Podcasts about fifth circuit

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – The ACLU asks the Supreme Court to review a Fifth Circuit ruling upholding Texas law requiring Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms, arguing the mandate violates First Amendment protections and risks religious coercion, while supporters contend the law is constitutionally permissible under current precedent...

My conversation with Maria starts at about 34 minutes in to today's show after headlines and clips should be LIVE at 11AM EST with Jeff Jarvis and then again at 6 or 7 with JL Cauvin I hope you are doing ok here in the dog days Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE : On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno is CEO of RepresentUs. She is an advocate, author, and lawyer with two decades of experience globally and within the US on issues of corruption, authoritarianism, organized crime, and human rights. Maria has held multiple senior positions at Human Rights Watch and served as executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, at the helm of a team running groundbreaking state and national campaigns. A Peruvian-American, Maria came of age in Peru at a time of internal armed conflict, economic crisis, and then corrupt autocracy. Early in her career, she contributed to the  extradition and trial on charges of corruption and crimes against humanity of former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori. Her narrative non-fiction book "There Are No Dead Here: A Story of Murder and Denial in Colombia" (Bold Type Books, Feb. 2017), won the  2018 Juan E. Méndez Human Rights Book Award, and the Spanish translation is on its third  printing. Maria earned her law degree, magna cum laude, from New York University School of Law and served as a judicial clerk on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Listen rate and review on Apple Podcasts Listen rate and review on Spotify Pete On Instagram Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on Twitter Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Gift a Subscription https://www.patreon.com/PeteDominick/gift Send Pete $ Directly on Venmo

We squeeze in one more episode before Will's vacation, tying the single-season record in the process. The mailbag then demands a reckoning on whether Magneto's powers are really limited to ferrous metals, along with the origins of the S tier and the truth-value of conditional predictions. The main event is Hunter v. United States, which holds that a plea bargain's appeal waiver is unenforceable when enforcing it would work a "miscarriage of justice." We try to figure out where that rule could possibly come from — contract law? Rule 11? the supervisory power? procedural common law? — and why an opinion this law-free commanded this much agreement, while the separate writings range from a declaration of war on plea bargaining itself to a hunt for a sounder source of authority. Along the way: a field trip to the shuttered taproom of Ybarra v. Illinois fame, and thanks to the expanding Divided Argument production universe.Highlights[00:00:21] Opening: squeezing in one more before Will's vacation — and tying the single-season episode record.[00:01:42] The only Court news: Trump v. California, the mail-in-voting application, is fully briefed.[00:03:15] Mailbag: "lead is not magnetic." Are Magneto's powers limited to ferrous metals? The comic-book record says no.[00:05:40] Why is S the top tier? Japanese video-game rank screens and contested backronyms.[00:08:09] Parsec retcons in Star Wars, and the art of redeeming past misstatements.[00:09:09] Caleb Rogers on the logic of conditional predictions: "if A, then B" is true whenever not-A.[00:11:08] Thank-yous to the production universe — and the show is now on YouTube.[00:12:06] Jessie Henderson's field trip: the Aurora Tap of Ybarra v. Illinois fame, located and (sadly) shuttered.[00:15:30] The main event: Hunter v. United States — appeal waivers in federal plea bargains.[00:21:30] The wrinkle: a forced-medication condition, and a judge who says "you have a right to appeal" anyway (cf. Class v. United States).[00:24:45] Plea bargains as free-floating general contract law — territory of the forthcoming Epps & D'Onfro Harvard Law Review paper.[00:26:52] The circuit split: the Fifth Circuit's statutory-maximum rule vs. everyone else's miscarriage-of-justice exception.[00:29:16] The real puzzle: where does any of this authority come from — Rule 11? the judiciary's own self-image?[00:37:51] What definitely counts: race-based sentences, a no-pregnancy condition, sentencing by 12 orangutans.[00:40:40] Dan logs a scorecard prediction on what the Fifth Circuit does on remand.[00:43:04] How does an opinion this mushy get 8 votes in 2026? In for a dime, in for a dollar.[00:45:40] The Gorsuch concurrence comes out swinging against plea bargaining itself — Stuntz and Barkow make the U.S. Reports.[00:52:50] The Kavanaugh concurrence's high bar, and the 3–3–2 math of who wouldn't take sides.[00:55:00] The Thomas dissent: no source of law — and no sentencing appeals for most of American history anyway.[01:00:20] The Barrett concurrence: procedural common law, with citations to Professor Barrett.[01:08:16] Sign-off: thanks to the Constitutional Law Institute; Dan's predictions may yet be made falsifiable.Relevant linksCasesHunter v. United States — slip opinionTrump v. CaliforniaCommentary & articles"Hunter v. United States — the most important criminal case of the term" — SCOTUSblog opinion analysisAmy Coney Barrett, "The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court" — 106 Colum. L. Rev. 324 (2006), cited in the Barrett concurrenceAmy Coney Barrett, "Procedural Common Law" — 94 Va. L. Rev. 813 (2008), the other self-citationOtherIce by Magneto — last episode, where the Magneto debate beganSmart Microwave — the Chatrie episode, where the Aurora Tap of Ybarra v. Illinois first came upGorsuch Genie — our episode with Rachel Barkow on Justice Abandoned, now cited in the Gorsuch concurrence

This Day in Legal History: Andrew Johnson Suspends Secretary StantonOn August 12, 1867, President Andrew Johnson suspended Edwin Stanton, his Secretary of War, and installed General Ulysses S. Grant to run the department temporarily. It was a quiet-sounding personnel move that lit the fuse on one of the great constitutional confrontations in American history—and it turned on a question we still argue about: how much control a president has over the officials who serve beneath him.The context was Reconstruction. Stanton was a close ally of the Radical Republicans in Congress, and as Secretary of War he controlled the Army's presence across the defeated South, including the Freedmen's Bureau—making him essential to Congress's plans to remake the region and protect the newly freed. Johnson, who bitterly opposed that agenda, wanted Stanton gone. But Congress had anticipated exactly this: it had passed the Tenure of Office Act, which barred the president from removing a Senate-confirmed cabinet officer without the Senate's consent. Johnson, trying to thread the needle while Congress was in recess, suspended Stanton rather than firing him outright. When the Senate later refused to concur and Johnson removed Stanton anyway in early 1868, the House impeached him—and he survived removal in the Senate by a single vote.The significance of August 12, 1867 reaches all the way to the present. The Tenure of Office Act was eventually repealed and, decades later, the Supreme Court in Myers v. United States suggested it had been unconstitutional all along, endorsing a robust presidential removal power—the same removal-power debate that traces back to the very first Congress and runs through today's fights over the independence of agencies and prosecutors. Johnson's clash with Stanton is the original American showdown over whether a president can be checked in the control of his own executive branch. And on a day when we've got a story about the White House leaning on the Justice Department, that 159-year-old question feels remarkably current.A federal appeals court has thrown out the government formula at the heart of the law meant to protect patients from surprise medical bills—handing a significant win to doctors and hospitals over insurers. Sitting en banc, all seventeen judges of the Fifth Circuit issued an unsigned opinion mostly siding with physicians and air-ambulance companies, and invalidating a federal rule as going beyond what Congress actually authorized in the No Surprises Act. Here's how this works, because it's less about patients than it sounds. The No Surprises Act protects you, the patient—if you get care from an out-of-network provider in an emergency, you only owe your normal in-network cost-sharing. The fight is over who pays the rest: the insurer or the provider. That gets decided in arbitration, and the key benchmark is something called the “qualifying payment amount,” or QPA. Whoever controls how the QPA is calculated basically controls who wins. The court found that federal agencies had let insurers game that number—by baking in so-called “ghost rates,” contracted amounts for services that providers never actually deliver, which dragged the benchmark down in insurers' favor—and by improperly excluding bonus and incentive payments. The significance is twofold. Substantively, it rebalances a high-stakes payment fight away from insurers and toward providers. But the deeper theme is administrative law: this is a court holding that agencies rewrote a statute to favor one side beyond what Congress wrote—exactly the kind of post-Chevron scrutiny of agency rulemaking we've been tracking all summer. The patient protections stay; the multibillion-dollar question of who pays just got sent back to the drawing board. US appeals court voids formula used to avert surprise medical bills | ReutersAmerican Medical Association · Bloomberg LawA federal judge has blocked the U.S. Postal Service nationwide from enforcing the mail-in voting restrictions in President Trump's executive order—and if this story sounds familiar to longtime listeners, it should. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston expanded an order she first issued in June, which had covered 23 states, into a nationwide injunction. Under the executive order, the Postal Service was supposed to gather state lists of eligible voters and deliver absentee ballots only to people on those lists; Talwani's ruling bars USPS from refusing to deliver mail ballots based on those new federal verification requirements. Her reasoning is the same principle we keep coming back to: the executive branch, she wrote, has no authority to regulate elections—that power belongs to the states under the Constitution. And she stressed the timing, noting it's now less than 90 days before the November 3 midterms, which makes it especially important not to let the federal government change election rules on the eve of the vote. This connects to the entire voting-rights arc we've followed—the administration's 0-and-21 losing streak on voter rolls, the Supreme Court emergency application, the Voting Rights Act anniversary. The significance is that the courts continue to hold a firm, near-unbroken line: however much the administration wants federal control over how Americans cast and count ballots, judges keep ruling that elections are run by the states, and the closer we get to November, the more urgently they're saying it. Judge blocks US Postal Service from restricting mail-in voting | ReutersNPR · US NewsThe White House has reportedly asked the Justice Department to explore bringing new charges against David Hearn—the former Olympian in the Reflecting Pool case—just over a week after the department dropped the case because its own evidence showed he didn't do it. Recall the sequence: Hearn was indicted on a felony for allegedly damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, but prosecutors then moved to dismiss, telling the court that newly disclosed documents showed the damage came from a botched renovation, not vandalism. According to sources, President Trump was furious at U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro for dismissing the case, and the White House has since asked the department to examine whether there's a basis for a new charge—possibly a misdemeanor. The talks are described as preliminary, with no decision made, and Congressman Jamie Raskin has already launched a probe into the whole affair. Here's why this is legally striking. The decision to drop the case wasn't a technicality—it was the government concluding, on the evidence, that the underlying premise was false. To now go looking for new charges against the same person, at the White House's urging and reportedly out of the president's personal anger, raises the specter of vindictive prosecution—using the charging power not to pursue justice but to punish. The significance goes to the core of prosecutorial independence, the theme running through the Blanche confirmation fight and beyond: charging decisions are supposed to be driven by evidence and law, not by a president's displeasure that a case was dropped. It's a live test of whether that line still holds. Trump White House asked DOJ to explore new Reflecting Pool charges, sources say | ReutersUS News · MS NOWAnd finally, the law graduates who suffered through California's disastrous 2025 bar exam have reached a settlement in their class action against the company that administered it. You may remember the debacle: the February 2025 California bar exam, run by the vendor Meazure Learning, collapsed into login failures, software crashes, frozen screens, and lost answers, throwing thousands of aspiring lawyers into chaos on the single most important test of their careers. That fiasco spawned multiple lawsuits—the test-takers' claims were consolidated into a class action in federal court—as well as a state audit and a legislative inquiry. This settlement resolves the graduates' own case, and it's distinct from the separate deal the State Bar itself reached with Meazure last month, in which the vendor agreed to pay the Bar $5.25 million and forgive $1.36 million in unpaid invoices. The significance connects directly to a story we covered a couple of weeks ago—the meltdown of the new NextGen exam in Washington State. Two different states, two different vendors and formats, the same underlying failure: the high-stakes gateway to the legal profession buckling under basic technology problems, and leaving the people trying to enter the profession to pick up the pieces. These settlements put a price on that failure—but they also intensify a growing question about whether the bar exam, as currently built and administered, is a reliable way to license lawyers at all. Law grads reach settlement in class action over botched California bar exam | ReutersBloomberg Law · ICLG 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

Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno is CEO of RepresentUs. She is an advocate, author, and lawyer with two decades of experience globally and within the US on issues of corruption, authoritarianism, organized crime, and human rights. Maria has held multiple senior positions at Human Rights Watch and served as executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, at the helm of a team running groundbreaking state and national campaigns.A Peruvian-American, Maria came of age in Peru at a time of internal armed conflict, economic crisis, and then corrupt autocracy. Early in her career, she contributed to the extradition and trial on charges of corruption and crimes against humanity of former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori. Her narrative non-fiction book “There Are No Dead Here: A Story of Murder and Denial in Colombia” (Bold Type Books, Feb. 2017), won the 2018 Juan E. Méndez Human Rights Book Award, and the Spanish translation is on its third printing. Maria earned her law degree, magna cum laude, from New York University School of Law and served as a judicial clerk on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.Glenn spoke with Maria to discuss a RepresentUs project called the Congressional Courage Campaign. She spoke convincingly about how it is beyond dispute that Donald Trump is running the US government like a mafia organization. And she also talked about what we can - and must - do about it.Find RepresentUs: https://represent.us/about/Find glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

We Like Shooting We Like Shooting - Ep 675 August 10, 2026 Presented by This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Foxtrot Mike (Code: WLSISLIFE) Medical Gear Outfitters (Code: WLSISLIFE) Night Fision (Code: WLSISLIFE) Rost Martin (Code: WLSISLIFE) Bowers Group (Code: WLS) Flatline Fiber Co (Code: WLS15) Otis Technology (Code: WELIKESHOOTING15) Guests: One Horse, @onehorseusa – https://theonehorse.com Giveaways!! GAW   Text Dear WLS or Reviews +1 743 500 2171 Public   Show Titles   Gear Chat One Horse One Horse Express Rifle and Pistol with Atrius FRS At One Horse, we believe the rifle on your shoulder should be as dependable as the hands that carry it…. TheOneHorse is an American firearms manufacturer based in Brownstown, Indiana, producing the One Horse Express series of rifles and pistols in .22LR and 5.56/.223 calibers. All models integrate the Atrius FRS system and are offered in various barrel lengths with M-LOK or quad rail configurations. Products are sold directly via the company website alongside parts and suppressors, with an emphasis on American-made reliability and no-compromise construction. Availability: Available for direct purchase on theonehorse.com with current pricing and dealer applications; waitlist option for select items Cost: $999.99–$1,299.99 (current listed prices; e.g. 16″ 5.56 rifle $999.99, 12″ .22LR pistol $1,299.99) Special: Integrated Atrius FRS system on all Express models combined with American-made construction in .22LR or 5.56/.223 with M-LOK or quad-rail handguards (Savage) Savage1r's Experience in the Spokane Complex Fires Savage1r's experience in the Spokane Complex Fires. Supplementary Research: Savage1r shared firsthand observations from the Spokane Complex Fires while discussing technical gear during a segment focused on equipment performance in active wildfire conditions. The Spokane Complex Fires burned over 44,000 acres in eastern Washington in 2024, involving multiple lightning-caused ignitions managed under unified command with significant use of aerial resources and ground crews. Gear topics in similar wildfire incidents often center on respiratory protection, thermal imaging, durable fabrics, and communication reliability under extreme heat and smoke. Theoutdoorwire One Horse To Launch Express 22 Rifle And Express 22 Pistol At Goals 2026 One Horse announced the Express 22 Rifle and Express 22 Pistol, two dedicated .22 LR AR-pattern firearms debuting at GOALS 2026. The rifle uses a 16.1-inch barrel and THRiL CCS stock, while the pistol uses a 12.1-inch barrel and stabilizing brace; both use serialized One Horse lowers, dedicated rimfire operating systems, THRiL RTG grips, and Atrius Development Group's three-position Forced Reset Selector. The platforms are intended for training, recreational shooting, and high-volume range use. Initial production will be sold directly to consumers, with pricing, ordering details, and shipping dates to be announced. Gun Fights Play the best Price Is Right-style GunBroker game on the internet. Gun Fights Live DisplayFollow the game, prices, and reveals as they happen.Open the live display BangRank A live cast ranking segment for anything and everything in the gun world, powered by questionable certainty, strong opinions, and audience voting. BangRank Live VotingScan or open the link to rank along with the show.https://welikeshooting.com/rank   Going Ballistic The Truth About Guns (Savage) Jensen v. ATF & Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF – N.D. Texas Strikes Down NFA Registration Requirements for Suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs Gun-rights groups are celebrating a federal ruling striking down NFA registration requirements for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs. U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix (Northern District of Texas) ruled in *Jensen v. ATF* and *Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF* that NFA registration, application, approval, and enforcement provisions for suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs) exceed Congress's powers once the associated tax was effectively zeroed out. Multiple gun-rights organizations hailed the decision as a major Second Amendment victory and a step toward dismantling the National Firearms Act. A seven-day stay expires August 12, 2026, with appeals likely to the Fifth Circuit; parallel SAF-backed cases remain pending. The Gist: Scope (who/what states are affected): Nationwide implications for owners and manufacturers of suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs; ruling applies to enforcement of NFA registration requirements by ATF across the United States, though limited to the specific plaintiffs and likely to face immediate appeal. Impact: Decision holds that the NFA registration regime lacks constitutional basis without a tax, potentially invalidating core regulatory provisions; groups including FPC, GOA, and CCRKBA describe it as affirming the NFA's unconstitutionality and a historic win, with possible broader effect if upheld on appeal to the Fifth Circuit. – Bullet 3: Bottom Line: NFA registration and approval requirements for the listed items are struck down in this district-court ruling as exceeding congressional authority post-tax elimination; a short stay allows time for appeal, leaving the ultimate fate of the NFA provisions pending further litigation. Reviews Review: Alex W from California Review from Alex W Reviewing the cast as singers/bands. Shawn: Taylor Swift. Technically very good at what he does. But we hear so much of him that we all find ourselves wishing he would just go away once in a while. Nick: Nickelback. Honestly, we all thought he'd be dead by now. Nobody fully understands what keeps him going. But, somehow we all end up nodding along every time he comes on. Jeremy: Five Finger Death Punch. I really gotta explain this one? It's in the name. Savage: *insert random mumble rapper because I dont care enough to look one up* Nobody knows what he's saying. And wait, that's supposed to be music? Aaron: Kurt Cobain. Because, we can only hope. Review: Wes Sconsen from Wisconsin Blessings to all of you. Jeremy, go full stache. It's not creepy and you would make that shit look damn good. Sincerely, Wes Sconsen Review: Richard "Big Dick" Smoker from NJ Wrote by AI, with specific criteria by me. We Like Shooting is the podcast equivalent of discovering the group chat should've never been given microphones. Jeremy rocks a mustache that looks like it escaped a 1970s cop show and refuses to return to its natural habitat. Shawn somehow manages to host an entire podcast while carrying the weight of… well, let's just say gravity is doing him no favors. Nick has turned “I think I just trusted a fart” into a recurring personality trait. And Savage continues broadcasting from a state that seems determined to ban fun one regulation at a time. Despite all of that—or maybe because of it—the show is hilarious. You'll get firearms talk, gear reviews, industry news, and enough insults directed at each other to make you wonder why they're still friends. Nobody is safe, especially the hosts. If you want a squeaky-clean, HR-approved podcast, this ain't it. If you enjoy guns, sarcasm, and listening to grown men professionally bully each other for your entertainment, subscribe already. Richard “Big Dick” Smoker Before we let you go – Join Gun Owners of America We'd love if you supported the show, join Agency 171 at agency171.com. Lot's of prizes, rewards and kick ass swag. No matter how tough your battle is today, we want you here fight with us tomorrow. Don't struggle in silence, you can contact the suicide prevention line by dialing 988 from your phone. Remember – Always prefer Dangerous Freedom over peaceful slavery. We'll see you next time! Nick – @busbuiltsystems | Bus Built Systems Jeremy – @ret_actual | Rivers Edge Tactical Aaron – @machinegun_moses Savage – @savage1r Shawn – @dangerousfreedomyt | @camorado.cam | Camorado

Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno is CEO of RepresentUs. She is an advocate, author, and lawyer with two decades of experience globally and within the US on issues of corruption, authoritarianism, organized crime, and human rights. Maria has held multiple senior positions at Human Rights Watch and served as executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, at the helm of a team running groundbreaking state and national campaigns.A Peruvian-American, Maria came of age in Peru at a time of internal armed conflict, economic crisis, and then corrupt autocracy. Early in her career, she contributed to the extradition and trial on charges of corruption and crimes against humanity of former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori. Her narrative non-fiction book “There Are No Dead Here: A Story of Murder and Denial in Colombia” (Bold Type Books, Feb. 2017), won the 2018 Juan E. Méndez Human Rights Book Award, and the Spanish translation is on its third printing. Maria earned her law degree, magna cum laude, from New York University School of Law and served as a judicial clerk on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.Glenn spoke with Maria to discuss a RepresentUs project called the Congressional Courage Campaign. She spoke convincingly about how it is beyond dispute that Donald Trump is running the US government like a mafia organization. And she also talked about what we can - and must - do about it.Find RepresentUs: https://represent.us/about/Find glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Episode 302-Not Getting Tired of Winning Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 302 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun Lawyer, New Jersey assault firearm law, Third Circuit Court, Supreme Court, stay granted, unconstitutional laws, Second Amendment, sensitive places, National Firearm Act, suppressors, Jordan Salinas, good guy with a gun, training, legal advice, gun rights. SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen,. Teddy Nappen 00:18 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, my friends, the wins keep coming. These are great times. You know, we have suffered from the oppressors on our gun rights for decades upon decades, and now we are seeing the collapse of all their machinations over the years. It is great and getting greater. And so, just within this short period of time, we’ve had the spectacular win in New Jersey in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the full en banc panel, all the judges, of course, finding that New Jersey’s 36-year-old assault firearm law and magazine law is unconstitutional. It’s a fantastic decision, as we’ve discussed, written by a Biden-appointee judge who happened to be the first woman of color appointed to the Appellate bench. That is fantastic and has multi-dimensional impact, of course, having that great decision. Evan Nappen 01:52 Now, with that having been said, yes, a stay has been granted in terms of the implementation of the finding of unconstitutionality. So, that stay is granted essentially because traditionally these kind of stays do get granted, especially when the Supreme Court itself of the United States has taken this issue and has granted certiorari over the assault weapon, what New Jersey calls assault firearm law under Viramontes and Grant. They’ll be deciding that. Essentially we’ll have a decision by next June on that issue affecting the nation. Now, New Jersey has got their stay because they’re requesting the Supreme Court of the United States to grant certiorari over New Jersey’s case, and the stay has been granted pending the final resolution, essentially, of these issues, or at least in good part, these issues by the United States Supreme Court. So, in the meantime, Teddy Nappen 03:12 I don’t know if you caught what the AG Davenport wrote in their press release, Dad. Page – 2 – of 12 Evan Nappen 03:20 Well, they can continue to irreparably harm law-abiding, honest gun owners over these unconstitutional laws until that finally happens. But what exactly did Davenport say as they try to turn an utter defeat into some sort of short-term victory? Teddy Nappen 03:45 We are thrilled that the Third Circuit this morning stayed its ruling on our assault weapon / large capacity magazine case while our petition to the U.S. Supreme Court proceeds. That ensures this 36-year law will remain in place. (https://www.njoag.gov/statement-from-attorney-general-jennifer-davenport-on-third-circuits-grant-of-a-stay-in-assault-weapons-large-capacity-magazines-case/) 36 years of going after people, putting them in jail, taking away their rights, providing ruining their lives. Evan Nappen 04:07 Hey, wait, Teddy, are you reading from their news release? Teddy Nappen 04:11 Oh, you know, I read their news release and then added the little context that they forgot. Evan Nappen 04:16 Did they actually use the word “assault weapon”? Teddy Nappen 04:20 Yes. Evan Nappen 04:20 Or did they say “assault firearm”? What did they say? Teddy Nappen 04:21 Assault weapon. Evan Nappen 04:22 Davenport called it “assault weapon” law? Teddy Nappen 04:26 Yes, assault weapons. Evan Nappen 04:27 Okay, just so you know, this is the top law enforcement attorney for New Jersey who is calling their law something it is not. We do not have an “assault weapon” law. We have an “assault firearm” law. Now, granted, it’s a similar issue, and you know it’s the same idea of going after New Jersey’s version of semi-automatics. But you would think if you’re a lawyer, and you’re a lawyer for the State that has this case that you might want to refer to it as the actual name that your State utilizes, because that term “assault firearm” is the term embedded in New Jersey’s law. It is a defined term under N.J.S. 2C:39-1. Page – 3 – of 12 They are called “assault firearms” in New Jersey by law, by law. But you know, why would she bother actually using the correct legal term when discussing laws? That would be amazing, wouldn’t it? Teddy Nappen 05:46 Well, Dad, I mean, just the abuse alone, just to give you the one-to-one. You’ve had many times where people have been charged with having a “assault firearm”, and it’s not. But they love to abuse it and just use whatever term they want. I mean that goes right back to Josh Sugarmann, and his whole idea of making that term “assault firearm” to confuse the public so they could pass their laws. I mean. Evan Nappen 06:10 Yep, it’s exactly that. Well, Sugarmann wrote the manifesto “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America”. That’s what laid the groundwork for this issue. It finally has one foot in the grave, is bedridden, on its deathbed, and the Supreme Court will hopefully administer the coup de gras in June 2027. I believe the odds heavily, heavily favor us, virtually to the point of I would be shocked if we lose. I just don’t see that happening, and the antis know it as well. Those oppressors get it that they’re going to lose on this issue. Teddy Nappen 06:54 It’s Viramontes and Grant. Evan Nappen 06:58 Yeah. Those are the two cases that Supreme Court has granted certiorari on. Just so you know, one is a local law out of Cook County, Illinois, that bans assault weapons, and has incorporated into the definition, magazines into their definition of assault weapon. So, the Supreme Court might actually address the magazine issue because it’s actually part of Viramontes’ law itself. e may see that. The Grant case deals with Connecticut’s assault weapon ban, state law, and when they challenged in Connecticut, they didn’t challenge the magazine portion. They only challenged the so-called assault weapon portion. New Jersey’s case, in the Cheeseman v. Platkin case, that court addressed both assault firearms, aka assault weapons, and magazines. And now, with New Jersey requesting certiorari, meaning requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, it also opens up the magazine issue. So, the Supreme Court that can do anything it wants might choose to address the magazine issue in the Viramontes and Grant decision. They might even, arguably, they could even take up New Jersey’s case and make it part of that. They might, and what most likely they’re going to just have it in a holding pattern. Evan Nappen 08:47 And we have the Duncan case that deals with magazines as well out of California, the Duncan v. Bonta case (25-198(. So, what it means is, if the Supreme Court doesn’t deal with magazines by next June, but just the guns, then they may very well take New Jersey’s case and Duncan with the split in the circuits there, and then deal with magazines. Like I said, they might do it all together. They might not. But New Jersey proceeding with this actually weirdly in the long run may present and give us a great opportunity because it presents magazines as a complete win by the court from our circuit. So, this may be one of those situations where you know the word to New Jersey is be careful what you wish for. This Page – 4 – of 12 is very interesting to follow. But I believe that all these laws are going to go to the dustbin of history. It’s just a matter of time. Evan Nappen 09:59 But as I have advised listeners, even when this decision came out, not to do anything because of the ability to get a stay. To wait and see. Well, that’s proven correct. I’s been proven out to be the wise thing to do, and have our listeners not end up being GOFUs by obtaining the firearms and magazines that are not yet technically lawful. So, for these continuing months, New Jersey is still free to enforce the magazine and assault firearm laws. Of course, if you have such a case or such a charge, your attorney, if they’re anywhere competent, will raise these very important issues and hopefully get your matter, your criminal matter, stayed pending the outcome and preserve the constitutional issues on your behalf in fighting it. So, be careful. Don’t end up with a GOFU where you’re facing these charges and your current counsel isn’t doing anything about it. I’ve had a number of those cases coming to me from other attorneys, where the client is like, my attorney never raised the constitutionality on these issues. Well, that is a huge mistake because you need to raise these issues, preserve these issues, because ultimately your odds of success are so great here, and it is essentially, arguably, malpractice to not, especially now, raise the constitutional issues if someone is facing in New Jersey or in the Circuit that has decided that these laws are unconstitutional. So, it’s very important that you be aware of that. Teddy Nappen 12:05 Would it be better if the Supreme Court does the other two cases and then take this one up as a mag separately, or is it better to do it all in one go? Evan Nappen 12:13 The best for everyone would be complete victory as soon as possible. However, if they’re not going to do that, if they’re just going to address guns now and then we have these cases to address mags, fine. We’ll fight the fight, and there you go. But the important thing, honestly, is that they’re taking the cases. Remember, for years they did not take these cases, and instead, luckily, wisely, maybe by planning it correctly-I don’t know-maybe intentionally, the groundwork got laid for the challenges to ultimately be successful. Because look, way back in May of 1990, I was an attorney. I remember this horrible New Jersey assault firearm law and magazine law passing. It was disgusting. Of course, it also became the Evan Nappen Full Employment Act. But the fact is, they passed this ridiculous law, and I remember thinking at the time, yeah, you know, in my heart, I knew this has got to be contrary to the Second Amendment. But we did not have any of the cases at that time. We didn’t have Heller finding that the Second Amendment is an individual right. We didn’t have McDonald incorporating the Second Amendment to the states. We didn’t have Bruen laying out the test of constitutionality and what test is to be used to see if guns laws, if gun laws are proper and constitutional. We didn’t have any of that. We didn’t have the giant body of historical research that is critical in these wins. We didn’t have any of it. Evan Nappen 14:08 And what the pro-second amendment gun rights side has done is nothing short of Herculean. All the forces together have built this fortress of the ability to defend and to fight and to take on the fight and to attack. Built this up so that we’re now in a position to have victory after victory. Yet, we see another Page – 5 – of 12 victory, another victory. Just determined in the Fifth Circuit, a nationwide injunction as applied to the members of the parties and their members, such as NRA and GOA and SAF, and FPC, etc. (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260805/federal-court-strikes-down-nfa-registration-requirements-for-suppressors-short-barreled-rifles-and-short-barreled-shotguns-in-nra-case) All joining, attacking the National Firearms Act under a legal argument that was made possible by President Trump in the Big Beautiful Bill. Remember, the Big Beautiful Bill, which was a reconciliation bill, that was dealing with money, taxation, funding, money. When it’s done as a reconciliation, then what you have is no need or ability to run a filibuster. Since simple majorities can pass the reconciliation bills under the Senate rules, the Democrats, the anti-Second Amendment rights oppressors, could not stop its passage because they would. You know they would demand the 60, have the filibuster cloture, and the laws would die on the vine. But this did not, because it only needed simple majority. In that bill there was a specific repeal of the taxes. The taxes that get paid on suppressors, short barrel shotguns, short barrel rifles, on any other weapon, and silencers. The tax was eliminated to zero. And by doing that, it opened up the ability for the Big, Beautiful Lawsuit that was just a success in the Fifth Circuit, and how it worked was not based on Second Amendment arguments. It was based on jurisdictional arguments. Evan Nappen 16:55 You see, the National Firearms Act is premised upon the federal power of taxation. It is not founded upon the federal power of interstate commerce. Nor is it founded upon the military power. The federal government’s powers are limited. And back in the ’30s, when the National Firearms Act passed, they did not have the insane expansion of the commerce powers under the federal government. Therefore, the first national gun laws, which the NFA was, was jurisdiction by taxation. They imposed a $200 tax on suppressors, short barrel rifles, etc. Now, $200 in 1934 was just a little bit under $5,000 in terms of it being adjusted for inflation. So, imagine today passing a law that said any semi-automatic firearm that you want to possess, you must pay a $5,000 tax to the federal government in order to obtain it. Evan Nappen 18:26 You see how prohibitive that makes the possession, and then go through a registration scheme that is hidden in a pretext of taxation, which is blatantly excessive. And what has happened is by the elimination of the tax to zero, the court essentially said if there’s no tax, then there’s no law. Therefore, the NFA collapses in the enforcement proceedings regarding the paperwork, registration, printing. All the things that get done on the acquisition of NFA items. That law has been stayed for seven days, even though this is a permanent injunction. There’s been a seven-day stay to see if it progresses further, but that is a tremendous win on yet a different front of fighting for Second Amendment liberty. ‘ve had both of these great wins, and we have a lot to be proud of, and a lot to be optimistic about. Teddy Nappen 19:39 Regarding the big win with the NFA, I always want to see what is the what are the gun rights oppressionists? What are they pushing on this one? The Trace didn’t bring up something. However, Giffords, they’re flipping out, and I love this. (https://giffords.org/press-release/2026/08/giffords-reacts-to-federal-court-striking-down-background-checks-for-firearm-silencers-short-barreled-rifles-and-shotguns/) They go right to the. Just laugh, just reading it. This came from Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill. Remove the tax on these devices. The court has struck down the National Firearms Act, requiring background check and registration of firearm silencers, short barrel rifles, and shotguns. Page – 6 – of 12 Silencers and short barrel firearms, and other than handguns, are rarely used in crimes today because current laws have stopped them. Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding. Logical fallacy alert, everybody! Logical fallacy alert. Correlation does not equal causation. Saying that this will stop that these things have prevented crime does not make it so. What is your argument? Oh, they didn’t. They don’t have access. Even though prior to that, they weren’t used in crime. Generally speaking, as well. Number one is handguns on that front. But I love how they just try to toss that in every time. Just a red herring every single time, and they try to push it. Evan Nappen 20:56 Yeah, they’re just propagandists, and they’re losing left and right. It’s going to end up, my friends. You can mark my words. It’s going to end up that their entire world of gun law schemes, machinations, all these things that they have hoisted upon us as they die. I am greatly enjoying watching these gun laws die. As they die off and are impossible to find workarounds that, as well, get killed and die off. That they’re simply going to be left with only one mission, and their one mission of the oppressors, the one mission of the Second Amendment rights haters, will be to repeal the Second Amendment. And that’s where a fight’s going to end up. A fight over the oppressors trying to remove the Second Amendment. Of course, they’ll push this through their socialist, communist political movement. Remember, they want to make all kinds of institutional, governmental, radical changes, including getting rid of the Senate, including ending the nine-person Supreme Court and expanding it, getting rid of the presidency being elected where it’s an appointed, et cetera, and going at all different constitutional rights and turning America into a communist nation, and in so doing, they will also push. And Teddy, I think they even are saying, even now, to get rid of the Second Amendment. And you’ll see them joining hands. You’ll see the anti-Second Amendment rights folks joining hands with the Communists, with the DSA, the Democrat Socialist Wing, as the Democrat Party in its civil war implodes over the monster that the Democrats have created themselves. This is their Frankenstein that is now running loose on them. Teddy Nappen 23:27 Yeah, and quite frankly, just going back to them where they have pushed and pushed and pushed, where they said we don’t. They and there was a great video where this guy was basically trying to argue the socialist dilemma of the Second Amendment because it’s that catch 22 where they want to ban arms but they need arms for the revolution. For their great, you know, seize the means of production, but they cannot because they still push for red flag. They still push for universal background checks. Evan Nappen 23:58 Teddy, it’s like the meme with the guy sweating as to which button to push, you know. Ban guns so that you get, you know, so they could disarm the populace, or don’t ban so that their radical, violent Left can have access to firearms. Right? You know, they’re conflicted over that choice. Yeah. But regardless of what politics may lay in the future, right now the wins in court and legislatively. Okay. Remember, this is a combination. The reconciliation bill, etc. That’s all an important legislative changes that open the door to the ability to win on the front of the NFA tax attack and the big beautiful lawsuit. We are making tremendous gains and wins. And it is absolutely a reason to be optimistic. Page – 7 – of 12 Evan Nappen 25:03 I’m looking forward to seeing the decision in Koons and Siegel cases. Those that’s the case that addresses New Jersey’s sensitive places. We’re waiting for that same full en banc panel of the Third Circuit. Now, this is the same court that just killed New Jersey’s assault firearm and magazine law. That same court will be rendering an opinion over the constitutional validity of New Jersey’s sensitive places in the very near future. We’re going to see it. We’re just a matter, any day they can come out with that decision. Keep in mind, it’s going to be very important in countering and destroying the Carry Killer bill that Murphy and company got enacted. They did it. How? They did it because of their hissy fit to the Bruen decision, mandating carry permits get issued. So, they tried to make it so that this insane matrix of sensitive places makes it so incredibly difficult to actually exercise that right. is same court that gave us this fantastic pro-Second Amendment decision will be coming out with the sensitive places decision shortly. I’m cautiously optimistic about that. Keep in mind that the vote of the judges on the assault firearm magazine case. That was a panel of 15 judges, and the vote was 10 on our side, and five against us. So, it was 15 judges. One of the judges that opted to stay in was a judge that had been on a temporary assignment in, and that judge was a known opponent to Second Amendment rights. So, of course he wanted to stay in, and of the votes of the 10 to five ruling, one of the five judges was the anti-Second Amendment judge, but that judge is not part of the decision that will come out of Koons and Siegel. Therefore, it’s a 14-judge panel. And if we see the same voting as occurred on assault firearms and magazines, we should see a 10 to 4 ruling. Keeping our fingers crossed here in favor of knocking out New Jersey’s sensitive places, which would be really fantastic. And so, hang in there, folks. We’ve suffered a long time, but our suffering is slowly but surely being relieved. Evan Nappen 28:18 Hey, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot has some pretty cool offers and things happening. They’re offering the Bull Armory Ultralight Pro, and Bull is proudly recognized as North Jersey Friends of NRA Gun of the year for 2026. It’s lightweight. It’s exceptionally accurate, and it’s built for everyday carry. The pistol earned its title through outstanding performance, craftsmanship, and innovation. You can check out that Bull Armory Ultralight Pro at WeShoot. WeShoot is also offering Hornaday Critical Defense ammunition. Now, you know, Critical Defense and that Hornaday line of Critical Duty, as well, is one of the most trusted names in personal protection. That round is designed and engineered for reliable expansion, and dependable feeding, and confidence when it essentially matters most. And let me tell you, the Hornaday Critical Defense and Critical Duty, those are polymer-tipped rounds that perform arguably even better than hollow nose. But are not hollow nose bullets under New Jersey law because the nose is actually not hollow. It’s got an insert filling the hole. So, because of that, it is an ideal round for carry in New Jersey. You can’t carry, at the moment, actual hollow nose, but you can carry Critical Defense or Critical Duty. And frankly, it’s got advantages over hollow nose. Evan Nappen 30:12 Not just because it performs as well or better, but also because of the nose having the polymer plug. It actually feeds even more reliably than hollow nose. So, it’s actually far superior, at least in these terms, to your normal hollow nose ammunition. So, check out Critical Defense at WeShoot. Also, WeShoot has the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch rifle. Now that Mini 14, that’s an American classic. It’s earned its reputation through decades of proven reliability, versatility, and timeless styling. And let me tell you Page – 8 – of 12 about the Ruger. The new Rugers are incredibly accurate. You know the old Ruger with the pencil barrels-they were called pencil barrels. They weren’t known for their accuracy. hey functioned well and sure looked cool when the A-team had them rolling, right? But accuracy-wise, not so much. However, the new Rugers are extremely accurate. The barrel is thickened toward the base, and it is a redesign that gives incredible tack driving accuracy to the new Ruger Mini-14s. The Ranch rifle will be able to deliver for you, and of course, it’s set so you can not only have the scope rings, the classic Ruger scope rings, but even a Picatinny rail that fits in where you could put the rings, and then you could Picatinny it up to whatever optics you like as well. So, Ruger has come a long way, and the new Mini-14 is something you need to check out. I really do love the new Mini. I have one myself and greatly appreciated having had the old ones as well. So, you can get yours at WeShoot. Weshootusa.com is their website. Evan Nappen 32:26 I want to also remind you that if you want to get a New Jersey carry permit, you really should get it. Join our ranks of 100,000 or more here of permitted carry holders. The more folks we get with carries, the closer we get to constitutional carry. So, make sure you’re part of that. You can get your CCARE certification from WeShoot. They have all the great training there. It’s a fantastic facility. It’s a wonderful resource, conveniently off the Parkway in Lakewood, New Jersey. So, make sure you stop by and check out their website as well. weshootusa.com. You’ll be glad you did. Evan Nappen 33:10 Let me also shamelessly plug my book, New Jersey Gun Law. The Bible of Jersey Gun Law. You need to have it. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer, so that you don’t become a GOFU. Make sure you have that book. Go to EvanNappen.com. You’ll see the big orange cover right there. Click it, and you’ll have it in a matter of days. Go to EvanNappen.com to get your New Jersey Gun Law book. Hey, Teddy, what do you have for us today in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen 33:48 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and I imagine you’ve caught all about the In and Out shooting. What happened there? Evan Nappen 33:59 Well, maybe our listeners aren’t aware of that. would be surprised, but they may not know there was a major shooting that took place at, at and outside of and around this In / Out Burger in Idaho. Hey, I don’t know if any of you’ve ever eaten at In / Out Burger. It’s a West Coast thing. I really do love In / Out Burger. Just a side note, by the way, guys. But anyway, I digress. So, I could have well seen myself ending up at In / Out Burger in Idaho if I was out there. And Teddy Nappen 34:33 Isn’t there mustard on the burger that they do? Evan Nappen 34:35 No, no, that’s Whataburger. Another great burger chain. Oh, listen, we’re gonna have to call this the Burger Show shortly, instead of the burger lawyer, hamburger lawyer. Page – 9 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 34:44 What’s the best at In / Out? Evan Nappen 34:47 I like to get you know they have the secret menu and all that. I get the protein wrap where they take their In / Out Burger and they wrap it in lettuce. You know, I’ve lost over 200 pounds, and I avoid the carbs. I love the lettuce wrap, the protein. They call them the protein wrap. They wrap their In / Out burgers strictly in lettuce, so you have no carbs, and they’re delicious in-out burgers. So, that’s my favorite. But their stuff is really delicious. However, on this particular occasion, it was not so good. We had a bad guy going there with a gun and decided he was going to shoot up the place. And lo and behold, what happened, Teddy? What happened? A fellow by the name of Jordan Salinas. Go ahead. Teddy Nappen 35:35 Yes, good guy with a gun. Jordan Salinas, where he was with his girlfriend, and they had planned a quiet Saturday. You know, going horseback riding, so and you know, going out for a nice lunch in Twin Falls. And as the gunman Chad Williams has been identified, who was shooting up the In-N-Out, Jordan drew his holstered FN five seven semi-auto pistol with a suppressor to fire back and save the people inside. (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/08/armed-citizen-used-a-suppressed-pistol-to-save-lives-at-twin-falls-in-n-out/) Evan Nappen 36:10 Okay, so first of all, that gun standard has a 20 round magazine, and it’s readily available to have a 30-round mag, so that gun with its standard capacity magazine, you would you would up until the recent case, and even though there’s a stay at the moment, you still can’t have that handgun with the standard capacity magazine. But I’m confident we will be able to. So, you couldn’t have that gun in New Jersey unless you had a lame 10-round magazine in it. Which what’s the point when you have an FN five seven that can hold 20 or even 30 of the five seven ammo? And then his gun has a silencer or suppressor on it, which is just great. Again, that is prohibited in New Jersey because New Jersey doesn’t allow silencers at all. So, here we have this crime being committed by this Chad fellow, and lo and behold, the hero, the good guy with the gun, breaks out his five seven with the suppressor and starts laying down fire on the bad guy. It was fantastic, and he was credited, wasn’t he, by law enforcement with saving lives, Who’s Crowder? Teddy Nappen 39:28 Stephen Crowder, Gladworth Crowder. He did a full breakdown on it, where it’s about training, where you just do enough to where you can handle yourself in a situation. And what Evan Nappen 39:36 did he? What did he say hasn’t been? Page – 10 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 39:39 So the one thing that caught is the fact that he’s has a suppressor attached to it, and it was identified in one of his other videos as he uses an FN five seven USG fitted Tactical Solutions Axiom suppressor, firing Vanguard 55 grain subsonic five sevens. Evan Nappen 40:00 Nice. Teddy Nappen 40:00 That was I so that may not now they may not be his exact rig at that moment, but that was what was reported to what he was practicing with. But that being said, this is one to one of what he was using in the and so Evan Nappen 40:12 you know when you step back, Teddy, and look at this. Normally, when there is some bad guy shooting up soft target area, the antis just cheer because they get to do a blood dance to try to attack and oppress gun rights, because it’s the old saying of they never let a tragedy go to waste. However, here the entire thing was turned on its ear because we had an armed civilian who saved lives and did it with a 20 to 30 round capacity handgun with a suppressor, okay, and so this completely turned around this incident to be one of the greatest current examples of why citizens need to be armed and ready and trained, and so the antis can’t even respond because in their normal blood dance that they like to do, it just always goes back to well. Look, we had a good guy with a gun make the difference. That’s the key, and it’s so important, so great that Jordan Salinas was there to save the folks that he did. He rendered aid even to the injured after. He’s just a great person as well. It was amazing to see this, that, and it so turned it around that I’m going to put on my conspiracy hat the way we sometimes see happen with the shootings that they use to go against our gun rights, I’m going to put my conspiracy hat on and say I think this, given how the outcome was, that this was a false flag operation run by us, because it’s had such tremendous-I’m just kidding about that. Of course, it’s not run by us. We, but you know, yeah, Candace Owens might run with it. Oh yeah, it was-it was the pro-gun side that engineered the entire thing. To no, but the thing is, the impact has been tremendous, and it’s now iconic of Jordan Salinas in his position. It’s like as iconic as Sophie Cunningham pointing is Jordan Salinas in his perfect firing position with his suppressed five seven. Seeing Teddy Nappen 42:57 the I’ve been seeing the citizen cowboy joke that’s been circling. Oh yeah, Evan Nappen 43:02 as compared to Citizen Vigilante, it’s now Citizen Cowboy. Teddy Nappen 43:06 Yeah, Citizen Cowboy because he has. But he’s Citizen Page – 11 – of 12 Evan Nappen 43:09 Defender. He’s not a vigilante. He’s a defender. He’s a defender at the moment. Being a man, imagine that being a man. Actually, is that your greatest example of so-called toxic masculinity, right there, called saving lives. I guess so. The Teddy Nappen 43:25 the other thing is, and I want to take this step further. I see where we win in the argument of common use. I want this to be a common thing where people are using suppressors in self-defense shootings. I want people to start carrying and doing that. I think there’s a lot of advantages to Evan Nappen 43:44 having them in self-defense shootings because Teddy Nappen 43:46 if you go back to the old where it was like we’re using 45 for the stopping power or nine, this guy had a five-seven with the suppressor. We were putting out more rounds, and you’re protecting your hearing on that. So it’s definitely that new frame. It’s a very interesting Evan Nappen 44:01 choice, and I’m sure on the technical side, people will can always debate what’s the best. But the bottom line is, well, someone Teddy Nappen 44:09 was going to say like, but look, what’s really the best Evan Nappen 44:11 is that a good guy with a gun helped save the day, and that’s what really matters. Evan Nappen 44:17 And Teddy, I need to tell you about this week’s GOFU because I’ve been seeing a lot of it. GOFUs, as you know, are Gun Owner Fuck Ups. It’s where gun owners make expensive mistakes, costly mistakes, and you get to learn for free. I got to tell you, this week’s GOFU something I see. You know, when it comes to restoring rights, when it comes to getting an expungement, I have to say, do not do it yourself. Seek professionals that know how to do it. I’ve been getting more poorly, improperly done pro se, where the individual themselves tried to expunge their record. There’s too much to that law. Too many complications. Too many nuances. Too many things you have to know to do it right. And when you do it wrong, it’s 10 times more difficult to fix it, and it can end up costing you. If you expunge poorly, and then you apply to get your firearm because you think your rights are restored and they’re not, you end up with a denial. Now you end up with falsification of the application because you wrote no when you should have wrote yes. You wrote no because you thought you were expunged, but you didn’t do it properly. We see this all the time. There is an entire procedure. There are things you need to know. You need to go to a professional. Whether, you know, and I just don’t mean me. Like some attorney. We do them at my firm. We do plenty of expungements. We help people with that. It’s great. But you need to make sure whoever is doing your expungement really understands it, and especially does it Page – 12 – of 12 with gun ownership in mind. Because when it’s done poorly, it can absolutely come back and bite you in the behind. Evan Nappen 45:54 Hey, this is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen, reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 46:01 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E302_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

