Podcasts about first circuit

Today, I have a great guest, Arivee Vargas. Arivee and I had a fun and flowing conversation about rising up and getting unstuck from situations that no longer serve you. I loved this conversation, and I am sure you will too!Here is more about Arivee:Arivee Vargas is an award-winning executive & High Performance™️ coach to lawyers and corporate leaders, author of the bestselling book Your Time to Rise: Unlearn Limiting Beliefs, Unlock Your Power and Unleash Your Truest Self, leadership development strategist, keynote speaker, and host of the Humble Rising podcast.With nearly 20 years of experience—from Big Law attorney to corporate executive—leading global litigation and corporate compliance initiatives to leading global employee relations and leadership development at a fast-paced biotech, Arivee knows firsthand what it takes to excel & lead in high-pressure environments. Trusted by top companies and 100 Am law firms, Arivee delivers coaching, keynotes and workshops to help organizations develop—and lawyers & leaders to become—bold, grounded, values-driven leaders, who lead with clarity, purpose, and seek to drive meaningful, lasting impact. Whether she's coaching or advising executives, delivering workshops, or speaking on stage, Arivee is driven by one mission: to empower and equip leaders and lawyers with the tools to create transformational change from the inside out—and build a culture of sustainable high performance where work feels fulfilling and rewarding, even in the face of challenge and immense pressure.Arivee's work has been featured in Oprah Daily, Forbes, Success Magazine, and Boston Business Journal. She graduated magna cum laude from Boston College, cum laude from Boston College Law School, and received an honorary Doctorate of Laws from Boston College in 2022. In addition to her career at two large law firms and as a corporate executive, Arivee taught Business Law at the Boston College Carroll School of Management and served as a judicial law clerk at the Federal District Court in Massachusetts and on the First Circuit. She is the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions including most recently being honored with the Latina Trailblazer Award from the National Hispanic Bar Association Region II in 2025. She is a proud Latina, daughter of Dominican immigrant parents and mother of three children.

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Democrats continue to fight in several courts to ensure that 1 in 8 Americans below the poverty line including 16 million children aren't starved to death by Trump and MAGA, even as MAGA continues to make them political hostages while negotiating for the government to be reopened. Michael Popok dissects the masterful order of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that set in motion in the last few hours, the First Circuit's ruling late last night denying Trump the power to cut off remaining November SNAP payments; Judge Talwani's new TRO to stop Trump from clawing back the $5 billion already paid; and Trump's emergency filing with the Supreme Court to give him permission to starve Americans, a political disaster for MAGA. Here's the orders and filings: Learn more about the Popok firm at https://thepopokfirm.com Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Support the MeidasTouch Network: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Add the MeidasTouch Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-meidastouch-podcast/id1510240831 Buy MeidasTouch Merch: https://store.meidastouch.com Follow MeidasTouch on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on Facebook: https://facebook.com/meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on Instagram: https://instagram.com/meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@meidastouch Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Administrative Law: May the NIH cap "indirect costs" paid from federal research grants? - Argued: Wed, 05 Nov 2025 11:28:9 EDT

Episode 39: Fellers v. KelleyFellers, et al. v. Kelley, et al., argued before Circuit Judge Julie Rikelman and Senior Circuit Judges Sandra L. Lynch and Jeffrey R. Howard in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on November 5, 2025. Argued by Del Kolde (on behalf of Kyle Fellers, et al.) and Jonathan Shirley (on behalf of Marcy Kelley, et al.). Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech case page:A silent protest in support of girls' sports led Bow officials to censor XX wristbands, threaten arrests and ban dissenters from school grounds. Now, three parents and a grandfather are fighting back against the officials who trampled on their First Amendment rights—and the policies those officials weaponized to do it. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, alleges that the defendants violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights by forcing them to remove “XX” wristbands, and then banning them from school grounds. The plaintiffs wore the wristbands to silently protest government officials allowing a biological male to play on the opposing girls' soccer team. School officials, along with a police officer, confronted the parents during the game, demanding that they remove the wristbands or leave. The referee also temporarily stopped the game and said that the game would be over if the remaining plaintiff did not remove his wristband. Two of the plaintiffs were later sent no-trespass notices excluding them from future games.  The plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin the school from enforcing its unconstitutional policy or practice of censoring the display of  XX wristbands or displaying signs in the parking lot in support of protecting women's sports at Bow school sporting events Statement of the Issues, from the Plaintiff-Appellants' Opening Brief:Does a blanket ban on so-called “exclusionary” speech by adults at school events open to the public discriminate against speech based on its content and viewpoint?  Do public school officials illegally discriminate against speech based on viewpoint by banning adult spectators at school sporting events from wearing XX-wristbands conveying an “exclusionary” message, when those same officials permit adult spectators to display a Pride Flag because the message is “inclusionary?”  Is the First Amendment's protection of speech by adult spectators in a limited public forum, such as a public-school extracurricular sporting event, subject to the same legal test for the protection of student speech in schools set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines and its progeny?  Can the passive display of an XX-wristband by parents watching a school sporting event in which a trans-identified student is playing “reasonably be understood as directly assaulting those who identify as transgender women?” Did the district court correctly find that the XX-wristbands' message would be likely to injure transgender students when the record lacks evidence of such phenomena?  Did the district court err by denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction?Resources: Institute for Free Speech case page Plaintiff-Appellants' Opening Brief Defendant-Appellees' Brief 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. 

