Podcasts about fifth circuit

Fresno Unified School District Trustees will receive double the amount of pay after the recent passage of a state assembly bill. The pay is increasing from $ 2,100 a month to about $ 4,500 a month. This is a move that has not happened since the 1980’s. Fresno Unified denied allegations made by some retirees in a complaint letter and said that the 2023 health insurance changes do not constitute a loss of benefits or a breach of the collective bargaining agreement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc heard consolidated challenges to Louisiana and Texas laws requiring display of a nonsectarian version of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or coercing religious practice. Please Like, Comment and Follow 'Philip Teresi on KMJ' on all platforms: --- Philip Teresi on KMJ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever else you listen to podcasts. -- Philip Teresi on KMJ Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 FM KMJ | Website | Facebook | Instagram | X | Podcast | Amazon | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

First, Leah and Melissa explain the legal battles around the ICE occupation in Minnesota and what might come after the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Then, Leah, Kate, and Melissa run through the latest legal news, including Jack Smith's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, before diving into this week's blockbuster oral argument, Trump v. Cook, on whether Trump has the power to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board. They also cover the week's other oral arguments, including a Second Amendment case where Sam Alito came out as woke…for guns. Finally, with apologies to the Fifth Circuit, a new nominee for America's worst circuit court. Preorder Melissa's new book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern Reader, out May 12, 2026. Favorite things:Melissa: Valentino Was the Last of Fashion's Old Guard, Robin Givhan (NYT); The Supreme Court Just Held an Anti-Trans Hatefest, Elie Mystal (The Nation)Kate: The Purged, Franklin Foer (The Atlantic); There's Much More at Stake in the Fed Case Than Interest Rates, Lev Menand (NYT); God of the Woods, Liz Moore; Broken Country, Clare Leslie HallLeah: Lindsey Halligan being a shitty lawyer; Mark Carney at the World Economic Forum;  Stand With Minnesota; Your Friendly Neighborhood Resistance, Kerry Howley (New York Magazine) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Julian Gomez is a nationally recognized auto product liability attorney who pioneered litigation strategies in catastrophic defect cases. After clerking at the Fifth Circuit and working the first Ford Explorer Firestone case, he built a nationwide practice focused almost exclusively on auto product litigation. In this episode, Julian shares how, in an industry where firms fight over the same cases, he has carved out his blue ocean in auto product liability. Julian's method is surprisingly simple: specialize deeply, share knowledge freely, and let expertise create opportunities. Listen to the full episode with Julian Gomez on Personal Injury Mastermind, powered by Rankings.io below: Spotify Apple Podcasts Watch the Episodes On YouTube The Julian C. Gomez Law Firm: Website | Instagram If you like what you hear, hit subscribe. We do this every week. Get Social! Personal Injury Mastermind (PIM) powered by Rankings.io is on Instagram | YouTube | TikTok

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: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Immigration: May State law enforcement arrest individuals for being undocumented? - Argued: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 6:10:38 EDT

Immigration: May the Trump Administration deport Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act? - Argued: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 6:12:13 EDT

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: Finally, on the even of the primary elections, Texas House leadership issues fines to Democrats for breaking quorum last summer ($9,354.25 each.) This should have been done in September; doing it now is actually a campaign gift from the insiders to the Democrat incumbents up for re-election as well as for some weak Republicans. I explain.Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.After oral argument, full Fifth Circuit “wary” of Ten Commandments laws' challengers. As expected.HD88's Ken King (the casino gambling lobby's man in NW Texas) did more to stop mainstream conservative legislation than anyone in the House this past year. Why did Burrows give him such a powerful committee to run knowing he's a Straus anti-conservative? To get elected Speaker of course!WFAA: “Protesters in Fort Worth decry recent ICE arrests, cite fears for personal freedoms.” This has to be among the most shallow, clueless, and plainly stupid quotes from these type people yet: “…we're just people who love our country, and we don't want to see it taken away from us.” Well, it isn't the country of those here illegally and how does anyone not see that accepting millions upon million of illegal aliens into our country isn't itself giving away our country?!Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

Establishment Clause: May a State require its public schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms? - Argued: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 8:42:50 EDT

It's Thursday, and that means it's time to catch up on politics with The Times-Picayune/New Orleans Advocate's editorial director and columnist, Stephanie Grace. Today, we hear about President Trump's recent endorsement of Rep. Julie Letlow (R-LA), who is running for Sen. Bill Cassidy's seat. Last week, the Supreme Court began to hear oral arguments in Chevron U.S.A. v. Plaquemines Parish. The case could determine the outcome of dozens of lawsuits seeking billions in damages from oil companies that allegedly polluted Louisiana's coastline. The parish argued that the pollution has contributed to Louisiana's land loss crisis. The Times-Picayune/The Advocate's Alex Lubben has been covering this story. He joins us for more.A recent ruling by a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals could have a far-reaching effect on songwriters, their intellectual property, and music companies. Louisiana songwriter Cyril Vetter reclaimed his total ownership of his 1963 hit “Double Shot of My Baby's Love” when he terminated his contract with Resnik Music Group back in 2022. Copyright laws made it so that he only retained the U.S. rights to the song. But the appeals court ruling struck down that long-time practice. The attorney who represented Vetter, Tim Kappel, joins us to explain what this ruling means for songwriters. —Today's episode of Louisiana Considered was hosted by Bob Pavlovich. Our managing producer is Alana Schreiber. We get production support from Garrett Pittman and our assistant producer, Aubry Procell.You can listen to Louisiana Considered Monday through Friday at noon and 7 p.m. It's available on Spotify, the NPR App and wherever you get your podcasts. Louisiana Considered wants to hear from you!  Please fill out our pitch line to let us know what kinds of story ideas you have for our show. And while you're at it, fill out our listener survey! We want to keep bringing you the kinds of conversations you'd like to listen to.Louisiana Considered is made possible with support from our listeners. Thank you!

