documents case continues to work through the appeals process after Judge Cannon granted his motion to dismiss the superseding indictment last July. The government promptly appealed to the 11th Circuit.Meanwhile, former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has taken his Georgia criminal case all the way to the Supreme Court, seeking to move it to federal court. In New York, Trump and his co-defendants are appealing Justice Engoron's decisions in the civil fraud case, with Attorney General Letitia James successfully consolidating these appeals.In Georgia, several defendants are appealing Judge McAfee's order regarding motions to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis, with oral arguments for all appellants scheduled to be heard together.Trump also continues his efforts to remove Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's state prosecution to federal court, despite previous rejections. His opening brief to the Second Circuit was due last October.What's particularly striking about these developments is how they've unfolded against the backdrop of Trump's second term. The Supreme Court's recent ruling signals their willingness to place at least temporary limits on executive authority, even with Trump back in the White House.As these cases continue to wind through the courts, they're testing the boundaries of presidential power and setting precedents that will shape our democracy for generations. The coming weeks promise more significant legal developments as the courts grapple with these complex constitutional questions.
Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in A.A.R.P. v Trump. The case was decided on May 16, 2025.To summarize, the President invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to remove Venezuelan nationals identified as members of the Tren de Aragua (T-d-a), a designated foreign terrorist organization. Two detainees, along with a putative class of similarly situated detainees in the Northern District of Texas, sought injunctive relief against their summary removal under the AEA. The detainees were being held in U.S. detention facilities and were notified of their imminent removal.The District Court denied the detainees' motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against their removal. The detainees then moved for an emergency TRO, which was not promptly addressed by the District Court. Consequently, they appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which dismissed their appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied their motion for an injunction pending appeal, citing insufficient time given to the district court to act. The detainees also applied to the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and found that the Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the detainees' appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the District Court's inaction had the practical effect of refusing an injunction, given the extreme urgency and high risk of irreparable harm faced by the detainees. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court emphasized that due process requires adequate notice and time for detainees to seek habeas relief before removal. The Government was enjoined from removing the detainees under the AEA pending further proceedings and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted.
SLANDERTOWN is a podcast that dives into First Amendment slugfests. No beef too small, no lawsuit too petty.Dan and SLANDERTOWN blog contributor Isabella Jurcisin discuss her article about the Fifth Circuit's sacking of NFL legend Brett Favre's defamation lawsuit against Shannon Sharpe. Joining them are Sharpe's attorneys Mary Ellen Roy and Mark Fijman.
In this episode, Jordan discusses a recent Fifth Circuit case that addressed trade secret identification and proof of misappropriation at trial, and an Eleventh Circuit case addressing whether and how trade secret misappropriation damages can be limited by contract.
Episode 29: Institute for Free Speech v. J.R. Johnson, et al. Institute for Free Speech v. J.R. Johnson, et al. argued before Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod and Judges Kurt D. Engelhardt and Greg Gerard Guidry in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 28, 2025. Argued by Del Kolde (on behalf of the Institute for Free Speech) and Cory R. Liu (on behalf of J.R. Johnson, et al.). Case Background, from the Institute for Free Speech website: Texas law prohibits corporations—including nonprofits—from making “in-kind contributions” to candidates and political committees. The Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) recently interpreted this ban to extend to pro bono litigation services, even when such services aim to challenge the constitutionality of state laws. The Institute for Free Speech (IFS) filed a federal lawsuit against the TEC commissioners and executive director over this ban on pro bono legal services. This law stops organizations like IFS from advocating for the civil rights of Texas candidates and political committees in court. It imposes stiff civil and criminal penalties for violations. The lawsuit argues that the TEC's interpretation of the Texas Elections Code violates IFS' First Amendment rights to free speech and association. The TEC's reading of the law prevents IFS from representing potential clients like Chris Woolsey, a city councilmember in Corsicana, and the Texas Anti-Communist League PAC, headed by Cary Cheshire, both of whom want to contest a state law that compels speech on political signs. Resources: Institute for Free Speech case page Institute for Free Speech press release Plaintiff-Appellant's Opening Brief Complaint The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
This week, we're covering the relaxation of state-level non-compete rules, the recent block of Executive Order 14173's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related certification requirement, and a federal appeals court's decision to pause a challenge to the Biden-era independent contractor rule. Non-Competes Eased in Kansas and Virginia Kansas has enacted a law permitting non-competes while setting requirements for non-solicit provisions. Additionally, effective July 1, 2025, Virginia will prohibit non-compete agreements for non-exempt employees. Federal Contractor DEI Rule Blocked In a lawsuit brought by Chicago Women in Trades, a federal judge paused a rule from Executive Order 14173 requiring federal contractors to certify that they don't operate DEI programs that violate anti-discrimination laws, citing unclear definitions of “illegal” DEI programs Independent Contractor Rule in Limbo The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit paused a challenge to the 2024 independent contractor rule, allowing the U.S. Department of Labor time to consider revising or replacing it. For now, the Biden-era rule remains in effect. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw387 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