Ralph welcomes infectious disease expert Dr. Michael Osterholm to discuss his new book “The Big One: How We Must Prepare for Future Deadly Pandemics.” Then, Ralph shares some quick takes on current events.Dr. Michael Osterholm is a professor and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. In November 2020, Dr. Osterholm was appointed to President-elect Joe Biden's 13-member Transition COVID-19 Advisory Board. He is the author of Deadliest Enemy: Our War Against Killer Germs, and he has a weekly podcast called The Osterholm Update which offers discussion and analysis on the latest infectious disease developments. His latest book (co-authored with Mark Olshaker) is The Big One: How We Must Prepare for Future Deadly Pandemics.What we're concerned about now is we're primed for an influenza pandemic someday where a new influenza virus will emerge. And when it takes off, it'll rapidly spread through the people. And wherever it came from (whether a bird species or another animal) will not be that important because now it's transmitted among humans.Dr. Michael OsterholmI want to be really clear about one thing: There will be an influenza virus that will cause a pandemic in the future. And the pandemic clock is ticking, we just don't know what time it is.Dr. Michael OsterholmInstead of building from a base of modest preparedness from the prior administration (and I emphasize “modest”), they're going backwards. Also, with quackery positions on a whole variety of issues that is dividing the population, feeding the misinformation on the internet, and general chaos of information transmission.Ralph NaderI will just make one prediction here today: There is going to be a large, huge, overwhelming crisis that is going to occur eventually around an infectious disease issue in this country. And it's going to happen because Mother Nature herself does that to us—just like hurricanes are not optional, these large outbreaks are not optional. What's optional is how well we respond to them and limit their impact. And we are at a point right now where we have very, very limited impact on these things. So I think the public needs to be aware, we're in a very different setting today for public health response to a crisis than we've ever been in my 50 years in the business.Dr. Michael OsterholmNews 10/31/25* Our top stories this week concern U.S. saber rattling in Venezuela. First, a new piece in published Drop Site news, coauthored by Ryan Grim, Jack Poulson and Saagar Enjeti of Breaking Points, takes readers “Inside Marco Rubio's Push for Regime Change in Venezuela.” This piece deconstructs the Trump administration claims tying the Maduro government to fentanyl trafficking, quoting a senior U.S. official who unequivocally states that “U.S. intelligence has assessed that little to none of the fentanyl trafficked to the United States is being produced in Venezuela.” Another key point is that the Maduro government apparently offered to turn over oil resources to the United States in exchange for cessation of hostilities. Instead, in an echo of the Iraq War, Trump has apparently been, “swayed by arguments from Rubio that the best way to secure Venezuela's oil reserves was to facilitate regime change in Venezuela and make a better deal with a new government.” As with Iraq, regime change in Venezuela is likely to end up with a chaotic power vacuum in the country, destabilizing Latin America in turn. One would have hoped the U.S. had learned its lesson. Apparently not.* The administration does however seem to favor covert schemes to oust Maduro as opposed to an outright U.S. invasion. Back in 2020, the Trump administration backed Operation Gideon, which utilized American mercenaries and Venezuelan dissidents to try to capture Maduro. This week, Venezuela claims to have foiled another such attempt. Democracy Now! reports “Venezuelan officials say they've captured a group of mercenaries tied to the [CIA]. In a statement, the government of Venezuela said, ‘This is a colonial operation of military aggression that seeks to turn the Caribbean into a space for lethal violence and US imperial domination.'” This report goes on to state, “Earlier this month, President Trump acknowledged that he authorized the CIA to secretly conduct operations in Venezuela.” Meanwhile AP reports that over the past 16 months, a now-retired federal agent named Edwin Lopez sought to turn Maduro's personal pilot – Venezuelan General Bitner Villegas – and have the aviator deliver Maduro into U.S. custody. In exchange, Lopez promised to make the pilot a “very rich man.” This plot, hatched under President Biden and continuing under Trump, ultimately failed. Yet, as these half-baked covert ops go up in flames, it seems increasingly likely that the administration will resort to brute force. That same Democracy Now! piece reports that on Sunday, a U.S. warship arrived in Trinidad and Tobago. With no diplomatic solution on the horizon, it seems only a matter of time before the shelling begins.* As all of this unfolds, Congressional Republicans are shirking their oversight responsibilities. On October 23rd, Axios reported that Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Jim Risch of Idaho said the committee will not hold hearings regarding the lawless strikes on Venezuelan boats “at this time,” adding that he has been “briefed on it and feel[s] comfortable with where we are.” As if mocking the Legislative Branch, that same day Semafor reported a quote from “a person close to the White House” who said Trump won't coordinate with Congress until “Maduro's corpse is in US custody.”* Turning to the federal government, reclusive billionaire Timothy Mellon, heir to the Mellon fortune, has donated $130 million to the Pentagon to offset military staff salaries during the government shutdown. While $130 million is a drop in the bucket for the American Military-Industrial Complex – this donation will amount to about $50 per troop this pay cycle – it would appear to be blatantly illegal under the Antideficiency Act. The Hill explains that under this statute, “federal agencies are barred from ‘obligating or expending federal funds in advance or in excess of an appropriation, and from accepting voluntary services.'” In part, this statute was adopted to avoid just such a scenario – the president circumventing the Congressional Power of the Purse by soliciting outside donations. Unfortunately, Trump's subservient Congressional allies are unlikely to do anything about this outrageous usurpation of their power.* On the regulatory side, the Trump administration is putting its thumb on the scales in favor of David Ellison's bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery. A New York Post report quotes a senior administration official who says “Who owns Warner Bros. Discovery is very important to the administration…The Warner board needs to think very seriously not just on the price competition but which player in the suitor pool has been successful getting a deal done.” The Post adds that “rival bidders are likely to face stiff hurdles from US regulators.” Ellison, son of Trump billionaire ally Larry Ellison, has had his eye on Warner Bros. Discovery – which owns CNN – since his recent acquisition of Paramount and its subsidiary CBS News. Critics have long warned of the dangers of consolidation in the media sphere, particularly news, but this would truly be an unprecedented upset of the media landscape.* Turning to consumer news, a new article in the Lever focuses on the fast food chain Shake Shack. According to this piece, the chain, “recently updated its terms of use agreement to include a binding arbitration agreement and class-action waiver denying customers their legal right to take companies to court.” Now, corporations sneaking binding arbitration agreements into their terms of service is not a new phenomenon, but this method is novel. This article explains that Shake Shack, and other fast food chains, are “extending restrictive contracts to consumers through the rapid expansion of online services such as websites, mobile apps, and automated self-service kiosks.” In other words, these automated services are becoming a ‘triple-threat' for these companies to exploit, simultaneously cutting labor costs, harvesting consumer data, and now forcing customers into these restrictive legal agreements. When will regulators take action to protect consumers from such rampant abuse?* One bright spot, so to speak, for consumer protection is emerging in the United Kingdom. The BBC reports the British Department for Transport will begin a review of the increasingly bright, bordering on blinding, LED headlights that have become commonplace in automobiles. The new guidelines are to be unveiled in the forthcoming Road Safety Strategy document being prepared by the government. Many drivers in the United States have complained about this issue as well – noting how dangerous it is for drivers to be blinded by oncoming headlights while on the road – and certain states like Hawaii and Massachusetts have taken action, though there has yet to be a federal response.* In more positive news from abroad, the Economic Times reports China has enacted an anti-misinformation law dictating that, “if you are an influencer and… want to discuss ‘serious' topics - such as finance, health, medicine, law or education - you must provide proof of relevant professional credentials.” This law will also ban “advertising for medical products and services,” which also covers supplements and health foods. Other reports indicate that the fines for violating this law could be as high as ¥100,000. The proliferation of medical misinformation has become a major issue for governments the world over and in the U.S. has incubated a vast underworld of medical conspiracy theories and dubious health products. It is heartening to see something being done to protect consumers' health and safety.* Speaking of someone doing something, Democratic congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh made headlines a month ago for blocking vehicles outside of an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois, where she is running for office. Now, NBC reports she has been indicted by a special federal grand jury, “alongside five other people, including two other political candidates.” Abughazaleh responded to the indictment, writing “This political prosecution is an attack on all of our First Amendment rights. I'm not backing down, and we're going to win.” Her lawyer, Josh Herman, added, “This is a political prosecution that tries to turn dissent and First Amendment opposition to the Trump administration's cruel policies into a conspiracy…Kat has steadfastly opposed those policies and she will fight these charges with the same principled determination.” The defendants have not been arrested but will surrender to the court next week.* Finally, Palestine Legal has scored a major victory. The group reports that “The First Circuit…[has] ruled that pro-Palestinian slogans, encampments and criticism of Zionism is protected by the First Amendment -- tossing out a Zionist complaint targeting pro-Palestinian organizing at @MIT.” Furthermore, the court found that “Slogans such as From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, intifada revolution, and calling Israel's actions a genocide -- and more -- do not target Jewish or Israeli students on the basis of their identity… but target Israel over its treatment of Palestinians.” This is a win for the David side of the David and Goliath struggle between pro-Palestine student groups and the universities where they are organizing – which are themselves under immense pressure from the Trump administration to stifle pro-Palestinian speech. Hopefully, this gives organizers the necessary breathing room they need to regroup as the Trump-brokered ceasefire grows ever shakier.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

As our regular podcast listeners know, we ordinarily release a new regular podcast show once each week on Thursday. On a very few occasions, we have released a special extra podcast show during the same week. We have only done that when a development occurs which we feel is of extraordinary importance and time sensitive. On September 22, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued its unanimous opinion in Conti v. Citizens Bank, N.A. in which it held, in the context of a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that the Bank failed to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts in violation of a Rhode Island statute which requires the payment of interest on mortgage escrow accounts, that the National Bank Act does not preempt the Rhode Island statute. The Bank had argued that the National Bank Act preempts the Rhode Island statute and that, as such, it was not required to pay any interest on mortgage escrow accounts. The District Court had also held that such Rhode Island statute was preempted. See our recently published blog about The First Circuit Opinion in Conti.  While the Conti case involves the narrow question described above, the implications of the opinion are sweeping in nature and will require national banks to comply with a vast litany of state consumer protection laws throughout the country which may no longer be preempted by the National Bank Act. Since 2004, the OCC has had a regulation which expressly purports to preempt state statutes, like the Rhode Island statute, which requires the payment of interest on mortgage escrow accounts That same regulation purports to preempt most categories of other state consumer protection laws. Most national banks have been reasonably relying on the OCC preemption regulations and have not complied with most state consumer protection laws. The Conti opinion implicitly concludes that the OCC preemption regulations are invalid.   During our podcast show, we explain the history of the Conti case and the holding and reasoning of the First Circuit. We also discuss the Cantero opinion in the Supreme Court which led to the First Circuit opinion and similar cases in the Second and Ninth Circuits dealing with the same preemption issues. Most importantly, we will explain how we are helping national banks comply with state laws that are probably not preempted by the National Bank Act. Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and practice leader of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosted the webinar. He was joined by Joseph Schuster and Ron Vaske, partners in the Group who focus their practices in part on National Bank Act Preemption.

In Dinner Table Action v. Schneider, pending in the First Circuit, Maine is appealing a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of a ballot initiative passed in 2024 that would have capped contributions for independent expenditures at $5,000. The initiative, formulated and supported by the anti-super PAC group, Equal Citizens, was designed to challenge the case that “created” super PACs, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, a unanimous en banc D.C. Circuit decision, which held that no limits can be placed on contributions for independent expenditures, and has since been reaffirmed by several federal circuit courts. If the First Circuit were to remove the injunction, it would create a circuit split, and open up the possibility of revisiting SpeechNow.org v. FEC.The Dinner Table Action District Court also ruled that mandatory disclosure of donors starting at $0 unconstitutionally burdens Free Speech by not affording any possibility for anonymous speech. As such, this case sits at an interesting intersection between free speech and election law. Join us for a litigation update where we will discuss the developments to date in this case, its potential impacts, and where it may be headed. Featuring: Charles Miller, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech(Moderator) Stephen R. Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

Immigration: May the president abolish birthright citizenship? - Argued: Fri, 01 Aug 2025 18:36:58 EDT

Immigration: May the president abolish birthright citizenship? - Argued: Fri, 01 Aug 2025 18:35:29 EDT

Immigration: May the Trump Administration issue a blanket revocation of humanitarian parole for removable aliens? - Argued: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:45:51 EDT

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for July 24, 2025Federal First Circuit Deems Maine Ballot Initiative Limiting Foreign Spending in State Elections Likely UnconstitutionalThe voices of 86% of Maine voters were silenced July 14th as a federal appeals court found a 2023 ballot initiative limiting political spending by foreign-owned corporations likely violates the Constitution's right to free speech.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:Maine Public Radio – Question 2 passes, banning foreign electioneering in MaineState of Maine – §1064. Foreign government campaign spending prohibitedAmerican Democracy Minute - After a Canadian Utility Spent $22 Million Dollars to Influence a Ballot Measure, Maine Voters Ban Foreign Money in State ElectionsMaine Morning Star - First Circuit rules Maine ban on foreign government election spending likely unconstitutional First Circuit Court of Appeals (via Election Law Blog) -  Opinion in CENTRAL MAINE POWER v. MAINE COMMISSION ON GOVERNMENTAL ETHICS AND ELECTION PRACTICESMaine Morning Star - Another voter-backed Maine law regulating campaign finance halted, but the case is far from overGroups Taking Action:Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, League of Women Voters Maine, American Promise, End Citizens United, Represent.UsPlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #Maine #EndBigMoney #ForeignInfluence #Question2

Today on the show  the First Circuit is reversing DOGE's “DEI” cuts at NIH. Trump is suing the Wall Street Journal for defamatory reporting that he was friends with that pedophile he used to party with all the time. And trial courts are calling SCOTUS's shadow docket bluff. Plus, Alina Habba is headed for the exit.   Links:   SCOTUS Shadow Docket Order Dept. of Education v. California https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a910_f2bh.pdf   American Public Health Association v. National Institutes of Health  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70621936/american-public-health-association-v-national-institutes-of-health/   CREW v. OMB https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69858087/citizens-for-responsibility-and-ethics-in-washington-v-office-of/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