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: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wolford v. Lopez | 01/20/26 | Docket #: 24-1046 24-1046 WOLFORD V. LOPEZ DECISION BELOW: 116 F.4th 959 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen , 597 U.S. 1, 33 (2022), holds that "the Second Amendment guarantees a general right to public carry" of arms, meaning ordinary, law-abiding citizens may "'bear' arms in public for self-defense." In this case, the Ninth Circuit sustained a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a concealed carry permit holder to carry a handgun on private property unless he has been "given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property by the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property." H.R.S. § 134-9.5. That holding is in acknowledged direct conflict with the Second Circuit's holding in Antonyuk v. James , 120 F.4th 941 (2d Cir. 2024), a decision that struck down an identical State law in the same procedural posture as this case. The Ninth Circuit also sustained a multitude of other location bans on carry by permit holders, relying solely on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws. That doctrinal approach is in direct conflict with the Third Circuit's decision in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police , 125 F.4th 428 (3d Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Connelly , 117 F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024), the Eighth Circuit's decision in Worth v. Jacobson , 108 F.4th 677 (8th Cir. 2024), and, most recently, the Eleventh Circuit's en banc decision in NRA v. Bondi , No. 21- 12314, 2025 WL 815734 at *5 (11th Cir. March 14,2025) (en banc), all of which hold that primary focus must be on Founding generation laws and tradition in applying the text, history and tradition test Bruen mandates. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier? 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen 's text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-16164

https://vimeo.com/1155580268?share=copy&fl=sv&fe=ci https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/podcasts/2026/1/18/2026-01-19-fifth-circuit-reverses-tax-court-on-se-income-for-state-law-limited-partners This week we look at: SE Tax Liability for Limited Partners (Sirius Solutions) Whistleblower Awards and "Collected Proceeds" Statutory Construction of Section 168(k) Amendments Updated Safe Harbor Explanations for Section 402(f) Modernized Group Tax Exemption Framework Tax-Exempt Status of Supplemental Military Housing Allowances

Fifth Circuit throws out functional test on self-employment income for a limited partner, IRS restarts group tax exemption process and more.

This week we look at: SE Tax Liability for Limited Partners (Sirius Solutions) Whistleblower Awards and "Collected Proceeds" Statutory Construction of Section 168(k) Amendments Updated Safe Harbor Explanations for Section 402(f) Modernized Group Tax Exemption Framework Tax-Exempt Status of Supplemental Military Housing Allowances

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish | 01/12/26 | Docket #: 24-813 24-813 CHEVRON USA INC. V. PLAQUEMINES PARISH DECISION BELOW: 103 F.4th 324 January 8 , 2026 JUSTICE ALITO WILL NOT CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS CASE. CERT. GRANTED 6/16/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: This petition arises from Louisiana parishes' efforts to hold petitioners liable in state court for, inter alia , production of crude oil in the Louisiana coastal zone during World War II. Petitioners removed these cases from state court under 28 U.S.C. §1442 (a)(1), which as amended in 2011 provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against "any person acting under [an] officer" of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office." The Fifth Circuit unanimously held that petitioners satisfy the statute's "acting under" requirement by virtue of their WWII-era contracts to supply the federal government with high-octane aviation gasoline ("avgas"). But the panel divided on the "relating to" requirement, with the two-judge majority holding that petitioners' wartime production of crude oil was "unrelated" to their contractually required refinement of that same crude into avgas because the contracts did not contain any explicit "directive pertaining to [petitioners'] oil production activities." App.38. Judge Oldham dissented, explaining that the majority's approach reinstates a variant of the "causal nexus" requirement that multiple circuits (and the U.S. Congress) have expressly rejected. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by a vote of 7 to 6. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute. 2. Whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-30294, 23-30422

Hello and welcome to The Rob Burgess Show. I am, of course, your host, Rob Burgess. On this our 289th episode, our guest is Ken W. Good. Ken W. Good graduated from Hardin Simmons University in 1982 with a bachelor of arts degree. He received a master of education degree in 1986 from Tarleton State University, a part of the Texas A&M System. In 1989, he received his law degree from Texas Tech School of Law, where he was a member of the Texas Tech Law Review. He has argued cases before the Supreme Court of Texas and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, along with numerous courts of appeals, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He is the author of "Good's on Bail," a practice guide created for bail industry professionals. In addition, he has written numerous articles on the subject of bail reform, including, “What Successful Bail Reform Looks Like.” He is married and has two daughters. Follow me on Bluesky: bsky.app/profile/robaburg.bsky.social Follow me on Mastodon: newsie.social/@therobburgessshow Check out my Linktree: linktr.ee/therobburgessshow Subscribe to my Substack: therobburgessshow.substack.com/

In this episode of our Safety Perspectives From the Dallas Region podcast series, shareholders John Surma (Houston) and Frank Davis (Dallas) break down a new Amarillo federal lawsuit that challenges OSHA's authority to issue safety standards as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The speakers analyze how the case intersects with recent Supreme Court trends post-Loper Bright, discuss potential outcomes and risks for employers (including reliance on the General Duty Clause), and consider what this could mean for federal OSHA versus state-plan states and ongoing enforcement strategy.