Episode 301-Freedom Always Finds a Way Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 301 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS loopholes, firearm law, NFA trust, switchblade knives, forced reset triggers, machine guns, assault firearm ban, Third Circuit Court, SCOTUS, New Jersey, Second Amendment, gun rights, expungement, surveillance technology, AI. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:19 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. One of the things that I’ve observed through my 40-plus years in the area of firearm law is how important loopholes are to our freedom. You see, loopholes are simply freedom finding a way. Loopholes have proven over and over again to be the penetrator to breaking freedom out of its imprisonment by the oppressive governments like the state of New Jersey that constantly work at oppressing our Second Amendment rights. We’ve seen loopholes have this effect in different areas, and I think we’re going to now see even more interesting approaches as we win on the various case law challenges. It opens the door for further challenges and things that get covered or not covered by way of various loopholes, end up getting the freedoms that we desire. Evan Nappen 01:49 So, let me give you some examples that have previously occurred, just to show you not necessarily New Jersey itself, but how loopholes can get freedom. For example, at one point under the National Firearms Act, there was a requirement that Chief Law Enforcement (CLE) officers had to approve applications. And if the chief law enforcement officer did not sign off on it, you could not then possess whatever you were going for under the National Firearms Act, whether it was a suppressor or machine gun or shortbow rifle. Whatever it was, the forms needed this CLE sign off, and for any reason they could deny it. There was no way to even appeal it, and you were stuck. It got realized that if you formed what was called an NFA Trust, there was no sign-off on trusts. There was no CLE sign-off on trusts. And that became the preferred method of acquiring NFA. Because not only was there no Chief Law Enforcement officer sign off, but also, you maintained privacy even further from doing it by way of a trust. So, 10,000 trusts were later filed with the federal government, and they finally put forward Rule 41P that got rid of the requirement for having a Chief Law Enforcement officer sign off at all. Whereas prior to that, they wouldn’t get rid of it, but the loophole paved the way. So, when it comes to NFA, they’re simply given notice, but there’s no requirement that they approve it. Page – 2 – of 12 Evan Nappen 04:07 And you see again, for example, prohibitions nationally throughout various states that existed on switchblades. Switchblade knives being a knife in which the blade comes out automatically because of a button or other device in the handle of the knife. The assisted opener was invented, where there’s no button in the handle but merely pushing the blade, and the blade still opens automatically. But with no button or other device in the handle of the knife. So, you could, in fact, open the knife automatically, just not without that button. It got around the federal switchblade laws and State laws. Even now you can have an assisted opener in New Jersey, even though there’s technically a prohibition on switchblades. And what we saw was many states, after these knives have become so prolific out there and commonly owned, that the switchblade laws have been repealed in the overwhelming majority of states. Now, New Jersey has not yet repealed their switchblade law, but it is on death’s door, frankly, as well. We have Second Amendment challenges, and nationally, there’s so many actual automatic knives now out there, due to the understanding of the loopholes to the Federal Switchblade Act as to how they could still be produced, how they could still be sold. Not in states that have specific bans, but they’re prolific. And that challenge is underway as well. Again, loopholes paving the way. Evan Nappen 06:11 I think what we’re looking at now is another battleground of loopholes that are going to come in very much in our fight for legalizing, eventually, machine guns. As you know, we’re all very excited about New Jersey’s assault firearm ban going down in flames as unconstitutional, and magazines going down as well with it. With that fantastic decision out of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that we’ve discussed. Of course, that now opens the door for further challenge. The U.S. Supreme Court, SCOTUS, have granted certiorari on the issue of assault firearms under the Viramontes and Grant cases. So, by next June or so, we’ll have federal case law on it. I’m extremely optimistically looking forward to that decision, and I think the stars have really lined up. Even New Jersey’s decision is going to aid the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision. And, in all likelihood, I mean, nothing’s ever certain, but it seems to be extremely in our favor. The antis are crying about it and essentially throwing the towel in for the most part, realizing that their entire gambit of banning semi-autos is going to die, and thank God it will. But of course, that now opens up including when you. Teddy Nappen 07:48 I will say. Evan Nappen 07:52 Go ahead. Teddy Nappen 07:56 Well, what I was going to say is that I think we need to take a page out of the antis and a lot of the progressive movement. We need to push further and further. Like, don’t give up the ground because now we’ve won the battle on the assault firearms. Evan Nappen 08:12 Oh, we’re not giving up. Page – 3 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 08:12 Keep pushing to that extent. Evan Nappen 08:14 Plow forward hard, and we’re going to. One of the ways that we’re going to do this, I also believe, is with incremental important fights and with loopholes on our side. Loopholes. Again it’s that freedom finding a way. One of the most interesting loopholes out there when it comes to machine guns. Now keep in mind. We have a separate fight going on from the Big Beautiful Bill that eliminated the tax on NFA items of suppressors, short barrel rifles, any other weapon, etc. Now, they did not remove the tax yet on machine guns. But in the Big Beautiful Lawsuit, we’re challenging, as we’ve discussed in other shows, the very jurisdiction of the NFA. If there’s no tax, there should be no law. If we’re successful there, then the machine gun ban can die federally by simply in a reconciliation bill removing the tax on machine guns. You don’t have to even repeal machine gun law to simply get rid of the tax. So, that’s what can happen. And that can avoid the filibuster in and of itself because that can just be done in a reconciliation bill because that’s directly on taxation. Evan Nappen 09:33 But in a separate attack that we have, in a separate way of going at this, is the idea of the incrementalism that loopholes create. One of these great loopholes that exists when it comes to machine guns is what is called Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs), and these have really come a long way. Now. FRTs, as they’re known, make it so that the trigger is reset with force, so that you can very quickly fire again your shot, in which a shot is still required to be pressed for each pull of the trigger, but the forcing of the reset makes it so that you can fire extremely fast. So fast that, for all intents and purposes, it duplicates the speed of fully-automatic fire. But speed of fire is not the federal law. It is based upon having to pull the trigger for each shot. Evan Nappen 10:54 And in the Fifth Circuit, FRTs, in the case out of the Fifth Circuit were found not to be machine guns. They do not make semi-automatic firearms machine guns. So, under federal law, you see that FRTs are very popular now in many, many states. They have evolved to where, for example, FRTs on AR-15 platforms are now created in what are called three-position safety FRTs. The three-position safety, for those of you familiar with how an AR-15 works, the safety on ARs will rotate to three positions. You have the “fire”, then you have “safe”, and then you have what’s called the “happy switch”, where on the complete roll around, it will go full auto. Well, they now have FRTs that, in the third position, will put the AR in a forced reset trigger position. You can then fire at that very rapid rate of fire. Essentially making it indistinguishable from fully automatic fire in effect, but mechanically, the trigger is in fact being pulled technically for each shot. These FRTs have developed to where they’re extremely reliable. It’s quite an amazing innovation, so that you can have an AR-15 that essentially functions like a fully automatic AR-15, but it’s not fully automatic. It utilizes the three position that an M16 would in fact use or an M4 that’s fully auto type AR would use. But it doesn’t technically fire fully automatic because each shot is being pulled for every shot being fired. Even though it’s done by way of this forced reset. Page – 4 – of 12 Evan Nappen 13:26 So, the interesting question is: are forced reset triggers legal in New Jersey? Let’s explore that question right now. When you look at New Jersey’s ban on machine guns, New Jersey prohibits machine guns under N.J.S. 2C:39-5, specifically under subsection a., which says: Any person who knowingly has in his possession a machine gun or any instrument or device adaptable for use as a machine gun, without being licensed to do so as provided under 58-5, which is the machine gun license, is guilty of a crime of the second degree. Now that 58-5 license actually is license to carry and possess machine guns and assault firearms. Oh, wait a minute! If the assault firearm law is unconstitutional, and the license for an assault firearm is the same license for a machine gun, oh my! Look what door has just opened in New Jersey when it comes to getting a machine gun / assault firearm license. There’s a path to be taken there, but that’s a discussion for another day. Evan Nappen 14:59 Let’s stay focused on FRTs. The machine gun is defined in New Jersey under N.J.S. 2C:39-1. section i. Under the 39-1.i definition of machine gun, it says. “Machine gun means any firearm, mechanism or instrument not requiring that the trigger be pressed for each shot and having a reservoir, belt or other means for storing and carrying ammunition which can be loaded into the firearm, mechanism or instrument and fired therefrom. A machine gun also shall include, without limitation, any firearm with a trigger crank attached.” Okay, well pressed for each shot. Well, guess what? With a Forced Reset Trigger, you are pressing the trigger for each shot. Now, before you get too excited about that, New Jersey, of course, has taken a position, which we’ll discuss in a moment, about how they’re viewing that definition. However, the fight is on. The fight is on. Evan Nappen 16:12 But let’s continue. First of all, is an FRT a trigger crank? Well, a trigger crank is defined under section ff. of 39-1. It says a trigger crank means any device or instrument to be attached to a firearm that repeatedly activates the trigger of the firearm through the use of a lever or other part that is turned in a circular motion. It does not include any weapon initially designed and manufactured to fire through the use of a crank or lever. So, Gatling guns are legal in New Jersey because they’re designed from the beginning with a crank. A crank that you attach to a semi-automatic firearm is specifically banned and placed within the machine gun definition. But an FRT is not a crank. Evan Nappen 17:13 What else does New Jersey prohibit? It prohibits a “bump stock”. What’s a “bump stock”? Well, that’s any device or instrument for a firearm that increases the rate of fire achievable with the firearm by using energy from the recoil of the firearm to generate a reciprocating action that facilitates repeated activation of the trigger. And as you know, bump stocks are stocks, and they utilize the recoil in that way. A Forced Reset Trigger isn’t working in that mechanism either, and that can be demonstrated as well. So, cranks or bump stocks themselves, mere possession of them, are prohibited under N.J.S. 2C:39-3, subsection l. You have separate prohibitions on those items. Furthermore, the law states that a conviction for possessing them doesn’t merge with a conviction for possession of an assault firearm. However, possession of an assault firearm is unconstitutionally going to go down the tubes, as we know, from that great decision out of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. So, we’re simply dealing with cranks and bump stocks as standalone prohibited items, but not assault firearms. Page – 5 – of 12 Evan Nappen 18:35 But the question becomes: Does New Jersey still ban Forced Reset Triggers? Interestingly, when AI is asked about this, when AI is questioned, for fun, I thought I’d ask AI about it. And what AI says, particularly Gemini, if you’re interested, it says the state prohibits them by treating them as machine guns and machine gun conversions under New Jersey statutes 39-1 and 39-5. Then it goes to cite New Jersey’s machine gun classification and statutory provisions and enforcement position. Okay, let’s look at each one. Machine gun classification. New Jersey law enforcement and the Attorney General’s office classify FRTs as illegal machine gun conversion devices because they enable semi-automatic weapons to fire multiple rounds continuously with a single function of the trigger. Okay, guess what? We have a fight on our hands with that. That is their position. Keep that in mind. If you’re caught with one in New Jersey, the state will make that claim. However, as you can see from the actual definition, we have excellent grounds for arguing that they are wrong. We don’t have case law establishing it yet, but loopholes help find the way. Evan Nappen 20:07 Statutory provisions. They’re claiming that 39-5 prohibits possession of machine gun or any device that converts a firearm to a machine gun. Well, we just determined that it’s about pressing a trigger, and the trigger still is pressed with an FRT. So, that part of AI seems to be no good. I brought that up in my continuing conversation with AI, and AI responded. You point out, which I am pointing out, that a central distinction that gun rights advocate and federal courts have leveraged to argue FRTs are not machine guns under the Federal Firearms Act, a machine gun is defined as a weapon that fires automatically by a single function of the trigger. Because an FRT physically resets and forces a shooter to apply distinct pressure for each shot, federal courts like the Fifth Circuit have ruled FRTs require a separate trigger function per round and thus fall outside the federal definition. Evan Nappen 21:09 However, New Jersey law applies a different statutory standard and circumvents the single function trigger loophole. Really? I thought it just said distinct pressure for each shot. What the hell is AI even talking about? Well, they’re claiming that New Jersey has different statutory language. They’re saying machine gun means any firing mechanism, not requiring that the trigger be pressed for each shot. AI makes that bold. Yet we know that it does. So, where are they coming from with this? Well, they’re giving a legal interpretation that the state’s legal argument tries to distinguish between pressed and pulled. The state’s position is that the New Jersey Attorney General and state prosecutors argue that with an FRT, the shooter applies one continuous undivided downward pressure with their finger. Because the firearm’s internal recoil energy forcibly resets the trigger against the finger, the shooter does not deliberately release and consciously press the trigger again for each shot. Evan Nappen 22:21 However, they’re saying, and again, it says conclusion. Therefore, the state views the continuous rearward pressure of a single finger squeeze as a single continuous act, meaning the shooter is not actively pressing the trigger for each individual shot. Even though what’s happening is what? The trigger is being pressed for each shot. Ha! Battleground, right there, my friends. Battleground. Not determined yet. I don’t think you want to be the test case, but the fight is there to be had. Page – 6 – of 12 Evan Nappen 22:54 Aggressive multi-state litigation. New Jersey actively defends this strict interpretation, and yes, they will. The state led a coalition of 16 states urging that the Fifth Circuit reverse federal rollbacks on FRT bans. Explicitly stating that FRTs are new, but mechanical principles which they operate are not. They say the state maintains FRTs are fundamentally designed to evade automatic weapon restrictions and fall squarely within the state’s sweeping definition of rapid fire modification. Well, you’re right. They do evade it. They evade it by following what the law requires and finding the loophole that finds the freedom. The argument is there. Evan Nappen 23:42 Then, in my questioning of AI, it said you said, “Does New Jersey ban FRTs, and if so, how? They say yes. New Jersey bans FTRs. The state prohibits them by treating them as machine guns. We’ve gone through again in this loophole of a loop, how and why. Then AI puts forward Senate Bill 2097 specifically bans binary triggers as well. Well, guess what? That didn’t pass. Ah, but they claim that binary triggers falls under the same legal arguments because you’re releasing, not pressing. You can see the battle. What makes this so fascinating, my friends, is that this is now going to become a hotter topic for New Jersey. As we see the death of the 36-year-old assault firearm ban and semi-automatics not being treated in any different way. We then see these fronts, these battlefronts opening up for challenging New Jersey’s machine gun definition, which can occur through their still existing licensing law, and can occur through the battle of the loopholes under FRTs and binary triggers. We are seeing glorious opportunities before us to destroy New Jersey’s gun rights oppression. And that is the power of loopholes. Let me also. Go ahead, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 25:41 What I was going to say is, what’s going to come next is basically once we achieved it, where machine guns are legalized and we’ve basically knocked all their laws out. This is goes back to what the the Democrat Socialists put out, and then they’re gonna go for trying to abolish the Second Amendment. Evan Nappen 26:02 That’s right. Teddy Nappen 26:04 But that’s the whole idea. The whole argument of how we won on dealing with the assault weapon ban was the “common use”. So, I think just continuing to flood the market and to make sure guns outpace the population is the only way we’re going to ever protect the rights. Just manufacturing and outpacing them. Evan Nappen 26:05 The more commonly owned, the better. Evan Nappen 26:29 Hey, I want to tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. They have something really cool. They have the Civilian Shoot House Training, and that will be taking place on Friday, August 14, eight a.m. to Page – 7 – of 12 noon. This is something new at WeShoot. This is not a beginner class. This is where training becomes real. WeShoot’s Civilian Shoot House Training is built for people who understand one thing: real situations don’t happen standing still on a lane. You’ll learn how to move through your home, how to clear rooms, how to make decisions under pressure the right way. What you’ll learn in the Civilian Shoot House Training is room clearing fundamentals, shooting while moving, target identification under stress, proper use of light and positioning, operating solo or as a team. Now, this is the kind of training that helps you protect your family and avoid tragic, life-changing mistakes. Evan Nappen 27:44 This training is ideal for homeowners and parents, houses of worship security teams, armed guards, civilian groups, anyone serious about real-world defense. And you’ll be training with the real deal. You’ll be training with Jim Weinberg, who’s got 30 years of law enforcement experience with SWAT, USERT, and Todd Friedman, retired detective lieutenant, special operations. He’s led 500 tactical entries, over 500. Scott Benito, a 25-year veteran, former lieutenant, tactical team leader. Ryan Benito, an Army combat veteran, 173rd Airborne, CQB instructor, master breacher. Andy Tkach, retired captain, firearm instructor, city SRT team member, instructor, police academy instructor, and municipal counterterrorism coordinator. Evan Nappen 28:40 This is the kind of quality training you will receive from WeShoot in their Civilian Shoot House Training. These are instructors who have done it in real life, and they will teach you how to do it right. Listen, folks, the bottom line is this. Shooting is one skill; moving safely through your home is another. If you’re serious about protecting what matters, this is your next step. Keep in mind, spots are limited. Secure yours now. Go to weshootusa.com. Check out their fantastic website. It’s the greatest range. Teddy and I shoot there. We love it. Wwe get our trainings, where we get our certifications, and you can too. Whether you’re a beginner or advanced, WeShoot is a place for you. Conveniently located in Lakewood, right off the Parkway. Easy to get to, and a great resource. Take advantage of this resource at WeShootUSA.com. That’s the range you need to go to in New Jersey. Evan Nappen 29:49 Let me also tell you about New Jersey Gun Law. That’s my book. The Bible of New Jersey Gun Law. Everybody needs a copy. Get your copy at EvanNappen.com. It is a question and answer goldmine to fill you in and make it so you don’t become a GOFU. If you want to avoid that, you need the book. That’ll help you do it. Hey Teddy, what do you have for us in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen 30:17 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free. We always like to check out our friends at AmmoLand, and they point out something that’s again very scary. If you’ve seen the news, all the big talk is about Flock Cameras. (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/07/flocks-flying-cameras-how-300-million-drone-deal-turns-america-into-an-always-on-surveillance-grid/) Typically, there’s a bill aiming to stop. Evan Nappen 30:37 What is a “Flock Camera”, Teddy? What is it? Page – 8 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 30:42 It is basically a highly advanced surveillance system that tracks, uses facial recognition, biometric identifications, and any other . It uses high level technology of capturing, analyzing, retaining. Evan Nappen 31:00 So, what are these cameras that are put all over the place? Teddy Nappen 31:03 So, they’re looking to. Right now the network has surpassed 100,000 cameras. They are operating more than 500,000. Evan Nappen 31:10 One hundred thousand cameras doing facial recognition, tracking, surveillance. Is this like Big Brother happening? Teddy Nappen 31:18 It is. And unfortunately, the Big Brother is very retarded. There have been many issues, including the fact that they’ve had the network be exposed, where you can get live feeds of the flock cameras. It’s amazing what you can find at a bunch of cameras pointed at, oh, you know, schools, playgrounds. That’s not going to be abused, and also it makes mistakes and false. Evan Nappen 31:44 And people are hacking into them, aren’t they? Teddy Nappen 31:46 Repeatedly, yes. And they’ve had. Evan Nappen 31:48 Well, wait a minute. If you’re not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about? Teddy Nappen 31:53 Well, it was pointed out in the article that this is important for the Second Amendment because it’s tracking license plates where it’s logging in, arriving and departing gun stores and gun shows and shooting ranges. Evan Nappen 32:08 Oh, New Jersey would never do that. Oh wait, they did. They did it at gun shows, even in out-of-state gun shows. Oh my. Teddy Nappen 32:16 Correct. Page – 9 – of 12 Evan Nappen 32:16 Oh my. And that’s without the aid of Flock Cameras. Teddy Nappen 32:20 Correct. And apply that now to not only building profiles where they’re going to determine oh this person’s a gun owner. So that obviously means they’re going to make the calculations think you’re carrying, and they’re going to wait until a moment when you’re in a “sensitive place” and try to bust you then. Doing this data tracking. Evan Nappen 32:41 Well, you’re not supposed to be in a “sensitive place”, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 32:44 Yeah, I know. It’s almost like you know things happen. Evan Nappen 32:46 And not only that, they use Wi-Fi to determine if you have a gun. Teddy Nappen 32:51 Correct. And then marry this with AI with a new thing called Signal Trace. It comes by the Leonardo USA Cybersecurity Company. So, this company, they use the Signal Trace. It’s a software system for identifying groups of consumers using multiples of the electronic devices. So, say that you have a smartwatch and a phone, or even your car, and all of that is accessible through the Signal Trace, where they develop large-scale profiles of individuals that they are tracking on these cameras. Now they understand. Oh, this person’s a gun owner. This person carries. This person’s going to have a whatever carry package. Evan Nappen 33:37 Wait a minute. I’ve got a question. I see, but are there any like countries that might be like authoritarian and really mean to their people that might be using technology like this? There isn’t any countries doing that now, is there? Teddy Nappen 33:54 China, Russia. Evan Nappen 33:56 China and Russia. Teddy Nappen 33:57 UK. Evan Nappen 33:58 I see, and the UK, of course, of course. Page – 10 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 34:03 These are various nations for that they’re going to abuse it. And by the way, they’ve come out and said they’re not talking about combining the two systems of Signal Trace. There’s no official contract, but let’s be real. The fact remains AI. Evan Nappen 34:19 Anything Government can abuse, they will abuse. That’s an iron law of Government abuse. Who’s kidding who? And by the way, if you’re not doing anything wrong, you’re not doing anything wrong till somebody decides that what you’re doing is wrong, and now it’s wrong in their book. Teddy Nappen 34:36 I’ll give you a one example. Well, they bought Aerodome, which is a drone package. So, now it’s going to be a mobile Flock Camera, calling it the Alpha. Evan Nappen 34:51 Oh, wow! Everywhere! Flying overhead. Anywhere, everywhere, constant surveillance. That’s just lovely, lovely. Teddy Nappen 35:02 Yes. Evan Nappen 35:02 Who wants to live like that? Teddy Nappen 35:05 Yes. So, Big Brother is out there, and I’m pretty sure there are a few videos on how to do drone hunting. So that’s going to be fun. Yeah. You know, when Amazon was doing that, it was skeet shooting with prizes. Evan Nappen 35:20 Ha, ha! Well, you know, there’s a federal bill I understand to try to ban these. Teddy Nappen 35:27 Correct. It’s the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act (H.R. 980). (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/07/burchett-bill-flock-cameras-gun-owners/) Evan Nappen 35:33 Well, damn, we need that bill. Teddy Nappen 35:35 Yeah, no, no kidding. Evan Nappen 35:37 It’ll be a federal prohibition on this nonsense? Page – 11 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 35:40 All federal agencies will be prohibited from using automated surveillance system to identify, track, or record individuals. Evan Nappen 35:46 Oh, I’m sure the state of New Jersey will happily do it, though. It sounds right up their line. Teddy Nappen 35:52 Yeah. Evan Nappen 35:53 But at least if we get the feds to maybe even make it preemptive. It should be a federal law that preempts the area, so that’s nationwide and preemptive. So, you kill it for the whole country. Teddy Nappen 36:06 Yeah, and this is where. Again, this is the marrying of what will come because we can have all these fights and win and get all the loopholes, but this combined with AI of what they’re going to do, they will just track, and they know how many guns without even having to do the right process. Evan Nappen 36:24 It’s scary. It’s scary stuff. Teddy Nappen 36:26 They won’t even need to do the paperwork even. It’ll just have an AI. Evan Nappen 36:29 You know, technology is advancing so fast with all this. You’re combining AI and drones and Flock cameras and this targeting ability. I mean, you know, we’re not too far from RoboCop. And that also includes actual robots coming our way. Then you combine robots with Flock and drone and AI, and you see we’re entering into a sci-fi horror show here. Teddy Nappen 37:03 Yeah. Evan Nappen 37:04 They better get the federal laws on this stuff, man. It’s spooky. It’s scary. It is not how I grew up. I’ll tell you that. It’s bad news. Bad news. Evan Nappen 37:17 Well, I want to tell you about this week’s GOFU, which is of course the Gun Owner Fuck Up. It’s important. We always study GOFUs. You don’t want to become a GOFU. GOFUs are expensive lessons that others have learned that you get to learn for free, so you don’t repeat them. And let me tell you, these are actual cases, clients and real scenarios. I’ll tell you something I’ve seen a lot of lately. Page – 12 – of 12 Folks that are doing their own expungements. If you have a record that needs to be cleared, I absolutely do not advise doing it yourself. You need a professional to get your expungement done right. There’s a lot of nuances to getting expungements done right, and when they are done wrong, it is a nightmare. It is a nightmare to fix it, and it creates escalating problems. Evan Nappen 38:11 Let me give you an example. You get an expungement, and you don’t clear all your records. You think you have. Next thing you know, you’re jammed up on your gun application for lying on the form. You’re looking at five years in State Prison for lying on the form because you wrote “no” when you should have wrote “yes”. You thought you were expunged and you weren’t. You get an expungement. You actually get everything cleared, but you didn’t realize that you had to wait for the State Police to also scrub the record. No one told you that. You thought it got done, but the database comes up that you have a record. You’ve said “no”. Now the entire system comes down on you for lying. License denial, gun forfeiture, revocation. You’ve got to fight it all off. Again, giant problem. Evan Nappen 39:03 Even if you get the expungement order, you don’t realize the record hasn’t been scrubbed. Your local issuing authority recognizes the expungement, and grants you the license or permit. You then go to the dealer to buy, but get denied on the NICS check because the database still has it in it. Now the feds are on your ass, and the entire escalation comes down on you for that. We see these scenarios over and over again. If you or anybody you know needs an expungement, get it done professionally. There’s too many pitfalls, problems, and nuances in doing it properly and correctly. Believe me, we see that downside. Don’t be a GOFU. Evan Nappen 39:57 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 3 40:08 GunLawyer is a Counterthink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E301_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