I'm stepping into the courthouse this week, the energy unmistakable as the legal saga surrounding Donald Trump intensifies. The name Trump is echoing through courtrooms from New Hampshire to California, and every day brings another headline, another twist. Just yesterday, a federal court in New Hampshire made waves by blocking President Trump's executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, a direct challenge to the long-standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case, known as Barbara v. Donald J. Trump, has now certified a nationwide class protecting all children born on U.S. soil, no matter their parents' status. I watched attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union and their allies argue that the order was a blatant attack on constitutional guarantees. The court agreed, granting a preliminary injunction stopping the order from taking effect, at least for now, and giving the Justice Department a brief window to seek an emergency stay from the First Circuit. But the sense in the room was clear: this was a pivotal win for civil rights advocates, at least for the time being.At the same time, the Supreme Court has been actively shaping the landscape. A critical ruling just days ago in Trump v. CASA, Inc. signaled tighter constraints on federal courts, limiting their power to issue nationwide injunctions against executive orders like Trump's. It's a ruling many legal experts are calling a significant hurdle for those seeking to block government actions on a broad scale. Although the Court's decision won't stop class-action lawsuits like the one in New Hampshire, it creates extra layers of complexity for those challenging executive power. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has taken these steps, despite widespread criticism that these executive orders—including the one on birthright citizenship—are unconstitutional and threaten bedrock American principles.On the West Coast, the legal wrangling continues. The Supreme Court just granted a stay on a lower court's injunction that had blocked Trump's Executive Order 14210, which is related to sweeping government reorganizations—think proposed reductions of entire federal workforces. The high court's intervention means that, at least for now, the administration has a green light to press forward with those plans while appeals continue. To put it plainly: Trump's efforts to reshape federal policies and institutions are running straight into the courts, and the outcomes will ripple through government and American society for years.The legal fights surrounding Donald Trump in these past days have shown just how much remains unresolved about presidential power, civil rights, and the meaning of the Constitution. Every morning lately, as I walk into these historic courtrooms and watch the legal teams square off, it's clear to me we are witnessing chapters in a profoundly consequential national debate.Thank you all for tuning in—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

When Professor Asha Rangappa began posting online about the lessons she was teaching in the Yale University course on Russian intelligence and information warfare, the public took notice. Many reached out for a copy of the syllabus, and began lamenting that they couldn't take her course. This led to the creation of a series of free lessons and presentations for the public through The Freedom Academy – which is Professor Rangappa's popular Substack. In this episode, we unpack key concepts taught by The Freedom Academy, including: how propaganda reaches us; the Alien Enemies Act of 1798; due process; civic literacy; the characteristics of truth tellers; transparency and accountability as pillars of democracy; and what happens when public trust erodes. Our guest is: Asha Rangappa, who is assistant dean and a senior lecturer at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs and a former Associate Dean at Yale Law School. Prior to her current position, Asha served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. Her work involved assessing threats to national security, conducting classified investigations on suspected foreign agents and performing undercover work. While in the FBI, Asha gained experience in electronic surveillance, interview and interrogation techniques, firearms and the use of deadly force. She received her law degree from Yale Law School where she was a Coker Fellow in Constitutional Law, and served as a law clerk to the Honorable Juan R. Torruella on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in San Juan, Puerto Rico. She is admitted to the State Bar of New York (2003) and Connecticut (2003). Asha has published op-eds in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post among others and is currently a legal contributor for ABC News. She is on the board of editors of Just Security and a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. She created the popular Substack called The Freedom Academy. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who is the producer and show host of the Academic Life podcast. She holds a PhD in history, which she uses to explore what stories we tell and what happens to those we never tell. She works as a developmental editor for scholarly projects. Playlist for listeners: Immigration Realities Understanding Disinformation The Ungrateful Refugee Where is home? Who gets believed? Belonging Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by downloading and sharing episodes. Join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

When Professor Asha Rangappa began posting online about the lessons she was teaching in the Yale University course on Russian intelligence and information warfare, the public took notice. Many reached out for a copy of the syllabus, and began lamenting that they couldn't take her course. This led to the creation of a series of free lessons and presentations for the public through The Freedom Academy – which is Professor Rangappa's popular Substack. In this episode, we unpack key concepts taught by The Freedom Academy, including: how propaganda reaches us; the Alien Enemies Act of 1798; due process; civic literacy; the characteristics of truth tellers; transparency and accountability as pillars of democracy; and what happens when public trust erodes. Our guest is: Asha Rangappa, who is assistant dean and a senior lecturer at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs and a former Associate Dean at Yale Law School. Prior to her current position, Asha served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. Her work involved assessing threats to national security, conducting classified investigations on suspected foreign agents and performing undercover work. While in the FBI, Asha gained experience in electronic surveillance, interview and interrogation techniques, firearms and the use of deadly force. She received her law degree from Yale Law School where she was a Coker Fellow in Constitutional Law, and served as a law clerk to the Honorable Juan R. Torruella on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in San Juan, Puerto Rico. She is admitted to the State Bar of New York (2003) and Connecticut (2003). Asha has published op-eds in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post among others and is currently a legal contributor for ABC News. She is on the board of editors of Just Security and a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. She created the popular Substack called The Freedom Academy. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who is the producer and show host of the Academic Life podcast. She holds a PhD in history, which she uses to explore what stories we tell and what happens to those we never tell. She works as a developmental editor for scholarly projects. Playlist for listeners: Immigration Realities Understanding Disinformation The Ungrateful Refugee Where is home? Who gets believed? Belonging Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by downloading and sharing episodes. Join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/academic-life

When Professor Asha Rangappa began posting online about the lessons she was teaching in the Yale University course on Russian intelligence and information warfare, the public took notice. Many reached out for a copy of the syllabus, and began lamenting that they couldn't take her course. This led to the creation of a series of free lessons and presentations for the public through The Freedom Academy – which is Professor Rangappa's popular Substack. In this episode, we unpack key concepts taught by The Freedom Academy, including: how propaganda reaches us; the Alien Enemies Act of 1798; due process; civic literacy; the characteristics of truth tellers; transparency and accountability as pillars of democracy; and what happens when public trust erodes. Our guest is: Asha Rangappa, who is assistant dean and a senior lecturer at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs and a former Associate Dean at Yale Law School. Prior to her current position, Asha served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. Her work involved assessing threats to national security, conducting classified investigations on suspected foreign agents and performing undercover work. While in the FBI, Asha gained experience in electronic surveillance, interview and interrogation techniques, firearms and the use of deadly force. She received her law degree from Yale Law School where she was a Coker Fellow in Constitutional Law, and served as a law clerk to the Honorable Juan R. Torruella on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in San Juan, Puerto Rico. She is admitted to the State Bar of New York (2003) and Connecticut (2003). Asha has published op-eds in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post among others and is currently a legal contributor for ABC News. She is on the board of editors of Just Security and a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. She created the popular Substack called The Freedom Academy. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who is the producer and show host of the Academic Life podcast. She holds a PhD in history, which she uses to explore what stories we tell and what happens to those we never tell. She works as a developmental editor for scholarly projects. Playlist for listeners: Immigration Realities Understanding Disinformation The Ungrateful Refugee Where is home? Who gets believed? Belonging Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by downloading and sharing episodes. Join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

When Professor Asha Rangappa began posting online about the lessons she was teaching in the Yale University course on Russian intelligence and information warfare, the public took notice. Many reached out for a copy of the syllabus, and began lamenting that they couldn't take her course. This led to the creation of a series of free lessons and presentations for the public through The Freedom Academy – which is Professor Rangappa's popular Substack. In this episode, we unpack key concepts taught by The Freedom Academy, including: how propaganda reaches us; the Alien Enemies Act of 1798; due process; civic literacy; the characteristics of truth tellers; transparency and accountability as pillars of democracy; and what happens when public trust erodes. Our guest is: Asha Rangappa, who is assistant dean and a senior lecturer at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs and a former Associate Dean at Yale Law School. Prior to her current position, Asha served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. Her work involved assessing threats to national security, conducting classified investigations on suspected foreign agents and performing undercover work. While in the FBI, Asha gained experience in electronic surveillance, interview and interrogation techniques, firearms and the use of deadly force. She received her law degree from Yale Law School where she was a Coker Fellow in Constitutional Law, and served as a law clerk to the Honorable Juan R. Torruella on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in San Juan, Puerto Rico. She is admitted to the State Bar of New York (2003) and Connecticut (2003). Asha has published op-eds in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post among others and is currently a legal contributor for ABC News. She is on the board of editors of Just Security and a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. She created the popular Substack called The Freedom Academy. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who is the producer and show host of the Academic Life podcast. She holds a PhD in history, which she uses to explore what stories we tell and what happens to those we never tell. She works as a developmental editor for scholarly projects. Playlist for listeners: Immigration Realities Understanding Disinformation The Ungrateful Refugee Where is home? Who gets believed? Belonging Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by downloading and sharing episodes. Join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 31: Libby v. FecteauLibby, et al. v. Fecteau, et al., argued before Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, Circuit Judge Seth Aframe, and District Judge Camille Vélez-Rivé in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on June 5, 2025. Argued by Taylor Meehan of Consovoy McCarthy PLLC (on behalf of Laurel Libby, et al.), Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights (for Amicus Curiae United States, supporting appellant), and Jonathan Bolton, Maine Assistant Attorney General (on behalf of Ryan M. Fecteau, et al.).Background of the case, from the Brief of Appellants:In February, Libby took to Facebook to call attention to Maine's [transgender athlete] policy, borne out at this year's high school track-and-field state championship. The championship was a public event; the names, schools, and podium photos of participants were widely broadcast and readily accessible online. Libby re-posted already-public, truthful information showing the first-place girls' pole vaulter previously competed in boys' pole vault. That first-place finish propelled the athlete's high school team to win the girls' state championship by one point.Libby's post put Maine's policy in the national spotlight, prompting federal investigations regarding Maine's noncompliance with federal law. Days later, the Maine House censured Libby along a party-line vote of 75 to 70. The censure resolution called on Libby to “publicly apologize” for bringing “national attention” to Maine. H.R. Res. 1, 132nd Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Me. 2025). It denounced Libby's “statement criticizing the participation of transgender students in high school sports” as “reprehensible” and “incompatible with her duty and responsibilities as a Member of this House.” And while the resolution faulted Libby for identifying a “student athlete by [first] name” and “showing the minor in an athletic uniform” without “consent,” id., the post merely copied public information, showing podium photos from widely publicized state championship events, contained no threats, and violated no law. The resolution omitted that the Speaker and others regularly show minors on their social media, without any indication of consent from the subjects.Dissenting House members criticized the resolution as “a mockery of the censure process,” “set[ting] a standard … that the majority party, when they're displeased with a social media post that upsets them, can censure a member of the minority party.” Other representatives raised free-speech concerns and sought clarification on whether members who re-posted Libby's post could “expect censures to come forth on them as well.” The Speaker disclaimed knowledge of “any other censures.”After the censure resolution passed, the Speaker summoned Libby to the well of the House chamber and demanded she apologize. When Libby refused to recant her views, the Speaker found her in violation of Maine House Rule 401(11), providing that a member “guilty of a breach of any of the rules and orders of the House … may not be allowed to vote or speak … until the member has made satisfaction.”Ever since, Libby's district has had no voice or vote on the House floor. The Speaker has stopped Libby from speaking on any bill, including even posing a question in a recent debate on an equal rights amendment proposed for the state constitution.Statement of the Issue, from Brief of Appellants:Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction on their claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Guarantee Clause [of “a Republican Form of Government].”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