This week, we're covering a topic that may give you a bit of deja vu. Or, even, deja deja vu. That's because we've seen this all before. Twice. On Wednesday, a Fifth Circuit panel reissued its opinion in US v. Peterson for the second time. That makes it the third revision. To discuss the difference between the three, we have federal litigator and legal commentator Gabriel Malor back on the show. He noted that in every version, the panel upheld Peterson's conviction for possessing an unregistered silencer. However, he said each version became less expansive than the last. In the latest version, Malor pointed out that the subtle changes the panel made all went toward emphasizing that Peterson's Second Amendment challenge was only as-applied to him and that the panel thought he did a particularly bad job. Malor argued the panel was sending signals with its edits. He said the judges had moved pretty far from their original holding that silencers are not arms protected by the Second Amendment. And, even though they still ruled Peterson's challenge failed, they laid out a potential path for how other challengers might succeed. Special Guest: Gabriel Malor.

Second Amendment: May the federal government impose licensing requirements on firearms dealers? - Argued: Thu, 11 Dec 2025 19:46:58 EDT

Damon Landor, a state prisoner and practicing Rastafarian, refused to cut his hair as an expression of his faith. After prison officials forcibly restrained and shaved him, Landor sued under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which prohibits governments from imposing unnecessary “substantial burdens” on inmates’ religious exercise. The district court, and later the Fifth Circuit, rejected his claim, holding that monetary damages were not an available form of “appropriate relief” under the statute.The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to decide whether RLUIPA allows prisoners to seek damages against government officials in their personal capacities for violations of religious rights. Oral argument is set for November 10, 2025.Featuring:Meredith Holland Kessler, Managing Attorney, Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic and Term Teaching Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Joshua C. McDaniel, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law & Director, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School

Gabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who often shares his faith in public. In May 2021, when sharing his faith near an amphitheater in a public park in Brandon, Mississippi, the city’s chief of police confronted Olivier with a recently amended city ordinance requiring “protests” to occur in a designated area. Olivier repositioned himself but soon returned when the designated area proved remote and isolating. The city charged Olivier for violating the ordinance, and he pled nolo contendere and agreed to pay a fine. Olivier then challenged the ordinance under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking an injunction prohibiting future enforcement of the law against his expressive activity. The district court barred Olivier’s request for injunctive relief, applying the preclusion doctrine from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As a result, Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance, even though he alleges that it continues to restrict his speech and risks future penalties. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, splitting from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and deepening a circuit split on whether Heck applies to noncustodial plaintiffs who cannot access habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote, over dissents arguing Olivier’s plea should not bar future constitutional protection. In July, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.Featuring:Nathan Kellum, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Steven Burnett, Clinical Instructional Fellow, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School

Pineda-Guerra v. Bondi, No. 25-3081 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2025)change of attorney address; BIA summary dismissal; BIA abuse of discretion where requirements not contained in Practice Manual or regulations Restrepo Castano v. Bondi, No. 24-2117 (1st Cir. Nov. 28, 2025)unable or unwilling to protect; fruitful police protection; phone threats; Gulf Clan; Colombia Dor v. Bondi, No. 25-1278 (1st Cir. Dec. 1, 2025)controlled substance offense; comparison with CSA at time of conviction; Massachusetts marijuana; hemp De La Cruz-Quispe v. Bondi, No. 25-1421 (1st Cir. Dec. 5, 2025)nexus; domestic violence type asylum claim; personal vendetta; Peru Silva de Santiago v. Bondi, No. 25-60064 (5th Cir. Dec. 4, 2025)abuse of a child under New Mexico Revised Statute § 30-6-1(D); crime of child abuse, neglect, or abandonment; exposing child to inclement weather; realistic probability test in the Fifth Circuit; stop time rule & INA § 212(a)(2)(B); LPR cancellation of removal B. Singh v. Bondi, No. 24-815 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2025)past persecution; beatings; threats; reasonable relocation in India; Law Library of Congress report; Mann Party; Sikh Cristales-de Linares v. Bondi, No. 25-3152 (6th Cir. Dec. 1, 2025)particularity; particular social group; women; employment and economic factors; failure to identify attackers; relocation; Tista-Ruiz; gangs; extortion; El SalvadorKurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years. Eimmigration "Simplifies immigration casework. Legal professionals use it to advance cases faster, delight clients, and grow their practices."Special Link! Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com  EB-5 Support"EB-5 Support is an ongoing mentorship and resource platform created specifically for immigration attorneys."Contact: info@eb-5support.comWebsite: https://eb-5support.com/CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerSupport the show

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: Drama in the TX19 GOP race for Congress as Lubbock County's Curtis ‘Bowtie' Parrish goes after Commissioner Jason Corley in a nasty, arrogant, and very questionable move. Jason Corley removed from Lubbock County Commissioner's Court after announcing bid for congress Corley says he'll fight back after Parrish replaces him on Court, saying Corley's Congress bid triggered resignation Will Parrish now decide Matt Smith can't run because he's not “fat”?! Leftist loudmouthed clown Jasmine Crockett jumps into the Democratic primary for US Senate, more Abbott Predicts Jasmine Crockett “Will Be Pummeled” As She Weighs Texas Senate Run Before Filing Deadline Colin Allred drops out of U.S. Senate race, will challenge homosexual fellow Democrat Julie Johnson for Congress Trump blasts Cuellar for remaining Democrat after pardon: ‘Next time, no more Mr. Nice guy' Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.U.S. Supreme Court turns away appeal of Fifth Circuit ruling challenging the ability of a governing body to remove books from libraries the body runs – and well points out the constant media lie that it is “banning” books.RIP: Texas business titan Tom Hicks. Also, former fake Republican beloved by Democrats, Bill Ratliff has died.Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