Either Trump ignores the courts, or his presidency will end in failure. It's that simple. Today, I go through a litany of immigration cases to show how far the Overton window has moved in the courts. So even if the Supreme Court magnanimously walks back a few of the rulings, we will still be playing behind par. Also, once again, the Supreme Court appears to be ready to overturn the conservative Fifth Circuit on a health care case, but not overturn liberal circuits. Finally, I discuss the lack of a plan to fortify red states against the hell that is coming our way. RINOs are blocking everything DeSantis wants to do in that regard. Relatedly, I discuss how marijuana is destroying everything in its path and how it's disgusting that most Republicans refuse to block it in red states. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In This Hour: -- Kurt Schlichter, author of "The Attack," on the wide-spread assault he expects to see on U.S. . -- Whether shooting his military-style rifles, working on his handgun speed, or fighting Second Amendment cases in court, Adam Kraut, from the Second Amendment Foundation, is all in. He explains the recent Fifth Circuit decision which ruled that banning 18, 19, and 20-year olds from buying handguns from a licensed gun store is unconstitutional. -- Do you carry enough ammunition? Several states have bans on standard capacity (more than 10 rounds of ammunition) magazines. There are good reasons to not only carry more than 10 rounds in your personal protection gun, but to have an extra magazine with you. Gun Talk 02.09.25 Hour 2 - REBROADCASTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/gun-talk--6185159/support.
Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA must approve new tobacco products. Wages and White Lion Investments (dba Trion Distribution) and Vapetasia manufacture and sell flavored nicotine-containing liquids for use in refillable e-cigarette systems. They applied for FDA approval in 2020; about ten months later, the FDA announced new requirements for approval and, based on those requirements, denied the applications citing the deficiency. The manufacturers challenged the denial and the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, found the FDA's actions were arbitrary and capricious. SCOTUS heard oral argument on Monday, December 2, 2024. On April 2, 2025, the Court issued a decision vacating the Fifth Circuit in a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Alito. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision panel discussion, where a group of experts will discuss this important case and its potential effects not just for regulated parties but in the broader administrative law space. Featuring: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School (Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP
“Operating in the world of what really is possible. What do I really think I can achieve? But then, once he had set his mind on it, yes, this is something doable. This is something I firmly believe I can do, then obviously, unexpected obstacles always arise. But he refused to be defeated by one.” Talmage Boston Top Five Tips For World Leaders1. Integrity/credibility 2. Consensus building to effectuate successful diplomacy3. Principled pragmatism/recognition of necessity for compromise to make a deal 4. Magnanimity needed for the long haul – stay above the fray by not taking antagonistic bait 5. Make promises carefully TIME STAMP SUMMARY01:06 Operating with integrity and truth is a core principle all leaders should have07:05 The current turmoil in the world leaders13:20 Often compromising is important21:40 Keep your promises but be careful when making them Where to find Talmage?Website www.talmageboston.com. LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/talmageboston/ Talmage Boston Bio Talmage Boston is a recognized figure among leading historians, with endorsements from David McCullough, Jon Meacham, and others. His diverse background as a lawyer and historian uniquely qualifies him to explore the intersection of history, leadership, and contemporary relevance. Talmage Boston has practiced law as a commercial trial and appellate litigator in Dallas, Texas since 1978. He is now a partner at Shackelford, Bowen, McKinley & Norton, LLP. He has been board certified in civil trial law since 1988, as well as board certified in civil appellate law since 1990, by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Talmage has been recognized in Texas Monthly as a “Texas Super Lawyer” in Business Litigation since inception in 2003. Talmage has successfully represented clients in state and federal court lawsuits and arbitrations involving oil and gas, real estate, banking, intellectual property and partnership disputes. During his 40-year career, he has successfully tried jury trials throughout Texas and prevailed in appellate courts across the state, including the Texas Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.A leader of both the State Bar of Texas and the Dallas Bar Association, Talmage has served as a State Bar of Texas director, as well as chair of the State Bar Litigation Section, Council of Chairs, and Annual Meeting planning committee. He has also served as the Dallas Bar Association advisory director and chair of the Dallas Bar's Business Litigation Section. For his service, he received Presidential Citations from State Bar of Texas presidents every year from 2005 to 2011 and 2018, and also from the Dallas Bar Association president in 2009.In addition to maintaining his full-time law practice, Talmage is the author of four books: (1) Cross-Examining History: A Lawyer Gets Answers From the Experts About Our Presidents (Bright Sky Press 2016, Foreword by Ken Burns); (2) Raising the Bar: The Crucial Role of the Lawyer in Society (TexasBarBooks 2012, Foreword by former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh); (3) Baseball and the Baby Boomer (Bright Sky Press 2009, Foreword by Frank Deford); (4) 1939: Baseball's Tipping Point (Bright Sky Press 2005, Foreword by John Grisham).