President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship has reignited debates over the 14th Amendment and the meaning of citizenship in America. Legal experts Gabriel Chin of the University of California, Davis School of Law; Amanda Frost of the University of Virginia School of Law; Kurt Lash of the University of Richmond School of Law; and Ilan Wurman of the University of Minnesota Law School analyze the legal challenges surrounding birthright citizenship, explore the constitutional and historical arguments on all sides of this debate, and discuss its broader implications for immigration. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources Trump v. CASA, Inc., United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (2025) Trump v. Washington, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2025) Trump v. New Jersey, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2025) Amanda Frost, You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers (2021) Amanda Frost, “The Coming Assault on Birthright Citizenship,” The Atlantic (Jan. 7, 2025) Ilan Wurman and Randy Barnett, “Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship,” The New York Times (Feb. 15, 2025) Ilan Wurman, “Jurisdiction and Citizenship,” Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 25-27 (April 14, 2025) Gabriel “Jack” Chin and Paul Finkelman, “Birthright Citizenship, Slave Trade Legislation, and the Origins of Federal Immigration Regulation,” UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 54 (April 8, 2021) Gabriel J. Chin, “America Has Freaked Out Over Birthright Citizenship For Centuries,” Talking Points Memo (Aug. 2015) Kurt Lash, “Prima Facie Citizenship: Birth, Allegiance and the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause,” SSRN (Feb. 22, 2025) Kurt Lash, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship (2014) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠Sign up⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠live program⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠YouTube⁠. Support our important work. ⁠Donate

In This Episode Erin and Weer'd discuss: what we know so far about the shooting at Florida State University; the Attorney General of New Jersey being shocked to find that shootings have dropped to historical levels now that citizens can easily carry; the Massachusetts Supreme Court rejecting a case against Assault Weapons due to "Public Safety"; and SCOTUS has refused to hear a case on adults under 21 carrying guns, meaning the Second Amendment has won in the 8th Circuit! Oddball gives us an overview on what is happening with Antonyuk v. James; and Xander talks about how all politics is in fact local politics. 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 Main Topic Will the mother of FSU shooting suspect face charges? Attorney general grilled over guns, court losses in Senate hearing The First Circuit upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction against Massachusetts' “assault weapon” and magazine bans US Supreme Court won't save Minnesota age restriction on carrying guns Oddball's Corner Pocket Washington Gun Law: No News and Bad News From the Supreme Court Today Victory in Antonyuk v. Nigrelli: New York Gun Law's Social Media Disclosure Requirement Blocked For Violating First Amendment Independent Thoughts The Town That Went Feral  

Episode 27: Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO v. EdelblutLocal 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO v. Edelblut, argued before Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, Senior Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr., and Circuit Judge Seth Aframe in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 8, 2025. Argued by Charles G. Moerdler and Gilles R. Bissonnette (on behalf of Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO, et al.) and Mary A. Triick, Senior Assistant Attorney General (on behalf of Edelblut, et al.).Case Background, from the Brief for Plaintiffs—Appellees Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO:New Hampshire's “Banned Concepts Law” (or the “Law”) is unconstitutionally vague. Enacted in June 2021, the Law bans the teaching, instruction, advocacy, advancement, and training of—or compelling a student to express belief in or support for—four concepts in public schools and places of public employment. The four concepts implicate aspects of “age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion or national origin.”Statement of Issues Presented for Review, from the Brief for Plaintiffs—Appellees Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO:Did the district court correctly hold that the Law violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause on its face because its “prohibitions against teaching banned concepts are unconstitutionally vague,” and because the law contains “viewpoint-based restrictions on speech that do not provide either fair warning to educators of what they prohibit or sufficient standards for law enforcement to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement”?As an independent basis for affirmance, does the Law violate the First Amendment where it implicates the private, extracurricular speech of educators on matters of public concern?Resources:CourtListener case docket for Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO v. EdelblutNew Hampshire “Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education” lawBrief for Defendants—AppellantsBrief for Plaintiffs—AppelleesReply Brief for Defendants—AppellantsThe 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

Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @lumedeodorant and get 15% off with promo code LAWNERD at https://Lumedeodorant.com! #lumepod #adGet 20% OFF @honeylove by going to honeylove.com/LAWNERD! #honeylovepod #adA former juror from the first Karen Read trial, attorney Victoria George, has joined her defense team! I break down the legal implications and why this is such an unusual move. One thing to note is that she was not a deliberating juror.The First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Karen Read's claim of double jeopardy, meaning she can be retried on all three charges. I explain the court's reasoning, which focused on whether a mistrial was necessary and whether a verdict had been formally rendered in the first trial. Jury selection for the Karen Read retrial is set to begin on April 1st, 2025. I discuss the expected timeline, the challenges of selecting an impartial jury, and what to expect in the coming weeks.RESOURCESVanity Fair Article – https://www.vanityfair.com/style/story/karen-read-trial-juror-lawyerFinal Pre-Trial Hearing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbX3X0qbEewPrevious Emily Show - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRXfHhodGjYMistrial Hearing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRJ_QZ5NeikDepp v Heard Trial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gLVeg1x2AInDBfPU6-ffnD0This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Hugh reviews Katherine Maher’s testimony, discusses with Ruthless’s Michael Duncan and Salena Zito, covers the Israeli law reforming its Supreme Court and covers the outrageous First Circuit decision in Foote v Ludlow School District with Kristen Waggoner, president and CEO of the Alliance Defending Freedom.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Judge Gunn discusses the case of Steven and Lori Palladino with Mark DeGiacomo, who served as the Chapter 7 trustee in their case. Mr. DeGiacomo was tasked with administering the fallout resulting from the debtors' Ponzi scheme run through an entity called Viking Financial Group, Inc. Mr. Palladino used Viking to promise “investors” a guaranteed 12% return on their investments, initially meeting with family and friends at Dunkin Donuts or at his kitchen table, and paying out their “dividends” in cash-stuffed envelopes. Mr. Palladino was ultimately convicted of numerous crimes and sentenced to more than 10 years in prison after it was revealed that he had bilked his victims out of more than $10 million. Mr. DeGiacomo winded up conducting at least two dozen Rule 2004 examinations as part of his investigation into the assets and financial affairs of the debtors and used this information to prosecute numerous avoidance actions and liquidate assets of the debtors to repay their creditors and victims. Mr. DeGiacomo recovered numerous lavish gifts Mr. Palladino had given to his wife as well as to his 20-year-old girlfriend, including jewelry, designer handbags, shoes, and dresses which the trustee sold at auction for the benefit of creditors. He also prosecuted an adversary proceeding against Sacred Heart University to recover nearly $65,000 in tuition Mr. Palladino had paid on his adult daughter's behalf, resulting in a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that Mr. Palladino had not received “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for the tuition payments, because emotional, intangible, or non-economic benefits did not satisfy the standard, and thus the university was required to return the funds to the estate for the benefit of creditors. Mr. DeGiacomo ultimately recovered approximately $2.5 million for distribution to the estate. Mr. Palladino ultimately died in state prison in 2020 before he ever began to serve his 2-year federal prison term for criminal contempt due to his failure to obey orders imposed in a civil action brought against him by the SEC related to the Ponzi scheme.