In this Round Table episode, Weer'd, Erin, and David discuss: Thanksgiving activities; the shooting of National Guard troops in DC; a Virginia Assistant Principal arrest for plotting to kill ICE agents; how Stand Your Ground is discussed between pro-gun and gun-prohibitionist circuits; California crossing a major line with requiring ID for gun accessories, tools, and 3D Printers; New York requiring background checks for 3D printers; a UK man who was arrested for posting pictures of him shooting guns while in another country on another continent; the Fifth Circuit dismissing a case against a gun-owning marijuana user; and the ATF's streamlining of the system for gaining permission to take your NFA items across state lines. 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: Legendary Green Bean Casserole What we know about the 2 National Guard members shot near White House Suspect who shot National Guard soldiers in DC worked with CIA in Afghanistan  Operation Terror Welcome Virginia High School Assistant Principal and brother ARRESTED for alleged plot to kill ICE agents How "Stand Your Ground" Can Send You to Jail California Need ID for a Barrel Wrench AB 1263 – CNC Milling Machines & Digital Firearm Files (PDF) New York Assembly Bill A02228 - Background Check for 3D Printers Bizarre reason man in UK has just been arrested for holding firearm more than 4,000 miles away in US GUN PIC FURY IT boss 'arrested for posing with gun on Florida holiday and posting picture on LinkedIn'  Fifth Circuit Tosses Another Weed and Guns Conviction as Supreme Court Weighs Issue ATF Streamlines Process for Moving Machineguns, SBRs Across State Lines  

Election Law: May Texas ban "vote harvesting"? - Argued: Tue, 02 Dec 2025 11:13:21 EDT

Olivier v. City of Brandon | 12/03/25 | Docket #: 24-993 24-993 OLIVIER V. BRANDON, MS DECISION BELOW: 2023 WL 5500223 CERT. GRANTED 7/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Gabriel Olivier is a Christian who feels called to share the gospel with his fellow citizens. After being arrested and fined for violating an ordinance targeting "protests" outside a public amphitheater, Olivier brought a § 1983 suit under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to declare the ordinance unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement against him in the future. The Fifth Circuit, applying its precedent construing this Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), held that Olivier's prior conviction barred his § 1983 suit because even the prospective relief it seeks would necessarily undermine his prior conviction. The Fifth Circuit acknowledged the "friction" between its decision and those of this Court and other circuits. Over vigorous dissents, the Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote. The questions presented are: 1. Whether, as the Fifth Circuit holds in conflict with the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, this Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars § 1983 claims seeking purely prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished before under the law challenged as unconstitutional. 2. Whether, as the Fifth Circuit and at least four others hold in conflict with five other circuits, Heck v. Humphrey bars § 1983 claims by plaintiffs even where they never had access to federal habeas relief. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-60566

Episode 42: First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. PlatkinFirst Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 2, 2025. Argued by Erin Morrow Hawley, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Vivek Suri, Assistant Solicitor General (on behalf of First Choice Women's Resource Centers), and Sundeep Subramanian Iyer, Chief Counsel to the Attorney General of New Jersey (on behalf of the state of New Jersey).  Case Background, from the Institute for Free Speech case page: First Choice Women's Resource Centers is a Christian medical nonprofit serving pregnant women, new mothers, and fathers. The Attorney General of New Jersey has specifically singled out this organization due to its religious beliefs and pro-life stance. New Jersey thus issued a sweeping and unjustified subpoena, demanding extensive documentation from the nonprofit. This places a heavy burden on the organization, forcing it to allocate its limited resources to comply or face legal consequences. Despite this, the Attorney General has not provided any concrete evidence of wrongdoing to warrant such intrusive measures. Question Presented, from the Supreme Court docket: New Jersey's Attorney General served an investigatory subpoena on First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc., a faith-based pregnancy center, demanding that it turn over most of its donors' names. First Choice challenged the Subpoena under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal court, and the Attorney General filed a subsequent suit to enforce it in state court. The state court granted the Attorney General's motion to enforce the Subpoena but expressly did not decide First Choice's federal constitutional challenges. The Attorney General then moved in state court to sanction First Choice. Meanwhile, the district court held that First Choice's constitutional claims were not ripe in federal court.The Third Circuit affirmed in a divided per curiam decision. Judge Bibas would have held the action ripe as indistinguishable from. Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Banta, 594 U.S. 595, 618-19 (2021). But the majority concluded First Choice's claims were not yet ripe because First Choice could litigate its constitutional claims in state court. In doing so, the majority followed the rule of the Fifth Circuit and split from the Ninth Circuit. It did not address the likely loss of a federal forum once the state court rules on the federal constitutional issues.The question presented is: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?Resources:   Brief for Petitioner First Choice Women's Resource Center Brief for Respondent Matthew Platkin Institute for Free Speech Amicus Brief Supreme Court Docket The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin | 12/02/25 | Docket #: 24-781 24-781 FIRST CHOICE WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTERS, INC. V. PLATKIN DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 5088105 CERT. GRANTED 6/16/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: New Jersey's Attorney General served an investigatory subpoena on First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc., a faith-based pregnancy center, demanding that it turn over most of its donors' names. First Choice challenged the Subpoena under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal court, and the Attorney General filed a subsequent suit to enforce it in state court. The state court granted the Attorney General's motion to enforce the Subpoena but expressly did not decide First Choice's federal constitutional challenges. The Attorney General then moved in state court to sanction First Choice. Meanwhile, the district court held that First Choice's constitutional claims were not ripe in federal court. The Third Circuit affirmed in a divided per curiam decision. Judge Bibas would have held the action ripe as indistinguishable from . Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Banta , 594 U.S. 595, 618-19 (2021). But the majority concluded First Choice's claims were not yet ripe because First Choice could litigate its constitutional claims in state court. In doing so, the majority followed the rule of the Fifth Circuit and split from the Ninth Circuit. It did not address the likely loss of a federal forum once the state court rules on the federal constitutional issues. The question presented is: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-3124