John is joined by Susheel Kirpalani, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office, Head of Special Situations, and founder of the firm's Bankruptcy and Restructuring Group.  They discuss the increasingly important role of liability management exercises, or LMEs, as tools that financially distressed companies use to raise capital and avoid bankruptcy.  These transactions frequently involve granting favorable treatment to certain creditors in connection with new financing, often at the expense of other creditors.  Although such arrangements may preserve companies through periods of severe distress, they also generate disputes over whether the underlying loan agreements permit unequal treatment. Susheel explains the landmark Serta Simmons Bedding litigation, which arose after the company undertook an LME during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Serta wanted to raise additional capital and capture discount from its lenders.  A majority of lenders participated in the transaction and received new, higher-priority debt, while a minority of lenders received nothing. The excluded lenders, represented by a QE team headed by Susheel, argued that the transaction violated the longstanding principle that the same class of lenders must be treated the same, or “ratably.”The case proceeded through years of state and federal litigation, bankruptcy proceedings, an appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and a remand to the Southern District of Texas.  After the Fifth Circuit held Serta's purchase of the majority group's loans was not a permissible open-market purchase, the bankruptcy court held a five-day trial to decide whether the transaction breached the credit agreement and, if so, what damages flowed from that breach.  The court ultimately concluded that the disproportionate payoff breached the governing credit agreement and exposed the majority to $400M in damages.  After accounting for recent settlements and other adjustments, the court then awarded $160M+ to QE's clients based upon the requirement of equal treatment among lenders. The decision has broad implications.  The ruling highlights the growing importance of litigation risk in restructuring transactions, encourages parties to scrutinize contractual language more carefully, and will likely influence the drafting of future credit agreements.  It also demonstrates how traditional principles of contract law continue to govern even highly sophisticated financial transactions and underscores the increasingly central role of litigation in modern restructuring practice.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.The Founders regarded trial by jury as an indispensable check on government power, and the Fifth and Seventh Amendments enshrined that guarantee. In recent decades, however, the proliferation of administrative adjudication has steadily displaced the jury from disputes between citizens and the state. While the Supreme Court's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy was a significant step toward restoring the constitutional baseline, much work remains. Lower courts continue to rely on Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHA to uphold agency adjudication of claims that, at the Founding, would have been tried before a jury. Cases like the recently decided FCC v. AT&T and next term's Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC illustrate just how far modern practice has drifted from constitutional design.Thomas Jefferson identified the jury "as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Yet today, Americans routinely face penalties imposed by federal agencies, not juries of their peers. Join us for a Federalist Society America 250 panel discussion looking back to the Founding Era to ask: What has become of the right to a jury trial in actions brought by the federal government?Featuring:Robert E. Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for JusticeProf. Renée Lerner, Donald Phillip Rothschild Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law SchoolProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Huge news for lawyers: You can now listen to Strict Scrutiny for CLE! More info at crooked.com/strict_cleFriend of the Pod Emily Amick of Emily in Your Phone joins Leah to break down the week's legal news, and the various and sundry ways due process is getting railroaded by Trump, the courts, and the terrible (mostly) men therein. While no discussion of bad decisions would be complete without the Fifth Circuit, we also have an appearance from Senator Josh Hawley, whose effort to limit information on medical abortion options has disturbing links to the playbook used against gender-affirming care. Then, Leah speaks with Kalpana Kotagal, Commissioner at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, about being the lone Democratic appointee after Trump fired the others, and the work of the Commission in a post-independent agency world. Check out Emily's Substack, Instagram, and her book, Democracy in Retrograde.Favorite things: Leah:The Off Campus Series, Elle Kennedy; Game of Rogues, Julie Anne Long; Andrew Tate's Empire of Abuse, Heidi Blake (+ Blake's interview with WITHpod); Autonomy News; this decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court; Subpoenas About Reporting on Qatar Gifted Air Force One Are Withdrawn After Argument in SDNY, Matthew Russell Lee (Inner City Press) Emily: Careless People, Sarah Wynn-Williams; The God of the Woods, Liz Moore; Ride or Die (Amazon Prime); Smitten Kitchen's zucchini pasta Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE on November 6th in Washington, DC: Crookedcon.comBuy Melissa's book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern ReaderBuy Leah's book, Lawless, now out in paperbackFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and BlueskyFor a transcript of an episode of Strict Scrutiny please email transcripts@crooked.com

In this episode, GT Boston Shareholder Greg Bombard joins Jordan to discuss a Federal Circuit case addressing measuring trade secret damages, and a Fifth Circuit case allowing misappropriation to serve as a RICO predicate at the pleading stage.

Episode 300- Do Not Engage in “Maritime Salvage” Just Yet.  Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 300 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey gun ban, Third Circuit Court, Second Amendment, Judge Friedman, assault firearms, large capacity magazines, Supreme Court decision, July 31 date, mandate, stay of implementation, common use, federal gun laws, interstate commerce, carry permit, socialism. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:23 And this is Gun Lawyer. I need to give everyone a warning. Do NOT engage in maritime salvage from boating accidents until given the all clear. Teddy Nappen 00:39 You might find a few bodies in Jersey. Evan Nappen 00:41 Well, the reason for this is, of course, we’re all extremely excited about the Third Circuit Court of Appeals en banc decision killing and pronouncing dead the New Jersey 36-year-old ban on so-called “assault firearms” and so-called “large capacity magazines”. (https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/242415p.pdf) I mean, we’ve known it’s a violation of the Second Amendment ever since the day it passed, but finally getting to this day is wonderful. Just a great day for freedom and liberty and shoving it up New Jersey’s butt. It is great. It is great. Evan Nappen 01:26 However, in practical terms, a lot of the key questions that are out there. Are we good to go? Can we buy these guns? Can we buy these mags? What’s the story? What’s the deal? I’m going to explain to you where we’re at with that, and that’s the important thing that I know a lot of you want to know. At the moment, we’ve got to just let the dust settle here because there’s certain formalities and deadlines and procedures that can happen. Yes, we have the win. We have the win. It’s a fantastic win. It’s a decision which was 10 – 5. It was brilliant. We absolutely crushed it. Page – 2 – of 11 Page – 3 – of 11 Evan Nappen 02:07 The decision was written by Judge Freeman, who, by the way, the judge who wrote this magnificent decision was a Biden appointee, and the first female judge of color. That’s right, a woman of color. The first on the Appellate Court and a Biden appointee – who is giving us this fantastic Second Amendment decision, which is restoring freedom and helping to stop oppression of our Second Amendment rights. So, you know, this is important because it’s how it should be. Those that believe in rights, whatever you might think of the bat might be their politics. It’s everybody’s Second Amendment. It’s everybody’s right. And if you’re going to follow the Constitution and you’re going to be a judge that follows the Constitution and does not goes for politics, then this is the right thing to do. So, I take my hat off to Judge Freeman. It is a great decision. Extraordinarily thorough. Evan Nappen 03:27 I understand her background was that in being a public defender as well, and I’m sure that she saw what these laws do to good people and how unfair and unbelievably stupid they are. We now see the results of all the incredible hard work that’s been done over years that got us to this point. So, we’re all just jumping for joy, and it’s really making clear that the so-called assault weapon, assault firearm bans, even across the country, are on their deathbed or are being killed and dying. Even with the U.S. Supreme Court having taken the Viramonti and Grant cases now. We’re going to get a federal Supreme Court decision that’ll come out in June 2027. This New Jersey Appeals Court decision is, of course, going to I’m sure come into play in their decision making there, and it is a great day for us for sure. Evan Nappen 04:37 However, how does it work now that we have that decision? How will it work in practical terms? This is where some patience is necessary. Some important patience is called for. And that’s because you may have heard, and if not, I’m going to mention to you, that there was an email that was sent out to dealers from the State Police Firearms Unit. It went out and it said that that essentially July 31st, July 30-first, they’re going to the this will become effective, meaning the court case effective. It was kind of weirdly written with this date, and it seemed to indicate that July 30-first, everything was going to be free flowing, and we were going to be good to go. But it wasn’t really. It basically put everyone thinking. Okay, July 31 is some kind of key date, and that’s when we’re going to know. Why would they even pick that? Like, what is going on? So let me explain that date and what’s really happening. As a matter of fact, our good friend, John Petrolino, at Bearing Arms, recently had an article that says “NJ AG Backtracks on Date of Gun and Magazine Ban’s Demise”. (https://bearingarms.com/john-petrolino/2026/07/23/nj-ag-backtracks-on-date-gun-magazine-ban-demise-n1233262) Evan Nappen 06:10 The backtracking is as follows. This is what’s going on. That July 31 date, which Bearing Arms and Petrolino got the word from Davenport’s office. Davenport is the Attorney General that is saying. “We have until July 31, 2026 to petition the court for rehearing, and then seven days later on August 7, 2026 is when the decision is effective”. So, that’s where they’re coming from. Are they going to petition for a rehearing now? Just because they petition for a rehearing doesn’t mean that a rehearing is going to get granted, and I frankly think it’s unlikely that it’s going to get granted. Page – 4 – of 11 Evan Nappen 07:08 Now, in addition to this mix, is what’s called the mandate. A good friend and colleague, who was the lead counsel and fought hard on this very case, Dan Schmutter, a great Second Amendment attorney, was speaking to John (Petrolino) and also explained that there’s this mandate. Essentially, what he said is, “The mandate is the actual order . . .” That’s the direction to the lower court to implement the ruling, and that mandate is basically an August 10t date. So, August 10 is going to be a critical date in understanding the practical aspects of when and if these firearms and magazines will again be bought, sold, and possessed in New Jersey. And that’s why we’re putting advice out about not doing any maritime salvage for any boating accidents on recovery until we have an understanding of where we’re at here. Evan Nappen 08:32 Now, there may even be a stay granted, a stay of the implementation of the mandate. That would mean we’d be in a holding pattern until that stay gets lifted. This might, in fact, happen, and then that will ride until we get the (U.S.) Supreme Court rendering its decision. New Jersey also might try to go for (U.S.) Supreme Court review, what we call certiorari, and that may end up bringing it into or making it part of or put on hold with the Supreme Court case pending in Viramontes and Grant. This is all out there in the mix. Evan Nappen 09:15 So, the number one takeaway from all this is – Don’t do anything yet. We have all the reason to be extremely happy, to be joyous, to realize that all our hard work is paying off. But at the moment, don’t take any steps yet, so that you don’t end up in a giant GOFU. And doing something now is the GOFU. That’s this week’s GOFU. This week’s GOFU, even though we normally do it at the end of the show, let me just tell you right now, the GOFU is that. Do NOT do anything different right now. Don’t buy or order magazines. Don’t possess any of the firearms that may fall under the current ban. You may be seeing things online where people are claiming that they’re buying and selling and doing. I wouldn’t be doing that right now. Even though I’m confident in our victory, it still isn’t a done deal. The old “wait till the fat lady sings” deal. Well, it applies here. There’s still the risk. And during that time period, right now, before we have the definitive legal standing, so we can say you have the green light. We’re all good. You’re taking a risk that you don’t want to take. So that is the point. Teddy Nappen 10:48 One of the things in reading the case, Dad, just kind of going through, they outline the full breakdown of using Bruen of how they essentially destroy it with the test, the two-part test. The Second Amendment plain text covers the individual’s conduct, and then clicks to the next one. And also says it must demonstrate the regulations consist of nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. They show the combination of this with Wolford as well. Wolford goes into the three subsidiaries where applies, what is people, all members of political community, and then goes into arms. Arms is the game because that was the whole crux was the issue of common use. That was the entire thing that the Left have been trying, the dangerous and unusual. It was clearly outlined in the opinion talking about the idea of common use, both with the AR-15s and assault firearms, but with mags as well. They even highlight that where the I almost read like Scalia, where he used to you know. If you ever read his opinions, he always joked and made like little snide remarks. It was very funny. But with the 24 million AR-15s, this Page – 5 – of 11 is right out of the case, 24 million AR-15s and similar sporting rifles, the classification that can be determined are in common use, lawful purposes, typically common standard. With a 20 to 30-round mag, up to 100 million 30-round mags in the United States, magazines are in circulation. That sets the degree of common use. Evan Nappen 12:38 Let me tell you why that’s so important. Because once common use, you have that, and it actually has a reverse burden from this case. Common use is shown. It’s done. It’s there. We, as those challenging the laws, that burden isn’t on us, and it makes it now so that the State has to demonstrate the Bruen test. So, this is very significant because of how it addresses common use. And, of course, these semi-automatic firearms and their magazines are, it’s undisputable. It’s indisputable that they’re in common use. There’s more AR-15s than there are Ford F-150s out there. So, this is great. And you know the gun rights oppressors realize that their days are numbered, don’t you think, Teddy? Don’t you think they realize that? Teddy Nappen 13:55 Well, not only that, they’re putting out newsletters crying about it. I mean, cut to right now, The Trace. Literally, they just admitted defeat right from The Trace. “New Jersey Just Lost Its Assault Weapon Ban. Here’s Why That Matters for the Rest of the Country.” (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/07/state-assault-weapons-ban-new-jersey/) They admit it. In Delaware. The challenges in Chicago. All the different ones that are currently in play to take out the assault weapon bans. They even go into that it’s been part of. It’s been, they’ve been a synonym, the assault weapons and the gun control debate. Oh, really? It just shows the outlandishness of the debate, really. Evan Nappen 14:39 Yeah. Well, they know it, and this issue for them has been such a magnificent fundraising, pearl clutching, issue for them, and it is going to be bye bye. Across the board on gun laws challenges, they are losing, losing, losing, losing. Teddy Nappen 15:07 The one thing I will say, and I always like reading the dissent. This is the mindset of the Left of how they, and pulling right from the dissent here where they go into it. The rights secured by our founders in the Second Amendment is not unlimited. They always cite that to Heller. It has never been understood that the guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms, to carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever, or for whatever purpose. Instead, the Second Amendment allows states to ban certain types of firearms. I don’t remember that in the Second Amendment. I don’t remember those words. Evan Nappen 15:50 Well, here’s a funny little thought that occurred to me about this. Once the dust settles, and ARs and mags and semi-auto rifles and all the, you know, intrinsically evil guns that the oppressors hate. Once they’re all good to go in New Jersey, the definition of assault firearm. That term, assault firearm. That definition is still found in New Jersey law. It’s just that the ban is found to be unconstitutional. The ban, right? The prohibition. But the definition of that term is still in law. That’s found under firearm definitions. It’s found there. The ban itself is found in a different section. That’s under N.J.S. 2C:58-5.(f). It’s a Page – 6 – of 11 different section. That’s where it’s banned. It’s made a crime of the second degree to possess any of these guns without a permit to carry an assault firearm, or it having been registered or rendered inoperable. Right there in the statute. If you don’t have any of those exceptions, then you are a violator. If you violate it, if you’re convicted, you’re looking at up to 10 years in State Prison, with a minimum mandatory three and a half years. It’s draconian and insane. Evan Nappen 17:28 So, the law, the law itself, that is the ban. That’s the 39-5 law. That’s where the ban is. The definition is in 39-1. However. However, what’s very interesting is New Jersey has, under 58-5. That’s N.J.S. 2C:58-5. They have the license to carry and possess an assault firearm. Now that license to carry an assault firearm mandated two things in order to get it. One is that you first have a permit to carry a handgun, and of course, when that law was put in place, you know, there were less than 600 citizens that even had permits to carry a handgun. Now, there’s 100,000 approximately or more that have a permit to carry a handgun. So, that one has already been met. Evan Nappen 18:33 Then the other thing you had to show was that somehow it was in the public interest for you to have this. However, that standard, those standards, even the standard for carry of justifiable need, the standards have been eviscerated by Bruen. You can’t have those standards. You can’t have those standards on a carry. So, what is left in place, my friends, is an assault firearm carry license. Let that sink in. So, in other words, not only by the definition that still exists are these guns there as a list, but New Jersey has a carry permit waiting for you to obtain, so that you can carry those guns. They can no longer ban them, but they have a license to carry them that you can get. And not only will you be able to get it, you’ll be able to get it and have the guns. Because you can’t ban the guns. So, now, their carry permit that they put in to somehow work as an impossible to get exemption can now be turned against them, and can be used so that we can even get licenses to carry the list of guns that they so radically expanded to the features of the ’97 guidelines and anything substantially identical in the list of 67 guns, etc. So, their laws are going to come back, as they are, and bite them in the ass, as it should be. Keep that in mind. Teddy Nappen 20:21 It’ll be really, it would be really funny, Dad. If we somehow could interview Josh Sugarman. Just to ask him, like his literally the thing, the term that he used is now going to codify as the de facto defense to allow people to have and possess the firearms. Evan Nappen 20:39 And not just possess, but to be able to carry. Because New Jersey has a so-called assault firearm carry license. The definition of assault firearm is one statute, and the carry license is another. What the decision is invalidating is the ban, is the ban, and New Jersey has a vehicle in place already in law to apply to carry them. So, there you go. Another little tidbit to consider. Evan Nappen 21:13 And I’ll tell you something else, Teddy. I have a really important case to talk about that may even be more significant, if you can believe it. More significant than this entire battle over assault firearms. Page – 7 – of 11 Because this issue may completely wipe out the key foundation of federal gun laws. I’m gonna tell you about it in a moment. But first I want to tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range in Lakewood. It’s where Teddy and I both shoot. Where we get our certifications, where we get our training, and where we love to enjoy our range time. Now WeShoot, as many of you know, has a fantastic pro shop. There are such a great bunch of folks, and they have many different programs, training, and offerings. Evan Nappen 22:12 One of the things they’re offering right now that I want to talk about, that I think is really, really great is they’re offering New Jersey carry certification, CCARE, but specifically they’re offering a course for seniors. For seniors. They have a very welcoming, senior-friendly program designed to make the process simple, comfortable, and easy to understand. With WeShoot’s extremely experienced instructors, they’re able to provide a safe and supportive and a pressure-free environment where you can build your confidence, improve your skills, and gain the knowledge necessary so you can carry responsibly. This course is really a great idea, and it is something that if you are a senior and you are looking to be able to protect yourself, because that is our right, and of course, as a senior, you know you’re not as physically capable as you used to be. Evan Nappen 23:30 This course has basic firearm safety as a component. There’s safe handling and loading, unloading, and storage techniques. They do easy to understand instruction in use of force, how to do holster safely, safety with holsters, and how to properly draw. Then you do the live fire qualification. All this is step-by-step guidance, including through the New Jersey permit application process. So, this is a great service that is being offered by WeShoot. If you or anyone you know is a senior and they want to be able to get their permit to carry, here’s a great opportunity to be introduced and learn properly, correctly, and get the credentials that you need to do it from We Shoot. Check out weshootusa.com. Their beautiful website with fantastic photography. And don’t miss the WeShoot girls when you go on their website. You’ll love it. WeShoot is the place. They’re right there, conveniently located in central Jersey. Conveniently, right off the Parkway there. Check it out. Evan Nappen 24:49 Let me also mention my book, New Jersey Gun Law. Make sure you have your copy of New Jersey Gun Law. It is the Bible of Jersey Gun Law. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer. It will guide you through the insane matrix of New Jersey gun laws, and it is something that I’m looking forward to seeing be made smaller, being made a smaller volume. That’d be nice as we keep chopping away the gun laws. But New Jersey still has many of these laws to go, and you need to make sure that you don’t become a GOFU. So, go to evannappen.com, evannappen.com, and get your book today. Evan Nappen 25:37 Now, Teddy, there is a really important development taking place in the Fifth Circuit, and it’s all because of Saint Thomas. That is what we call Justice (Clarence) Thomas, one of the greatest judges on the Supreme Court, of course. He, interestingly, laid out a challenge. He laid out a challenge in the recent Supreme Court decision in (United States v.) Hemani. In Hemani, Justice Thomas said, “The Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to ‘regulate or ban possession of any item that has Page – 8 – of 11 ever been offered for sale or crossed state lines'”. Then Thomas wrote. “Otherwise, federal commerce authority becomes “a general police power of the sort retained by the States.” Evan Nappen 26:58 Now that is a fascinating gauntlet thrown down by Judge Thomas, and it has now been picked up by the Fifth Circuit. And a great article on this by Duncan Johnson from Ammoland. The article is: “Fifth Circuit Takes Justice Thomas Up on Challenge to Federal Gun-Control Power”. (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/07/fifth-circuit-squire-922g-federal-gun-ban/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=1fc1371d30-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-1fc1371d30-21268623) And yes, it does. Evan Nappen 27:22 Because what Thomas is doing there is going at the federal power of interstate commerce. Now, let me tell you, folks. There’s only certain powers that the federal government has, and all the other powers out there are reserved to the states. So, what are the powers of the federal government? Well, there’s three primary powers that the federal governments have. And if the laws are not founded within those powers, if the powers aren’t there, then there’s no jurisdiction for the law that the Government has passed. So, the key federal powers are the power of taxation. That’s one power. The military power. And the power of interstate commerce. Those are the powers in the Constitution given to the federal Government. All the other powers go to the states. Evan Nappen 28:24 So, you see that every federal law, every federal law, has to be based on one of those three powers. Otherwise, there’s no jurisdiction for the law. So, originally, way back, the key power that was used by the federal government were two: military and the power of taxation. And you see, the power of taxation that was the first power used to pass a national gun control law, the National Firearms Act of 1934. The NFA is based on the power of taxation. That’s why you get a tax stamp. That’s why ATF and all were originally part of Treasury. It’s all based on the Government’s power of taxation. And with the Big Beautiful Bill, the tax was made zero. So, now, in the big beautiful lawsuit, the argument is: if you’re not collecting a tax, then your jurisdiction for this, your power of taxation, doesn’t exist anymore. The law is no longer valid because it’s no longer a tax, and therefore no jurisdiction. Evan Nappen 29:44 Well, that third power, interstate commerce, that’s where you see the greatest amount of federal government abuse and overreach that ever existed. You can trace that back to the Wickard versus Filburn case. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/) This case had to do with a farmer growing his own food during FDR’s administration. The farmer was growing his own food for himself and for his own livestock. He didn’t sell a grain of it anywhere. And the government said, “You can’t do that. We regulate what farmers can and can’t grow.” And the farmer said, “Hey, man, this is my farm. It’s for me. It’s not for anyone else. I have a right to do it. And the court said, “Oh, well, the fact that you grow your own and don’t sell it or distribute it affects interstate commerce. Affects it. And man, that opened the door. Because then anything that affects interstate commerce, anything that has traveled in interstate commerce, anything. Broad, broad, broad. This explosion in federal power. Page – 9 – of 11 Evan Nappen 31:00 Thomas, obviously and correctly, sees that this is nuts, and wants to pull it back. And now we have a case in the Fifth Circuit, “United States versus Squire”. Again, en banc, full court, where there was a total remand back, in which the consideration is now going to be a challenge as to whether interstate commerce, whether that power, can affect simply, as in Squire’s case, which involved a felon. A convicted felon, a bad guy. Someone who, you know, is not a nice person, as our president would say. Not a nice person. However, the gun that was found in, I think it was Louisiana, the gun that was found at this guy’s place was not used in a crime. Was not used in a murder. You know, was not the element was not evidence of any offense of that. Evan Nappen 32:14 But he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The question is, is a gun that merely at some point had traveled through interstate commerce, but was no longer, you know, in interstate commerce at all. It was no longer. Just in this guy’s place, sitting in a state in in Louisiana. Does the federal government’s power of interstate commerce still apply to that, so that they can enforce a federal gun law stopping felons from possessing a gun, or is that an overreach? And this case, my friends, has the potential to remove the very foundation of federal gun laws based on interstate commerce. It is extremely, extremely important. Even the dissent recognizes that this is the case. As a matter of fact, the dissent in the Squire’s case said the court has “welcomed the possibility of finding that Congress’s Commerce Clause authority cannot support 922(g).” That’s the felon in possession prohibition. “Such a decision”, he (Judge Stephen Higginson) said, “would have massive import for federal law.” That’s right. You’re damn right it will. You’re damn right it will. And that’s what they’re afraid of. This is why the Squire case can be absolutely game-changing like no other. So, we will keep a close eye on that. Teddy Nappen 34:14 I would kind of combine that with just, from the political landscape where you see. I don’t know if you saw the Democrat Socialists. They put out that stupid manifesto where they were talking about eliminating the Senate, expanding Congress. They appoint the president. You don’t elect the president. They appoint and just abolishing our system. Evan Nappen 34:37 Oh yeah, they’re basically turning us into a dictatorship, a communist dictatorship. Teddy Nappen 34:44 I feel like that would be the ultimate check on their power. If we could really, really, truly curtail the commerce clause to not allow that much power. Evan Nappen 34:56 Oh yeah, we need to. Yeah, this is all about pulling back the federal government in its overreach. And yet something like national reciprocity, where we’re dealing with a Constitutional right and actually traveling interstate. Well, now we do have interstate commerce going on. We have crossing state lines. We have something that is so plainly a federal issue that falls under it. Whereas, when you start making an inanimate object that at some point just crossed the state line and ends up in somebody’s home. Page – 10 – of 11 They’re not traveling with it. They’re not moving with it. They’re just saying, “Hey, you know, even though it was purchased or acquired in Louisiana, but at some point it had to get to a dealer, you know, and made it to the. I mean, this is so far down the line of having any connection to it. Evan Nappen 35:55 And as Thomas points out, it basically removes the state police power, which is a power that should be reserved to the state. So, this is going to be a fascinating argument to follow, and the threat of communism through the Democrat Socialists. I mean, you know, look at what we’re looking at today, Teddy. When was the last time we saw that, you know, Democrat Socialists? You know, they want national socialism, and they combine it with Jew hate. Gee, those folks used to walk funny. I think, right? Remember them? That’s what they’re basically mirroring right now in America. Teddy Nappen 35:55 Well, it goes back to, Dad, you gotta look at the two biggest propagandist industries. You had higher education, which you know that’s, thank God Donald Trump cracked down on that hard. Where now they’re no longer be going to give out loans to. So you have to get a bat. You can get a bachelor degree in feminist basket weaving, and that’ll cut out a lot. Evan Nappen 35:55 Right, that’s a great move, too. You’re right. Teddy Nappen 35:58 And number two is Hollywood and entertainment, where they also push the socialist movement. That I think, particularly with AI and other and independent projects, are rising above and breaking the stranglehold of Hollywood. At the point now, they’re trying to fund Jersey, where Netflix is building, and you got Paramount and the others are funding it. Trying to turn into the New East Hollywood. But the main thing is McCarthy wasn’t wrong. He went overzealous, yes, but just the levels of it. There were communists in our in the in our works of the government, and here is the fruits of their labor. Evan Nappen 35:58 Well, not only that, you know, during McCarthy’s day, they tried to stay hidden. Now, they’re open about it. They’re open. Teddy Nappen 36:37 They’re proud of it. They’re bragging. They’re proud of it. Teddy Nappen 37:54 They’re wearing it. They’re bragging about it. And this is a complete antithesis to what America is all about, and nowhere ever has communism worked. Look, you know, when that wall came down in Germany, where do you think they wanted to go? You know, you don’t see people escaping. “Escaping” to communism. It’s the reverse. And once you get communism, once you elect it in, you end up having to shoot your way out. So, you know, I don’t think the overwhelming majority of Americans are that foolish. But here’s the problem. The majority of Democrats are because statistically they’re apparently in favor of socialism, which is just, you know, a euphemistic label for communism. Page – 11 – of 11 Teddy Nappen 38:54 Here’s the issue, though, Dad. It’s my generation, the next, where I think the number was like 58% are seen in favor of socialism. That’s that generation. So, you this time period will be fine. But the next generation, that’ll be where like it’s something. This is where we need to do heavy, heavy arms of propaganda. And look, the easiest way to dispel this argument – name me one country where socialism works. Tell me that. They immediately try to say the Nordic country, and then I say, okay. First of all, here’s a deal for you. We’ll completely deregulate oil, just like the Nordic countries. Our immigration policy is about around 3% and reduce the migrant population to about the size of any Nordic country. And then finally to end it all, make sure people have healthy, maintain themselves healthily, and actually watch what they’re actually eating and going into developing healthier habits, like a lot of the Nordic countries. Then get back to me on socialism. Other than that, none of that works. We are a heavily diverse nation. We have a lot of unhealthy issues. So, when I hear it, it’s just B.S., every single time. There is no. They move the goalposts and say there’s never been any true. It hasn’t worked yet because it’s not. It hasn’t been the right version. Evan Nappen 40:18 Yeah, right. Well, I don’t want to be part of that experiment. Thank you. Okay, no thanks. No, thank you. I’ll stick with our Founding Fathers. I’ll stick with the incredible quality of life that capitalism has given us. And there’s a reason why so many people want to come here. There’s a really good reason for it, and it ain’t communism. That’s for sure. Hey, the other thing. This. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Teddy Nappen 40:43 No, I was gonna say. Here’s the other one. Name me once did communism ever allow for someone to take a loan to get a business started? Name me one faction of that, where someone who came from essentially the small folk being able to rise up and become millionaires and running their own businesses. Yeah, exactly. Evan Nappen 41:07 Maybe recently you heard, I just heard President Trump talking about it, and he summed it up pretty well. He said, “Communism is shit.” That’s exactly what the President said, and then he goes. His wife gets upset when he uses that word, and Reverend Falwell even wrote him once and said to him, you know, we’d prefer if he would try not to use profanity. And then Trump said he told him, the problem is that’s the word that perfectly describes communism. So, I guess if there’s any time to use the word, that’s the time to use the word. So, there you go. Evan Nappen 41:49 Hey, this is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 42:03 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E300_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

You’re listening to American Ground Radio with Stephen Parr and Louis R. Avallone. This is the full show for July 22, 2026. We open with President Trump attending the dignified transfer of four fallen U.S. service members at Dover Air Force Base — and the political left's insistence on finding fault with it. We explain what a dignified transfer actually is: not a press conference, not a campaign event, not a photo opportunity. It is the most solemn responsibility a commander-in-chief carries — standing on behalf of 340 million Americans to receive sons and daughters who left home in uniform and came back draped in the flag. We also note a detail that made no headlines: President Trump gave the family of Lieutenant Tyler Feehan, who was from Georgia, a ride home on Air Force One. We contrast this with the man who checked his watch at an identical ceremony. And we put the 18 casualties in historical context — fewer than the invasion of Grenada, fewer than the invasion of Panama, against a military exponentially larger than either. We are not losing this conflict. In our Top 3 Things You Need to Know, Trump-backed candidates swept Republican primaries in Arizona — with Andy Biggs winning the gubernatorial nomination to challenge Katie Hobbs, Mark Lamb winning the 5th Congressional District nomination, and retired NFL kicker Jay Feeley winning the 1st Congressional District nomination. More than 95% of Trump-endorsed candidates win their Republican primaries — a political endorsement success rate unprecedented in American history. Then the FBI captured fugitive Khalid Satari — a fraudster who had fled to Dubai after allegedly bilking Medicare out of $547 million through a scheme of kickbacks and bribes to doctors for unnecessary genetic testing across Georgia, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. He was arrested overseas and returned to the United States to face trial. We also want to know who the doctors are. We also push back on MyPillow CEO and Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike Lindell's proposal to give illegal aliens amnesty through conditional work visas with no expiration date. We acknowledge Lindell is a patriot and his heart may be in the right place. We also note that we have seen this movie before. A work visa with no expiration date plus a family and a mortgage will produce, in exactly the timeline the left expects, a demand for citizenship and a voter registration form. The second chance we are willing to offer: $2,600 from the federal government to fly home and try the right way. That is the second chance. We are not offering a third. Our American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson respond to a listener question about wheelchair abuse at airports — and Teri, as a former flight attendant, confirms it has always happened but is now out of control. The mechanism is simple: wheelchair assistance gets you to the front of the boarding line, but requires you to wait for everyone to deplane before you can exit. So the people who needed a wheelchair to board are miraculously able to walk off the plane on their own. Teri connects it to the broader problem of low-trust cultural values meeting high-trust American systems — and notes that systems built on good faith get abused when the good faith isn't there. We sit down with Brett Ackleberry of Focus on the Family to discuss PluggedIn.com — a free media discernment tool that provides in-depth content reviews of movies, TV shows, video games, books, and YouTube channels from a Christian perspective. We discuss The Odyssey, The Passion of the Christ, and the difference between entertainment that earns its darkness and content that simply delivers it. Brett explains that PluggedIn is not there to tell anyone what to watch — it's there to give families the information they need to decide for themselves. It's free, it's thorough, and it's available right now at PluggedIn.com. We cover the New Jersey non-citizen voter registration story — where the state called 6,000 improper registrations a software glitch and the software company said it was not their error — and connect it to the 24 states that still refuse to use the federal SAVE system, which is now free, to verify citizenship on their voter rolls. States with Democrat trifectas represent the vast majority of those refusing to use it. They also insist no illegal voting is occurring. We predict a government shutdown in September — driven by Senate Republicans who won't pass spending bills the House has already sent over — and say plainly that the game is simple. Democrats stall, Democrats posture, and the country pays the price. Republicans in the Senate don't have to help them. John Thune needs to pick a side. For our Bright Spot, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a consolidated ruling across multiple cases involving detained illegal aliens — finding that they do not have a constitutional due process right to bail that would allow them to remain in the country while fighting deportation proceedings. This year alone, judges had released more than 11,000 ICE detainees before removal could be completed. The Fifth Circuit just closed that door across Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas — and in doing so, removed the incentive for detained illegal aliens to fight and delay removal rather than accepting voluntary departure. We also cover a Tennessee Republican candidate named Brian Stewart whose campaign presents him as a Marine veteran — with the Marine Corps itself reportedly saying his premature discharge was incongruent with Marine Corps standards. We say it plainly: you do not lie about your military service. It is not a resume bullet point. It is sacrifice, discipline, and danger. Some gave the full measure of devotion. If you are thinking about lying about that, stop. And we close with Jenitar and Jortham Na'amuana — who already had four children when they discovered their fifth pregnancy was actually four babies. Natural identical quadruplets. No fertility therapy. Odds of one in fifteen million. All four delivered by C-section at 28 weeks, each weighing just over two pounds, all doing well and expected to go home soon. They are certainly doing their part. May your pursuit of happiness bring you joy. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts, visit AmericanGroundRadio.com, and join the conversation at 866-AGR-1776!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this special Chat Lives Matter Night edition of America Off the Rails, Rick Robinson connects a chaotic collection of political, legal, medical, and military stories through one central theme: America has no shortage of authority, but almost no one wants to accept responsibility when that authority fails.The episode begins with Arizona's Republican primary results and a warning for the GOP: winning over the party base is not the same as winning a general election. Rick examines national polling, Democratic overperformance in special elections, and the growing divide between ideological activists and the broader electorate. From there, he turns to the House and Senate, where Republicans hold power but still struggle to convert their agenda into law, even on popular issues such as congressional stock-trading restrictions and election security.The show then moves into immigration and the courts, including the Fifth Circuit's handling of prolonged immigration detention and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's effort to crack down on suspected birth-tourism operations. Rick argues that immigration policy has become a permanent government-by-workaround system, with Congress, presidents, judges, and governors all expanding into gaps created by institutions unwilling to act clearly.In Hour 2, the focus shifts to expert authority. Newly released COVID-era messages reveal that scientists involved in the influential “Proximal Origin” paper were privately far less certain about a possible laboratory origin than the public was led to believe. Rick examines the gap between private scientific doubt, public certainty, and the censorship that followed.The episode also investigates an alleged international organized-crime scheme involving fraudulent Oklahoma Medicaid enrollments, a New York prescription-fraud case involving stolen Medicaid identities, and a massive federal health-care-fraud takedown involving hundreds of defendants and billions in alleged fraud.The final portion of the show turns to Texas foster-care failures and the dignified transfer of four American service members killed during the Iran conflict. Rick asks what victory means, what authority Congress has granted, and why lawmakers are willing to fund a war without fully owning the mission.Across every story, the conclusion is the same: authority is everywhere, responsibility is nowhere, and the public is left paying the price.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/america-off-the-rails--986237/support.

Judge Lopez's Serta ruling lands after Del Monte and American Tire, putting pro rata sharing, sacred rights and LME damages back in the spotlight.Ropes & Gray's Rachel Strickland and Eliza Hollander join 9fin Head of LMEs Jane Komsky to parse what these three cases mean for the future of in-court and out-of-court restructurings.The trio compares Judge Lopez, Judge Kaplan and Judge Goldblatt's approaches to similar pro rata sharing language in very different settings: Serta outside bankruptcy, and Del Monte and American Tire inside Chapter 11, both with DIP fights.Strickland and Hollander examine whether roll-ups, cashless exchanges and DIP subordination should be treated as payments or reductions under legacy credit agreements, and why Fifth Circuit open-market purchase analysis continues to shape the debate. They also dig into ratable-offer mechanics, Serta-style uptiers, excluded lender remedies, par participation damages and the tension between textual contract interpretation and bankruptcy court equity.They also explore whether LME fatigue, litigation costs and the 2027-2028 maturity wall will push market participants towards ratable structures or efficient Chapter 11s.Have any feedback for us? Send us a note at podcast@9fin.com. Thanks for listening!