On March 18th, 2025, the Karen Read case was back in court, and things are heating up! Judge Cannone delivers a scathing rebuke to the defense, accusing them of "deliberate misrepresentations" and "flagrant violation" of Rule 14 regarding payments to the ARCCA Expert Witnesses. The judge has a conversation directly with Karen Read to see if she'd like to remove Alan Jackson as her representative, but she declined. The judge doesn't remove Alan Jackson from the defense team, decided not to exclude ARCCA Witness Testimony from the re-trial, and didn't financially sanction the defense team. Instead, she gave them a stern warning and remind them of their obligation of being candor to the court. The Defense and The Commonwealth's Appellate Attorney ask for the trial date of April 1st, 2025, be pushed back again. This time they didn't request a date due to Karen Read appeal to the First Circuit to try to get counts 1 and 3 dismissed. The judge has taken it under advisement and will reconvene Thursday, March 20th, 2025 to discuss further. The judge is concerned that it will be hard to find a jury due to an HBO documentary about the first trial currently being broadcasted so close to the Re-Trail date.Watch the full coverage: https://youtube.com/live/8VjWKkQrQRMThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

In breaking news, a 3rd appellate court has dealt a severe blow to Trump's efforts to rip birthright citizenship out of the US Constitution by executive order, with the 1st Circuit in Boston refusing Trump's emergency application to block a nationwide preliminary injunction to stop Trump‘s destruction of birthright citizenship. Michael Popok explains how this new decision by the First Circuit compares to similar decisions at the Ninth Circuit and Fourth Circuit, and what that means for the next move by the Trump administration at the US Supreme Court. Head to https://manukora.com/legalaf to receive $25 off your starter kit today! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos Mexico brought suit against several U.S. gun manufacturers including Smith & Wesson, alleging, among other things, that they were in part liable for the killings perpetrated by Mexican cartels. Mexico argued that the gun manufacturers know the guns they sell are/may be illegally sold to the cartels and thus are the proximate causes of the resulting gun violence. The manufacturers argued that they were immune from such suits under the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects U.S. gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, though not universally, as it contains a predicate exception for manufacturers who knowingly violate applicable federal (and potentially international) law. The district court ruled in favor of the manufacturers and Mexico appealed. The First Circuit agreed that while the protections of PLCAA were applicable to the manufacturer, they might still be liable under the predicate exception. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on March 4, 2025. Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the case and analyze how oral arguments went before the Court. Featuring: Brian W. Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC

The US Supreme Court hears argument March 4 in a case over gun industry protections from lawsuits. The dispute involving Mexico and Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. centers on whether exceptions to the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act open manufacturers to court challenges. Mexico alleges gunmakers intentionally trade with suppliers for drug cartels and the law allows suits when industry knowingly violates firearms laws in a way that causes injury. Industry says it's shielded, but the Boston-based US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has said not so fast. Cases and Controversies discusses the case with Georgia State law professor Timothy Lytton. He's filed a brief on behalf of neither party advocating for one of the law's exceptions opening gunmakers to potential liability. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr Producer: Mo Barrow Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

International Law: Does recovery under the Torture Victim Protection Act require that a suit for extrajudicial killing have a nexus to the United States? - Argued: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 15:57:6 EDT

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard arguments in our Bangor Christian Schools case. We urged the First Circuit to reverse a lower court ruling that upheld a Maine law preventing religious schools from participating in the state's school choice program. First Liberty's Jeremy Dys joins us on First Liberty Live! to give an update on what happened inside the court room and why this case is important for the future of religious freedom.

On December 9, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence v. The School Committee for the City of Boston. The case involved an equal protection challenge to a change in admissions policy in Boston, where a competitive public school altered its admissions criteria in a manner that reduced the number of Asian and Caucasian students. The lower courts rejected the challenge, with the First Circuit indicating that an equal protection challenge to a facially neutral policy—like admissions criteria that do not mention race—must establish that the impact on the targeted race was so severe as to reduce their numerical presence in the school below their demographic numbers in the relevant population.By denying certiorari, the Court left the First Circuit’s opinion in place. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, issued a dissent from denial, as they had in a similar case earlier this year called Coalition for TJ. Justice Gorsuch issued a statement respecting the denial, stating that he largely agreed with Justice Alito’s dissent.This litigation update will evaluate the state of the law when it comes to “proxy discrimination” measures, and whether an equal protection claim must establish a particularly onerous disparate impact on the targeted race at issue.Featuring: Christopher M. Kieser, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

Federalism: Does the federal prohibition on cannabis in states where it is legal violate federalism? - Argued: Thu, 05 Dec 2024 13:6:31 EDT

Antitrust: Did Nantucket violate the Sherman Act when it capped the number of rental car licenses on the island? - Argued: Tue, 05 Nov 2024 17:21:13 EDT

In this episode, co-host Gregory Bombard, a Shareholder in Greenberg Traurig's Boston office, returns to discuss a federal Court of Appeals decision addressing Massachusetts' and California's competing public policies on the enforcement of noncompete agreements.

Episode 19: Central Maine Power Company, et al. v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al. Central Maine Power Company, et al. v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al., argued before Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, Senior Circuit Judge Jeffrey R. Howard, and Circuit Judge Seth Aframe in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on October 9, 2024. Argued by Jonathan Richard Bolton, Maine Assistant Attorney General (on behalf of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al.),  Joshua D. Dunlap (on behalf of Central Maine Power Company, et al.), Paul McDonald (on behalf of Versant Power and ENMAX Corporation), and Timothy Woodcock (on behalf of individual voter plaintiffs). Statement of Issues Presented for Review, from the Brief of Plaintiff—Appellee Enmax Corporation and Versant Power: 1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by preliminarily enjoining enforcement of 21-A M.R.S. § 1064 (the “Act”), which bars all campaign spending of a domestic corporation if 5% or more of its stock is owned by certain foreign entities or such a foreign entity directly or indirectly participates in its campaign-spending decisions, on the grounds that the Act facially violates the corporation's First Amendment rights. 2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in determining that the Act is expressly preempted by federal law as applied to federal elections when the Act's plain text does not limit its application to state elections. 3. Whether the district court's decision enjoining the Act should be affirmed on two alternative grounds left unaddressed by the district court: (i) the Act violates the United States Constitution's “dormant foreign commerce clause,” Article I, Section 8, Clause 3; and (ii) the Act, as applied to Versant Power, violates its rights under the First Amendment. Resources: CourtListener case docket for Central Maine Power Company Institute for Free Speech amicus brief 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

Join Ben and Rahul for their in-depth discussion of Ben's recent three-week jury trial in which Ben represented a little girl who developed cerebral palsy following the development of necrotizing enterocolitis in the NICU.  Ben discusses how decision-making guided by big data led to him and his client to turning down an $11 million offer after closing arguments to take a verdict.  He discusses what he learned following extensive discussions with jurors following the trial. Ben describes how this verdict influences his thinking about data, risk and approach to trial moving forward.About Ben Gideonhttps://gideonasen.com/our-team/benjamin-gideon/Ben grew up in Portland, Maine, attended public schools and graduated from Deering High School in 1989. Ben's father, Martin Rogoff, was a prominent member of the Maine Law School faculty, so Ben grew up immersed in discussions of the law. Ben began to develop his legal skills early in life through nightly arguments with his father at the dinner table.In high school, Ben played varsity soccer and was the captain of the hockey team. Following high school, Ben attended Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. Ben attempted to walk on to the Cornell hockey team, but was eventually cut from the team, ending his hockey career. Depressed and disappointed at this failure, Ben became a poor student, failed several classes, and was told he was being suspended from college on academic probation.After rehabilitating himself through some community college courses, Ben was able to gain re-admission to Cornell and to complete his degree. Ben applied to law school and was admitted to Boston University School of Law. There, Ben was a standout student. His grades were so exceptional after his first year that he was accepted as a transfer student to Yale Law School where he earned his law degree.Ben began his career in private practice at a large, multi-national law firm, Latham & Watkins, in New York City. He practiced there for several years before deciding to return to Maine to join Berman & Simmons, PA, Maine's largest plaintiff's law firm.EDUCATIONCornell University, 1993Yale Law School, 1999RECOGNITIONSThe Inner Circle of Advocates, 100 of the Best Plaintiff Lawyers in the U.S., 2019-presentAmerican College of Trial Lawyers, Fellow, 2020-present, Top 1% of all lawyersAmerica's Top 100 Attorneys ― Listed in Maine for Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, and Products Liability, 2017The Best Lawyers in America ― 2013–present; “Lawyer of the Year,” 2016–presentSuper Lawyers ― “Super Lawyer,” 2013–presentMartindale-Hubbell ― Top Rated “AV Preeminent”Chambers & Partners USA ― Listed for Litigation: Medical Malpractice & Insurance and Mainly PlaintiffBenchmark Litigation ― “Litigation Star”AVVO — Rated 10.0 out of 10MEMBERSHIPSMaine Board of Overseers of the Bar, Professional Ethics CommissionMaine State Bar AssociationAmerican Association for Justice (AAJ)American Bar AssociationGovernor, Maine Trial Lawyers AssociationADMISSIONSMaine (2003)U.S. District Court, District of Maine (2010)Vermont (2016)New Hampshire (2010)U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (2002)New York (2000) A Leader at Berman & SimmonsDuring his years at Berman & Simmons, Ben rose from an associate to become an owner and practice leader at the firm. Ben was instrumental in helping the firm re-invent its approach to litigating and trying cases; expanded its areas of practice expertise; and recruited and trained many talented lawyers.During his 17 years at Berman & Simmons, Ben enjoyed many great successes and some disappointing failures, but overall managed to build the most successful plaintiff's personal injury and medical malpractice practice in the State of Maine. Ben achieved success in a broad range of different types of plaintiff's cases—police civil rights, product liability, medical malpractice, nursing home, maritime and industrial accidents.Early in his career, Ben achieved a landmark civil rights verdict against a police officer for violating his client's civil rights with a Taser shooting. The verdict was affirmed on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.In 2014, after 4 ½ year of litigation, Ben achieved a record-setting $22.5 million jury verdict in Burlington, Vermont, on behalf of a utility lineman who lost both of his legs during a high-voltage powerline switching operation.Ben followed his Vermont verdict with a verdict of $1.75 million jury verdict in a medical malpractice trial in Bangor, Maine.More recently, Ben recovered $2.5 million in a medical malpractice case tried to a jury in New Hampshire.Over the past decade, no other plaintiff's lawyer in Maine can match Ben's level of success on behalf of his clients, which include:Recovering more than $130 million in verdicts and settlementsAchieving 31 verdicts or settlements in excess of $ 1 millionRecovering more than $50 million for the victims of medical malpracticeRecovering tens of millions of dollars for victims of car and trucking accidents.Recovering more than $11 million in actions against major automobile manufacturers, including Toyota, Hyundai, and Fiat ChryslerRecovering more than $15 million from power and electrical utility companiesRecovering millions of dollars for families of the victims of the El Faro maritime disasterRecovering more than $5 million from 3 trials and several settlements of medical malpractice and personal injury against the U.S. GovernmentRecovering millions of dollars for victims of nursing home negligence and abuseRecovering millions of dollars for victims of dangerous and defective productsPeer RecognitionBen's accomplishments, professionalism and character have won him the recognition of his peers. Ben has been named in Best Lawyers in America every year since 2013 and was named “Lawyer of the Year” for the State of Maine twice. Ben has been listed in Super Lawyers every year since 2013. He has received the top rating of “AV Preeminent” from Martindale-Hubbell and has a 10.0 out 10 rating on AVVO.In 2019, Ben became only the second lawyer in Maine to be inducted into the Inner Circle of Advocates, an invitation-only group of the best 100 plaintiff lawyers in the United States.Here is how the Inner Circle describes its criteria for membership:Membership CriteriaMembership in The Inner Circle of Advocates is by invitation and based on criteria that include an applicant's performance and success in the courtroom. The Inner Circle carefully evaluates experience, reputation, judicial references, and peer evaluations to identify the best 100 trial lawyers in the country. Typically, applicants are expected to have at least three verdicts of one million dollars or a recent verdict in excess of ten million dollars to be considered for membership. The Inner Circle looks for cutting edge lawyers in their jurisdiction who are active courtroom lawyers with a willingness to learn and teach about our craft and to be part of a close-knit, sharing group of professional colleagues. Membership in The Inner Circle of Advocates is not just an accolade, it is a commitment to participate in a unique laboratory of professional advancement.In 2020, Ben was inducted as a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL), an invitation-only group limited to the top 1% of lawyers. Here is how ACTL describes the qualifications required for membership:Membership in the College cannot exceed one percent of the total lawyer population of any state or province.Founding Gideon Asen LLCAfter 17 years at Berman & Simmons, in November 2020, Ben decided to leave one firm he loved and had helped to build, to form a new law firm, Gideon Asen LLC.“I was very proud of everything we accomplished at Berman & Simmons,” Ben said, “but I was excited by the challenge of building a new firm that could be even better.”Ben's first step was to recruit Taylor Asen to join him.“Taylor and I have a common mission,” Ben said. “Although we're separated by 12 years, Taylor also attended Yale Law School and completed prestigious Federal clerkships. He's insanely smart.”“But perhaps more important, Taylor and I share a common vision of a plaintiff's law firm where clients have access to exceptional lawyers and service. We are both supremely competitive and don't tolerate mediocrity. We believe we owe it to our clients to give them the very best, and that is what Gideon Asen will provide.”Podcast, Writing and TeachingBen enjoys thinking about the practice of trial law and strategies for success and is a frequent writer and speaker on trial topics.Ben co-hosts a podcast called Elawvate! which focuses on the human factors and guiding principles that drive successful lawyers and law firms.Personal Life and InterestsBen lives in Freeport, Maine, with his wife, Sara Gideon, and three children, Julian, Aleksandr, and Anna Josephine. Sara is a former two-term Speaker of the Maine House of Representatives and was the 2020 Democratic Nominee for U.S. Senate in Maine. When Ben is not practicing law, he enjoys skiing at Sugarloaf, fishing in Casco Bay, hiking, canoeing, traveling and just spending time with his family.