On this Black Friday edition of Why We Vote, CannCon and Ashe in America dive into a packed night of election-integrity revelations, legal twists, and geopolitical chaos, with a surprise appearance from Colonel Towner. The episode opens with light holiday banter before shifting into explosive stories about non-citizen voter registrations in Pennsylvania, a resurfaced Fifth Circuit ruling requiring ballots to be received by Election Day, and the renewed fight to end early voting as a loophole for manipulation. Ashe and CannCon call out years of voter-roll corruption, failed consent decrees, and the ERIC system's role in flooding rolls with ineligible voters. The conversation deepens when Colonel Towner joins to dismantle the CIA-centric narratives emerging from the recent Laura Logan interview and Emerald Robinson thread, arguing that the agency is scrambling to rewrite history and get ahead of coming election-interference disclosures. The hosts connect these narratives to broader operations, from cartel money flows to CIA assets in South America, and the suspicious timing of domestic “incidents” meant to shape public perception. By the end, they frame the week's events as coordinated attempts to redirect the public away from the real machinery of election fraud.

Send us a textHow do we faithfully weave our life with God into the work we do every day? In this episode, Susan and co-host Rev. Smith Lilley talk with authors and businessmen Al Erisman and Randy Pope about what it means to view our work as a calling to serve the Lord. Together, they explore how the hours we spend in offices, classrooms, homes, and communities can become places of formation, worship, and witness. AL ERISMAN is currently a writer, speaker, and board member, including serving as chair of the board for the Theology of Work Project and as a founding board member for KIROS. He is a senior Fellow for both the Center for Faithful Business at Seattle Pacific University and the Institute for Marketplace Transformation. Since 2015, he has authored or co-authored numerous books on theology, business, and mathematics. After earning his PhD in applied mathematics at Iowa State University, Al spent 32 years at The Boeing Company, starting as a research mathematician. In his last decade there, he was Director of Technology, where he led a 250-person research staff exploring innovation paths for the company. He participated in committees on science and mathematics through the National Science Foundation, National Research Council, and National Institute for Standards and Technology. He is the co-founder of Ethix magazine, exploring business ethics in a technological age. After retiring from Boeing in 2001, he taught in the Business School at Seattle Pacific University until 2017. RANDY POPE has practiced law for 45 years in his hometown of Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Since 2017, he has served as City Attorney for the City of Hattiesburg. He has tried numerous cases in state and federal courts in Mississippi and has successfully handled appeals to the Mississippi Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He is also admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States. He is a graduate of the University of Southern Mississippi, the University of Mississippi School of Law, and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He is the founding President of the C. S. Lewis Society of South Mississippi, and he served on staff with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA from 1973-1976.Thanks for listening to the Embodied Holiness Podcast. We invite you to join the community on Facebook and Instagram @embodiedholiness. Embodied Holiness is a ministry of Parkway Heights United Methodist Church in Hattiesburg, MS. If you're in the Hattiesburg area and are looking for a church home, we'd love to meet you and welcome you to the family. You can find out more about Parkway Heights at our website.