Fourth Amendment: Does a Texas law that permits the attorney general to inspect any business record held by a company doing business in Texas constitute an unconstitutional general warrant? - Argued: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 4:58:54 EDT
Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the Supreme Court's ruling to uphold the the ban on ghost guns. Is it really about the Second Amendment? Sarah and David are then joined by Gregg Costa—partner at Gibson Dunn and former Fifth Circuit judge—to explain the issue with universal injunctions and forum shopping. The Agenda: —I ain't afraid of no ghost (gun) —A big week for Justice Neil Gorsuch —Mens rea and regulation —False vs. misleading —$660 million, baby —Judiciary is politicized —Administrative Procedure Act and universal injunctions —Predicting SCOTUS outcomes Show Notes: —Gregg Costa's podcast: A View from the Bench 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, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In February 2025, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in United States v. Peterson, ruling that suppressors were not “firearms” and thus not subject to Second Amendment protection. George Peterson was the proprietor of PDW Solutions, LLC, a firearm business that he operated in part out of his home. In summer of 2022, as part […]
In February 2025, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in United States v. Peterson, ruling that suppressors were not "firearms" and thus not subject to Second Amendment protection.George Peterson was the proprietor of PDW Solutions, LLC, a firearm business that he operated in part out of his home. In summer of 2022, as part of an ongoing Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) investigation, a search warrant was executed at his home. Among the items discovered was an unregistered suppressor. Peterson was indicted for possession of the unregistered suppressor under the National Firearms Act (NFA). He filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the NFA's registration framework violated the Second Amendment and that the search by the ATF violated the Fourth Amendment so the evidence obtained thereby should be suppressed.The district court in the Eastern District of Louisiana denied both motions. Peterson appealed and the Fifth Circuit heard argument on December 4, 2024. On February 6, 2025, it issued a decision affirming the lower courts denial.Join us as we discuss this interesting case and its potential impact in the realm of firearms regulation.Featuring:Michael Williams, General Counsel, American Suppressor Association(Moderator) Robert K. McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and legislation with guests including Alan Gottlieb and Cam Edwards. The conversation covers the recent federal court split regarding under 21 gun rights, the implications of the National Firearms Act (NFA), and the ongoing challenges surrounding assault weapons bans. The episode emphasizes the importance of these legal battles and their potential impact on Second Amendment rights. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics surrounding Second Amendment rights, including the role of the ATF, legal challenges, and the implications of recent legislation such as Oregon's Measure 114. The conversation also touches on the Aikens Accelerator case, expectations from Pam Bondi's office, and the potential impact of Trump's executive orders on gun rights. The episode features insights from David Codrea, a long-time contributor, who shares his perspectives on the current state of gun rights and the challenges faced by advocates. In this episode of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters and his guests discuss a range of topics including the significance of Lexington Green, the current state of the Democratic Party, and the political maneuvers of Donald Trump. The conversation shifts to the implications of Trump's executive orders on the ATF and the recent 11th Circuit decision regarding the rights of young adults to purchase firearms. The roundtable format allows for a dynamic exchange of ideas and opinions, culminating in a discussion about the future of gun rights and the political landscape. Keywords Armed American Radio, gun rights, Second Amendment, federal court, under 21 gun rights, NFA, short barrel rifles, assault weapons ban, Trump executive order, gun control, Second Amendment, ATF, gun rights, legal challenges, Pam Bondi, Trump, Aikens Accelerator, Oregon Measure 114, gun control, firearms, Lexington Green, Gun Owners Action League, Democratic Party, Trump, Executive Orders, 11th Circuit, Young Adults Rights, Political Commentary, Armed American Radio, Freedom Takeaways The 11th Circuit upheld the under 21 gun ban, causing a split with the Fifth Circuit. The Supreme Court may need to address the issue of gun rights for 18-20 year olds. The NFA's restrictions on short barrel rifles are being challenged in court. Recent weather events have impacted communities in the South, highlighting the importance of support. Gun rights advocates are optimistic about future legal challenges to restrictive laws. The discussion around the NFA and its implications for gun ownership continues to evolve. The Fourth Circuit's assault weapons ban case remains unresolved, with potential for Supreme Court involvement. Trump's executive order on gun control is under scrutiny, with expectations for significant changes. The conversation reflects a broader concern about the erosion of Second Amendment rights. Grassroots opposition to gun control measures is growing, even in traditionally liberal states. Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of Second Amendment rights. The ATF's role in regulating firearms is under scrutiny. Legal challenges against the ATF are ongoing and complex. The Aikens Accelerator case exemplifies the challenges faced by gun owners. Pam Bondi's actions are critical for the future of gun rights. Trump's executive orders could have significant implications for gun laws. Oregon's Measure 114 raises concerns about state-level gun control. Kevin Starrett is recognized for his efforts in defending Second Amendment rights. The conversation highlights the need for unity among gun rights advocates. The episode underscores the ongoing battle for gun rights in America. Mark Walters highlights the importance of Lexington Green in American history. The Gun Owners Action League is organizing a significant event to celebrate freedom.
Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and legislation with guests including Alan Gottlieb and Cam Edwards. The conversation covers the recent federal court split regarding under 21 gun rights, the implications of the National Firearms Act (NFA), and the ongoing challenges surrounding assault weapons bans. The episode emphasizes the importance of these legal battles and their potential impact on Second Amendment rights. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics surrounding Second Amendment rights, including the role of the ATF, legal challenges, and the implications of recent legislation such as Oregon's Measure 114. The conversation also touches on the Aikens Accelerator case, expectations from Pam Bondi's office, and the potential impact of Trump's executive orders on gun rights. The episode features insights from David Codrea, a long-time contributor, who shares his perspectives on the current state of gun rights and the challenges faced by advocates. In this episode of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters and his guests discuss a range of topics including the significance of Lexington Green, the current state of the Democratic Party, and the political maneuvers of Donald Trump. The conversation shifts to the implications of Trump's executive orders on the ATF and the recent 11th Circuit decision regarding the rights of young adults to purchase firearms. The roundtable format allows for a dynamic exchange of ideas and opinions, culminating in a discussion about the future of gun rights and the political landscape. Armed American Radio, gun rights, Second Amendment, federal court, under 21 gun rights, NFA, short barrel rifles, assault weapons ban, Trump executive order, gun control, Second Amendment, ATF, gun rights, legal challenges, Pam Bondi, Trump, Aikens Accelerator, Oregon Measure 114, gun control, firearms, Lexington Green, Gun Owners Action League, Democratic Party, Trump, Executive Orders, 11th Circuit, Young Adults Rights, Political Commentary, Armed American Radio, Freedom Takeaways The 11th Circuit upheld the under 21 gun ban, causing a split with the Fifth Circuit. The Supreme Court may need to address the issue of gun rights for 18-20 year olds. The NFA's restrictions on short barrel rifles are being challenged in court. Recent weather events have impacted communities in the South, highlighting the importance of support. Gun rights advocates are optimistic about future legal challenges to restrictive laws. The discussion around the NFA and its implications for gun ownership continues to evolve. The Fourth Circuit's assault weapons ban case remains unresolved, with potential for Supreme Court involvement. Trump's executive order on gun control is under scrutiny, with expectations for significant changes. The conversation reflects a broader concern about the erosion of Second Amendment rights. Grassroots opposition to gun control measures is growing, even in traditionally liberal states. Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of Second Amendment rights. The ATF's role in regulating firearms is under scrutiny. Legal challenges against the ATF are ongoing and complex. The Aikens Accelerator case exemplifies the challenges faced by gun owners. Pam Bondi's actions are critical for the future of gun rights. Trump's executive orders could have significant implications for gun laws. Oregon's Measure 114 raises concerns about state-level gun control. Kevin Starrett is recognized for his efforts in defending Second Amendment rights. The conversation highlights the need for unity among gun rights advocates. The episode underscores the ongoing battle for gun rights in America. Mark Walters highlights the importance of Lexington Green in American history. The Gun Owners Action League is organizing a significant event to celebrate freedom.
Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and legislation with guests including Alan Gottlieb and Cam Edwards. The conversation covers the recent federal court split regarding under 21 gun rights, the implications of the National Firearms Act (NFA), and the ongoing challenges surrounding assault weapons bans. The episode emphasizes the importance of these legal battles and their potential impact on Second Amendment rights. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics surrounding Second Amendment rights, including the role of the ATF, legal challenges, and the implications of recent legislation such as Oregon's Measure 114. The conversation also touches on the Aikens Accelerator case, expectations from Pam Bondi's office, and the potential impact of Trump's executive orders on gun rights. The episode features insights from David Codrea, a long-time contributor, who shares his perspectives on the current state of gun rights and the challenges faced by advocates. In this episode of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters and his guests discuss a range of topics including the significance of Lexington Green, the current state of the Democratic Party, and the political maneuvers of Donald Trump. The conversation shifts to the implications of Trump's executive orders on the ATF and the recent 11th Circuit decision regarding the rights of young adults to purchase firearms. The roundtable format allows for a dynamic exchange of ideas and opinions, culminating in a discussion about the future of gun rights and the political landscape. Armed American Radio, gun rights, Second Amendment, federal court, under 21 gun rights, NFA, short barrel rifles, assault weapons ban, Trump executive order, gun control, Second Amendment, ATF, gun rights, legal challenges, Pam Bondi, Trump, Aikens Accelerator, Oregon Measure 114, gun control, firearms, Lexington Green, Gun Owners Action League, Democratic Party, Trump, Executive Orders, 11th Circuit, Young Adults Rights, Political Commentary, Armed American Radio, Freedom Takeaways The 11th Circuit upheld the under 21 gun ban, causing a split with the Fifth Circuit. The Supreme Court may need to address the issue of gun rights for 18-20 year olds. The NFA's restrictions on short barrel rifles are being challenged in court. Recent weather events have impacted communities in the South, highlighting the importance of support. Gun rights advocates are optimistic about future legal challenges to restrictive laws. The discussion around the NFA and its implications for gun ownership continues to evolve. The Fourth Circuit's assault weapons ban case remains unresolved, with potential for Supreme Court involvement. Trump's executive order on gun control is under scrutiny, with expectations for significant changes. The conversation reflects a broader concern about the erosion of Second Amendment rights. Grassroots opposition to gun control measures is growing, even in traditionally liberal states. Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of Second Amendment rights. The ATF's role in regulating firearms is under scrutiny. Legal challenges against the ATF are ongoing and complex. The Aikens Accelerator case exemplifies the challenges faced by gun owners. Pam Bondi's actions are critical for the future of gun rights. Trump's executive orders could have significant implications for gun laws. Oregon's Measure 114 raises concerns about state-level gun control. Kevin Starrett is recognized for his efforts in defending Second Amendment rights. The conversation highlights the need for unity among gun rights advocates. The episode underscores the ongoing battle for gun rights in America. Mark Walters highlights the importance of Lexington Green in American history. The Gun Owners Action League is organizing a significant event to celebrate freedom.
Free Speech: May Louisiana prohibit being on or near a pipeline without permission? - Argued: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 18:4:16 EDT
Separation of Powers: Did Congress' use of proxy voting violate the constitution's quorum requirement? - Argued: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:7:33 EDT
Melissa, Leah, and Kate are joined by Professor Kate Masur of Northwestern to talk about just how illegal and off-the-wall Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is. Then, the hosts cover the multitude of other horrors coming out of the executive branch, preview February's SCOTUS cases, touch base with the wackos at the Fifth Circuit, and ask the all-important question: are the mens okay? Pre-order your copy of Leah's forthcoming book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes (out May 13th)Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky
The feds want millions of businesses and other corporations to turn over sensitive information so they can snoop for evidence of crimes. It's an affront to financial privacy, anonymous association, and other liberties. The requirement is laid out in the Corporate Transparency Act, now the subject of litgation at the Fifth Circuit. Caleb Kruckenberg represents the Texas Top Cop Shop and others in the case. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Key Points: – The Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court dismissed with prejudice a suit brought by the Attorney General’s offices of Maryland and the District of Columbia against three Montgomery County firearms dealers, reinforcing that dealers can’t be held responsible for criminal acts by third parties. – The Fifth Circuit ruled that suppressors are not […] The post This Week in Guns 456 – The Double Edged Trump DOJ. Weird things happening in gun law appeared first on Firearms Radio Network.