في دي الحلقة، كان معانا المهندس رائد أبو زنادة، اتكلمنا عن بداياته في المجال، وكيف درساته للعمارة ساعدته في تصميم حلبة الريم، أول حلبة سباقات دولية معتمدة من الـ FIA في السعودية. واتكلمنا على افتتاح الحلبة، وكيف كانت بطولة لامبورغيني سوبرليغيرا حدث مهم في تاريخ رياضة المحركات المحلية. ما نسينا كمان نتكلم عن المنافسة بين السائقين السعوديين وكيف بعدها ظهروا على الساحات الدولية. وإنشاء مدرسة الفورملا التي هدفها تدريب الشباب على الرياضة. وطبعا ختمناها بالكلام عن مستقبل رياضة المحركات في السعودية، وطموحاتنا الكبيرة زي اول فريق فورملا 1 سعودي وأول سائق فورملا 1 سعودي وغيرها.. شكرا لمشاهدتكم او استماعكم ولا تنسوا تتناقشوا معانا في التعليقات. المهندس رائد أبو زنادة https://www.instagram.com/raed_abuzinadah تلاقونا في كل منصات البودكاست وفي يوتيوب وانستغرام وباي. https://quick8curious.erbut.me

The U.S. Supreme Court decided 6-3 to overturn the 1984 Chevron v. NRDC case, ending the unconstitutional Chevron doctrine. This landmark ruling came in NCLA's case, Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce, argued alongside Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court vacated the First Circuit's decision upholding NOAA's rule requiring fishing companies to pay for at-sea government monitors. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin celebrate this monumental victory, which will curtail administrative power abuses for years to come!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided 6-3 to overturn the 1984 Chevron v. NRDC case, ending the unconstitutional Chevron doctrine. This landmark ruling came in NCLA's case, Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce, argued alongside Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court vacated the First Circuit's decision upholding NOAA's rule requiring fishing companies to pay for at-sea government monitors. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin continue to discuss this case and celebrate this monumental victory that NCLA has been fighting since the beginning!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join Ben for his discussion with attorneys Taylor Asen and Trevor Savage about their recent $2.4 million verdict in Bangor, Maine in a case involving a surgical mal positioning that caused an arm injury and CRPS.  Taylor and Trevor explain how they worked closely with the client to get her to the right specialist who could diagnose her medical condition.  They talk about the challenges of presenting a CRPS injury at trial.  They discuss how they resisted the defense effort to stipulate to liability and were able to present compelling evidence of corporate indifference and system failure in the lack of safeguards or systems to make sure that the surgery was done safely, and the lack of follow through, investigation, or changes that came out of this incident.  They discuss how they responded to the defense's 11th hour surprise surveillance video, which the judge allowed into evidence over objection.  They used the surveillance to further polarize the case and show the lie in the hospital's claim to be taking responsibility for its actions.  They discuss the use of data analysis to recognize the true value of the case and to formulate the amount asked for in closing. About Taylor Asenwww.gideonasen.com Taylor specializes in medical malpractice cases, trucking accident cases, and other complex personal injury cases. He has recovered tens of millions of dollars for his clients. Taylor possesses a unique combination of intellect, competitive drive, and human empathy that makes him a powerful advocate for his clients. Taylor has dedicated his career to championing the interests of individuals who have suffered harm or injury from corporate misconduct, individual negligence, and bad medical care. Taylor's efforts on behalf of injured Mainers have resulted in several of the largest case settlements in Maine history. Recently, Taylor and his colleague Meryl obtained one of the largest jury verdicts in a child sex abuse case in Maine's history. Taylor has been recognized as one of Maine's leading plaintiff's attorneys. He is only one of two lawyer from Northern New England listed in Lawdragon's list of the top 500 plaintiff's attorneys in the nation—the other lawyer from Northern New England is his partner, Ben Gideon. Taylor is also included in Best Lawyers – Ones to Watch and Super Lawyers Rising Stars; these designations are given to attorneys that distinguish themselves during their first decade of practice. “Nobody is more committed to his clients than Taylor,” said Ben Gideon. “His mind is always working. It's not unusual for me to receive a call after midnight from Taylor, wanting to brainstorm about a thorny problem or about case strategy. Taylor is also a gifted legal writer, enabling our clients to gain the upper hand in motions and briefs submitted to the courts. When it comes to the full range of personal qualities and skills needed to achieve extraordinary client results, there are few lawyers I've met who can match Taylor.” Taylor is on the Board of Governors of the Maine Trial Lawyers Association and has served as Co-Chair of the MTLA's Legislative Committee for the past three years. Taylor has testified in the Maine Legislature on numerous occasions, and played a critical role in the fight to raise Maine's cap on wrongful death damages in 2019. Taylor also has experience litigating class action cases on behalf of employees, consumers, and victims of civil rights abuses. From 2019 to 2020, he co-counseled a class action on behalf of Maine prisoners who were denied treatment for Hepatitis C. That lawsuit resulted in a historic settlement with the Maine Department of Corrections, under which the DOC agreed to treat all incarcerated individuals who have chronic Hepatitis C. Taylor is an Adjunct Professor at Maine Law School, where he co-teaches Trial Advocacy. A native of Maine, Taylor is a graduate of Yale Law School. At Yale, Taylor worked in the Veterans Legal Services Clinic, representing veterans who were improperly denied disability benefits. After graduating from law school, Taylor clerked for federal judges in New York City and Newark, New Jersey. Taylor began his career at a law firm in New York, before returning to Maine to represent individual plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits. Taylor's wife, Becca, is the Director of Recruiting and Professional Development at Bernstein Shur. Taylor and Becca live in Cumberland County with their three children, Davida, Vivienne, and Leon. What Clients Say About Taylor“The most fantastic Lawyer I have ever met. Caring considerate and great results.” – Hilarie B. “Taylor went above and beyond during the entire case. I felt valued, respected and as if I was the #1 and only client he had.” – Adam D. “Taylor was there, step by step, fighting for what is right and just, making sure we understood each process. He helped my family get the best outcome to move forward with our lives without regret.” – Cheri H. “Taylor Asen was everything we needed in a lawyer: professional, communicative, straight forward and determined. He also was everything we didn't expect: personable, always available, kind and thoughtful. We highly recommend his services.” – Arianna S. “Taylor Asen is the ultimate professional. He navigated us through the toughest time in our lives and handled our medical malpractice case with mastery. . . Most of all, he was human. His confidence and his friendly demeanor put us at ease and his empathy towards our situation made us feel like we wanted to win this case not just for us, but for him.” – Lisa H. EDUCATIONJ.D., Yale Law School, 2012M.A., Columbia University, 2007B.A., George Washington University (summa cum laude), 2006 RECOGNITIONSLawdragon's 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers, 2022The Best Lawyers in America ― “Ones to Watch,” 2021 – presentSuper Lawyers ― “Rising Star,” 2017 – presentAVVO – Rated 10/10 MEMBERSHIPSBoard Member, Maine Trial Lawyers AssociationCo-chair, Legislative Committee, Maine Trial Lawyers AssociationMember, Academy of Truck Accident AttorneysMember, American Association for JusticeMember, Right to Know Advisory Committee, Maine State Legislature, 2019-2022Member, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maine Selection Advisory Committee (2021)Chair, Maine Supreme Judicial Court IOLTA Working Group (2020) ADMISSIONSMaine (2016)U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (2014)U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (2014)U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (2014)New York (2013) CLERKSHIPSLaw Clerk, Hon. Julio Fuentes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2014Law Clerk, Hon. J. Paul Oetken, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2013  About Trevor Savagewww.gideonasen.com Trevor is a skilled trial attorney who represents clients in claims involving medical malpractice, wrongful deaths and other complex personal injury cases. After completing a clerkship with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Trevor began his career at a large firm in Portland, representing medical providers, businesses, and insurance companies. Trevor's experience as a defense attorney gives him a unique perspective that he uses to give Gideon Asen's clients an advantage during litigation with insurance companies. A native of Maine, Trevor is a graduate of Emerson College in Boston, Massachusetts, and then the University of Maine School of Law. At Maine Law, he served as Managing Editor of the Maine Law Review and as a legal writing teaching assistant for first-year students. During law school—alongside his then-classmate and current colleague, Meryl Poulin—he distinguished himself as one of two “Prize Arguers” of their class and argued before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. He and Meryl Poulin—another Gideon Asen attorney—later competed nationally as teammates on the Maine Law Moot Court Team, finishing in the top three of a competition of more than forty teams. While at law school, Trevor interned with the Appellate Division of the United States Attorney's Office and then with Judge Kermit V. Lipez of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He also worked as a Student Attorney at the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office (winning his first two jury trials as a second-year law student). Trevor lives in North Berwick, Maine, with his wife, Amy, and two children, Jacob and Will. EDUCATIONJ.D., Maine Law School (cum laude), 2017B.S., Emerson College (summa cum laude), 2013 RECOGNITIONSSuper Lawyer's: Rising Star 2022- present MEMBERSHIPSAmerican Bar Association, MemberMaine State Bar Association, MemberMaine Trial Lawyers Association, MemberEdward Thaxter Gignoux Inn of Court, MemberManaging Editor, Maine Law Review (2016-2017)Maine Law Class of 2017 Prize ArguerFaculty Significant Achievement Award, 2017 ADMISSIONSMaine (2017)United States District Court for the District of Maine (2018)United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2018) CLERKSHIPSLaw Clerk, Hon. Joseph M. Jabar, Maine Supreme Judicial Court, 2017-2018

GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: Shea Bradley-Farrell, Ph.D. is the President of the Counterpoint Institute for Policy, Research, and Education (CIPRE) in Washington, D.C. Dr. Shea is an expert in foreign policy and aid, national security, international development, and women's issues. She is the author of Last Warning to the West: Hungary's Triumph Over Communism and the Woke Agenda, published in December 2023 with a foreword written by Kari Lake and back cover reviews by Lou Dobbs, Tucker Carlson, Gen. Mike Flynn, and Rep. Paul Gosar. ​Dr. Shea worked directly with the Trump administration, including Sec. Mike Pompeo and Senior Advisor Ivanka Trump, on multiple issues, while serving as the VP of International Affairs for Concerned Women for America. Most recently she was professor and subject matter expert for the Defense Security Cooperation University (DSCU) of the U.S. Department of Defense. ​She has frequently published Op-eds in RealClear Politics, Human Events, Newsmax, National Review, The Washington Times, and many others. She is a weekly contributor to SiriusXM Patriot Stacy on the Right and Victory News TV and a regular guest on multiple news and radio shows. Dr. Shea presents at conferences worldwide, such as the Wilson Center for International Scholars, the U.S. Department of State, the Heritage Foundation, CPAC Hungary 2022 and 2023, and the Gulf Studies Symposium. She holds a Ph.D. and M.S. from Tulane University. GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: Mark Ramseyer, author of The Comfort Women Hoax: A Fake Memoir, North Korean Spies, and Hit Squads in the Academic Swamp, is the Mitsubishi Professor of Japanese Legal Studies at Harvard Law School. He spent most of his childhood in provincial towns and cities in southern Japan, attending Japanese schools for K-6. He returned to the U.S. for college. Before attending law school, he studied Japanese history in graduate school. Ramseyer graduated from the Harvard Law School in 1982. He clerked for the Hon. Stephen Breyer (then on the First Circuit), worked for two years at Sidley & Austin (in corporate tax), and studied as a Fulbright student at the University of Tokyo. After teaching at UCLA and the University of Chicago, he moved to Harvard in 1998. He writes and lectures in both English and Japanese, and has also taught or co-taught courses at several Japanese universities (in Japanese).

In this episode, Rahul and Ben discuss major trends in trial practice and big picture take aways from the last 3 ½ years of the podcast.  The conversation begins with a discussion of nuclear verdicts in the golden age of trial, moves on to case analysis and key issues, then to strategies or courtroom success, and ends with discussion of the impact of the MAGA juror.   About Rahul https://www.panish.law/ravipudi.html Rahul Ravipudi is a partner at Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP and has spent his legal career handling catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases involving commercial vehicles, pedestrians, industrial or construction accidents, utility negligence, dangerous conditions of public and private property as well as cases of sexual abuse and sexual assault. Mr. Ravipudi also represents consumers in class actions against businesses who engage in unfair/illegal business practices and public entities in cases where corporations have endangered the safety, health, property or comfort of the public.Mr. Ravipudi currently serves as Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel in the Social Media Cases litigation which involves cases of children and young adults harmed or driven to suicide by social media algorithms as well as Public Entity Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel in the JUUL Labs Product Cases, representing school districts and other public entities in California involved in litigation against the electronic cigarette manufacturer. He also serves as Plaintiffs Co-Lead Counsel in the Southern California Fire Cases litigation arising out of the 2017 Thomas Fire and subsequent debris flows in Montecito, California as well as on the Plaintiffs Executive Committee in the California North Bay Fires litigation. Mr. Ravipudi previously served on the Steering Committee in the Blythe bus crash litigation.Named 2017 Trial Lawyer of the Year by Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, Mr. Ravipudi has obtained numerous landmark verdicts and settlements including a $160.5 million jury verdict for a man who suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of a vicious beating by security personnel for a nightclub, a $46,475,112.33 jury verdict for a beginning Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu student who suffered a catastrophic spinal cord injury while sparring with a Del Mar Jiu-Jitsu Club instructor who performed a technique which rendered the student an incomplete quadriplegic, a $28,500,000+ settlement for a special needs student who was catastrophically injured after being struck by a vehicle while under the care and supervision of Victor Elementary School District (VESD) personnel, as well as a $23,500,000 settlement on behalf of the family of Paul Lee, a 19-year-old non-verbal autistic student who tragically died aboard a Whittier school bus after the driver left him behind to engage in a sexual tryst with a coworker. The Lee case was a catalyst for significant change in school transportation with Governor Jerry Brown signing the “Paul Lee School Bus Safety Law” in September 2016, requiring all school buses in the state of California to be equipped with a child safety alarm system that must be deactivated by the bus driver before departing the bus. The new law will go into effect at the start of the 2018-19 school year and requires bus drivers to receive training in child-safety check procedures.Committed to serving as an advocate for his clients, Mr. Ravipudi has obtained numerous eight-figure awards including a $20,500,000 jury verdict for the mother of a high school student who was killed while walking to a bus stop, a $19,786,818 jury verdict for a man who suffered severe burn and traumatic brain injuries when his rental home exploded as a result of Southern California Gas Company negligence, a $13,935,550 jury verdict for 19-year-old pedestrian who suffered extensive injuries as a result of being struck on the sidewalk by a vehicle driven by a Los Angeles County employee, a $13,000,000 settlement for the children and parents of a woman who was killed when her car was hit by a Hawthorne, California police officer, a $11,000,000 settlement for the family of a middle school student who drowned during a school-sponsored swim party, a$10 million for the family of an independent truck driver killed by an intoxicated heavy lift operator at a stevedoring terminal in Long Beach, and an$8,000,000 jury verdict in Clark County District Court for a Nevada man who suffered significant internal injuries after he was served and ingested what he believed was a Honey Blonde Ale but was actually a chemical cleaning compound left in the tap lines.Mr. Ravipudi shared his insight into successfully litigating cases against the stevedoring companies in an article entitled, “Danger on the Docks – Where there is an injury or death on the waterfront, drugs or alcohol are too often involved” published in the February 2011 edition of Advocate, journal of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles.Additional recoveries obtained by Mr. Ravipudi include a $15,950,000 settlement for a teen who suffered a brain injury on an HOA playground, $8,000,000 settlement for an 81-year-old woman who suffered severe spinal cord injuries after falling at a hotel, a $7,000,000+ settlement during trial for the family of a man killed at SpeedVegas when the vehicle he was driving slammed into a track wall and burst into flames, $6,500,000 settlement for the two minor children and friend of a Southern California man who was killed after being struck on the highway by a freight truck whose driver had fallen asleep behind the wheel, a $6,000,000 settlement for a woman who suffered severe burn injuries when a faucet in the bathtub of her apartment detached and sprayed scalding hot water onto her body, a $5 million for an HVAC worker who suffered serious injuries when he fell through a skylight while working on a customer's roof, a $3.3 million gross jury verdict arising out of the death of a pest control person crushed and killed when a semi-truck reversed into him at a warehousing facility, and $9 million from the State of California (Caltrans) when a 16-year-old girl on a restricted license lost control of her vehicle and collided into a guardrail damaged two days earlier resulting in a bilateral traumatic below knee amputations. This case involved significant appellate issues which led to Mr. Ravipudi's article, “Dealing with the state of California's first line of defense – stonewalling any meaningful discovery” published in Advocate, Journal of Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles in February 2009.  About Ben https://gideonasen.com/our-team/benjamin-gideon/ When clients come to us, they are looking for financial compensation. They are often struggling just to stay above water, and they need money to provide safety and security to meet basic life needs and to build a new and better life for themselves and their family in the future.But for many of our clients, their case is also about something more—something larger—than money. It's about accountability. It's about wanting to create a society where individuals, corporations, medical providers and insurance companies don't get away with selfish, neglectful or greedy choices that put people at risk. It's about obtaining the catharsis and closure the only comes when justice is done to make up for the precious things that another's harmful conduct took away from them.In short, I have come to realize that my clients don't just want a lawyer. They want a Champion—that is, someone who will fight for them individually, but also be willing to fight for the larger cause for which they stand.Let Us Be Your Champion.– Ben Gideon, 2021 Early YearsBen grew up in Portland, Maine, attended public schools and graduated from Deering High School in 1989. Ben's father, Martin Rogoff, was a prominent member of the Maine Law School faculty, so Ben grew up immersed in discussions of the law. Ben began to develop his legal skills early in life through nightly arguments with his father at the dinner table.In high school, Ben played varsity soccer and was the captain of the hockey team. Following high school, Ben attended Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. Ben attempted to walk on to the Cornell hockey team, but was eventually cut from the team, ending his hockey career. Depressed and disappointed at this failure, Ben became a poor student, failed several classes, and was told he was being suspended from college on academic probation.After rehabilitating himself through some community college courses, Ben was able to gain re-admission to Cornell and to complete his degree. Ben applied to law school and was admitted to Boston University School of Law. There, Ben was a standout student. His grades were so exceptional after his first year that he was accepted as a transfer student to Yale Law School where he earned his law degree.Ben began his career in private practice at a large, multi-national law firm, Latham & Watkins, in New York City. He practiced there for several years before deciding to return to Maine to join Berman & Simmons, PA, Maine's largest plaintiff's law firm. A Leader at Berman & SimmonsDuring his years at Berman & Simmons, Ben rose from an associate to become an owner and practice leader at the firm. Ben was instrumental in helping the firm re-invent its approach to litigating and trying cases; expanded its areas of practice expertise; and recruited and trained many talented lawyers.During his 17 years at Berman & Simmons, Ben enjoyed many great successes and some disappointing failures, but overall managed to build the most successful plaintiff's personal injury and medical malpractice practice in the State of Maine. Ben achieved success in a broad range of different types of plaintiff's cases—police civil rights, product liability, medical malpractice, nursing home, maritime and industrial accidents.Early in his career, Ben achieved a landmark civil rights verdict against a police officer for violating his client's civil rights with a Taser shooting. The verdict was affirmed on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.In 2014, after 4 ½ year of litigation, Ben achieved a record-setting $22.5 million jury verdict in Burlington, Vermont, on behalf of a utility lineman who lost both of his legs during a high-voltage powerline switching operation.Ben followed his Vermont verdict with a verdict of $1.75 million jury verdict in a medical malpractice trial in Bangor, Maine.More recently, Ben recovered $2.5 million in a medical malpractice case tried to a jury in New Hampshire. Founding Gideon Asen LLCAfter 17 years at Berman & Simmons, in November 2020, Ben decided to leave one firm he loved and had helped to build, to form a new law firm, Gideon Asen LLC.“I was very proud of everything we accomplished at Berman & Simmons,” Ben said, “but I was excited by the challenge of building a new firm that could be even better.”Ben's first step was to recruit Taylor Asen to join him.“Taylor and I have a common mission,” Ben said. “Although we're separated by 12 years, Taylor also attended Yale Law School and completed prestigious Federal clerkships. He's insanely smart.”“But perhaps more important, Taylor and I share a common vision of a plaintiff's law firm where clients have access to exceptional lawyers and service. We are both supremely competitive and don't tolerate mediocrity. We believe we owe it to our clients to give them the very best, and that is what Gideon Asen will provide.”

The Internal Revenue Service unlawfully seized financial records of New Civil Liberties Alliance client James Harper and thousands of others from a cryptocurrency exchange through abuse of a “John Doe” summons, without notifying account holders so they could contest the summons. IRS took Mr. Harper's documents without any individualized suspicion to believe he had under-reported his income or failed to pay tax, and it denied him procedural due process to challenge the seizure. NCLA has filed a reply brief in Harper v. Werfel, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to rule that these actions violated Mr. Harper's statutory, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. NCLA filed the opening brief on October 13, 2023. Mark discusses the case and the recent oral argument with Litigation Counsel Sheng Li.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

COVID: May Massachusetts immunize universities against refund claims arising from the imposition of remote learning during the COVID pandemic? - Argued: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 15:20:7 EDT

The IRS unlawfully seized financial records of NCLA's client James Harper and thousands of others from a cryptocurrency exchange through abuse of a “John Doe” summons, without notifying account holders so they could contest the summons. IRS took Mr. Harper's documents without any individualized suspicion to believe he had under-reported his income or failed to pay tax, and it denied him procedural due process to challenge the seizure. Mark highlights NCLA's reply brief in Harper v. Werfel, which urges the Court to rule that these actions violated Mr. Harper's statutory, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Richard Lighthouse and Ana Toledo from Targeted Justice join the program to explain the many ways people are being targeted, harassed, and essentially the lab rats for the cabal's weapon developments and research. Lighthouse, is an engineer with a master degree from Stanford and has experience with NASA and over 20 years in the energy field. Toledo is an attorney who has been fighting for justice most of her career; now she represents Targeted Justice as their lead attorney. You can learn more about their organization at https://www.targetedjustice.com/ Links mentioned in the show: Turn back time with NuM8Trx, the world's most effective collagen building treatment. But now at https://purebellavita.com/pages/sarah-num8trx Help fight human trafficking while boosting your kids immune system with Z-stack Kids – learn more at https://zstacklife.com/products/z-stack-kids?ref=Sarah&variant=41579270897830 Buy Carbon60 from the industry leaders and get infused frequency and full spectrum health. Only buy the best at https://purebellavita.com/pages/c60-sarah-westall?sca_ref=1290220.bH1D9nyiWa Consider subscribing: Follow on Twitter @Sarah_Westall Follow on my Substack at SarahWestall.Substack.com See Important Proven Solutions to Keep Your from getting sick even if you had the mRNA Shot - Dr. Nieusma MUSIC CREDITS: “In Epic World” by Valentina Gribanova, licensed for broad internet media use, including video and audio     See on Bastyon | Bitchute | Odysee | Rumble | Youtube | Tube.Freedom.Buzz     Ana Toledo Biography Born and raised in Puerto Rico, Ana is an attorney-at-law admitted to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, United States District and Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. After obtaining her B.A. from Columbia College in New York City, she obtained a Juris Doctor from University of Puerto Rico Law School and a Master of Environmental Law from Vermont Law School. Ana became a targeted individual over 20 years ago when pursuing her call to organize and represent environmental justice communities in Puerto Rico, representing thousands of clients in federal citizen suits and state complex and class action litigation. Her current mission is that of fighting the targeting and torture of individuals. You can learn more about their organization at https://www.targetedjustice.com/   Richard Lighthouse Biography Richard Lighthouse has published more than 100 e-books, many of which are free on this website, BarnesAndNoble.com, Amazon.com, Google Play, Vixra.org, Lulu, Kobo, and other websites.  The author holds a Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University and has previously worked for NASA. You can learn more about Richard Lighthouse at https://www.rlighthouse.com/ You can learn more about their organization at https://www.targetedjustice.com/

3. Public Comment 4. Warrant for the Special Town Meeting on February 13, 2024 from 7 am to 8 pm with regards to Article 1 from the December 4, 2023 Special Town Meeting, per Section 7 of the Town Charter 5. State's response to Milton's status with regards to compliance with the MBTA Communities Act 6. Letter to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (“EOHLC”) in response to EOHLC's request for information with respect to compliance with the MBTA Communities Act 7. Request by Sustainable Milton to include a warrant article on the Annual Town Meeting Warrant for adoption of the Opt-In Specialized Building Code 8. Warrant Articles for the Annual Town Meeting on Monday, May 6, 2024 a. Warrant Article for a Zoning Bylaw Amendment related to the MBTA Communities Act (Planning Board) 9. - FY2025 Budget 10. Select Board Landing Committee recommendation for Lot B proposals 11. Board and Committee Appointments a. Airplane Noise Advisory Committee Reappointment i. Raju Pathak 12. Community Forum regarding Israel/Palestine and the War in Gaza – February 4, 202413. Letter of Support for the Council on Aging's application to the Massachusetts Community Transit Grant Program for a 14-passenger wheelchair accessible minibus 14. No Place for Hate Proclamation 15. Meeting Minutes – November 3, 2023, November 9, 2023, November 14, 2023 and November 28, 2023 16. Donation to the Milton Coalition for $100.00 from Anthony Cichello and Christine Marie Kamp 17. Town Administrator's Report 18. Chair's Report 19. Public Comment Response 20. Future Meeting Dates – Tuesday, January 23, 2024 and Tuesday, February 13, 2024 21. Future Agenda Items 22. Executive Session – Discussion/Strategy with respect to litigation filed by the Town of Milton v. Federal Aviation Administration, No. 22-1521 (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) 23. Executive Session- To discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining a. Milton Professional Management Association b. Milton Firefighters, Local 1116 24. Executive Session: – Discussion/Strategy with respect to threatened litigation against the Town by a Town Employee 25. Executive Session: To conduct contract negotiations with nonunion personnel (Town Administrator) 26. Adjourn

Labor: May private employers discipline employees for wearing Black Lives Matter apparel? - Argued: Tue, 05 Dec 2023 14:6:4 EDT

In the 5 AM Hour: Larry O'Connor recapped his touching night watching his autistic son perform at Carnegie Hall IRS delays tax-reporting rule on Venmo, PayPal payments over $600 Conservative consumer group warns of 'woke' companies to avoid this Black Friday TRUMP NH WIN: Harmeet K. Dhillon on X: "