This Day in Legal History: The Housing Act of 1949On July 15, 1949, President Harry Truman signed the Housing Act of 1949, a centerpiece of his “Fair Deal” and one of the most ambitious housing laws in American history. Its stated goal was breathtaking in scope: “a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family.” To get there, the Act poured federal money into public housing construction, expanded federal mortgage insurance, and created the urban renewal program to clear and redevelop so-called “slum” neighborhoods.The Act's legacy is genuinely double-edged, and it's worth telling honestly. On one hand, it expanded homeownership for millions and built hundreds of thousands of units of public housing. On the other, its implementation became one of the great engines of racial segregation in the twentieth century. Urban renewal too often meant bulldozing established Black neighborhoods—critics bitterly renamed it “Negro removal”—and the public housing built in their place was frequently segregated by design and concentrated in already-poor areas. Meanwhile the federal mortgage machinery it fed continued the practice of redlining, steering the benefits of homeownership toward white families and away from Black ones.That mixed legacy is why the Housing Act belongs in a legal-history conversation about civil rights. The same federal government that would, within a few years, order schools desegregated in Brown v. Board of Education was, through its housing policy, actively entrenching residential segregation—and residential segregation is what makes school segregation so durable, because in America where you live largely determines where you go to school. The story of July 15, 1949 is a reminder that the law's effects depend enormously on how it's carried out: a statute promising a decent home for every family became, in practice, a tool that shaped the segregated geography we're still litigating over today.Todd Blanche faced a high-stakes Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today in his bid to become attorney general on a permanent basis. Blanche has been acting attorney general since President Trump fired Pam Bondi in April, and before joining the Justice Department he served as Trump's personal criminal defense lawyer—a background that sits at the center of the concerns about him. The confirmation process exists because the Constitution's Appointments Clause requires the Senate to advise and consent on the nation's top law-enforcement officer, and the attorney general is supposed to serve the United States, not the president personally. That tension drove the questioning: senators pressed Blanche on the Department's $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, its handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, and its prosecutions of figures perceived as Trump's political enemies, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The significance is about the independence of the Justice Department. An attorney general who was recently the president's private defense attorney raises the question of whether federal prosecutorial power will be wielded neutrally or as an instrument of the president's interests. With a pair of undecided Republicans—Senators Cornyn and Tillis—holding real leverage, the hearing was Blanche's chance to reassure a narrowly divided Senate, and most observers still expect him to be confirmed by a slim margin.Blanche to face Senate grilling in bid to be Trump's attorney general | ReutersTwo U.S.-based advocacy groups have sued the Trump administration, arguing that its sanctions targeting the International Criminal Court violate the First Amendment. The groups—Democracy for the Arab World Now and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide—are challenging the February 2025 executive order under which the administration has sanctioned ICC judges, prosecutors, and Palestinian human rights organizations, and which officials pledged this week to expand. The free-speech theory is the key. The plaintiffs say the sanctions regime is so broad that they have stopped doing constitutionally protected things—filing submissions with the ICC and coordinating advocacy with sanctioned people, like the U.N. special rapporteur for Palestine—out of fear that doing so could expose them to fines or even prison. In First Amendment law, that's a classic “chilling effect”: when a law is vague or sweeping enough that people self-censor protected speech to avoid the risk of penalty, the law itself can be unconstitutional even before anyone is actually punished. There's notable precedent here: a similar Trump order in 2020 was blocked by a judge who found it likely violated the First Amendment, before the Biden administration rescinded it in 2021. The significance is a direct clash between the executive's broad power over foreign affairs and sanctions on one side, and Americans' right to speak, associate, and petition on the other. Three ICC judges have separately sued over the same sanctions, so this order is now being attacked on multiple fronts.Trump's ICC order violates free speech, advocacy groups say in lawsuit | ReutersA federal appeals court has ended more than sixty years of federal oversight of the Concordia Parish School Board in Louisiana, lifting one of the desegregation orders that dates back to the Civil Rights era. The Fifth Circuit's decision hands a win to the Trump administration, which has pushed to wind down these long-running cases—a striking reversal for a Justice Department that spent decades on the other side, fighting to enforce them. Here's the legal framework. After Brown v. Board of Education, hundreds of Southern school districts were placed under federal court supervision and ordered to dismantle segregation. A district can be released from that oversight when a court finds it has achieved “unitary status”—meaning it has eliminated the vestiges of segregation, to the extent practicable, in areas like student assignment, faculty hiring, facilities, and discipline. The dispute in cases like this one is whether that's really been accomplished. Louisiana officials argue the orders are relics of a bygone era and no longer needed. Civil rights advocates and some parents counter that the vestiges persist—in racial disparities in student discipline, access to advanced academic programs, and teacher hiring—and that lifting oversight removes a crucial tool for addressing them. The significance is part of a broader push to close out Civil Rights-era decrees, and it raises a hard question: whether these districts have genuinely outgrown the need for supervision, or whether ending it prematurely risks letting old patterns quietly reassert themselves.Appeals court ends US oversight of Louisiana school system related to desegregation mandate | 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

This Day in Legal History: The Execution of Sir Thomas MoreOn July 6, 1535, Sir Thomas More was beheaded at Tower Hill in London, convicted of high treason against King Henry VIII. More had been one of the most powerful men in England—a lawyer, a scholar, a former Lord Chancellor, the King's own friend—and he went to the scaffold because he would not say the words the King demanded.The dispute was, at its heart, about supremacy. Henry VIII had broken with Rome and declared himself Supreme Head of the Church of England, and Parliament had passed the Act of Supremacy and an Act of Succession requiring subjects to swear an oath acknowledging the King's new status and the legitimacy of his marriage to Anne Boleyn. More refused to take the oath. Crucially, he did not denounce the King. He said nothing at all. He believed that by staying silent he stayed within the law—that under the old maxim, silence gives consent, and no court could convict a man for what he had not said.The Crown answered that theory with new law. The Treason Act of 1534, which took effect in early 1535, made it treason to “maliciously” deprive the King or Queen of their “dignity, title, or name”—and the government argued that More's conspicuous silence about the King's supremacy was itself a denial of it. More was tried on July 1, 1535, before a panel that included Anne Boleyn's father, brother, and uncle. The decisive testimony came from Richard Rich, the solicitor general, who claimed More had privately rejected the King's title in conversation in the Tower. More insisted the testimony was perjured. The jury deliberated for about fifteen minutes and found him guilty. He was sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered; the King, in what passed for mercy, commuted the sentence to beheading.More's case endures in the legal imagination because it sits at the fault line between law as an instrument of power and law as a limit on power. More was a formidable lawyer who tried to use the law's own rules—the presumption that silence is not a crime, the requirement of proof—to protect his conscience, and the state simply rewrote the rules and manufactured the proof. His famous last words, that he died “the King's good servant, but God's first,” draw the line between obedience to the state and obedience to something the state cannot command. Four centuries later, we still cite More when we argue about compelled speech, about the right to remain silent, about loyalty oaths, and about what a person owes a government that has turned the machinery of law against him. He is a patron saint of lawyers precisely because he lost—because his trial shows how thin the protection of law can be when those in power decide they would rather have a conviction than a fair one.A federal appeals court has ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot detain migrants for more than ninety days without giving them a chance to seek release at a bond hearing. In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—one of the most conservative in the country—sided against the administration, a ruling that could affect thousands of people held in detention in states like Texas and Louisiana.When the government seeks to deport someone, that process can take months or even years, and in the meantime the government often detains the person. The legal question is whether the government can simply hold someone indefinitely while the case grinds on, or whether at some point that person is entitled to a hearing where a neutral decision-maker asks whether they actually need to be locked up—whether they're a flight risk or a danger, or whether they can safely be released on bond while they wait. The administration argued that certain migrants are subject to “mandatory detention” with no such hearing at all. The Fifth Circuit said that after ninety days, that position runs into constitutional trouble.Imagine being held in a jail cell for months, not because a judge decided you were dangerous, but because a statute was read to mean nobody ever has to ask the question. The core idea the court is protecting is an old one: the government generally cannot deprive a person of physical liberty without some individualized process, some moment where a human being reviews your particular case. A bond hearing is that moment. It doesn't guarantee release—it guarantees that someone with authority has to look at you and decide.The Department of Homeland Security said it disagreed with the ruling and remained confident in its legal position on mandatory detention, which signals a likely appeal, possibly to the Supreme Court. But for now, the decision draws a line: prolonged civil detention without any bond hearing is constitutionally suspect, and the length of confinement matters. The ruling is significant not only for the thousands of detainees it directly affects, but because it comes from a court that rarely rules against this administration—a reminder that even sympathetic judges have limits when the question is indefinite detention without a hearing.Appeals court bars mandatory detention for migrants past 90 days without bond hearing | Fox NewsCourt Blocks Immigration Detention Without HearingsThe Supreme Court has refused to hear Donald Trump's appeal seeking to overturn the jury verdict finding him liable for abusing and defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll. With the Court declining to take the case, the 2023 verdict and the roughly five-million-dollar judgment against him stand.In 2023, a civil jury found that Trump sexually abused Carroll in a New York department store in the mid-1990s and later defamed her by branding her account a lie. He was ordered to pay her about five million dollars. Trump appealed and lost in the lower courts, then asked the Supreme Court to step in. Last week the Court denied that request. When the Supreme Court denies review—what lawyers call denying “certiorari”—it isn't endorsing the verdict or ruling on the merits. It's simply declining to hear the case, which leaves the lower court's decision in force. But the practical effect is the same as a loss: the judgment is final, and there are no more appeals to pursue.It helps to separate two things people often blur together. This is a civil case, not a criminal one. Carroll didn't send anyone to prison; she sued for money and for the harm to her reputation, and a jury of ordinary citizens weighed the evidence and believed her. The Supreme Court's role at this stage isn't to re-try the facts—juries find facts, and appellate courts generally don't second-guess them. The question the Court was asked was narrower and more legal, and the Court decided it wasn't worth their time to review.The significance here is partly about accountability and partly about the ordinariness of the outcome. A private citizen brought a claim, a jury sided with her, the appellate courts affirmed, and the highest court in the country let that stand—the system working exactly as it's supposed to, regardless of the defendant's power. It's also a marker of the limits of that power: the office does not come with a trapdoor out of a civil judgment. The verdict is now as final as verdicts get.Supreme Court rejects Trump effort to overturn E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse and defamation verdict | NBC NewsThe Supreme Court's next term, beginning in October, is already set to feature major cases involving gun rights, voting rules, LGBT rights, immigration detention, and corporate disputes. One of the highest-profile cases concerns whether states and local governments may ban assault-style rifles such as AR-15s, with challenges coming from Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois. Gun rights advocates argue that these weapons are commonly owned and protected by the Second Amendment, while government officials describe them as military-style firearms that pose serious public safety risks.The Court will also hear a voting rights dispute over Arizona rules that would impose stricter proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration and allow removal of suspected noncitizens from voter rolls. A lower court blocked parts of that law after finding that they conflicted with federal voter registration protections. Another case involves whether certain immigrants with criminal convictions can be held for long periods during deportation proceedings without receiving bond hearings. The Trump administration is asking the Court to uphold that detention policy, while a lower court found that prolonged detention without a hearing can violate due process. The Court will also consider a religious rights case from Colorado involving Catholic groups that want an exemption from nondiscrimination rules tied to a state preschool funding program. That case adds to the Court's ongoing disputes over how to balance religious liberty claims against LGBT anti-discrimination protections. The term will also include business-related cases involving ExxonMobil and Suncor, Apple and Epic Games, and PepsiCo.US Supreme Court to hear gun, LGBT, voting rights cases in next term | 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

The most recent numbers show that two-thirds of abortions in the U.S. are medication abortions, while 29 percent of all U.S. abortions were telehealth medication abortions. Dr. Angel Foster, researcher at the University of Ottawa in the Faculty of Health Sciences, global abortion researcher, and co-founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project (MAP) sits down to talk with us about the work that MAP performs and the importance of shield laws for reproductive health care and gender-affirming care.Mifepristone, the first of two medications that people will take during a medication abortion, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2000. Decades of evidence shows its safety and effectiveness. Access to the two-drug regimen increased significantly via telehealth during the pandemic, which required a new regulatory framework in 2023. MAP, through state shield law protections, allows licensed Massachusetts clinicians to prescribe medication abortion to those anywhere in the country, regardless of the legal status of abortion in their state. This year, the Fifth-Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that would prevent providers from sending medication abortion through the mail—thankfully, MAP was able to shift to a misoprostol-only regimen (also safe and effective)—but the mass confusion had been immediately impactful. As of now, a stay has been issued to halt this decision by the Fifth Circuit. For more information, check out That Aged Well: https://pod.link/1446333312Support the showFollow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.socialBuy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

This Day in Legal History: Ada Kepley GraduatesOn June 30, 1870, Ada H. Kepley became the first woman in the United States to graduate from law school. She earned her degree from Union College of Law in Chicago, an institution later associated with Northwestern University School of Law. Kepley's achievement came at a time when women were largely excluded from the legal profession, not only by custom but often by formal barriers to admission. Her graduation showed that women could meet the academic demands of legal education, even when courts and bar authorities were not yet ready to treat them as full members of the profession.After earning her law degree, Kepley faced the central contradiction of the era: a woman could study law, but that did not mean she could practice it. Illinois did not yet permit women to be admitted to the bar, so her degree did not immediately translate into the professional status it would have given a man. That barrier reflected a broader legal culture that treated law as a public profession reserved for men, while assigning women to private and domestic roles. Kepley later became active in reform causes, including temperance and women's rights, using her legal training as part of a wider campaign for social change. Her story also overlaps with the long struggle of women lawyers such as Myra Bradwell, whose exclusion from the Illinois bar reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1873.The issue was not simply whether one woman could become a lawyer, but whether the legal system would recognize women as independent civic actors. Kepley's graduation therefore marked an early victory in legal education, even though the fight for professional admission continued after her. It reminds us that access to education and access to legal authority are related, but not the same. On this day in legal history, Ada Kepley's law degree stood as both a milestone and a challenge to a profession still trying to decide who belonged inside it.The Supreme Court ruled that President Trump could not immediately remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook while her legal challenge continues. In a 5–4 decision, the Court denied the government's request to pause a lower-court order that kept Cook in office. The majority said the government had not shown it was likely to win on its argument that the president has broad, largely unchecked power to remove a Fed governor “for cause.”The Court emphasized that the Federal Reserve is designed to be politically independent, especially because it controls monetary policy, interest rates, and other decisions that should not shift simply because a president wants different policy outcomes. The majority rejected the idea that the president's stated reason for removal is automatically beyond judicial review. It also rejected the argument that almost any concern about a governor's conduct, ability, or integrity is enough to satisfy the “for cause” requirement. Instead, the Court said “cause” must be meaningful and connected to whether the governor is truly unfit for the position, not just a pretext for replacing her with someone more politically aligned.The Court ultimately resolved the stay request on a narrower ground: Cook had not received the basic process required before removal. At minimum, she was entitled to notice of the evidence against her, a chance to respond, and some deadline or procedure for doing so before a final decision was made. Because that did not happen, the Court allowed the injunction keeping her in office to remain in place. The ruling does not necessarily mean Cook wins the entire case, but it means she stays on the Fed board while the litigation continues.The decision is a major statement that the president cannot treat Federal Reserve governors like at-will employees. It preserves the Fed's independence, at least for now, and signals that courts can review whether a claimed “for cause” firing is legally valid.Court prevents Trump from firing Fed governor | SCOTUSblogThe Supreme Court upheld Mississippi's rule allowing certain absentee ballots to be counted even if they arrive after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day and received within five business days. In a 5–4 decision, the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and held that federal election-day laws set the deadline for when voters must make their choice, not the deadline for when election officials must physically receive the ballot.Justice Barrett's majority opinion treated the case as a narrow timing dispute. The challengers argued that because federal law sets a single national Election Day for federal elections, all ballots must be received by that day. The Court disagreed, explaining that the word “election” has historically referred to the voters' act of choosing a candidate. Under that view, a voter has made the choice when the ballot is cast or mailed by the deadline, even if the ballot arrives later.The Court also relied on federal law governing military and overseas voters, which repeatedly assumes that states can set their own ballot-receipt deadlines. That mattered because if federal election-day statutes already required all ballots to be received by Election Day, those references to state receipt deadlines would make little sense. The majority also rejected the challengers' arguments about election integrity and voter confidence, saying those are policy arguments for legislatures, not reasons for courts to rewrite the federal statutes.The dissent, written by Justice Alito, saw the issue differently. In his view, having an election on a particular day historically meant completing the collection of ballots on that day. He argued that the electorate's collective choice is not fully expressed until ballots are received by election officials.States may continue to count mail ballots that are sent by Election Day but arrive shortly afterward, unless Congress clearly says otherwise. The decision does not require every state to adopt Mississippi's rule, but it confirms that federal Election Day statutes do not automatically ban late-arriving, timely mailed ballots.Justices uphold state law allowing for late-arriving mail-in ballots | SCOTUSblogIn my Bloomberg column this week, I argue that Coca-Cola's transfer pricing fight with the IRS is more than a dispute over one company's tax bill. It is an early stress test for what tax administration looks like after the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Loper Bright, which ended Chevron deference and gave courts more power to decide what ambiguous statutes mean. Coca-Cola is trying to use that shift to challenge a major Tax Court loss, arguing that part of the IRS's victory depended on regulatory deference that no longer exists. The company has already paid roughly $6 billion, and its total exposure could be far higher, so the stakes are enormous.The underlying tax issue involves transfer pricing, or how related companies price transactions between themselves. The IRS says Coca-Cola's foreign affiliates paid too little for the right to use the company's valuable trademarks, formulas, and other intangible property, which left too much profit overseas and too little taxable income in the United States. Coca-Cola's argument focuses in part on “blocked income,” where foreign law limits what a local affiliate can pay to a foreign parent. The IRS says Section 482 gives it broad authority to reallocate income to prevent tax avoidance, even when foreign payment restrictions are involved. Coca-Cola says the IRS regulation supporting that position was upheld in a world where courts deferred to agencies, and that world is now gone.I'm not arguing that Coca-Cola is necessarily wrong. The IRS can overreach, and courts should not automatically uphold tax regulations just because the tax code is complicated. But I do argue that the post-Chevron shift may have a strong distributional tilt toward large corporations, especially multinationals with the money and incentive to reopen old disputes or press aggressive refund claims. If Coca-Cola succeeds, other companies will likely look for similar arguments, particularly in areas of international tax where Treasury regulations have long depended on broad statutory language and judicial deference.What I think Treasury and the IRS should do now is take inventory. They need to identify which regulations were built on assumptions of deference, which parts of the transfer pricing system are most vulnerable, and which international tax rules are most load-bearing. Congress also has a choice to make, even if it makes that choice by doing nothing: should Treasury write the practical operating rules for multinational taxation, or should federal judges decide those questions case by case? The key point of my column is that statutory ambiguity did not disappear when Chevron died; it simply moved from agencies to courts.Coca-Cola Transfer Pricing Fight Is a Post-Chevron Stress Test This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In This Episode It's an ACP Round Table, and we're celebrating 400 episodes (a week early)! Join Erin, Weer'd, Oddball and David as they discuss: a shooting spree in Montreal, Canada; SCOTUS' 9-0 ruling that marijuana use no longer disqualifies you for gun ownership, but... ...SCOTUS continues to pass on Second Amendment cases. after 27 years of insanity, the "Gary v. Glock" case is finally dead; the circuit split on suppressor laws between the 5th and 4th, 9th, and 10th Circuits; a great documentary on "Ring of Fire" guns; the 5th Circuit standing firm on its ruling in favor of hobby distillers; and Flock cameras are not just scanning your license plates 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 Police officer killed after Montreal shooting rampage Female Officer Shoots Civilian During Active Shooting in Montreal Rabbi Michael Mizrahi Declared Dead After Emergency Surgery BWC: Wash. officer shoots gun-wielding man as he approaches bystander Supreme Court ruling sides with marijuana user charged with illegally owning gun under federal law SCOTUS wrecks government's attempt to prosecute gun owner who tokes up on marijuana 'a few times a week' Noah Feldman: The absurd gun case that unified the Supreme Court SCOTUS continues to sit on a bunch of important 2A cases After Nearly 27 Years, It's Finally Over The Hobby Distillers Association is pleased to report that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has denied the federal government's request for rehearing in our landmark legal challenge. 5th Circuit also creates a circuit split on suppressors Cheap, Dangerous, and Outlawed: The Ring of Fire Story If you thought Flock cameras were concerning, meet what comes next.   

Depression. Insecurity. Seven-figure verdicts that didn't feel like enough. Michael Cowen — national trucking lawyer, trial veteran with 130+ cases, and host of his own podcast — had achieved the kind of success most lawyers dream about, and it still wasn't working for him psychologically. The turning point came when he stopped chasing a specific result and started trusting the process. In this conversation with guest host Przemek Lubecki, recorded live at TLU Huntington Beach 2026, Michael opens up about the mindset overhaul that unlocked eight-figure verdicts, the mantra he still repeats while waiting for a judge to take the bench, and the firm-wide case review system he uses to prevent his lawyers from undersettling cases. Train and Connect with the Titans☑️ Michael Cowen | LinkedIn☑️ Cowen Law on Facebook, Twitter/X, LinkedIn, Instagram, & YouTube☑️ Przemek Lubecki | LinkedIn☑️ Trial Lawyers University☑️ TLU On Demand Instant access to live lectures, case analysis, and skills training videos☑️ TLU on X | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode Snapshot★ Michael graduated from law school, clerked on the Fifth Circuit, and joined a big law firm in New York City.★ After moving back to Brownsville, Texas for his future wife, Michael joined a plaintiff firm under mentor Ed Stapleton, tried four cases in his first year, and inherited his own law firm just four years out of law school.★ Michael describes a prolonged period of cyclical depression, weight gain, and insecurity — driven by taking too much personal responsibility for case outcomes.★ His mindset transformation came through intensive coaching with Sari De La Motte, daily use of "The Miracle Morning" routine, and a mantra about trusting judges and juries that he still repeats silently in the courtroom.★ Michael explains that truly earning courtroom confidence requires two experiences: winning a case to prove it's possible, and losing a big one to prove you survive it.★ At Michael's firm, no commercial-policy case is allowed to proceed to a demand or mediation until the attorney has first presented it to the full firm at their weekly Tuesday lunch — a structured review designed to prevent undersettling.★ Michael's Big Rig Bootcamp (July 9) will feature live cross-examination demonstrations, medical testimony training, and a deep dive on why facet joint injuries treated with radiofrequency ablation are million-dollar cases.Produced and Powered by LawPods

It's 2A Tuesday on the Marc Cox Morning Show and Mark Walters of Armed American Radio is here to break down one of the biggest Second Amendment weeks in Supreme Court history. The Hamani decision just came down nine to zero — and what it means is the federal government can no longer automatically ban an entire class of people from owning guns simply because they smoke marijuana. But Mark isn't popping champagne just yet — the liberal justices telegraphed exactly what they'll do the moment they regain power, and it's a direct shot at the Bruin precedent that's been winning case after case for gun owners. Then Marc and Mark dig into a blockbuster Fifth Circuit ruling that silencers are protected arms under the Second Amendment — setting up a circuit split that could land at the Supreme Court. And the Wohlford case could drop any day, potentially delivering a third massive gun rights victory before the term closes. The left is watching, waiting, and court-packing is on their to-do list. This is why you can't afford to miss Armed American Radio — and you can't afford to miss this segment. Hashtags: #MarcCoxMorningShow #2ATuesday #MarkWalters #ArmedAmericanRadio #SecondAmendment #HamaniCase #SupremeCourt #Bruin #Suppressors #GunRights #2A #ConservativeRadio #MarcCox #SAF #WohlfordinLopez

Hour 3 of the Marc Cox Morning Show is wall to wall and firing on all cylinders. Marc opens with Illinois Governor Pritzker's sweeping social media age verification law and exposes the left's glaring hypocrisy — ID for Instagram but not for voting. A federal judge blocks Trump administration subpoenas protecting Minnesota officials neck deep in a massive taxpayer fraud scandal, while Democratic Socialists surge to plus 17 favorability among Democrats and the left launches a fresh assault on the Electoral College. Fox and Friends First co-anchor Todd Piro calls in fresh off air to deliver the heartbreaking latest on the Nancy Guthrie kidnapping and Savannah Guthrie's emotional on-air reaction. Then it's 2A Tuesday with Mark Walters of Armed American Radio breaking down the Supreme Court's landmark nine to zero Hamani ruling, a Fifth Circuit victory for silencer owners, and why the left is already telegraphing their plan to destroy the Bruin precedent the moment they retake power. Kim St. Onge closes the hour with a chilling story of Brazilian parents jailed for homeschooling without DEI — and a stark warning that Christian families in America are already in the crosshairs. This is the Marc Cox Morning Show — and Hour 3 just delivered. Hashtags: #MarcCoxMorningShow #Hour3 #ToddPiro #MarkWalters #2ATuesday #KimOnAWhim #Homeschooling #SupremeCourt #SecondAmendment #Bruin #Pritzker #SocialMedia #NancyGuthrie #ElectoralCollege #ConservativeRadio

Four hours. Zero punches pulled. The Marc Cox Morning Show delivers one of its most explosive broadcasts of the year and not a single story lands without consequence. Tucker Carlson torches his 35-year Republican career over an Israel obsession Marc Cox calls exactly what it is — anti-Semitism dressed up as principle. The Iran MOU critics are screaming into YouGov polls while a real American hero, former hostage Rocky Sickman, reminds everyone what 444 days of torture at Iranian hands actually looks like. Missouri conservatives get a masterclass on why Amendment 4 and Amendment 5 are the most important votes they'll cast this year — as Soros-funded groups, Planned Parenthood, and the Missouri Realtors Association pour millions into lies designed to keep the Constitution wide open for radical hijacking. Former Missouri Senator John Lamping joins to make the definitive case and call out conservatives sabotaging their own cause from within. The St. Louis Morning Brief covers a firefighter caught on camera doing the unthinkable at Lambert Airport, MLB's stunning double standard on Christian expression, and Pride Fest curfew chaos erupting in the Grove. Fox and Friends First co-anchor Todd Piro calls in live from a Fox News makeup room with the heartbreaking latest on the Nancy Guthrie kidnapping. It's 2A Tuesday with Mark Walters of Armed American Radio breaking down the Supreme Court's landmark nine to zero Hamani ruling, a Fifth Circuit victory for silencer owners, and the left's blueprint to destroy the Bruin precedent the moment they retake power. Kim St. Onge sounds the alarm on Brazilian parents jailed for homeschooling without DEI — and warns Christian families in America that they are already in the crosshairs. University of Minnesota law professor Ilan Wurman delivers a stunning constitutional autopsy — from New Deal power grabs to rogue district judges acting as an unchecked council of revision the Founders explicitly rejected. Ryan Wiggins brings the hard data showing Democrats hemorrhaging 275,000 voters in key swing districts, exposes the 2020 census miscounting that handed Democrats up to six stolen House seats, and dismantles the left's racist Electoral College argument for exactly what it is — pure desperation. And the show closes with three bombshells in rapid succession: $200 million laundered from USAID into Joe Biden's 2024 campaign, Fauci back in Rand Paul's crosshairs, and Chuck Schumer accidentally admitting 25 million people on Democrat voter rolls may not be legal citizens. This is the Marc Cox Morning Show — and today was one for the history books. Hashtags: #MarcCoxMorningShow #MarcCox #KimStOnge #TuckerCarlson #RockySickman #Amendment4 #Amendment5 #JohnLamping #StLouisMorningBrief #ToddPiro #NancyGuthrie #2ATuesday #MarkWalters #SupremeCourt #SecondAmendment #IlanWurman #Constitution #RyanWiggins #ElectionIntegrity #VoterFraud #USAID #Fauci #RandPaul #ChuckSchumer #SaveAct #Missouri #ConservativeRadio #AmericaFirst #CommonSense #PatriotVoices Full Guest List: Rocky Sickman — Former Iran hostage on what 444 days of captivity reveals about the Iran MOU and Trump's approach (Hour 1 reference/podcast) John Lamping — Former Missouri Senator on Planned Parenthood's Nazi endorsement, Missouri's abortion free-for-all and why conservatives must vote YES on Amendments 3, 4 and 5 Todd Piro — Fox and Friends First co-anchor on the Nancy Guthrie kidnapping update and Savannah Guthrie's emotional on-air reaction Mark Walters — Armed American Radio host and Second Amendment Foundation spokesman on the Supreme Court's 9-0 Hamani ruling, silencer protections and the left's plot to destroy Bruin Ilan Wurman — University of Minnesota law professor on how the Constitution has been hijacked, runaway federal power and out of control judges Ryan Wiggins — Wiggins America host on Democrats hemorrhaging swing district voters, the Electoral College attack and the 2020 census robbery

This Day in Legal History: The End of Roosevelt's Hundred DaysOn this day in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt signed three pieces of legislation that closed out what the country has been calling the Hundred Days ever since: the Banking Act of 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the Farm Credit Act, with the Home Owners' Loan Act having been signed three days earlier. The Banking Act of 1933 is the one most lawyers know, because the popular name attached to it — Glass-Steagall — has been doing rhetorical work in financial-regulation debates for ninety-three years.Carter Glass of Virginia and Henry Steagall of Alabama, the Senate Banking chair and the House Banking chair respectively, built the statute around two structural propositions: that commercial banks should be separated from investment banking and the speculative securities business that had helped pull the country into the Great Depression, and that depositors at member banks should be protected by a federal deposit insurance scheme so that a panic at one bank did not become a panic everywhere.The deposit insurance piece became the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The separation piece was the part that got partially repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 and then revisited in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The National Industrial Recovery Act, signed the same day, set up the National Recovery Administration and the Public Works Administration and was meant to coordinate industry-wide codes of fair competition; the Supreme Court struck the centerpiece codes provision down two years later in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States in 1935 on nondelegation and Commerce Clause grounds, an opinion that nearly killed the early New Deal and prompted Roosevelt's court-packing plan two years after that. The Farm Credit Act consolidated and refinanced the agricultural lending system that the Great Depression had taken to the brink.The legal point worth remembering is that this last day of the Hundred Days was, in retrospect, the moment the federal regulatory state of the twentieth century stopped being a collection of post-Civil-War commissions and started being the integrated structure of agencies, deposit-insurance funds, securities oversight, labor regulation, and welfare administration that the country has lived inside ever since. The fact that the Schechter Court was waiting in the wings to strike down the most ambitious piece of that day's work is part of the lesson. The constitutional question of how much economic ordering a Congress and a President can do at once was not answered on June 16, 1933 — it was framed.The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up E.D. v. Noblesville School District, a free-speech challenge brought by the parents of an Indiana high-school student whose school district had refused to let her post flyers for her student-run anti-abortion club on classroom and hallway walls. The student, identified in court papers by initials because she was a minor when the case was filed, had been the founder of Noblesville High School's Students for Life chapter. The flyers she wanted posted featured images of demonstrators holding “Defund Planned Parenthood” signs. Noblesville Schools removed the flyers under a district policy giving administrators content-based authority over student materials displayed on school property, and the parents sued under the First Amendment.The Southern District of Indiana sided with the district in 2024, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed in 2025, both applying Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the 1988 case that lets public schools regulate the content of school-sponsored expressive activities if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. The cert denial leaves Hazelwood intact in the Seventh Circuit and everywhere else.The piece worth flagging is Justice Alito's dissent from denial, joined by Justice Thomas, which urged the Court to grant review and use the case to revisit Hazelwood's framework. The dissent argues that Hazelwood was wrongly decided to the extent that it lets schools draw viewpoint-based lines under the cover of pedagogical-concern review, and that the doctrinal distinction Hazelwood draws between school-sponsored speech and Tinker-style independent student speech has become unworkable in the age of student clubs, distributed school messaging, and post-Mahanoy off-campus speech. Two votes are not five votes. But two votes naming a case as the vehicle they wanted are how the next decade of student-speech cases gets queued up. The Court has now told litigants what kind of vehicle it might be looking for. Expect a steady drumbeat of cert petitions teeing up the Hazelwood revisit over the next several terms.US Supreme Court turns away free speech claim by anti-abortion student | Reuters via Maryland Daily RecordThe Supreme Court also turned away on Monday the National Shooting Sports Foundation's challenge to New York's General Business Law § 898, the public-nuisance statute the New York legislature passed in 2021 to let the state and certain private plaintiffs sue firearms manufacturers, distributors, and dealers for endangering the public through the marketing and distribution of their products.The challenge was supported by Smith & Wesson, Sturm, Ruger, Beretta, Glock, and Sig Sauer, and went up on appeal from a 2024 Second Circuit decision that held the New York statute is not preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the 2005 federal statute that broadly immunizes the gun industry from civil liability arising from the criminal misuse of firearms.The Second Circuit reasoned that the PLCAA's “predicate exception” — which preserves state-law claims when the firearms industry has violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms — covers a state public-nuisance statute that, by its terms, regulates the sale and marketing of firearms. The cert denial leaves the Second Circuit's reading in place, leaves New York's statute on the books and enforceable, and leaves the industry with a litigation exposure it had hoped to neutralize.The strategic part of the case is going to be the copycat statutes. California, New Jersey, Washington, Delaware, Illinois, and Hawaii have all enacted versions of the New York approach since 2021, and other states have similar bills in committee. Each of those statutes is going to invite its own PLCAA-preemption fight in its own circuit, and the cumulative jurisprudence is going to get built case by case until either Congress amends PLCAA or the Court decides one of these cases is the right vehicle to step in. Today's denial was not that vehicle.SCOTUS Upholds NY Law Allowing Lawsuits Against Gunmakers | The Daily SignalThe third notable cert denial on Monday was the end of the road for Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. in its long-running trade-secret fight with DXC Technology — the successor in interest to Computer Sciences Corporation. TCS had asked the Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision that affirmed a $168 million judgment against it for misappropriating CSC's life-insurance-administration software trade secrets and using them to build TCS's own BaNCS platform, which TCS then used to win a $2.6 billion contract with the insurer Transamerica.The Northern District of Texas verdict, returned in 2022, had been $56 million in compensatory damages and $112 million in punitives, and the Fifth Circuit upheld the punitives ratio in 2025 over TCS's BMW v. Gore and State Farm v. Campbell challenge to the proportionality of the punitive award and over its Defend Trade Secrets Act extraterritoriality arguments. The cert petition pressed both points and pressed a circuit split on the standard for proving misappropriation by an independent contractor that had been given access to source code under a nondisclosure agreement, but the Court declined.The practical immediate effect is that TCS will recognize a roughly $70 million one-time exceptional charge in Q1 of its 2027 fiscal year and the total exposure on the matter — combining the affirmed judgment with previously taken provisions — settles in around $220 million. The broader effect is doctrinal stability. The Fifth Circuit's analysis on cross-border trade-secret damages and on the extraterritoriality limits of the DTSA stand. Both questions are going to recur, and the next vehicle that brings them up may catch the Court in a different mood, but for now the law is what the Fifth Circuit said it was.US Supreme Court rejects TCS challenge in $168 million trade secrets case | Business Standard 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

We open with the usual grab bag—the "foot fault" pun buried in a Justice Thomas opinion, reading Justice Alito's clerk-hiring tea leaves, and a detour into the metaphysics of conditional resignations and whether you can be confirmed to a vacancy that doesn't exist yet. Then to the merits: Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, a 9-0 judicial-estoppel case that lets us ask where the doctrine even came from (Tennessee, 1857, apparently), and Abouammo v. United States, the venue case about a former Twitter employee who fabricated a document while the FBI sat downstairs. The venue talk wanders, happily, into the Yellowstone "zone of death," a C.J. Box thriller, Jim Comey's second career as a novelist, and an extended appraisal of watch brands. Highlights[00:00:53] - Podcast update, SCOTUSblog partnership, and listener reviews[00:01:49] - Justice Thomas's "foot fault" joke[00:03:48] - Sam Bray citation discussion (Aldridge v. Regions Bank)[00:05:02] - Justice Alito retirement speculation and clerk rumors[00:17:23] - Vacation schedule and the upcoming opinion gap[00:21:03] - June 11 merits decisions overview[00:23:17] - Landor and the still-outstanding big case of the term[00:27:49] - Justice Sotomayor's statement respecting denial of cert on ineffective assistance[00:29:53] - Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction: bankruptcy and judicial estoppel[00:36:10] - The Fifth Circuit's rule on inadvertence and mistake[00:38:47] - Justice Jackson's majority opinion[00:40:29] - Justice Thomas's concurrence and the history of judicial estoppel[00:48:42] - Justice Sotomayor's concurrence and totality-of-the-circumstances approach[00:52:11] - Abouammo v. United States: Article III venue and criminal prosecution location[00:55:09] - Yellowstone's "zone of death" and vicinage problems[00:59:21] - The fake invoice, FBI investigation, and venue dispute[01:06:33] - Venue, personal jurisdiction, and extraterritorial conduct[01:10:22] - Statutory venue rules and unresolved constitutional questions[01:12:30] - Reprosecution after a venue reversal and double jeopardy

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia DecidedOn this day in 1967, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia striking down Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and, with it, the anti-miscegenation statutes that sixteen states still had on the books. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the Court. The case had come up from a county courthouse in Caroline County, Virginia, where Richard Loving, a white bricklayer, and Mildred Jeter, a Black and Native American woman, had been arrested in their bedroom in the middle of the night in 1958 by a sheriff acting on an anonymous tip — they had been married in the District of Columbia and returned home to Virginia, where their marriage was a felony. The Lovings pleaded guilty, accepted suspended sentences on the condition that they leave the state for twenty-five years, and lived in exile in Washington until Mildred wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy that landed eventually with the ACLU, which took the case.The Supreme Court's opinion did two things at once. It held that Virginia's statute violated the Equal Protection Clause because it drew an explicit racial classification with no legitimate state purpose beyond preserving “White Supremacy” — the Court used the phrase the Virginia statute itself had used — and it held that the statute violated the Due Process Clause because the freedom to marry is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” That second holding, the marriage-as-fundamental-right strand, is the through-line that runs from Loving to Zablocki v. Redhail in 1978, to Turner v. Safley in 1987, to Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 — every one of those decisions cites Loving and treats it as the foundational case. Whether the Court's substantive due process marriage doctrine survives the next decade is, as we discussed earlier this week, one of the open questions in American constitutional law. But Loving itself remains intact, and on June 12, 1967, the Court said something it had not said cleanly before: that the right to marry is the kind of liberty interest the Constitution actually protects.The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the Second Circuit in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd., holding 6-3 that the Investment Company Act of 1940 does not give private parties a cause of action to seek rescission of fund bylaws or other contractual terms. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority. The dispute came out of a campaign by Boaz Weinstein's Saba Capital against eleven closed-end funds — funds that, under Maryland's Control Share Acquisition Act, had adopted bylaws limiting the voting power of any shareholder who accumulated a disproportionate stake without the consent of other shareholders. Saba sued under Section 47(b) of the ICA, which makes contracts that violate the Act unenforceable, and the Second Circuit held that Section 47(b) implied a private right to rescind the bylaws.The Court told the Second Circuit to look harder at the modern implied-cause-of-action doctrine, which since Alexander v. Sandoval in 2001 has been hostile to inferring private rights of action that Congress did not write into the statute. The opinion reads as a continuation of that line: the ICA's enforcement structure is committed to the SEC, not to private plaintiffs, and Section 47(b) is a defense against contracts the SEC has already determined to be unlawful, not an offensive cause of action. The dissent, by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that this is a misreading of Section 47(b)'s text and that the majority is gratuitously narrowing the enforcement of the federal securities laws. The practical impact is significant. Activist investors who had been pushing closed-end funds to convert to open-end form, or to alter investment strategies, lose a federal-court tool they had been using; the funds themselves and their independent directors gain a meaningful structural defense. Expect the next round of activist campaigns to move to state-court fiduciary-duty theories instead.US Supreme Court rules against private suits brought under key securities law | US NewsThe Court on Thursday also decided Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., vacating the Fifth Circuit 9-0 in an opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The case is small in its facts and large in its doctrine. Thomas Keathley filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2019 and failed to disclose, on his schedule of assets, a personal-injury claim he later brought against a construction company over a truck accident. The Fifth Circuit barred the personal-injury suit on judicial-estoppel grounds — the longstanding equitable doctrine that prevents a party from taking one position in one proceeding and a contradictory position in another — using a three-factor test under which a debtor's mere knowledge of the facts plus a motive to conceal was enough to bar the later claim.The Supreme Court said no.To determine whether the omission was inadvertent or mistaken for judicial-estoppel purposes, the Court held, the lower courts must look to the totality of the circumstances, not just to whether the debtor knew of the facts and had a motive. The doctrinal interest of the case lies in two concurrences. Justice Sotomayor, concurring, wrote that judicial estoppel should likely never apply in an open bankruptcy case at all — the trustee can simply amend the schedule and pursue the claim for the estate, which solves the problem judicial estoppel was invented to address. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, went further and questioned whether federal courts have any inherent authority to apply judicial estoppel as a freestanding doctrine, period — a position that, if it ever gets five votes, would unwind a doctrine that has been part of American practice since the 1850s. None of that is the holding. But the votes to revisit one of the duller corners of equitable estoppel are now visibly on the table.Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. | SCOTUSblogThe third unanimous decision of the day was Abouammo v. United States, in which the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and vacated the obstruction-of-an-FBI-investigation conviction of Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee whose underlying case was one of the more striking Saudi-Arabia infiltration prosecutions of the last decade. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion. The facts are simple and the constitutional point cleaner than the facts. Abouammo, while working at Twitter's San Francisco office in 2014 and 2015, accessed and passed on confidential user information about Saudi dissidents to a Saudi official, in exchange for a $42,000 watch and $200,000 in wire transfers. The FBI eventually came to interview him at his home in Seattle, where he had moved by 2018, and during those interviews he created and emailed agents a fake invoice intended to make the wire transfers look like a legitimate consulting fee. The Justice Department charged the obstruction count along with foreign-agent and wire-fraud counts in the Northern District of California, and a San Francisco jury convicted him on all of them.The Supreme Court held that the obstruction count belonged in the Western District of Washington, not California, because the act of creating and sending the false invoice — the only act that supported the obstruction charge — happened entirely in Seattle. Article III's venue clause and the Sixth Amendment's vicinage requirement together do not let the government try a defendant in a state where no element of the charged offense occurred, no matter how convenient the prosecution. The obstruction conviction is vacated. The foreign-agent and wire-fraud convictions, which had different venue facts and were not before the Court, stand. Abouammo will not walk free. But the prosecution will need to decide whether to retry the obstruction count in Seattle, and the case is now a clean precedent that the venue clause has real teeth in a multi-district federal investigation.US Supreme Court overturns ex-Twitter employee's obstruction conviction in Saudi spy case | US News 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

DESCRIPTION:   Kash Patel is not as think as you drunk he is … again. And if you tell someone about it, he'll strap you to a polygraph.   The DC Circuit seems likely to side with Senator Mark Kelly in his lawsuit against Pete Hegseth for trying to steal his pension.   The DOJ subpoenaed a hospital in Rhode Island for medical records of kids receiving gender affirming care. While the parties were negotiating, the DOJ filed a petition to enforce in Texas, which their hand-picked Judge Reed O'Connor instantly granted. Now the hospital has appealed to the Fifth Circuit (ughhh) and the Rhode Island Child Advocate has filed a motion to quash in the District of Rhode Island.   Our Doofus of the Day is Chief Justice John Roberts. It won't always be someone on the Supreme Court, but when you stand up in front of hundreds of lawyers to whine about how unfair it is that people think your obviously political Supreme Court is political, how could we resist?   MAIN SHOW:   The 11th Circuit has joined two other circuit courts of appeal in ruling that the Trump administration cannot use the mandatory detention provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act to hold any immigrant, anywhere in the US, for any length of time and with no opportunity for a bond hearing.   The DOJ is so desperate to hire lawyers that they're offering signing bonuses and tipping current employees with "retention incentive allowances" to keep them from fleeing. Turns out, competent lawyers don't like harassing trans kids for sport and indicting Democratic politicians on spurious grounds.   Judge Coleen McMahon ruled that DOGE illegally dismantled the National Endowment for the Humanities when the bros fed the grantee database into ChatGPT with an instruction to find grants were "DEI."   The Southern Poverty Law Center says the government's public lies about the case — lookin' at you, Todd Blanche — are so egregious that the court should hand over the grand jury transcript.   Judges in Rhode Island and Texas are dueling over the DOJ's subpoena for the medical record for transgender minors.   READING LIST: How Professional Wrestling Prepared Linda McMahon for Trump's Cabinet   Kash Patel's Personalized Bourbon Stash https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/05/kash-patel-fbi-bourbon/687066/   Kash Patel ordered polygraphs of more than two dozen members of his team, sources tell MS NOW https://www.ms.now/news/kash-patel-ordered-polygraphs-of-more-than-two-dozen-members-of-his-team-sources-tell-ms-now   DOJ Offers Lawyers $25,000 Signing Bonuses as Hiring Lags https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/doj-offers-lawyers-25-000-signing-bonuses-as-recruitment-lags   US. SPLC https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73223865/united-states-v-southern-poverty-law-center-inc   In Re: Administrative Subpoena 25-1431-032 [Texas action] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73276712/in-re-administrative-subpoena-25-1431-032/   In Re: Motion to Quash Administrative Subpoena to Rhode Island Hospital [Rhode Island action] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73290254/in-re-motion-to-quash-administrative-subpoena-to-rhode-island-hospital/   "Chief Justice John Roberts says American public wrongly views the justices as 'political actors'" [NBC News] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/chief-justice-john-roberts-says-justices-are-not-political-actors-rcna343958   Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden (11th Cir. immigration) [docket via CourtListener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/05/06/ismael_perez_v._assistant_field_office_director_krome_north_service.pdf   American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70035052/american-council-of-learned-societies-v-mcdonald/   How Professional Wrestling Prepared Linda McMahon for Trump's Cabinet https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/27/linda-mcmahon-profile   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod

The Fifth Circuit is crossing out laws just for sport. This time it's a 140-year-old ban on making homebrew hooch, because YOLO.   Trump's lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch over an article describing his creepy birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein was dismissed. But … that dismissal was without prejudice, so he can take another swing at it. The trollsuit against the BBC is still limping along.   Deputy General Counsel at the Department of Education Josh Kleinfeld makes an interesting pitch to George Mason's Antonin Scalia Law School, which is currently under investigation by … the Department of Education.   And Trump's ballroom blitz takes a tumble in court.   MAIN SHOW:   Trump discovers one weird trick to make the Presidential Records Act disappear. All he has to do is order the Office of Legal Counsel to come up with a memo saying it's unconstitutional and — hey, presto! — he can steal or shred or delete any document he likes.   SUBSCRIBER BONUS:   Are we the pirates now?   Trump v. Murdoch https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70843413/trump-v-murdoch   Trump v. BBC https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72040010/trump-v-british-broadcasting-corporation   Fifth Circuit Home Distillers Ruling https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-10760-CV0.pdf   Trump Admin Lawyer Applies To Be Law School Dean, Suggests It Might Help Investigations Go Away https://abovethelaw.com/2026/04/trump-admin-lawyer-applies-to-be-law-school-dean-suggests-it-might-help-investigations-go-away/   Ballroom Blitz Blocked https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ballroom-blitz-blocked   National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73127510/national-trust-for-historic-preservation-v-nps   April 1, 2026 OLC Memorandum on the Presidential Records Act https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1434131/dl   Judicial Watch v. NARA ("Socks Case"), 845 F.Supp.2d 288 (DC Cir. 2012) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15818036517066124081   Trump v. Mazars, 591 US 848 (2020) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2096461232780826445   Nixon v. Administrator of General Svcs. et al., 433 US 425 (1977) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11884364268460571560   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod

DESCRIPTION:   Capitol police officer Shauni Kerkhoff has sued Glenn Beck's outfit The Blaze for defamation after they said she "kinda walked like a criminal" – and she's brought out the big guns. The Trump administration funneled another $1.25 million in taxpayer dollars to campaign stooge Carter Page. The Fifth Circuit hit us with another terrible decision, this one permitting states to force public schools to display the Ten Commandments. We wrote about it on the blog, and it's even worse than you imagine. And   And   In the main show, we have an extended interview with electoral maps expert Joe Dye over the Virginia Constitutional Amendment that passed on Tuesday and will replace Virginia's existing Congressional districts (that are 6 Democratic and 5 Republican) with a new map that is 10-1 Democratic. For now, a Republican judge in Tazewell County has enjoined the amendment.   SUBSCRIBER BONUS:   We discuss the Trump administration's bogus indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Kerkhoff v. Blaze Media, LLC [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73220023/kerkhoff-v-blaze-media-llc/   "Fifth Circuit Cosplays As Historians So It Can Burn Down The Wall Between Church And State" [lawandchaospod.com] https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/fifth-circuit-cosplays-as-historians   Rosado v. Bondi [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72259284/rosado-v-bondi/   Text of Virginia's Constitutional Amendment https://www.elections.virginia.gov/election-law/proposed-amendment-for-april-2026-special-election/   Existing Virginia Congressional District Map (6-5 Democratic, drawn by independent commission) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Virginia_Congressional_Districts%2C_118th_Congress_%282%29.svg   New Virginia Congressional District Map (10-1 Democratic) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Virginia_Congressional_Districts%2C_120th_Congress_%282026_Redistricting_Amendment%29.svg   Judge Hurley's injunction issued in Tazewell County, Virginia [text via Meidas Touch News] https://meidasnews.com/news/virginia-judge-voids-redistricting-amendment-invalidates-all-votes-from-tuesdays-special-election   Indictment of Southern Poverty Law Center [via CourtListener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.almd.90264/gov.uscourts.almd.90264.1.0.pdf   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod

DOCKET ALERTS:    Sadly, recurring L&C segment "Justin Baldoni Teaches CivPro" is canceled. He and Blake Lively settled their civil suit today. Now we'll just have to rely on Trump and his minions to show us how law does not work.   The DOJ subpoenaed a Rhode Island hospital for patient records on gender affirming care. When the hospital failed to respond (oh no!), the DOJ moved to enforce the subpoena … in Texas, before a hand-picked conservative jurist. Judge Reed O'Connor granted the motion, and now the hospital is seeking to block the demand in a Rhode Island federal court.   Trump says the War Powers Resolution doesn't count because of the ceasefire. He's full of s***.   Law and Chaos's first inaugural Doofus of the Day is Justice Neil Gorsuch, who went on Fox News to hawk his book and tell us all about the Christian Founding Fathers.   MAIN SHOW:   On Friday the Fifth Circuit purported to ban the abortion drug mifepristone nationwide based on a letter from HHS Secretary Robert "Bear Carcass" Kennedy implying that the dispensing protocol had been arbitrarily decided. On Monday, the Supreme Court stayed that order temporarily.    Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Alina Habba — what even is her job these days??? — both appeared on TV and undermined the Comey seashells case.    Democratic candidate Lindsay Garcia and a local voter have sued Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry over his executive order that suspends that state's primary elections – but only for the US House of Representatives races.   And for subscribers: US Attorney for DC Jeanine Pirro is ready to pick up the slack for Justin Baldoni. Today she'll teach us how Munsinwear vacatur doesn't work.    In Re: Administrative Subpoena 25-1431-032 [Texas action] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73276712/in-re-administrative-subpoena-25-1431-032/   In Re: Motion to Quash Administrative Subpoena to Rhode Island Hospital [Rhode Island action] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73290254/in-re-motion-to-quash-administrative-subpoena-to-rhode-island-hospital/   US v. Russotto https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70649950/united-states-v-russotto/   Collins v. Landry (Louisiana elections lawsuit) [Docket via CourtListener] https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/2026-Executive-Orders/JML-Exective-Order-26-038.pdf   Executive Order 26-038 (order suspending elections) https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/2026-Executive-Orders/JML-Exective-Order-26-038.pdf   Louisiana v. FDA (5th Cir) [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73207799/state-of-louisiana-v-fda/   Louisiana v. FDA (W.D. La. trial court) [docket via CourtListener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.213952/   Sec. Kennedy Letter re: Mifepristone https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.213952/gov.uscourts.lawd.213952.1.110.pdf   Supreme Court stay order https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/050426zr_l5gm.pdf   In re grand jury subpoenas [Federal Reserve] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72490330/in-re-grand-jury-subpoenas/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod

DOCKET ALERTS:   Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on the stolen documents case must remain sealed forever in perpetuity.   Kouri Richins goes on trial for murdering her husband in Utah. She's not being charged for writing a terrible children's book about dealing with grief over the loss of a parent … but maybe she should be?    The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, allowed Louisiana to require the display of the Ten Commandments in every classroom statewide. The law had been blocked, but the Court decided that no one had been injured yet, so the case is unripe.   Elon Musk is being sued for securities fraud in California. But they can't seat a jury because everyone hates him.   MAIN SHOW:   It's all about tariffs. We break down the Supreme Court's Learning Resources v. Trump, and explain why dragging this case out for a year ensures chaos as importers try to recoup money they've already paid. And we'll talk about Trump's plan to impose new illegal tariffs based on a  gross misinterpretation of yet another internal statute.   The opinion is particularly contentious, revealing the justices' angry, internal feuding over the future of the court. And subscribers will get a deep dive into the origins of this conflict, reaching back to Justice Kagan's famous 2015 "Antonin Scalia Lecture Series" lecture at Harvard Law School and extending through Justice Jackson's concurrence in Learning Resources.   US v. Trump [stolen documents case] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump   Kouri Richins Warrant https://www.scribd.com/document/654496602/Kouri-Richins-Warrant   Contempt for Musk clouds jury selection in Twitter takeover trial https://www.courthousenews.com/contempt-for-musk-clouds-jury-selection-in-twitter-takeover-trial/   Roake v. Brumley [Fifth Circuit Ten Commandments] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.221848/gov.uscourts.ca5.221848.389.1.pdf   Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump [tariffs case] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf   Congressional Research Service, "Congressional and Presidential Authority to Impose Import Tariffs" https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48435/R48435.1.pdf   Elena Kagan "Antonin Scalia Lecture Series," Harvard Law School (2015) [via YouTube] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpEtszFT0Tg   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Docket Alerts:   Exactly zero grand jurors voted to indict the members of Congress who made a video in November reminding active duty service members of their duty to refuse illegal orders. And Judge Richard Leon told Secretary Hegseth to pound "Horsefeathers!" with his attempt to demote Senator Mark Kelly and dock his naval retirement.   The Justice Department hasn't stopped trying to evade senate confirmation for US Attorneys. Hours after judges in New York exercised their legal right to appoint someone competent to run the office, the Trump administration fired him.    Subscribers will get a deep dive into AG Bondi's efforts to ONE WEIRD TRICK a "triumvirate" of lawyers into the US Attorney spot.   MAIN SHOW:   Two hundred federal and state agents descended on a Mexican heritage festival in Idaho in October. They leveraged five arrest warrants for illegal gambling into a massive detention operation to brutalize hundreds of families. Now those families are suing under 42 USC § 1983, alleging a conspiracy between the feds and local law enforcement.   In DC, Trump appointee Judge Tim Kelly blocked the administration from taking revenge on inmates whose death sentences were commuted by President Biden by moving them all to Supermax.   After the Fifth Circuit's terrible ruling last week allowing for indefinite detention of all non-citizens, district court judges are still finding ways to grant habeas petitions.   Back in DC, Judge Ana Reyes barred Secretary Noem from ending temporary protected status for 350,000 Haitians. She also had some frank words about the threats that rain down on judges who rule against the Trump administration – and why they won't succeed.   Rodriguez v. Porter https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72256071/rodriguez-v-porter/   Taylor v. Trump [Death Row Commutations] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71717101/taylor-v-trump/   Kelly v. Hegseth https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72131361/kelly-v-hegseth/   US v. Naviwala [US Attorney New Jersey] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68269162/united-states-v-naviwala   Cumbe Lema v. De Anda-Ybarra [Texas Habeas] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72210802/cumbe-lema-v-de-anda-ybarra/   Hassen v. Noem [Texas Habeas] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72143519/hassen-v-noem-secretary-us-department-of-homeland-security/   Lesly Miot v. Trump [Haitian TPS] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70965949/lesly-miot-v-trump/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Docket Alerts:   In Jeffrey Epstein news: Ghislaine Maxwell showed up for congressional testimony, but says she's taking the Fifth unless and until she gets a pardon. Bill and Hillary Clinton agreed to testify, averting a vote to refer them to DOJ for contempt of Congress. Paul Weiss managing partner Brad Karp stepped down after his emails to the noted pedophile were published.    Luigi Mangione will not face the death penalty, but will face trial this summer.   Main Show:   The Trump administration is trying to magic away Steve Bannon's contempt of Congress conviction with an assist from SCOTUS. It's called a GVR, and it's filthy.   The DOJ sued in state court to get Fulton County's 2020 ballots. They sued in federal court. And then they got a criminal warrant and just took them. Now Georgia election officials are suing to get their ballots back.   What is going on with that Tulsi Gabbard whistleblower report?   The Fifth Circuit greenlights ICE's batcrap insane legal theory that the government must hold immigrants in detention indefinitely without a hearing. Should the challengers petition for en banc review, or go straight to SCOTUS?   And for subscribers, we'll break down FCC Chair Brendan Carr's threat to investigate the ladies at The View for daring to interview Texas Senate candidate James Talarico — a known Democrat!   Bannon Rule 48(a) Motion to Dismiss  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.237437/gov.uscourts.dcd.237437.207.0.pdf   Bannon Cert Petition https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-453/395803/20260209141144273_25-453_Bannon_cert_resp_file.pdf   US v. Alexander [DOJ civil suit to see Fulton County ballots] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72028229/united-states-v-alexander/   Pitts v. US [Fulton County suit to recover ballots] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72247417/pitts-v-united-states/   NSA detected foreign intelligence phone call about a person close to Trump https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/07/nsa-foreign-intelligence-trump-whistleblower   Whistle-Blower Report Involved Intelligence About a Trump Contact https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/07/us/politics/whistle-blower-gabbard-trump.html   Buenrostro Mendez v. Bondi https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71870107/buenrostro-mendez-v-bondi/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

An ICE whistleblower reveals a secret memo where DHS lawyers say agents can arrest people in their homes without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment says otherwise! And the Supreme Court's conservatives were extremely unimpressed with Trump's plan to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook on Truth Social. We'll break down Wednesday's oral argument in detail but first, we've got approximately one million ...   DOCKET ALERTS (Dun dun DUNNNN):   Former Special Counsel Jack Smith testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Watch it for yourself here.   The Justice Department arrested three people in relation to the protest on January 18 at Cities Church in St. Paul. Nothing has appeared on the docket, but the DOJ claims to have charged them under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, meant to protect women seeking abortion care.   The Eighth Circuit administratively stayed District Judge Katherine Menendez's preliminary injunction barring DHS goons from brutalizing protesters.   A jury in Chicago took just three hours to acquit a man of trying to hire someone to murder CBP's head thug Greg Bovino. Don't drunk text!    Donald Trump's latest trollsuit targets JP Morgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon. It's filed in state court in Miami and seeks $5 billion for tortious debanking.   Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson secured a standstill order barring the government from looking at the computers and hard drives it seized from her house in Virginia as part of its investigation into classified leaks by government contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones.    The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, reheard a challenge to Louisiana's HB71, which required every public school classroom to display the Ten Commandments. Background here.   Judge Paul Engelmayer rebuffed a request by Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna to enforce the Epstein Files Transparency Act and order the government to disclose all materials on Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Remember this next time you hear some rightwing pundit railing against "activist judges."   And we bid a fond farewell to Lindsey Halligan, who finally quit trying to pass herself off as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Well … fond-ish. After getting benchslapped by a federal judge and seeing her job posted online by the chief judge in EDVA, she finally took the hint.   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Breaking! The president is bugf*** insane! But first … docket alerts. Dun-dun-DUNNNNN.   We've reached the "yelling at chestnuts for being lazy" stage of the presidency, as Trump barks out ever-nuttier orders.    Meanwhile in Texas, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk managed to moot the appeal of an LGBTQ+ student group at West Texas A&M which sued in 2023 to enjoin their school's ban on drag shows. All he had to do was rush out an opinion in 48 hours saying that drag shows are not expressive conduct covered by the First Amendment. And lie about Fifth Circuit precedent!   TG we have at least one good legal development, this time out of Minnesota!   For the main show, we'll break down the legal implications of Elon Musk building a chatbot in his own abusive troll image. Will the Take It Down Act put a stop to AI generation of deepfake CSAM and NCII?    Meanwhile over at the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Kristi Noem and her minions are a wee smidge confused about the Fourth Amendment. If you can even believe it! But even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while. DHS wins a round against legislators seeking to inspect ICE detention facilities thanks to some creative accounting. But the victory may be short-lived.]   And subscribers will get another visit with that Overstock.com weirdo Patrick Byrne, who managed to lose a defamation case against the most defamation-proof defendant in America. Guest starring: Stefanie Lambert. Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Intellectual Property: Maynews aggregator apps legally display news publisher content via embedding without securing explicit licenses or paying fees? - Argued: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 15:48:59 EDT

Federalism: May the United States and Texas jointly invalidate a Texas law providing for in-state tuition for undocumented students? - Argued: Thu, 04 Jun 2026 15:45:46 EDT

In this episode, Imani and Jess unpack the Supreme Court's order on mifepristone access and explain where it fits in the Trump administration's crusade to redefine motherhood nationwide. Expert Repro Journalism That Inspires. Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a member today. B*itch, Listen now has its own dedicated feed on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you get your podcasts. If you already subscribe to Boom! Lawyered, sign up for B*tch, Listen so you won't miss it.

In this episode, Imani and Jess unpack the Supreme Court's order on mifepristone access and explain where it fits in the Trump administration's crusade to redefine motherhood nationwide. Expert Repro Journalism That Inspires. Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a member today. B*itch, Listen now has its own dedicated feed on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you get your podcasts. If you already subscribe to Boom! Lawyered, sign up for B*tch, Listen so you won't miss it.

This week on Amicus, hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern break down a whirlwind stretch of reproductive rights legal battles, from the Fifth Circuit's sweeping nationwide ban on telehealth medication abortion, to the Supreme Court's emergency order blocking it. Madiba Dennie (Deputy Editor, Balls and Strikes; and author of The Originalism Trap) joins to explain what the furious dissents from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito reveal about where this is all headed.Then, Dahlia sits down with writer, activist, and former NARAL president Ilyse Hogue for a wide-ranging conversation about why the assault on medication abortion and the assault on voting rights are the same fight — and why progressives keep losing the narrative battle even when public opinion and shared values are on their side. They also discuss an overlooked but hugely significant win for free speech in the Media Matters v. FTC case, and why fighting back against government bullying matters more than ever.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Amicus, hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern break down a whirlwind stretch of reproductive rights legal battles, from the Fifth Circuit's sweeping nationwide ban on telehealth medication abortion, to the Supreme Court's emergency order blocking it. Madiba Dennie (Deputy Editor, Balls and Strikes; and author of The Originalism Trap) joins to explain what the furious dissents from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito reveal about where this is all headed.Then, Dahlia sits down with writer, activist, and former NARAL president Ilyse Hogue for a wide-ranging conversation about why the assault on medication abortion and the assault on voting rights are the same fight — and why progressives keep losing the narrative battle even when public opinion and shared values are on their side. They also discuss an overlooked but hugely significant win for free speech in the Media Matters v. FTC case, and why fighting back against government bullying matters more than ever.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Amicus, hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern break down a whirlwind stretch of reproductive rights legal battles, from the Fifth Circuit's sweeping nationwide ban on telehealth medication abortion, to the Supreme Court's emergency order blocking it. Madiba Dennie (Deputy Editor, Balls and Strikes; and author of The Originalism Trap) joins to explain what the furious dissents from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito reveal about where this is all headed.Then, Dahlia sits down with writer, activist, and former NARAL president Ilyse Hogue for a wide-ranging conversation about why the assault on medication abortion and the assault on voting rights are the same fight — and why progressives keep losing the narrative battle even when public opinion and shared values are on their side. They also discuss an overlooked but hugely significant win for free speech in the Media Matters v. FTC case, and why fighting back against government bullying matters more than ever.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Imani and Jess unpack the historic attack on voting rights from the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais and explain what's next from the Court on the fight to block mifepristone access.    Expert Repro Journalism That Inspires. Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a member today. B*itch, Listen now has its own dedicated feed on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you get your podcasts. If you already subscribe to Boom! Lawyered, sign up for B*tch, Listen so you won't miss it.

The president had 60 days to ask Congress for permission to keep fighting a war with Iran. Today was the deadline. He didn't ask. He sent a letter saying the war is "terminated," while 50,000 troops remain deployed, the naval blockade continues, oil sits at $118 a barrel, gas is at $4.12, and the Secretary of Defense told the world he could resume strikes "at the push of a button."Meanwhile, his sons signed a Pentagon drone deal. The Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. The Fifth Circuit blocked mifepristone from being mailed anywhere in the country. A whistleblower revealed the DOJ rushed the SPLC indictment. Infowars went dark forever. The new surgeon general nominee has spent years publicly calling out RFK Jr. And the owner of Politico told his journalists to support Israel or resign.Robin breaks down the entire week: the War Powers Resolution deadline and why Trump's "ceasefire means the war is over" argument is constitutionally indefensible. The Trump family drone company Powerus and how Don Jr. and Eric are positioned to profit from their father's unauthorized war. The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling eviscerating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the DOJ's gleeful "we are ON IT" response, and the state-by-state domino effect already underway in Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and beyond. The Fifth Circuit's nationwide ruling blocking mail-order mifepristone and what it means for abortion access in every state. The SPLC whistleblower who says Associate Deputy AG Aakash Singh ordered prosecutors to rush a weak indictment against a civil rights organization for the crime of infiltrating white supremacist groups.Casey Means getting pulled and Nicole Saphier's history of criticizing Kennedy's anti-vaccine empire. Alex Jones' slurred champagne farewell and The Onion's plan to turn Infowars into a parody of itself. Axel Springer CEO Mathias Dopfner demanding Politico journalists back Israel or leave. And the DNC burying its own autopsy to protect Kamala Harris' 2028 bid.This is what a single week looks like when every guardrail fails at once.New episode. We Saw the Devil.KEYWORDS:War Powers Act Iran, War Powers Resolution 60 days, Trump Iran hostilities terminated, Trump Iran ceasefire war powers, Iran war 2026, Pete Hegseth war powers testimony, Susan Collins war powers vote, Trump sons drone deal, Powerus drone company, Eric Trump Donald Trump Jr Pentagon, Trump family war profiteering, drone deal Air Force Iran, Supreme Court Voting Rights Act 2026, Section 2 Voting Rights Act gutted, Louisiana redistricting, Callais Supreme Court ruling, Harmeet Dhillon minority voters, DOJ target minority districts, Alabama redistricting special session, Florida redistricting 2026, voting rights midterms, mifepristone ruling, mifepristone mail ban, 5th Circuit abortion pill, mifepristone access blocked nationwide, abortion pill telehealth banned, SPLC indictment, Southern Poverty Law Center DOJ, SPLC whistleblower, Aakash Singh DOJ, Todd Blanche acting attorney general, Jamie Raskin SPLC letter, Casey Means withdrawn, Nicole Saphier surgeon general, RFK Jr surgeon general, MAHA movement, Infowars shutdown, Alex Jones Infowars dark, The Onion Infowars takeover, Sandy Hook families, Ben Collins Onion, Politico Axel Springer Israel, Mathias Dopfner journalists resign, press freedom 2026, DNC autopsy 2024, Kamala Harris 2028, dark money Democratic races, Israel US ammunition 6500 tons, midterm elections 2026, oil prices Iran blockade, gas prices 2026, Trump defense budget 1.5 trillion, We Saw the Devil podcast, WSTD podcast, Robin Coleman podcast, political commentary podcastBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/we-saw-the-devil-crime-political-analysis--4433638/support.Website: http://www.wesawthedevil.comPatreon: http://www.patreon.com/wesawthedevilDiscord: https://discord.gg/X2qYXdB4Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/WeSawtheDevilInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/wesawthedevilpodcast.

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – In a razor thin 9–8 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit confirmed Texas Senate Bill 10, overturning the lower-court injunctions that had barred the 2025 law from taking effect. The ACLU lamented the decision. “We are extremely disappointed in today's decision. The Court's ruling goes against fundamental First Amendment principles and...

From the DOJ's targeting of the Southern Poverty Law Center for its anti-KKK work to Kash Patel's outrageous lawsuit against The Atlantic for its reporting on his unfitness for office to the Fifth Circuit's legal contortions allowing Texas to mandate the Ten Commandments be displayed in classrooms, it's been a wild week in the law. Kate and Leah unpack it all before recapping the week's oral arguments, which featured the welcome return of former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar to One First Street's hallowed halls. For the second part of the show, Kate and Leah speak with University of Pennsylvania law professor Shaun Ossei-Owusu about his new book, Law on Trial: An Unlikely Insider Reckons with Our Legal System.Favorite things: Kate: Sexistential, Robyn; USAID Whistleblower Says It Was Even Worse Than People Knew, Vittoria Elliott (Wired); Into the Wood Chipper: A Whistleblower's Account of How the Trump Administration Shredded USAID, Nicholas Enrich; Enrich's interview on Pod Save the World; Melissa on the Work Friends podcast Leah: The Great Divide, Noah Kahan; Kahan's Tiny Desk Concert; It Is Time for Ruthless Aggression, Jonathan V. Last (The Bulwark); The Gerrymandering Fight Should Be A Dress Rehearsal For Court Packing, Brian Beutler (Off Message); Sanewashing the Emergency Docket, Steve Vladeck (One First); The SPLC indictment, the Klan history behind it, and the ignominy of Todd Blanche, Chris Geidner (Law Dork); LEGO Kash Patel videos Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2026! 6/20/26 – New York City Learn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPreorder Melissa's book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern ReaderPreorder a signed paperback of Leah's book, Lawless, here.Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Why Did Trump Fire His Own Navy Secretary In The Middle Of A War? Trump Plots A Revenge Tantrum At The Press Dinner. Republican appointed Judge blocks Virginia from using new House maps, Just 1 day after the “people's vote.” The Strategy That Built America's Middle Class Still Works, So Why Won't Democrats Deploy It? And Did the Fifth Circuit Just Bulldoze the Wall Between Church and State?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.