Key Points: - The Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court dismissed with prejudice a suit brought by the Attorney General's offices of Maryland and the District of Columbia against three Montgomery County firearms dealers, reinforcing that dealers can't be held responsible for criminal acts by third parties. - The Fifth Circuit ruled that suppressors are not firearms and thus not protected by the Second Amendment, a decision seen as intellectually bankrupt and likely driven by a desire to avoid controversy. - A blind man in Indiana received a concealed carry permit and used the occasion to call for "common sense" gun laws, sparking debate about the rights of disabled individuals to bear arms. Hello everyone and welcome back to This Week in Guns, brought to you by Patriot Patch Company, VZ Grips, and MAF Corporation. This show offers commentary on the latest firearms industry news, information and buzz. I'm your host Matthew Larosiere and I'm joined by the ratman. DC and Maryland Get Shidded on (Prejudicially) Fegeral Judge syas machinegun is legale VZ Grips: ThisWeek15 Rognald Desantisholster Sales Tax Holiday (for gun) Dumb Army Bullet Makers Make Dumb Factory for Even Dumber Army Bullet MAF Corp: Fuddbusters Colorado Assault Weapon Ban Gets Way Dumber Illinois supreme court forced to invent new procedural issue to save the FOID card (again) 5th Circuit: Stupreisers are not firearms still/again/somehow so no 2A FFL Payments The Trump 2A EO: Mark 4box (looks like that) is wrong, actually Blind man makes case for mutes being the preferable disability Patriot patch Co. TWIG10 0:00 Introduction and sponsors 0:42 Washington DC and Maryland case against gun dealers & ATF involvement 7:43 Federal judge ruling on machine gun charges 12:10 Sponsor: VZ Grips 13:11 Florida second amendment sales tax holiday & Army's new 6.8mm ammo plant 18:27 Colorado assault weapons ban & Illinois FOID card case 27:53 Fifth Circuit ruling on suppressors 35:51 Sponsor: FFL Payment Processing 36:37 Trump's executive order & its impact on Second Amendment litigation 42:51 DOJ's handling of NFA cases 47:18 Blind man's concealed carry permit & gun ownership for the visually impaired 53:21 Sponsor: Patriot Patch Company
In This Hour:-- Kurt Schlichter, author of "The Attack," on the wide-spread assault he expects to see on U.S. .-- Whether shooting his military-style rifles, working on his handgun speed, or fighting Second Amendment cases in court, Adam Kraut, from the Second Amendment Foundation, is all in. He explains the recent Fifth Circuit decision which ruled that banning 18, 19, and 20-year olds from buying handguns from a licensed gun store is unconstitutional.-- Do you carry enough ammunition? Several states have bans on standard capacity (more than 10 rounds of ammunition) magazines. There are good reasons to not only carry more than 10 rounds in your personal protection gun, but to have an extra magazine with you.Gun Talk 02.09.25 Hour 2
In an industry where firms fight over the same cases, Julian Gomez has carved out his blue ocean in auto product liability. Julian's method is surprisingly simple: specialize deeply, share knowledge freely, and let expertise create opportunities. Dominate your market today. Grab a copy of Chris' latest book, Personal Injury Lawyer Marketing: From Good to GOAT. In this episode of Personal Injury Mastermind, discover how understanding which cases truly matter can transform your practice from local player to national authority. We discuss: How to become THE name in your blue ocean The most common auto defects hiding in standard accident cases Key product liability indicators that signal major settlement potential A strategic framework for evaluating auto product cases Building authority through relationship marketing over advertising Creating work-life integration while handling complex litigation Guest Details Julian Gomez is a nationally recognized auto product liability attorney who pioneered litigation strategies in catastrophic defect cases. After clerking at the Fifth Circuit and working the first Ford Explorer Firestone case, he built a nationwide practice focused almost exclusively on auto product litigation. Julian Gomez: LinkedIn The Julian C. Gomez Law Firm: Website, Instagram Chris Dreyer and Rankings Details Chris Dreyer is the CEO and founder of Rankings.io, the elite legal digital marketing agency. Rankings: Website, Instagram, Twitter Chris Dreyer: Website, Instagram Newsletters: The Dreyer Sheet Books: Personal Injury Lawyer Marketing: From Good to GOAT; Niching Up: The Narrower the Market, the Bigger the Prize Work with Rankings: Connect Additional Episodes You Might Enjoy 80. Mike Papantonio, Levin, Papantonio, & Rafferty — Doing Well by Doing Good 84. Glen Lerner, Lerner and Rowe – A Steady Hand in a Shifting Industry 101. Pratik Shah, EsquireTek — Discovering the Power of Automation 134. Darryl Isaacs, Isaacs & Isaacs — The Hammer: Insights from a Marketing Legend 104. Taly Goody, Goody Law Group — Finding PI Clients on TikTok 63. Joe Fried, Fried Goldberg LLC — How To Become An Expert And Revolutionize Your PI Niche 96. Brian Dean, Backlinko — Becoming a Linkable Source 83. Seth Godin — Differentiation: How to Make Your Law Firm a Purple Cow 73. Neil Patel, Neil Patel — Digital A New Approach to Content and Emerging Marketing Channels
While Elon Musk has been taking over the government, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals quietly overturned a 60-year-old law that prevented federally-licensed firearms dealers from selling guns to anyone aged 18 to 20. Seems bad!This week, Jess and Imani get into the weeds of Reese v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, a Second Amendment case out of the Fifth Circuit that, surprisingly, did not involve our BFF Matthew Kacsmaryk.Rewire News Group is a nonprofit media organization, which means that episodes like this one are only made possible with the support of listeners like you! If you can, please join our team by donating here.And sign up for The Fallout, a weekly newsletter written by Jess that's exclusively dedicated to covering every aspect of this unprecedented moment.