This Day in Legal History: Ratification of the Bill of Rights by New JerseyOn November 20, 1789, New Jersey became the first state to ratify the Bill of Rights, a landmark moment in American constitutional history. Just months after the U.S. Constitution went into effect, debate over its lack of explicit protections for individual liberties sparked calls for amendments. Responding to this concern, James Madison introduced a series of proposed amendments in the First Congress in June 1789, aiming to ease Anti-Federalist fears and solidify support for the new federal government. Congress approved twelve amendments on September 25, 1789, and sent them to the states for ratification.New Jersey acted swiftly, ratifying eleven of the twelve proposed amendments less than two months later. The state rejected the first proposed amendment, which concerned congressional representation, and accepted the rest, including protections for freedom of speech, religion, the press, the right to bear arms, and safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. New Jersey's early endorsement gave momentum to the broader ratification effort, which required approval by three-fourths of the states.By December 15, 1791, ten of the amendments had been ratified by the necessary eleven states and became known as the Bill of Rights. These provisions would become foundational to American legal doctrine, judicial interpretation, and civil liberties jurisprudence. New Jersey's rapid ratification also signaled the willingness of smaller states to embrace a constitutional framework that better balanced federal power with individual protections.The ratification process itself reflected the structural legal mechanism required to alter the Constitution—Article V mandates both congressional proposal and state approval. This episode demonstrates how early American legal institutions navigated public pressure and political compromise to create durable legal norms. The Bill of Rights remains central to constitutional interpretation today, frequently invoked in court cases involving speech, privacy, and due process.A group of senior judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has recently influenced several rulings on politically sensitive cases, softening the conservative tone of one of the nation's most right-leaning appellate courts. These judges, many appointed decades ago by presidents like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, were part of three-judge panels that struck down or allowed challenges to laws involving religion in schools, drag shows on campus, and firearm signage. However, these decisions are now set for reconsideration by the court's full active bench in January, as part of a growing trend of en banc rehearings.The Fifth Circuit includes 17 active judges and seven senior judges. While senior judges can still hear cases and author opinions, their influence is ultimately limited because active judges control en banc reviews, which can overturn panel rulings. Most of these upcoming en banc cases saw dissents from Trump-appointed judges at the panel level. Some senior judges, like Edith Brown Clement, are conservative and remain highly active, while others like James Dennis and Patrick Higginbotham are known for their moderate or liberal views and are key voices in current and upcoming decisions.Legal experts say senior judges' experience and moderation often make them more willing to adhere to precedent rather than pursue ideological shifts. Their dissents and opinions can also help signal to the U.S. Supreme Court that a case warrants review. With an increase in ideologically charged cases on topics like immigration and free speech, the Fifth Circuit's internal dynamics reflect a broader national tension between judicial restraint and a more activist, conservative legal agenda.Full Fifth Circuit Overrides Moderate Senior Judges' RulingsThe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has asked a federal court to enforce a subpoena against the University of Pennsylvania as part of an ongoing investigation into alleged antisemitic harassment. The EEOC's request was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and stems from a charge initiated in December 2023 by Republican-appointed Chair Andrea Lucas. The agency is seeking documents and information identifying victims and witnesses to reported religious-based harassment affecting faculty and staff.The investigation centers on claims that the university failed to adequately respond to internal complaints of antisemitism. The EEOC under Lucas—particularly during and after the first Trump administration—has prioritized enforcement actions related to religious discrimination, with higher education institutions facing increased scrutiny. Penn has not yet issued a public response regarding the subpoena or the broader investigation.EEOC Seeks UPenn Information Disclosure in Antisemitism ProbeCryptocurrency exchange Kraken announced that it has confidentially filed for an initial public offering (IPO) in the United States. The move positions Kraken among several digital asset firms seeking to go public amid renewed investor interest in the crypto sector. Other companies like Circle and Gemini have also made progress toward U.S. listings this year.Kraken recently reported a $20 billion valuation in its latest fundraising round, marking a 33% increase over the past two months. While the company did not disclose specific details about the IPO structure or timeline, the filing indicates growing momentum for digital finance firms in public markets.Crypto exchange Kraken confidentially files for US IPO | ReutersThe U.S. government has loaned Constellation Energy $1 billion to restart a nuclear reactor at the former Three Mile Island site in Pennsylvania. The project, now called the Crane Clean Energy Center, involves reviving an 835-megawatt reactor that was shut down in 2019. Constellation entered a partnership with Microsoft in 2024 to help offset the tech company's energy use, especially for power-intensive data centers. The reactor's restart reflects rising energy demand tied to emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.The Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office (LPO) issued the loan to help lower financing costs and encourage private investment. Officials emphasized that nuclear energy offers stable, carbon-free baseload power critical for both grid reliability and climate goals. While Constellation is financially strong enough to obtain private funding, the administration said public support signals a national commitment to clean and dependable energy infrastructure.The plant still needs regulatory approvals, including from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Constellation has already begun hiring workers, inspecting systems, and ordering essential equipment. The company now expects the reactor to come online by 2027, a year ahead of the original timeline due to an accelerated grid connection review.US loans Constellation $1 billion for Three Mile Island reactor reboot | 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

In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a consequential opinion that stifled the freedom of association across countless campuses when it came to religious groups. In CLS v. Martinez, in a divided 5-4 opinion, the Court opened the way for universities to limit group association by refusing to grant them power to elect those leaders best suited to carry on that group's mission and purpose. In a forthcoming article (here) in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, my guest today, Benjamin Fleshman, covers the infamous Martinez decision and the problem it created for student organizations across the country. Given the closeness of this topic to my own work, we discuss in some detail the infamous "all comers" policy (see this and this) still upheld in some law schools, e.g., UC-Berkeley (see this), nature of student organizations, the importance of recent Supreme Court decisions (see recent FCA en banc decision in the Ninth Circuit and then the other mentioned FCA case in Washington, D.C.), the recent attempts to strengthen group access (see this), and more. Benjamin joined The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty as Counsel in 2023. His work there focuses on appellate litigation in both state and federal courts. Prior to joining Becket, Ben worked as an associate at Shearman & Sterling in Washington, D.C., where he practiced antitrust law and complex commercial litigation. Before entering private practice, he served as a law clerk to Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Full bio. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento.

In this episode, Matt and Jamison welcome Texas State Senator Phil King—a respected Christian political leader representing constituents in Senate District 10—to discuss the major legislative battles shaping the state and the nation.Senator King provides deep insight into the Ten Commandments bill, which mandates the posting of the commandments in Texas public schools, and the ongoing legal challenges at the Fifth Circuit.The discussion pivots to the often-litigious and complex world of redistricting, including the effort to increase Republican congressional seats in Texas, and why Christians should be engaged in this political processFinally, Senator King details the historic passing of Texas' school choice bill, the largest rollout of its kind in American history, explaining its goal to offer options, competition, and funding to families in poorly performing districtsThis conversation underscores the "ministry of politics"—the duty of Christian men and women to be actively involved in government, an institution ordained by God for the good of society.

