Podcasts about first circuit

In his weekly clinical update, Daniel Griffin and Vincent Racaniello express concern  about vaccine policy and ACIP, scaling back of the CDC's role in global public health, shingles vaccine and dementia, new screwworm cases, the Ebola outbreak in the Congo and Uganda and where the hantavirus outbreak began, before Dr. Griffin deep dives into the measles outbreak, recent statistics on RSV, influenza and SARS-CoV-2 infections, the Wasterwater Scan dashboard, Johns Hopkins measles tracker, Virgina outbreak of measles, how to access and pay for Paxlovid, how more people were negatively impacted by influenza than COVID, discontinuing contact precautions for COVID, where to go for answers about long COVID-19, and contacting your federal government representative to stop the assault on science and biomedical research. Subscribe (free): Apple Podcasts, RSS, email Become a patron of TWiV! Links for this episode Today we filed a motion asking the First Circuit to expedite our appeal of the district court's order in the AAP lawsuit that left ACIP—the nation's vaccine advisory committee—without a quorum (X) CDC advisers drop decades-old universal hepatitis B birth dose recommendation, suggest blood testing after 1 dose (CIDRAP) HHS asks for expedited appeal of court ruling on US vaccine policy (CIDRAP) New Plan Scales Back C.D.C.'s Work on Diseases Abroad (NY Times) Zoster Vaccination and Dementia: Interpreting the Signal and Testing the Mechanisms (CID) Safety and Immunogenicity of 1 or 2 Additional Doses of the Adjuvanted Recombinant Zoster Vaccine Administered 5–6 Years After Primary Vaccination in Adults ≥50 Years (OFID) Dashboard SCREWWORM.Gov (USDA: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) CDC Activates Emergency Operations Center for New World Screwworm Response (CDC Newroom) Head-to-head comparison suggests flu was much more likely to lead to hospitalization than COVID last winter (CIDRAP) FDA Issues Emergency Use Authorization for Generic Over-the-Counter Drug to Treat New World Screwworm in Dogs and Cats (FDA) Fact Sheet: Emergency Use Authorization of Nitenpyram Tablets (nitenpyram) for New World Screwworm (NWS) (FDA) Ebola dashboard (ebola.fyi)  EBOLA:The Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2026 (WHO) Bundibugyo virus disease outbreak Democratic Republic of the Congo (WHO: Democratic Republic of Congo) Ebola Outbreak: Current Situation (CDC:Ebola) Big Ebola outbreak puts spotlight on little known virus (Science) Ebola outbreak spreads to crowded displacement camp in Congo (Reuters) Ebola outbreak in DR Congo expands into large displacement camp (CIDRAP) Congo Ebola outbreak may be worst ever, Africa CDC says (Reuters) Advocacy groups are urging the release of the monoclonal antibody MBP134 and any other requested investigational therapeutics (Citizen.org) Hantavirus dashboard (Hantavirus.up Hantavirus on board with Prof. Vincent Racaniello (microbeTV) How did the cruise ship hantavirus outbreak start? (Science) Wastewater for measles (WasterWater Scan) Measles cases and outbreaks (CDC Rubeola) Big outbreak, bright lights…Measles Dashboard( South Carolina Department of Public Health) Utah measles outbreak response (Utah Department of Health and Human Services) UtahMeasles Dashboard (Utah Department of Health and Human Services) US measles cases continue to climb, especially in Virginia(CIDRAP) Measles (VDH: Virginia Department of Health) Tracking Measles Cases in the U.S. (Johns Hopkins) Measles vaccine recommendations from NYP (jpg) Weekly measles and rubella monitoring (Government of Canada) Measles (WHO) Get the FACTS about measles (NY State Department of Health) Measles (CDC Measles (Rubeola)) Measles vaccine (CDC Measles (Rubeola)) Presumptive evidence of measles immunity (CDC) Contraindications and precautions to measles vaccination (CDC) Adverse events associated with childhood vaccines: evidence bearing on causality (NLM) Measles Vaccination: Know the Facts (ISDA: Infectious Diseases Society of America) Deaths following vaccination: what does the evidence show (Vaccine) Anguished Parents, Crying Doctors: Life Amid Utah's Measles Outbreak (Wired) Characteristics of Patients Hospitalized with Measles During an Outbreak — West Texas, January–March 2025 (CDC:MMWR) Influenza: Waste water scan for 11 pathogens (WastewaterSCan) USrespiratory virus activity (CDC Respiratory Illnesses) Respiratory virus activity levels (CDC Respiratory Illnesses) Flu vaccine recommendations: Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee March 12, 2026 Meeting Announcement (FDA) WHO updates all 3 viral strains to be included in fall flu shots (CIDRAP) FDA vaccine advisers recommend adding subclade K to fall shots (CIDRAP) Weekly surveillance report: clift notes (CDC FluView) Influenza Vaccine and Associated Infection and Death in California, 2024 to 2025 (JAMA Network OPEN) OPTION 2: XOFLUZA $50 Cash Pay Option (xofluza) RSV: Waste water scan for 11 pathogens (WastewaterSCan) Respiratory Diseases (Yale School of Public Health) USrespiratory virus activity (CDC Respiratory Illnesses) RSV-Network (CDC Respiratory Syncytial virus Infection) Vaccines for Adults (CDC: Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection (RSV)) Economic Analysis of Protein Subunit and mRNA RSV Vaccination in Adults aged 50-59 Years (CDC: ACIP) Respiratory Diseases (Yale School of Public Health) Waste water scan for 11 pathogens (WastewaterSCan) COVID-19 deaths (CDC) Respiratory Illnesses Data Channel (CDC: Respiratory Illnesses) COVID-19 national and regional trends (CDC) COVID-19 variant tracker (CDC) SARS-CoV-2 genomes galore (Nextstrain) Seasonal influenza versus COVID-19 hospitalisation risk during the 2025–26 influenza season (LANCET: Infectious Diseases) Discontinuingcontact precautions for COVID-19: the science says its time (Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology) 2024-2025 COVID-19 Vaccine and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Among US Veterans (JAMA Internal Medicine) Where to get pemgarda (Pemgarda) EUAfor the pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 (INVIYD) Infusion center (Prime Fusions) CDC Quarantine guidelines (CDC) NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines (NIH) Drug interaction checker (University of Liverpool) Help your eligible patients access PAXLOVID with the PAXCESS Patient Support Program (Pfizer Pro) UnderstandingCoverageOptions (PAXCESS) Infectious Disease Society guidelines for treatment and management (ID Society) Molnupiravir safety and efficacy (JMV) Convalescent plasma recommendation for immunocompromised (ID Society) What to do when sick with a respiratory virus (CDC) Managing healthcare staffing shortages (CDC) Anticoagulation guidelines (hematology.org) Daniel Griffin's evidence based medical practices for long COVID (OFID) Long COVID hotline (Columbia University Irving Medical Center) The answers: Long COVID Reaching out to US house representative Letters read on TWiV 1332 Dr. Griffin's COVID treatment summary (pdf) Timestamps by Jolene Ramsey. Thanks! Intro music is by Ronald Jenkees Send your questions for Dr. Griffin to daniel@microbe.tv Content in this podcast should not be construed as medical advice.