Welcome to The Chopping Block – where crypto insiders Haseeb Qureshi, and Tom Schmidt chop it up about the latest in crypto. This week, we're joined by special guest Peter Van Valkenburgh, Executive Director of Coin Center, to tackle one of the most pivotal moments in crypto policy. In this episode, we dive into the groundbreaking Fifth Circuit ruling on Tornado Cash, unpack its implications for blockchain privacy, and discuss the challenges noncustodial developers like Roman Storm are facing. We also break down Trump's crypto executive order, the SEC's new direction under Hester Peirce, and speculate on what a U.S. strategic Bitcoin reserve might mean for the future. Show highlights
Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger PictureTrump's Hud nominee lets everyone know that the government cannot fix the homelessness problem, the government is the cause. Bitcoin is going to skyrocket. Elon is showing the people the way, he is teaching people why we have inflation and what is the cause. Soon the [CB] will be restructured. The [DS] has lost the people, they have used almost all their ammunition, they are weak. They will try one more time but Trump will counter it all. Trump and Scavino send a message, its time to wake the rest of the people up, its time to unleash the lion to show the world who is really in charge, it was always the patriots. (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1880983137175429558 https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1881127168631353788 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1880854417366491452 TAKE A LISTEN Political/Rights https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1880708707253936306 Fifth Circuit Rules DACA Unconstitutional Setting Up Another Supreme Court Challenge A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the controversial Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, was illegal but stopped short of allowing a nationwide injunction issued by a federal judge in Texas to go into effect. The three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit ruling on the case restricted the scope of the injunction to Texas to allow further appeals. DACA is, in my opinion, the toughest part of the illegal immigration catastrophe facing the United States to solve. DACA enrollees arrived in the United States as very young children when their parents or guardians illegally immigrated. They are culturally American and frequently can't speak the language of their home country and have no family or social ties to it. There are an estimated 580,000 DACA enrollees. DACA, as the Texas judge ruled has no basis in law. It does not even rise to the level of a regulation. DACA started out as a 2012 memorandum signed by Obama DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. It was never an executive order. It never went through the rule-making process required by the Administrative Procedure Act. It has never been enacted into law by Congress. Ordinarily, any memo by a cabinet secretary ceases to have validity when they leave office, not so with DACA. When President Trump's DHS secretary rescinded the DACA memo based on the advice of the Attorney General of the United States, the Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 vote (guess how the Chief Justice voted), that the Trump administration was required to follow the Administrative Procedure Act to withdraw a memo that was never subjected to that act, see The Supreme Court Rules Trump Can't End the Illegal DACA Program Because Nothing Matters Anymore. This is the second time this particular case has been heard by the Fifth Circuit and the second time the Fifth Circuit has ruled DACA unconstitutional; see Fifth Circuit Rules DACA Is Illegal but Somehow It Keeps on Moving – RedState, The case is headed back to the Supreme Court, minus the rather stupid issue of whether a single memo by a cabinet secretary can masquerade as the law of the land. Source: redstate.com Border Czar Tom Homan Says Raids on Sanctuary Cities to Deport Illegals May be Paused After Plan Was Leaked President Donald Trump's Border Czar, Tom Homan, has said the immigration raids on “Sanctuary Cities,” including Chicago and New York, may be placed on pause after details about the plan were leaked to the media. On Friday,
For the podcast's annual end-of-year episode, Scott sat down with co-hosts emeritus Alan Rozenshtein and Quinta Jurecic to talk over listener-submitted topics and object lessons, including:How will the collapse of the Assad regime impact the region? And can the United States help create a secular, democratic Syria?How is the pending TikTok ban even enforceable (if it is)?What national security story from 2024 deserved more attention?Won't the Fifth Circuit's recent Tornado Cash opinion simply lead the Treasury Department to sanction the cryptocurrency Ethereum as a whole?What are the most underrated threats to U.S. national security in the last half of this decade?What will be the Trump administration's first major national security misstep?How worried should the United States be about the BRIC countries' recent discussions of forming their own reserve currency?For object lessons, Trevor recommended insightful indie video games for our three hosts based on their interests: “Bury Me, My Love” for Scott; “We. The Revolution” for Alan; and “Not for Broadcast” for Quinta. Thomas endorsed the podcast and associated media company “Popular Front” on uncovered conflict issues. Keith threw his support behind the podcast “It Did Happen Here” about Portland's anti-racist skinhead movement. Connor recommended the books “The Queen of Cuba,” by Peter Lapp, and “The President's Book of Secrets,” by Lawfare alum David Priess, as well as the docuseries “FBI True.” Keenan followed up with another book recommendation, Daniel Immewahr's “How to Hide an Empire.” And Liz endorsed Gayle Tzemach Lemmon's “Ashley's War,” about women who deployed to Afghanistan as cultural support teams for special operations units.And that's it for 2024! But don't worry, Rational Security and the whole Lawfare team will be back with you in the new year to help make sense of what's to come in national security in 2025—now back at our old release day and time, at midday on Wednesdays (D.C.-time) every week!To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Monday, December 18th, 2023Rudy Giuliani must pay Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss nearly $150M; Congress passes a bill prohibiting the President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO; Ziegler has been suspended from the Florida Republican party over the rape accusation; a Russian propaganda campaign involving thousands of fake accounts on TikTok spreading disinformation about the war in Ukraine has been uncovered by the BBC; the Ohio Supreme Court upholds the pro-choice amendment; a 13-year-old boy has been arrested and accused of planning a mass shooting at a synagogue in Ohio; the Fifth Circuit upholds the ability of private parties to sue under the Voting Rights Act; what we know about the killing of 3 Israeli hostages by the IDF. Plus Allison and Dana deliver your good news.From the Good Newshttps://www.petful.com/pet-health/dogs-eye-pops-out-sockethttps://www.akc.org/expert-advice/news/how-does-fast-cat-work-watching-akc-fastest-dog-usa Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts
This week, Scott was joined by his Lawfare colleagues Benjamin Wittes, Eugenia Lostri, and Tyler McBrien to break down the week's big national security news, including:“The Long Road to Damascus.” Syria's Assad regime collapsed suddenly last week in the face of a rebel offensive, ending thirteen years of revolution. What comes next, however, is anyone's guess. How will this shift impact regional security? And how is the incoming Trump administration likely to respond?“Pardonez-Moi.” President-elect Donald Trump's decision to nominate unabashed loyalist Kash Patel—a person who has published a book listing political enemies he thinks should be prosecuted by the Justice Department—for the soon-to-be-vacant position of FBI Director has renewed concerns that the incoming Trump administration will use the Justice Department to prosecute his political enemies. President Biden may have responded in part by pardoning his son Hunter for a wide range of conduct—and some are arguing he should extend similar protections to others the Trump administration may target. How real is the threat of such targeted prosecution? And are preemptive pardons the right protection?“Not in Kansas Anymore.” The Fifth Circuit recently issued what may prove to be a landmark sanctions decision, holding that certain Tornado Cash automated cryptocurrency contractual mechanisms sanctioned by the Treasury Department do not constitute “property” within the meaning of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and thus cannot be sanctioned. It's also one of the first appellate court decisions to apply the Supreme Court's recent Loper Bright decision, which ended Chevron deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, in the national security context. How persuasive is the court's opinion? And what impact will it have on U.S. policy in this area?For object lessons, Ben endorsed(?) Kash Patel's three childrens' books as confirmation must-reads. Eugenia amped up everyones' holiday parties with a surefire recipe for maple cookies. Scott recommended the Lion's Tail as a surprisingly seasonal tiki-ish cocktail. And Tyler celebrated transition season with three recommended political profiles, specifically of Kash Patel, Ron Desantis, and Donald Trump circa 1997.Also, Rational Security will be saying goodbye to 2024 in its traditional fashion: by discussing listener-submitted topics and object lessons! To submit yours, call in to (202) 743-5831 to leave a voicemail or email rationalsecurity@lawfaremedia.org. Just do it by COB on December 18!To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