Federalism: May Texas ban Chinese nationals from buying real property in Texas? - Argued: Tue, 04 Nov 2025 8:58:54 EDT

First Amendment: May Texas require websites to filter content by age? - Argued: Mon, 03 Nov 2025 18:21:46 EDT

Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist | 11/04/25 | Docket #: 24-724 24-724 HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP V. PALMQUIST DECISION BELOW: 103 F.4th 294 CERT. GRANTED 4/28/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Respondents, citizens of Texas, filed this products-liability suit in state court against Petitioners Hain Celestial Group, Inc., then a citizen of Delaware and New York, and Whole Foods, Inc., a citizen of Texas. Hain removed based on diversity jurisdiction, arguing that Whole Foods should be dismissed as fraudulently joined. The district court agreed, dismissing Whole Foods with prejudice. After two additional years of federal- court litigation and a two-week jury trial, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law to Hain. On appeal, without ruling on the merits, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing Whole Foods, vacated the final judgment, and ordered the matter remanded to state court to start from scratch. Relying on Respondents' post- removal amended complaint, the panel held, in conflict with several other courts of appeals, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment as to the completely diverse parties before it. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal. 2. Whether a plaintiff may defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to add factual allegations that state a colorable claim against a nondiverse party when the complaint at the time of removal did not state such a claim LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-40197

About Ken W. Good - Board of Directors, Professional Bondsmen of Texas: Ken W. Good graduated from Hardin Simmons University in 1982 with a Bachelor of Arts Degree.  He received a Master of Education Degree in 1986 from Tarleton State University, a part of the Texas A&M System.  In 1989, he received his law degree from Texas Tech School of Law, where he was a member of the Texas Tech Law Review.  Mr. Good has argued cases before the Supreme Court of Texas and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, along with numerous courts of appeals, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  He is the author of "Good's on Bail," a practice guide created for bail industry professionals.  In addition, he has written numerous articles on the subject of bail reform, including, “What Successful Bail Reform Looks Like.”  Mr. Good is married and has two daughters.  (www.pbtx.com (http://www.pbtx.com/))

Never before have we built such a raucous movement inveighing against foreign influence, yet never before have we been infiltrated by more foreign influence than under Trump's relationship with Qatar. Today, I delve into Trump's decision to grant Qatar a facility in an Idaho air base as part of a train of favors to this terror-supporting country and in the context of the Gaza deal forced upon Israel. Next, I discuss a very disturbing lawsuit that Pam Bondi is pursuing against gun rights advocates in the Fifth Circuit. In our next installment of RINO Roundup, I go through the latest figures and policies of Republicans that are undermining MAGA's stated agenda. Finally, I explain the how the sickening blood libel of Jewish control of America is not only false but dangerously misdirecting attention from the real influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is coming full circle in New York City – the city with the most Jews.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that argued a Christian therapist in Colorado was restricted from counseling clients with unwanted sexual attractions. Adèle Keim from Becket joins Russell and Clarissa to discuss whether this is conversion therapy or a free speech issue. Then, Michael Sobolik from the Hudson Institute stops by to talk about the new TikTok deal between the U.S. and China, and what that means for the security of Taiwan and Americans. Finally, CT's Nicole Martin and Kate Shelnutt join us to discuss the Texas megachurch pastor Robert Morris convicted of sexually abusing children, and Donald Trump's consideration of pardoning Jeffrey Epstein's sidekick Ghislaine Maxwell.   GO DEEPER WITH THE BULLETIN:  -Join the conversation at our Substack.  -Find us on YouTube.  -Rate and review the show in your podcast app of choice.    ABOUT THE GUESTS:   Adèle Keim is a senior legal counsel for Becket, a non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute with a mission to protect the free expression of all faiths. Prior to working with Becket, Adèle was an associate in the appellate practice at Winston & Strawn in Washington, D.C, and she clerked for Hon. Edith Brown Clement on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans. Adèle has been featured on CNN, Fox News, Al Jazeera, EWTN, TheBlaze, and MSNBC.  Michael Sobolik is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute. He specializes in United States–China relations and great power competition with a focus on geopolitics, net assessments, and competitive strategies. He is the author of Countering China's Great Game: A Strategy for American Dominance. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Bloomberg, Reuters, Foreign Policy, Wired, and The Free Press, among others. He has also appeared on Fox News, ABC, BBC, and other outlets. Nicole Martin is Christianity Today's chief operating officer. She is the author of several books including Nailing It: Why Successful Leadership Demands Suffering and Surrender and Made to Lead: Empowering Women for Ministry. Kate Shellnutt is editorial director of news for Christianity Today, where she leads the magazine's news team and reports and edits for online.  ABOUT THE BULLETIN:  The Bulletin is a twice-weekly politics and current events show from Christianity Today moderated by Clarissa Moll, with senior commentary from Russell Moore (Christianity Today's editor in chief) and Mike Cosper (director, CT Media). Each week, the show explores current events and breaking news and shares a Christian perspective on issues that are shaping our world. We also offer special one-on-one conversations with writers, artists, and thought leaders whose impact on the world brings important significance to a Christian worldview, like Bono, Sharon McMahon, Harrison Scott Key, Frank Bruni, and more.    The Bulletin listeners get 25% off CT. Go to https://orderct.com/THEBULLETIN to learn more.    “The Bulletin” is a production of Christianity Today  Producer: Clarissa Moll  Associate Producer: Alexa Burke  Editing and Mix: TJ Hester Graphic Design: Rick Szuecs Music: Dan Phelps  Executive Producers: Erik Petrik and Mike Cosper   Senior Producer: Matt Stevens Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of our Safety Perspectives From the Dallas Region podcast series, shareholders John Surma (Houston) and Frank Davis (Dallas) discuss the recent Fifth Circuit decision that found the dual for-cause removal protections for administrative law judges (ALJs) at the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional, and its implications for the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC). The speakers break down how this ruling could halt OSHA enforcement proceedings in the Fifth Circuit, potentially render the current OSHRC structure unconstitutional, and force Congress to revisit the statutory framework for workplace safety adjudication.