This Day in Legal History: Magna Carta Sealed at RunnymedeOn this day in 1215, in a meadow at Runnymede on the south bank of the Thames, King John of England affixed his seal to a document the rebellious English barons had drafted, in which the king conceded a series of limits on his own royal authority. We call it Magna Carta — the Great Charter. The immediate political context was a baronial revolt against John's tax exactions for his disastrous French wars, and most of the sixty-three chapters as drafted in 1215 are concerned with the highly specific grievances of a feudal aristocracy: scutage, wardship, the inheritance fees of widows, the freedom of the church, the standardization of weights and measures in the king's markets. The two chapters that the centuries have remembered are 39 and 40. Chapter 39 says that no free man shall be taken or imprisoned or dispossessed except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. Chapter 40 says that to no one will the king sell, deny, or delay right or justice. The Charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III within ten weeks of sealing — the pope held that John, as a vassal of the Holy See, could not be bound by a treaty extracted under duress — and the country immediately collapsed into the First Barons' War. But John died in October 1216, his nine-year-old son Henry III's regents reissued the Charter as a tactical concession the next month, it was reissued again in 1217 and 1225, and by the late thirteenth century the 1225 version had been confirmed by successive kings as a foundational statute of the realm. Edward Coke, writing in the seventeenth century, transformed Chapter 39's “law of the land” into the doctrine of due process, and the founding generation of the American Republic picked up Coke's reading and wrote it directly into the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The phrase “due process of law” in those amendments is the most consequential American inheritance from the Runnymede document. The principle the barons were trying to extract from a beleaguered king — that the law constrains the sovereign too — is the substrate on which everything we recognize as constitutionalism is built. Eight hundred and eleven years on, the principle is still the work.The Rhode Island travel-ban lawsuit we covered on June 8 took a sharp turn on Friday. Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., of the District of Rhode Island held a status conference in Dorcas International Institute v. USCIS at which he was openly frustrated with the Justice Department for failing to immediately implement his June 5 vacatur of the four USCIS benefit-freeze policies for nationals of the thirty-nine travel-ban countries. The judge's message, in plain terms, was that vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act is self-executing — the moment the order was entered, the policies ceased to exist, and the agency was obligated to resume processing affirmative benefits, asylum claims, and adjudicator-instruction reviews on the prior pre-freeze basis. The Trump administration, after the hearing, told the court it would comply, restart adjudications, and clear the backlog. It also did what defendants typically do when they have lost on the merits and lost again on compliance: it filed a notice of appeal with the First Circuit and asked the appellate court to stay the vacatur pending appeal. That is the live question now. The First Circuit's stay analysis runs through the standard Nken v. Holder factors — likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest — and the administration's strongest argument on each is going to be familiar: the executive needs administrative breathing room to implement a travel ban, mass restoration of adjudications creates national-security risk, the harm to applicants is reversible if their adjudications are paused for a few more weeks. The plaintiffs' strongest counterarguments are also familiar: the policies were unlawful when adopted and the agency had no business adopting them, the harm to applicants from continued delay is concrete and accruing daily, and the First Circuit is not in the business of staying vacaturs of unlawful agency action in order to let the agency continue acting unlawfully. Watch the First Circuit's calendar this week. The stay motion is the next inflection point.Trump officials agree to resume asylum processing after being scolded by judge | The Washington PostGoogle filed suit on Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against a China-based cybercrime network it calls the “Outsider Enterprise,” alleging that the network's members used Google's Gemini large-language model to generate the code, copy, and templates for a phishing-as-a-service platform that has built more than nine thousand fraudulent websites and sent two and a half million scam text messages in the two weeks ending June 1 alone. The complaint is significant for two reasons. First, it is, to Google's knowledge, the first time the company has affirmatively sued threat actors for using its own generative-AI product as the input to a scaled criminal operation, as distinct from the more usual posture of suing scammers who impersonate Google brands. The legal theories are a mix of Lanham Act false-designation-of-origin and trademark-infringement counts, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act counts based on Outsider's unauthorized access to Google services, breach-of-contract counts on the Gemini terms of service, and a RICO count. Second, the factual record will be a road map for the next decade of AI-misuse litigation. The complaint describes Telegram channels in which Outsider members trade prompts that get Gemini to write phishing code, a library of two hundred and ninety prebuilt templates impersonating brands ranging from the U.S. Postal Service to state DMVs to E-ZPass, and an FBI estimate that the broader campaign Outsider participates in has stolen roughly 3.87 million card numbers and caused $1.9 billion in losses since July 2023. The remedy Google is seeking is a permanent injunction shutting the operation down, plus domain seizures and account terminations across Google's services and at major U.S. carriers, which Google says it has been coordinating with the FBI, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon. The deeper legal question the case may end up clarifying is whether and to what extent platforms can use private civil suits as the front-line enforcement mechanism against AI-augmented criminal activity that the public criminal-justice system has had trouble keeping up with.Google sues Chinese cybercrime ring that weaponized Gemini AI for phishing scams | TechCrunchA federal district judge in Washington on Friday issued a preliminary injunction barring the Trump administration from continuing to implement Executive Order 14253, the order under which the National Park Service had been scrubbing exhibits, signage, and online materials at sites administered by the Department of the Interior. The judge gave the administration three weeks to restore the materials it had already removed. The order at issue, signed in March, directed federal cultural agencies to identify and remove content that, in the executive's view, reflected “improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology” or “partisan” framing. In the months that followed, the National Park Service had taken down or altered displays addressing slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War, climate change, and the histories of Native American dispossession at sites including the Stonewall National Monument, Independence Hall, and the Manzanar National Historic Site. The case is American Historical Association v. Department of the Interior, brought by historians' professional associations and a coalition of plaintiffs that includes affected park employees and visitor-experience contractors. The legal theory pleaded was multi-strand: First Amendment viewpoint discrimination as applied to government speech that has taken on a public-forum character, Administrative Procedure Act challenges on the ground that the agency failed to provide a reasoned basis for the removals and failed to consider statutory commands under the Organic Act of 1916, and a Federal Records Act challenge to the destruction of materials that constituted federal records. The judge held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the First Amendment claim and the APA claim, found irreparable harm in the ongoing loss of public access to the underlying historical materials, and found that the public interest was best served by restoration. The administration is widely expected to appeal to the D.C. Circuit. In the meantime, the three-week restoration clock is running.Judge blocks Trump national parks order, calling it “censorship” | The Washington Post This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Madison Introduces the Bill of RightsOn this day in 1789, James Madison rose from his seat in New York's Federal Hall — then the temporary capital of the new federal government — and gave the speech in which he introduced a list of amendments to the Constitution that we now know as the Bill of Rights. Madison had been, until quite recently, a skeptic of attaching a bill of rights to the federal Constitution: he had argued at the Constitutional Convention and in The Federalist that the structure of enumerated and separated powers was a better protection of liberty than a “parchment barrier” of textual rights, and he worried that any enumeration would be read to imply that whatever was not enumerated was not protected. What changed his mind was politics. The Antifederalist opposition in several states had made ratification conditional on amendments protecting individual rights, and Madison — by then a member of the First Congress — concluded that introducing such amendments himself was the surest way to defuse a broader constitutional convention movement that might unravel the work of 1787. The list he proposed on June 8 was longer and somewhat different from what eventually became the Bill of Rights; the House debated it through the summer, passed seventeen amendments in August, the Senate reduced them to twelve in September, and ten of those — the ones we now call Amendments I through X — were ratified by the states on December 15, 1791. June 8 is the date a reluctant convert stood up and made the case that has carried American constitutional law ever since: the proposition that the government's structural restraint is necessary but not sufficient, and that the rights of speech, conscience, due process, and the rest deserve to be written down where everyone can read them.Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on Friday vacated four U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policies that had, since late last year, frozen work permits, green-card adjudications, naturalization, and asylum claims for nationals of roughly 39 countries on the second Trump administration's travel ban list. The case, Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-00132, was brought by a coalition of immigrant-service organizations and labor unions. Judge McConnell held that all four policies — a “Benefits Hold” freezing affirmative benefits for travel-ban country nationals, a Global Asylum Hold halting asylum processing across the board regardless of country of origin, a Comprehensive Re-Review Policy requiring USCIS to re-examine previously approved benefits, and a separate adjudicator-instruction policy treating travel-ban country origin as a negative factor — are unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. The legal hook is familiar APA territory: the agency, McConnell concluded, failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the freezes and failed to account for the substantial reliance interests of hundreds of thousands of pending applicants. What makes this ruling stand out is the remedy. Other district courts that had blocked these policies in the last six months issued preliminary injunctions limited to named plaintiffs; McConnell vacated the policies themselves, which under standard APA practice means they cease to operate nationwide. That puts USCIS in the position of either rescinding the policies, going back to the drawing board with proper rulemaking, or appealing to the First Circuit and trying to get the vacatur stayed. Expect movement on all three fronts this week.US Judge Strikes Down Trump Policies Targeting Immigrants From 39 Countries | US NewsU.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia entered a temporary restraining order on Friday blocking the Trump administration's $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” from disbursing any money while the underlying lawsuit proceeds. The fund — created by executive order earlier this year and funded out of a settlement the administration brokered in the Trump-IRS litigation we covered in early June — was meant to compensate people the administration described as victims of the Biden Justice Department's “weaponization” of federal law enforcement, with the first contemplated payments going to defendants and witnesses from the January 6 prosecutions. Plaintiffs include former DOJ attorney Andrew Floyd and other former federal prosecutors who argue, in essence, that the fund is an unauthorized expenditure of public money: Congress never appropriated it, the settlement that supposedly funds it is itself under judicial review for whether the United States was actually adverse to the President in his personal capacity, and the program's payout criteria are based on political characterizations of past prosecutions rather than any neutral standard. Judge Brinkema's order, narrowly drawn to “ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed,” set a June 12 hearing on whether the freeze should be extended into a preliminary injunction. By the end of last week the situation had escalated further: on June 5 the Justice Department told two federal judges, in writing, that it would stop work on the fund altogether and that the lawsuits challenging it are now moot. That representation will be tested at this Friday's hearing, because the plaintiffs are not satisfied with a unilateral DOJ promise and want a binding court order before they go away. Watch for what Brinkema does with that disagreement on Friday.Justice Department says it will stop work on $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” after judge's ruling | CBS NewsA divided Seventh Circuit panel on Friday upheld Indiana's law restricting who may attend an execution at the Indiana State Prison, holding that the First Amendment does not give reporters a right of access to be present at the execution itself. Judge Michael Scudder wrote the 2-1 majority. The plaintiffs — the Associated Press, the Indiana Capital Chronicle, Gannett, WISH-TV, and TEGNA, represented by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — had argued that the long line of Supreme Court cases recognizing a First Amendment right of press and public access to criminal proceedings, from Richmond Newspapers forward, extends to the carrying out of capital sentences, particularly given Indiana's recent resumption of executions after a long pause and a 2024 statute that omitted journalists from the list of permitted witnesses. The panel disagreed. The majority emphasized that Indiana's witness list — the warden, execution staff, the prison physician, a chaplain, the prisoner's spiritual adviser, up to eight family members of the victim, and up to five unspecified additional witnesses — leaves journalists free to interview those who did attend, report on every other aspect of the proceeding, and comment on the state's choice to impose or carry out the sentence, and that there is no constitutional difference between watching the execution and reporting on it secondhand. The opinion's most striking passage, candidly weighed against the press claim: allowing “uninvited strangers with no immediate connection to the underlying crime” to watch a prisoner die “risks offending the dignity of their final moments.” The dissent argued the press's structural role in informing public deliberation over the death penalty depends on first-hand observation. The split sets up a possible petition for rehearing en banc and, in the longer run, a circuit-split-ready vehicle if other circuits go the other way.7th Circ. Says Ind. Can Bar Press From Attending Executions | Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Immigration: What assurances must the government get before sending a non-citizen facing persecution to a third country? - Argued: Wed, 13 May 2026 17:39:3 EDT

Trade Law: May the CDC ban the importation of puppies? - Argued: Mon, 04 May 2026 17:41:40 EDT

In this episode of our Litigation Lens podcast series, shareholders Michael Nail (Greenville) and Sarah Zucco (New York) examine a recent First Circuit decision addressing whether placing an employee on a performance improvement plan (PIP) constitutes an adverse employment action under the Supreme Court's Muldrow standard. The speakers discuss the specific factors courts will weigh when evaluating PIPs and offer practical guidance for employers on structuring performance management processes to reduce litigation exposure.

In this episode, Jordan breaks down a recent First Circuit case that addressed the issue of who owns a trade secret and therefore has standing to sue for misappropriation.

Sripetch v. SEC | 04/20/26 | Docket #: 25-466 25-466 SRIPETCH V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION DECISION BELOW: 154 F.4th 980 CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2026 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case presents a clear and acknowledged conflict over an exceptionally important question regarding the SEC's civil-enforcement power. In Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71 (2020), this Court held the SEC may seek equitable "disgorgement" in civil-enforcement actions if an award "does not exceed a wrongdoer's net profits" and "is awarded for victims ." 591 U.S. at 74- 75 (emphasis added). In the proceedings below, the Ninth Circuit held that investors can be ''victims" for disgorgement purposes despite not suffering pecuniary harm. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit recognized a direct "split" on this question, "reject[ed] the reasoning of the Second Circuit," and "joined the First Circuit in holding that a finding of pecuniary harm is not required." This statutory holding was the sole basis of the Ninth Circuit's decision, and it leaves the SEC's enforcement power in disarray: disgorgement requests are ubiquitous in SEC actions, and there are now conflicting rules in the two main circuits (the Second and Ninth) where enforcement actions are most prominent. There are millions (if not billions) of dollars at stake. The question presented is: Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm . LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-3830

Visiting some local circuit court rulings, and MA is recognized as being the worst legislature for transparency in the country.  Also, SecWar Hegseth recognizes the basic rights of our military members, and looking at the legendary M1 Garand.

Free Speech: May a police officer be fired for private Facebook posts critical of civil rights protestors? - Argued: Wed, 08 Apr 2026 15:52:31 EDT

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I cover a new ruling out the First Circuit Court of Appeals which held that waiting periods for gun sales do not even implicate the Second Amendment. We also discuss a New York federal judge's recent decision to toss a lawsuit filed by a licensed concealed carrier who was wrongfully arrested by NYPD officers who were unfamiliar with the city's gun laws. Stories: -https://thereload.com/federal-appeals-court-reinstates-maine-waiting-period-law/ -https://thereload.com/judge-tosses-war-heros-suit-against-nyc-over-mistaken-gun-arrest/ -https://thereload.com/analysis-jeanine-pirro-may-have-just-fumbled-a-long-sought-hardware-ban-circuit-split-for-gun-rights-activists/

Episode 47: Hussey v. City of Cambridge, et al.Hussey v. City of Cambridge, et al. argued en banc before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 8, 2026. Argued by Jack Bartholet (on behalf of Brian Hussey) and Robert M. Loeb (on behalf of the City of Cambridge officials).  Case Summary, from the Appellants' Opening Brief: “This case raises fundamental questions about a state employee's right as a citizen to speak out on pending federal legislation — on his own time, at home, via his own private Facebook page, and in a manner that caused no disruption in the eight days before the post came to the attention of his superiors and two months before his suspension — under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution…Plaintiff Brian Hussey is a veteran police officer (and now Sergeant) who is a lifelong resident of the City of Cambridge… “In February 2021, Hussey re-posted a WHDH news article on his private Facebook page. The article, entitled “House Democrats reintroduce police reform bill named in honor of George Floyd,” referenced proposed federal legislation on police reform —H.R. 7120, titled the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020.” Hussey, believing that naming this landmark legislation after someone who had a long criminal and drug history was inappropriate, posted a comment along with the article's link (featuring a preview that included its headline), writing, “This is what its come to ‘honoring' a career criminal, a thief and druggie … the future of this country is bleak at best.”  “Hussey did not identify himself as a Cambridge police officer on his Facebook page or in the post, nor did the post in any way reference his position with the police department…The Department then placed Officer Hussey on administrative leave for approximately two months while they investigated…and ultimately issued him a four-day suspension.”   Statement of the Issue, from the Appellants' Opening Brief:  Whether the District Court incorrectly applied the balancing test set out in Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. of Tp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will Cnty., Illinois, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) by determining that the City of Cambridge's interest in suppressing plaintiff`s speech on a clear matter of public concern based on its distaste for the speech without any evidence of disruption in operations outweighed the interest of Plaintiff and the public at large in free expression and robust public debate.Resources:    Plaintiff-Appellant's Opening Brief Defendants-Appellees' Brief Appellees' En Banc Brief  Appellants' En Banc Supplemental 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

We Like Shooting - Ep 657 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Gideon Optics (Code: WLSISLIFE) Night Fision (Code: WLSISLIFE) Die Free Co. (Code: WLSISLIFE) Rost Martin (Code: WLSISLIFE) Flatline Fiber Co (Code: WLS15) Second Call Defense Text Dear WLS or Reviews +1 743 500 2171  Public   Show Titles   GunCon.net Tickets on sale now. Use code AGENCY171 GEAR CHAT Note Kelbly Element update. https://kelbly.com/precision-element-rifle/ Note Bounty Hunter from Midwest Industries. https://midwestindustriesinc.com/product-type/stocks-braces/revolver-stocks-braces/ Note Mediator XL update https://gideonoptics.com/shop-all/mediator-xl-red-dot-sight/ Note Holosun AEMS – https://www.holosun.com/products/rifle-sights/aems-x2.html Note Hi-Point HP-15 update – https://www.hi-pointfirearms.com/hi-point-hp15/556-rifle/556-16in-blk/ Note VKTR Industries update – https://www.vktrind.com/product/vk-1p-11-5-ar15-pistol-with-sba3-brace/ [EZshoot] BoreSighter Caliber Pistols Shotguns The EZshoot BoreSighter is a laser bore sight kit compatible with calibers from .177 to 0.78 inches, suitable for pistols, rifles, handguns, and shotguns. It features multiple adapters for precise bore alignment and a red or green laser for quick sighting. The kit includes batteries, a storage case, and an arbor for enhanced stability in larger calibers. Note Laser boresight – responses and did both. [FarrowTech] 22R Stock/Brace PDW Kit for Ruger MK3 and MK4 (Nick) This is a PDW style conversion kit for the Ruger MK3/4, available as a Stock or Brace configuration. All setups include 2 optional side Picatinny rails and a charging handle. Installation requires no permanent modifications to the host firearm. [AS Designs] ARHK (Nick) The ARHK is a fully self-contained drop-in cassette trigger unit built on ARC-Fire technology, designed specifically for HK roller-delayed platforms such as MP5, MP5K, AP53, G3, and HK21 clones. It installs directly into factory OEM polymer housings without modifications, features a pre-installed ejector, and offers a three-position selector: Safe, Semi (standard trigger pull), and Active Reset via ARC-Fire clutch. It maintains compatibility with all bolt carrier types, including full-auto. [Impact Kote] Custom Scope Wraps (Nick) Impact Kote offers custom scope wraps designed for precision rifle shooters. Specific technical details such as mechanical features, pricing, and availability are not detailed on the page. The content primarily consists of a general announcement without explicit product specifications. [Shomer-Tec] Escape Button™ The Escape Button™ is a covert escape and evasion tool disguised as a standard mil-spec 3/4 inch diameter plastic BDU button, featuring a pivoting 7/16 inch serrated 1095 steel blade that deploys via fingernail along the perimeter for cutting restraints like zip-ties, cord, rope, and tape. It attaches to clothing with low breaking-strength thread in accessible areas for use even with bound wrists. Manufactured in the USA with all USA components, it weighs 0.05 oz and is available in black, tan, and olive drab. BULLET POINTS Bus Built Systems PBP Gen 3 (Nick) The PBP Gen 3 from Bus Built Systems is a laser-cut 1/8-inch thick 304 stainless steel plate designed for mounting bags to an Arca rail, featuring an Arca clamp on one side and Arca rail on the other. It supports multiple bags from various manufacturers via perimeter slots and includes scallops for stability on props like cattle gates, plus fore and aft holes for optics or accessories. Powder coated in Bus Built Yellow, it weighs roughly a pound and a half without a bag. AR-15 Buffer Weights for Suppressed Tuning (H2 Buffer) The H2 buffer for AR-15 rifles weighs approximately 4.6 ounces and contains two tungsten weights, designed to slow down the bolt carrier group and reduce recoil in suppressed setups without needing an adjustable gas block. It is a popular choice for short-barreled rifles and suppressed AR-15s to manage increased backpressure from silencers. Heavier buffers like the H2 help fine-tune over-gassed systems by increasing mass. 1X Prism Optic A 1X prism optic uses a glass prism to focus both the target image and an etched reticle, which can be optionally illuminated without requiring batteries for basic use. It provides clarity and durability advantages over red dots, particularly for users with astigmatism, and supports complex reticles like ACSS with bullet drop compensation. Though not truly 1X, any magnification is negligible in practice. GUN FIGHTS No one stepped into the arena this week. THE AGENCY BRIEF WLS IS LIFESTYLE 9mm Speed-Loader for Glock, SIG, CZ, Springfield The 9mm Speed-Loader is a 3D printable tray that holds 10 rounds for quick reloading of compatible magazines from Glock, SIG, CZ, and Springfield. It features holes for bracing against a surface to ease loading without thumb strain from compressed springs. Print profiles include options with or without text, using 0.2mm layers, 3 walls, and 15% infill. GOING BALLISTIC Alberta and Saskatchewan Reject Federal Gun Confiscation Program from Ottawa (Savage) Alberta and Saskatchewan have publicly opposed Ottawa's federal firearm confiscation program, which banned about 2,500 firearms with a voluntary declaration deadline of March 31. Alberta's Minister of Justice Mickey Amery affirmed non-participation, directing provincial entities including law enforcement to decline implementation under provincial sovereignty legislation. Saskatchewan passed legislation to hinder the program, prompting criticism from Federal Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree. John Lott on U.S. Military Bases Gun-Free Zones Policy (1992-1993) (Savage) John Lott argues that U.S. military bases should never have implemented gun-free zones, as these policies disarm trained personnel, leaving them vulnerable to attackers, evidenced by multiple mass shootings totaling 24 murdered and 38 wounded. The restrictions originated in 1992 under President George H.W. Bush and were enacted in 1993 by President Clinton to create a more ‘professional, business-like' environment. In contrast, troops carried weapons at all times in Iraq and Afghanistan without internal violence. Antonyuk v. James: New York Permanent Injunction on Social Media Gun Permit Requirement (Savage) In Antonyuk v. James, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a permanent injunction against New York's requirement for concealed carry applicants to disclose social media accounts from the past three years, as part of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act. The state consented to this injunction, removing the provision from the PPB-3 license application form. Litigation continues on other aspects of the Act, including restrictions on sensitive locations. Trump's FY2027 Budget Proposal (Civil Rights Division and ATF Funding for 2A Protection) (Savage) President Trump's FY2027 budget proposal includes targeted federal funding to defend Second Amendment rights, such as $1.4 million for a new office in the DOJ Civil Rights Division to protect against unlawful infringements and pursue enshrining those rights. It allocates $4.8 million to the Office of the Pardon Attorney's Firearm Rights Restoration Initiative for law-abiding citizens to regain rights post-justice obligations. The budget supports ATF in reversing prior regulations on background checks, pistol braces, homemade firearms, and FFL revocations, redirecting focus to illegal traffickers. Beckwith v. Frey: First Circuit Rules Gun Purchases Not Protected by Second Amendment (Savage) In Beckwith et al. v. Frey, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed a district court's preliminary injunction against Maine's 2024 72-hour waiting period for gun purchases (Me. Stat. tit. 25, § 2016). The panel held that the Second Amendment's plain text protects keeping and bearing arms but not the act of purchasing or acquiring firearms. This creates a circuit split with other circuits recognizing a right to acquire arms. ATF Frames and Receivers Rule (Updating 2021R-05F) – Bondi v. VanDerStok (Savage) The ATF is preparing a new draft rule updating the 2021R-05F ‘Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver' and Identification of Firearms,' which expands the definition of ‘firearm' to include partially completed frames, receivers, and certain parts kits that are ‘readily' completable. This follows the 2022 rule upheld by the Supreme Court in Bondi v. VanDerStok (2025). The update eases restrictions on some metal unfinished kits while maintaining strict regulation on polymer frames. REVIEWS Review: Operative Agent J Freedom from Illinois Comiforina wants full gun control, and the latest suit against gatalog proves it's not about public safety. Ironic, that their top gun control tard was running guns, Yang I think his name was. And they literally had politicians hiring Chinese spys, and one threatening to nuke us. Operative Agent J Freedom Review: Griz from Texas Absolutely phenomenal podcast. It takes real talent to talk for this long and somehow say so little, but the hosts pull it off with impressive consistency. Every episode feels like a masterclass in wandering off-topic, repeating the same points, and stretching what could be five minutes of content into a full episode. The chemistry between the hosts is undeniable—mostly because they seem just as confused about where the conversation is going as the listeners are. The audio quality is great though, which really helps you clearly hear every awkward pause and questionable take. If you're looking for a podcast that will make you appreciate literally every other podcast out there, this one is a must-listen. Five squares for the unforgettable experience. Secret Notes Griz Review: JackB from Texas 5 squares.

Privacy: When do internet tracking tools violate the Wiretap Act? - Argued: Mon, 06 Apr 2026 13:23:55 EDT

Hour 1 Segment 1 Tony starts the first hour of the show talking about how the two pilots that were shot down by Iran being rescued. Tony also talks about President Donald Trump’s post about opening the Strait of Hormuz. Hour 1 Segment 2 Tony talks about the First Circuit has ruled that Maine’s firearm waiting period is likely constitutional. Hour 1 Segment 3 Tony is joined with Major Mike Lyons to talk about how the plane went down over Iran and how the U.S. got their pilots back. They also talk about the Pentagon’s good use of misdirection. Hour 1 Segment 4 Tony wraps up the first hour of the show talking about Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum saying that cash will be banned at gas stations and toll booths by the end of 2026. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hour 1 Segment 1 Tony starts the first hour of the show talking about how the two pilots that were shot down by Iran being rescued. Tony also talks about President Donald Trump’s post about opening the Strait of Hormuz. Hour 1 Segment 2 Tony talks about the First Circuit has ruled that Maine’s firearm waiting period is likely constitutional. Hour 1 Segment 3 Tony is joined with Major Mike Lyons to talk about how the plane went down over Iran and how the U.S. got their pilots back. They also talk about the Pentagon’s good use of misdirection. Hour 1 Segment 4 Tony wraps up the first hour of the show talking about Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum saying that cash will be banned at gas stations and toll booths by the end of 2026. Hour 2 Segment 1 Tony starts the second hour of the show playing President Donald Trump’s press conference over the Iran war and the rescued pilot's mission. Hour 2 Segment 2 Tony continues to play President Trump & John Ratcliffe’s latest press conference. Hour 2 Segment 3 Tony continues to play Pete Hegseth’s latest press conference, breaking down the rescue mission for the U.S. pilots. Hour 2 Segment 4 Tony wraps up the second hour of the show continuing to play General Dan Caine’s press conference, breaking down the rescue mission for the U.S. pilots, along with President Trump answering questions from the media. Hour 3 Segment 1 Tony starts the final hour of the show continuing to play the latest Q&A session from President Donald Trump. Hour 3 Segment 2 Tony concludes President Trump’s press conference. Tony also talks about how Artemis II swung around the moon. Hour 3 Segment 3 Tony talking about how Democrats fight for the wrong thing, like defunding ICE and supporting illegal immigrants. Hour 3 Segment 4 Tony wraps up another edition of the show talking about President Trump and First Lady Melania enjoying the Easter Day celebrations. Tony also talks about a dress code for the State Department. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Attorney called out for suspected AI hallucinated cases by the Tax Court, First Circuit may be considering a method to avoid ruling on SE status or limited partners and more.

Immigration: What due process rights do excludable aliens have when slated for third country removal? - Argued: Tue, 03 Feb 2026 11:8:54 EDT

On this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Ark Prof. Albert Cheng and Alisha Searcy of the Center for Strong Public Schools speak with David Hodges, a school choice attorney with the Institute for Justice, and Ariella Hellman, director of government affairs for Agudath Israel of New England. Together, they discuss the U.S. First […]

On this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Ark Prof. Albert Cheng and Alisha Searcy of the Center for Strong Public Schools speak with David Hodges, a school choice attorney with the Institute for Justice, and Ariella Hellman, director of government affairs for Agudath Israel of New England. Together, they discuss the U.S. First Circuit case Hellman v. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, exploring how Hodges and the IJ team are shaping legal arguments around private school choice and religious liberty. They also explore how Hellman's personal journey as a mother, lawyer, and advocate highlights the real-world stakes of centuries-old anti-aid laws. From the influence of U.S. Supreme Court rulings like Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson, to the ongoing negative impact of Massachusetts' 1850s Know-Nothing Amendment, Hodges and Hellman explain how a positive ruling could expand educational access and opportunities for families of faith across the Bay State. They talk about their experience working together on this U.S. Circuit case, exploring some of the challenges within the Massachusetts legal process. In closing, Hodges and Hellman offer an inside look at the legal battles and personal determination necessary to shape the future of education law in the Bay State and across the U.S.

Episode 96 On December 31, 1986, just hours before Puerto Rico would ring in the New Year, flames tore through the luxurious Dupont Plaza Hotel and Casino in San Juan. What began as a labor dispute escalated into one of the deadliest hotel fires in U.S. history, killing 97 people and injuring more than 140. In the aftermath, investigators would uncover arson, negligence, ignored safety recommendations, a chaotic evacuation, and a legal battle that reshaped fire codes across the hospitality industry. In this episode, we examine: The labor tensions and strike that set the stage for disaster The timeline of the fire and how it spread so rapidly How smoke and toxic gases became the primary killers Failures in life safety systems, egress, and emergency planning The investigation that quickly identified arson Criminal charges against arsonists Massive civil litigation and code reforms that followed Lessons learned in the context of other hotel/casino fires of the era The Crime to Burn Patreon - The Cult of Steve - is LIVE NOW! Go join and get all the unhinged you can handle. Click here to be sanctified.  Inner Sanctum Acknowledgments: Eternal gratitude to our Inner Sanctum patrons, Melanie Curtis, Jenny Mercer and Laura Pisciotta, for helping us bring light to the stories others would rather leave in the ashes. Listener discretion is advised. Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  Get your Crime to Burn Merch! https://crimetoburn.myspreadshop.com Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  If you need a way to keep your canine contained, you can also support the show by purchasing a Pawious wireless dog fence using our affiliate link and use the code "crimetoburn" at checkout to receive 10% off. Pawious, because our dog Winston needed a radius, not a rap sheet.  Sources:  Video & Documentary Sources Dupont Plaza Hotel Arson Investigation. Señor Onion's Archives. YouTube, April 13, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JyUjUoX_so Dupont Plaza Hotel Arson of 1986. Señor Onion's Archives. YouTube, October 21, 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJsFLgxuDJ8 Government / Technical / Legal Reports Nelson, Harold E. “An Engineering Analysis of the Early Stages of Fire Development — The Fire at the Dupont Plaza Hotel and Casino — December 31, 1986.” NBSIR 87-3560, National Bureau of Standards, Center for Fire Research, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1987. Levy, Harold M. “The Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation: A Case Study in Cooperative Defense.” Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, Vol. 7, No. 12, December 1989, pp. 215–233. José Francisco Rivera-Lopez, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant, Appellee. U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 4 F.3d 982, September 15, 1993. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/4/982/525384/ (Note: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 — Unpublished opinions may be cited only in related cases.) News & Contemporary Coverage (1987) “Teamsters Dispute with Dupont Plaza Dates Back Four Months.” UPI Archives, January 13, 1987. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/01/13/Teamsters-dispute-with-Dupont-Plaza-dates-back-four-months/7070215305413/ Brossy, Julie. “A Dupont Plaza Bar Boy Was Charged Today With…” UPI Archives, January 14, 1987. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/01/14/A-Dupont-Plaza-bar-boy-was-charged-today-with/8362537598800/ Hernandez, Moises. “Suspect in Hotel Fire Was Honored for Saving ‘Many Lives.'” UPI Archives, January 14, 1987. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/01/14/Suspect-in-hotel-fire-was-honored-for-saving-many-lives/2708537598800/ Gaulin, Edward J. “Defendants Plead Guilty in Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire.” UPI Archives, April 24, 1987. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/04/24/Defendants-plead-guilty-in-Dupont-Plaza-Hotel-fire/8801546235200/ Wilentz, Amy. “A New Year We'll Never Forget.” TIME, January 12, 1987. https://time.com/archive/6708028/a-new-year-well-never-forget/ Features, Retrospectives & Later Reporting Tepfer, Daniel. “A Vacation in Paradise Turns into Fiery Hell.” CTPost, Updated December 30, 2011. https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/a-vacation-in-paradise-turns-into-fiery-hell-2432149.php Reference / Encyclopedia & Summary Sources Dewey, Joseph. “Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire.” EBSCO Knowledge Advantage Research Starters, 2022. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/dupont-plaza-hotel-fire “Dupont Plaza Hotel Arson.” Grokipedia. https://grokipedia.com/page/Dupont_Plaza_Hotel_arson

Congressional Republicans defect to support two Democratic resolutions. It's not exactly a show of spine — maybe a vertebrae — but is it the beginning of something? Yet another US Attorney gets disqualified, this time in New York. Meanwhile Judges in Virginia wonder how it's remotely ethical for Lindsey Halligan to present herself in court filings as a US Attorney. The DOJ is violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And what legal recourse is there for the family of Renee Good, who was executed by ICE officers in Minneapolis. Plus for subscribers: Dominion tries to get Mike Lindell and Patrick Byrne to STFU long enough to wind down their litigation.Links:War Powers Resolutionhttps://www.kaine.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/dav25m71.pdfMassachusetts v. NIH [Indirect Costs]https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1343P-01A.pdfAmerican Hospital Association v. HHS [Drug Rebates]https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-2236O-01A.pdfIn Re Grand Jury Subpoenas to the Office of the New York State Attorney General v. US [Disqualification US Atty NDNY]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71844954/in-re-grand-jury-subpoenas-to-the-office-of-the-new-york-state-attorneyUS v. Jefferson [Halligan signature challenge]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586310US v. Comey [4th Circuit appeal]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72065969/united-states-v-james-comey-jr/?order_by=descUS v. James [4th Circuit appeal]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72065734/united-states-v-letitia-james/?order_by=descShow Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen, watching the Supreme Court become the hottest ticket in town, but here we are on this crisp January morning in 2026, with President Donald Trump's legal battles dominating the headlines. Just days ago, on December 23, 2025, the justices handed down a key ruling in Trump v. Illinois, partially siding with the administration in a tense showdown over federalizing the National Guard in Illinois. The majority allowed the move, with Justice Kavanaugh writing a concurrence, while Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, arguing it overstepped state authority. According to the Brennan Center's Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker, this decision came after a First Circuit ruling let it stand, underscoring Trump's push to assert federal control amid rising urban unrest in Chicago.But that's just the appetizer. The real drama kicks off next week. On January 13, the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., will hear oral arguments in two massive challenges to state bans on transgender students—like those in West Virginia and Idaho—playing on sports teams matching their gender identity. KVUE News reports these cases hinge on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools. Challengers say the bans unfairly sideline kids like Becky Pepper-Jackson in West Virginia, who's been fighting since 2021 to compete in girls' track.Then, on January 21, all eyes turn to Trump v. Cook, a blockbuster testing presidential firing powers. President Trump tried to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in August 2025, citing alleged mortgage fraud from before her 2023 appointment to the Fed's Board in Washington. A D.C. district judge blocked it, and now the Supreme Court has deferred any stay until arguments, per the official docket for case 25A312. The Constitution Center notes this stems from the Federal Reserve Act, which only allows removal "for cause," not at-will. If Trump wins, it could reshape independent agencies like the Fed, which steers the U.S. economy with trillions in influence—think interest rates affecting your mortgage or job market.These aren't isolated fights. The Court's fall term already tackled Trump v. Slaughter on firing a Federal Trade Commissioner and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump over tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker logs dozens more, from immigration deportations under the Alien Enemies Act in Trump v. J.G.G. to earlier agency head removals. With decisions due by June, the stakes couldn't be higher—executive power, civil rights, economic stability all colliding.As I sip my coffee, scrolling updates from the National Constitution Center, I can't help but wonder: will this term redefine Trump's second presidency? The justices, from Chief Justice John Roberts to the newest voices, hold the gavel.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Hey listeners, picture this: it's been a whirlwind week in the courts for President Donald Trump, with the Supreme Court dropping bombshells that could reshape his administration's bold moves. Just three days ago, on December 23, 2025, the nation's highest court issued a key ruling in Trump v. Illinois, tackling whether President Trump could federalize the Illinois National Guard and even pull in Texas troops to safeguard federal property in Chicago amid escalating violence. According to the Supreme Court's opinion, Trump activated 300 Illinois Guard members on October 4, followed by Texas forces the next day, citing riots where protesters hurled tear gas canisters at officers, tried grabbing firearms, and blasted bullhorns to cause hearing damage. Justice Alito's dissent slammed the lower District Court in Rhode Island for dismissing the government's unrefuted evidence of chaos, arguing it justified the President's call under federal law. While a majority granted the stay with some reasoning, Kavanaugh concurred, but Alito and Thomas pushed back hard, calling out the eleventh-hour shifts in opponents' arguments. This shadow docket decision, tracked by the Brennan Center, marks one of 25 emergency rulings since Trump took office on January 20, 2025—20 leaning his way, often with minimal explanation.But that's not all from the past few days. Fast-forward to the New York hush money saga: a fresh decision in People v. Donald J. Trump from the Manhattan court, penned by Judge Juan Merchan, shut down Trump's post-election bid to dismiss his 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Remember, a jury convicted him unanimously back in May 2024 for scheming to hide payments to Stormy Daniels, aiming to boost his presidential run through unlawful means. Trump requested delays himself—pushing sentencing past the election to November 26, 2024, then begging for a stay and dismissal after winning. The court wasn't buying it, noting Trump consented to those adjournments without opposition from prosecutors. Merchan emphasized the premeditated deception that eroded public trust, rejecting claims the case evaporates with his presidency, citing the Supreme Court's Trump v. United States immunity ruling but insisting justice demands accountability.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's shadow docket has been a Trump turbo-boost all year. Brennan Center reports victories like Trump v. Boyle in July, greenlighting firings at the Consumer Product Safety Commission; McMahon v. New York upholding Education Department workforce cuts; and immigration wins such as Noem v. Doe, allowing mass parole revocations for half a million from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Even on LGBTQ+ fronts, November's ruling backed the State Department's passport gender policies. Not every call went his way—A.A.R.P. v. Trump lost on Venezuelan removals under the Alien Enemies Act—but the pattern's clear: 20 partial wins, with liberals like Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting repeatedly.Lawfare's litigation tracker highlights nonstop challenges, from SNAP benefit suspensions sparking suits by nonprofits and cities, to DOGE transparency fights where CREW got blocked from records. As of now, two more applications simmer. These battles in places like the First Circuit, DC Circuit, and beyond show Trump's team firing on all cylinders, testing presidential power's edges.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Episode 41: Scaer, et al. v. City of Nashua, et al.Scaer, et al. v. City of Nashua, et al. argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on December 2, 2025. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Attorney Nathan Ristuccia (on behalf of Stephen and Bethany Scaer) and Steven A. Bolton (on behalf of the City of Nashua, NH). Case Background, from the Institute for Free Speech case page: Should a city be able to pick and choose whose messages are “worthy” to appear on its public “Citizen Flag Pole?” The City of Nashua thinks so—but a federal lawsuit aims to change that. Attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech and local counsel Roy S. McCandless filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire on behalf of Bethany and Stephen Scaer (pronounced “scare”), two Nashua residents whose flag requests have been denied. The suit challenges the constitutionality of Nashua's policy governing the use of its Citizen Flag Pole. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin Nashua city officials from denying flag applications based on viewpoint and from enforcing parts of its flag policy that limit acceptable flags. Nashua residents have long used the Citizen Flag Pole to fly flags representing various causes and heritages. However, after a 2022 Supreme Court decision protecting speech in such forums, Nashua officials hastily implemented a new policy to take control over the messages expressed. Under the policy, residents can apply to fly flags on the Citizen Flag Pole in front of City Hall. However, the policy states that any message “will be allowed only if it is in harmony with city policies and messages that the city wishes to express and endorse.” The Scaers have had multiple flag requests denied, including most recently the Pine Tree Flag to commemorate the Battle of Bunker Hill. The city provided no explanation beyond stating their flags were “not in harmony” with the city's message. The lawsuit argues that Nashua's policy violates the First Amendment by imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on speech, creating an unconstitutional prior restraint, and being impermissibly vague and overbroad.  Statement of the Issues, from the Plaintiffs-Appellants Opening Brief: Whether governments may avoid First Amendment limits in regulating speech by adopting it as government speech, without acquiring any property interest or permanent possessory interest over that private speech?  Whether a government speaks or merely regulates private speech when it uses its final approval authority to permit or to prohibit the display of certain messages on government property, without shaping or altering the content of those messages?  Whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that the City of Nashua's policies and practices regarding flags displayed on its Citizen Flag Pole and flag-raising ceremonies conducted on its City Hall Plaza constitute viewpoint discrimination, or are vague, overbroad, or effect a prior restraint on speech?  Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against those policies and practices? Resources:   Institute for Free Speech case page (includes all filings) Plaintiffs-Appellants Stephen and Bethany Scaer's Opening Brief Brief For Defendants-Appellee, City Of Nashua, New Hampshire 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

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

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

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  

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

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