Abortion: Must Planned Parenthood reimburse Texas and Louisiana for Medicaid funds paid under a court injunction that was later vacated? - Argued: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 10:35:22 EDT

Gabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who often shares his faith in public. In May 2021, when sharing his faith near an amphitheater in a public park in Brandon, Mississippi, the city’s chief of police confronted Olivier with a recently amended city ordinance requiring “protests” to occur in a designated area. Olivier repositioned himself but soon returned when the designated area proved remote and isolating. The city charged Olivier for violating the ordinance, and he pled nolo contendere and agreed to pay a fine. Olivier then challenged the ordinance under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking an injunction prohibiting future enforcement of the law against his expressive activity. The district court barred Olivier’s request for injunctive relief, applying the preclusion doctrine from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As a result, Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance, even though he alleges that it continues to restrict his speech and risks future penalties. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, splitting from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and deepening a circuit split on whether Heck applies to noncustodial plaintiffs who cannot access habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote, over dissents arguing Olivier’s plea should not bar future constitutional protection. In July, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.Featuring:Nathan Kellum, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Tobias S. Loss-Eaton, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP

Lee Gelernt, Deputy Director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, speaks to Senior Editor Roger Parloff about the cases he has led challenging the validity of Pres. Trump's Alien Enemies Act Proclamation.They discuss the ACLU's recent victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the status of the group's original case, in Washington, D.C., including its attempt to inquire into whether Executive Branch officials defied court orders. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This episode begins with Mary and Andrew digesting the 2-1 decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals halting the Trump administration's ability to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals accused of being members of Tren de Aragua. Andrew calls the administration's recent arguments “outlandish” before moving to the questionable legality of the U.S. military's deadly boat strike last week – an unprecedented action which left eleven dead. Next, they move to Monday's Supreme Court decision undoing limits set by a lower court on how ICE conducts immigration raids. Plus, a federal judge issues a win for Harvard University on the topic of frozen and terminated funds. Further reading:  The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport VenezuelansAnd a reminder: tickets are on sale now for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

For this week's Rapid Response Friday we take up three major judicial rulings pushing back against executive overreach on three completely different topics: removals under the Alien Enemies Act, the use of the National Guard to conduct domestic law enforcement, and the  imposition of tariffs as an executive action under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Also: it turns out a DC grand jury really can't indict a ham sandwich, and why Brazil is so much better at prosecuting insurrectionists than the US is. Fifth Circuit's decision in W.M.M. et al (9/2/25) Judge Charles Breyer's decision in Newson v. Trump (9/2/25) Federal Circuit's decision in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump (8/29/25)

This week's show is sponsored in part by EPIC-MRA Public Opinion Research MIRS News

Trump is keeping the courts active; this week saw a ruling against many of the widespread tarrifs he has sought to impose, and the Fifth Circuit upheld his dismissal of an NLRB member.  Meanwhile, a Fed governor was dismissed, supposedly for cause.  And the social media announcements of supposedly impending executive orders imposing voting requirements such as voter ID kept coming.  And there's more.  We try to keep it all straight for you, identify the constitutional issues, and look at what the Courts might do.  Meanwhile, your fantastic response to the impending Born Equal release is noted, appreciated, and we respond to it.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

David Waldman brings us the Wednesday KITM, on Wednesday, as expected, and as expected on a Wednesday, Greg Dworkin, who's here to ask, “Health and wellness, but whose?” Well, not yours, that's for sure. This month RFK Jr. plans to announce which of the four humors is responsible for autism, but Bob is definitely certain that most children could use at least a little letting. Meanwhile, Donald K. Trump is dead, he just doesn't know it yet because he hasn't seen it on TV. It turns out that when Donald was seen doing his “Stanky Leg” in public, it wasn't all about his stanky leg... It might have been even worse, if you can imagine that. By the way, Trump will only die when the majority of MAGA says he has, so look for that in maybe in a few generations. Sadly, for Donald, the Nobel Committee only hands out their prize on the 10th war averted, and it doesn't seem that Vlad will be punching his ticket on that. Xi Jinping sends a message to Trump, the message that he just doesn't know how to throw a cool parade. Jeffreeeeey Epsteiiiiiiin! Trump sends the US vuvuzela corps over to the capital today, but if that's not enough he can always blow up some more boatloads of Venezuelan citizens. Are you doing your part? ICE agents across the nation sure are doing theirs, and most are getting away with it, as long as they hide their identities a little. Trump will take over Chicago, NYC, and Greenland as soon as he gets rid of that TACO creeping up his spine. Gov. Kathy Hochul is getting used to defying Trump and accepting Zohran Mamdani. The Fifth Circuit rejects Trump's wartime deportation baloney, while Jeanine Pirro dejectedly sucks down another wine box as grand juries award her yet another “no bill prize”. The USDA is cutting farmers loose from more supervision, while oyster farmer Graham Platner fights the oligarchy.  Space Command moves to Alabama, which is more proof that we are in the wrong timeline.

In This Hour:-- Although it's usually strong on Second Amendment rights, the Fifth Circuit renders a surprising loss to gun rights supporters. Kostas Moros, of the Second Amendment Foundation, explains what happened and where this case now goes.--  Shooting a lever action rifle with a suppressor is so much fun we did it live on the radio!--  Field stripping a 1911 pistol may look hard, but you can learn how.  Gun Talk 08.31.25  Hour 3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/gun-talk--6185159/support.

Sarah Isgur returns to her home state of Texas to join a panel of leading constitutional scholars for a deep dive into the most significant Supreme Court decisions of the term. Alongside experts Jonathan Adler, Daniel Epps, and Frederick Lawrence, she examines key cases and explores the growing influence of politicians and the media on how the court is viewed by the public. The Agenda:—Is there a play in the joints between religion clauses and the First Amendment?—Why is it called United States. v Skrmetti?—The Fifth Circuit is the new Ninth Circuit—Will the court rein in excesses of state criminal justice? This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices