Podcasts about Fourteenth Amendment

Murray Rothbard called egalitarianism a "revolt against nature," and he believed that the egalitarianism inherent in the Fourteenth Amendment was socially harmful. Social engineering never turns out well, but that doesn't discourage progressives from engaging in it.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/social-engineering-under-fourteenth-amendment

Murray Rothbard called egalitarianism a "revolt against nature," and he believed that the egalitarianism inherent in the Fourteenth Amendment was socially harmful. Social engineering never turns out well, but that doesn't discourage progressives from engaging in it.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/social-engineering-under-fourteenth-amendment

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

This Day in Legal History: Richard and Mildred Loving ArrestedOn this day in legal history, July 11, 1958, Richard and Mildred Loving were arrested in Central Point, Virginia, for violating the state's Racial Integrity Act, which banned interracial marriage. The couple had legally wed in Washington, D.C., but upon returning to Virginia, they were charged with "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth." Richard, a white man, and Mildred, a Black and Indigenous woman, pled guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, suspended on the condition that they leave the state for 25 years.The Lovings relocated to Washington, D.C., but their desire to return home ultimately led to a pivotal civil rights case. In 1963, they wrote to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, who referred them to the ACLU. Attorneys Bernard Cohen and Philip Hirschkop took up their case, arguing that Virginia's law violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. After years of legal battles, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court.In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Court unanimously struck down laws banning interracial marriage, declaring that "the freedom to marry… may not be infringed by the State." Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that Virginia's law served no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The decision invalidated similar laws in 15 other states.The Lovings never sought to become civil rights icons—they simply wanted to live as a married couple in their home state. Their quiet determination reshaped American constitutional law, affirming marriage as a fundamental right and setting a legal precedent that continues to influence equal protection jurisprudence.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily paused a lower court ruling that had blocked President Donald Trump's executive order removing collective bargaining rights for large segments of the federal workforce. U.S. District Judge James Donato had issued the initial injunction in June, finding the executive order likely violated federal employees' First Amendment rights and targeted unions viewed as adversarial to Trump. The appeals court's administrative stay keeps the order in limbo while it considers the administration's appeal, with oral arguments scheduled for July 17.Trump's order affects 21 federal agencies and would make it easier to discipline or fire employees while restricting union challenges. The order notably broadened national security exceptions to collective bargaining beyond intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI. Unions argue the move is retaliatory and affects many workers who don't handle national security matters.Earlier, a Washington, D.C. judge blocked the same order at seven agencies, including the DOJ and Treasury, but that ruling is also stayed pending appeal. The Trump administration has also filed lawsuits to void existing union contracts, though one such suit by the Treasury was dismissed for lack of standing. A related case remains pending in Texas.US court pauses block on Trump eliminating union bargaining for federal workers | ReutersThe White House is currently reviewing federal agency layoff plans following a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that permits large-scale downsizing of the government workforce. Two senior officials confirmed the review is aimed at minimizing future legal challenges by ensuring all plans comply with congressional rules and civil service regulations. Coordination is being handled through the White House Counsel's Office and the Office of Personnel Management. Although no specific timeline has been announced, officials say the layoffs are an "immediate priority," with a goal to reduce the size of government swiftly.The ruling, welcomed by the Trump administration, allows agencies to act on plans developed earlier this year under the guidance of the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk. However, the administration acknowledged that labor contracts and due process protections still apply, and lawsuits are expected even if legal thresholds are met.The State Department has already confirmed it will begin issuing termination notices imminently, having proposed nearly 2,000 job cuts in May. Overall, about 260,000 federal employees have already exited through firings, resignations, or early retirements since January. The layoffs are expected to affect more than a dozen departments, including Agriculture, Commerce, and Veterans Affairs.White House reviews mass federal layoff plans, aims for swift action | ReutersMahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and permanent U.S. resident, has filed a $20 million claim against the Trump administration, alleging false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist, was detained for over 100 days by immigration authorities who accused him of undermining U.S.–Israel relations. His legal team submitted the claim under federal rules requiring damages claims to be filed before a lawsuit. Homeland Security dismissed the claim as "absurd," defending its actions as lawful.Khalil argues his arrest was politically motivated, targeting him for his pro-Palestinian speech, and says he would accept an official apology and a policy change as an alternative to monetary compensation. He was released on bail in June after a federal judge ruled his detention violated his First Amendment rights. The case has drawn widespread attention from civil rights and Palestinian advocacy groups, who accuse the administration of equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.Trump has publicly pledged to deport foreign students participating in anti-Israel protests, and Khalil was the first high-profile detainee under this initiative. His lawyers continue to challenge his deportation, and the administration has six months to respond to his compensation claim.Mahmoud Khalil seeks $20 million from Trump administration over immigration arrest | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by George Gershwin.This week's closing theme is dedicated to one of America's most iconic composers—George Gershwin, who died on July 11, 1937, at just 38 years old. Though his life was short, Gershwin's musical legacy is vast, bridging the worlds of classical music and jazz with unprecedented flair. His compositions resonate with a distinctively American voice, and no piece captures that better than Rhapsody in Blue. Premiered in 1924, the work opens with a now-famous clarinet glissando and bursts into a vibrant, restless energy that seems to embody the optimism and chaos of early 20th-century New York.Commissioned by bandleader Paul Whiteman, Rhapsody in Blue was Gershwin's first major attempt to merge classical form with jazz idioms. What emerged was a concerto-like work that thrilled audiences and critics alike and marked the beginning of serious recognition for jazz as a concert-hall art form. Gershwin performed the piano solo himself at the premiere, having written much of it in a hurry and leaving some sections to be improvised on the spot.His sudden death from a brain tumor shocked the music world. It cut short the career of a composer who had already revolutionized American music and was poised to do much more. In works like Porgy and Bess and An American in Paris, Gershwin demonstrated a rare ability to synthesize European traditions with American vernacular music. But Rhapsody in Blue remains his most enduring testament—a collision of elegance, innovation, and vitality.As we reflect on Gershwin's passing this week, we close with Rhapsody in Blue, a work that continues to pulse with life nearly a century after its premiere. Its blend of bluesy lyricism and orchestral sweep makes it a fitting tribute to a composer whose voice was silenced too soon.Without further ado, George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, enjoy! 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

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer 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 at nexfirm dot 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 transcription 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 dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.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 at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.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 at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, 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 a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.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 at nexfirm dot 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 at Substack dot 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 dot substack dot 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, July 23. 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

This Day in Legal History: 14th Amendment RatifiedOn July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified—one of the most sweeping and hotly contested legal transformations in American history. Drafted during Reconstruction, its promise was bold: birthright citizenship, due process, and equal protection under the law. In theory, it was the legal nail in the coffin for Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 decision that declared Black people could never be citizens. In practice? A more complicated story.The amendment aimed to redefine American citizenship in the wake of emancipation—but its language proved a double-edged sword. While Section 1 is the cornerstone of modern civil rights litigation, it was also the platform for corporate personhood and Lochner-era judicial activism. The same equal protection clause used to dismantle segregation in Brown v. Board (1954) was first deployed to protect railroad companies from state taxes. So the question isn't whether the Fourteenth Amendment mattered—it's whether it served the people it was meant to protect.Southern states ratified the amendment under duress, often as a condition for rejoining the Union. The Supreme Court, for decades, narrowed its reach, refusing to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states and sidestepping racial injustice entirely. Only in the 20th century—through selective incorporation and the civil rights movement—did its full potential begin to manifest.Today, the Fourteenth Amendment remains a constitutional battleground: cited in cases on abortion, marriage equality, affirmative action, and beyond. But the fight over its meaning is far from settled. July 9 isn't just a date on the calendar—it's a reminder that even the most powerful legal language is hostage to interpretation, and that equality under the law has always been a work in progress.Retired NBA star Charles Oakley is seeking sanctions against Madison Square Garden (MSG) and Randy Mastro, a top NYC official and MSG attorney, alleging they made false statements in a long-running legal battle over Oakley's 2017 ejection from a Knicks game. In a recent court filing, Oakley accused Mastro of repeatedly lying to the court about MSG owner James Dolan's involvement, despite Dolan admitting under oath that he played a role. Oakley wants the judge to award attorney fees, censure Mastro, and require him to attend an ethics class.This move follows MSG's own motion last month asking the court to sanction Oakley and his lawyers for allegedly promoting a "false narrative" and to dismiss the case. The dueling motions are part of an eight-year legal dispute that began after Oakley was forcibly removed from MSG. Oakley, a Knicks fan favorite from 1988–1998, has claimed excessive force was used during the incident and has recently amended his lawsuit to focus on assault and battery.Ex-NBA player seeks sanctions against Madison Square Garden, lawyer Mastro | ReutersLaw school deans across Texas are pushing back against a proposal to eliminate the requirement that attorneys graduate from American Bar Association (ABA)-accredited schools. In a letter to the Texas Supreme Court, deans from eight of the state's ten ABA-accredited law schools argue that scrapping the rule—which has been in place since 1983—would hinder graduates' ability to practice in other states and reduce transparency for students and consumers.The court's review of the ABA requirement follows a similar move by Florida, where justices cited the ABA's paused diversity mandate and political activity as reasons for reconsideration. Critics of the proposal warn that removing ABA accreditation could isolate Texas law schools, make legal education less portable, and ultimately increase costs for students.Notably, the dean of the University of Texas School of Law, Robert Chesney, did not join the group letter. Instead, he suggested the court explore alternative or supplementary accreditation pathways. Texas A&M's law dean, Robert Ahdieh, also withheld endorsement but emphasized the importance of maintaining national recognition for Texas law degrees. The state's high court, composed entirely of Republican-elected judges, has not indicated when it will issue a decision.Eliminating ABA accreditation for Texas law schools is flawed proposal, some deans say | ReutersA U.S. district judge temporarily halted the bankruptcy sale of genetic testing company 23andMe, giving California three days to argue that the deal violates its genetic privacy law. California had earlier failed to convince a bankruptcy judge to block the $305 million sale to TTAM Research, a nonprofit founded by 23andMe co-founder Anne Wojcicki.The state contends that transferring genetic data to TTAM without explicit consumer consent breaches California's Genetic Information Privacy Act. With roughly 1.8 million California residents among 23andMe's 10 million users, the state argues the sale could lead to unauthorized data transfers.Bankruptcy Judge Brian Walsh previously ruled that consumers could delete their data post-sale, minimizing potential harm. TTAM has promised to honor 23andMe's existing privacy policies. A federal court hearing on whether to extend the pause is scheduled for Thursday. The bankruptcy follows declining demand and a major 2023 data breach at 23andMe.Judge briefly pauses 23andMe bankruptcy sale amid California's appeal | ReutersThe IRS has agreed—at least for now—not to penalize churches for discussing political candidates or campaigns during religious services, provided that such speech is framed as a matter of faith. This move comes as part of a proposed consent decree intended to resolve a constitutional challenge to the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law barring 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations—including churches—from participating in political campaigns.The settlement, filed in a Texas federal court, reinterprets the Johnson Amendment narrowly: religious speech about politics during worship services is not “political intervention” if it occurs through traditional, faith-based communication. The IRS now claims enforcing the Johnson Amendment against such speech could raise serious First Amendment concerns, especially if it treats politically silent religious organizations more favorably than outspoken ones.Critics warn this reinterpretation risks turning churches into tax-sheltered political operations. Diane Yentel of the Council of Nonprofits argues it opens the door to tax-deductible donations for de facto political activity—effectively subsidized by taxpayers who may disagree.While the lawsuit originally sought to strike down the Johnson Amendment entirely, this settlement attempts to sidestep the constitutional minefield through interpretation, not invalidation. But here's the legal paradox: the IRS is effectively rewriting statutory law without legislative input, relying on what it calls "constitutional avoidance." That raises real questions—can an executive agency unilaterally redefine the scope of a congressional statute to avoid a constitutional fight? Or is this a policy pivot masquerading as judicial restraint?For now, the constitutional showdown is paused. But if this consent decree is approved, it will mark a major shift in the legal boundaries between church, state, and campaign finance—without any actual change to the law's text. Whether that holds up under future scrutiny remains very much an open question.IRS Says Religious Groups Can Discuss Politics During Services (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court.The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not impose the same jurisdictional limitations as the Fourteenth Amendment because the federal government occupies a sovereign sphere dramatically different from that of state governments. While the Fourteenth Amendment's jurisdictional limits protect interstate federalism by ensuring states do not exceed their territorial boundaries as coequal sovereigns, these federalism concerns are inapplicable to the federal government, which possesses both nationwide and extraterritorial authority. The Constitution authorizes the federal government alone to regulate foreign commerce, prosecute offenses against U.S. nationals abroad, and conduct foreign affairs. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment permits a more flexible jurisdictional inquiry commensurate with the federal government's broader sovereign authority than the “minimum contacts” standard required under the Fourteenth Amendment.The PSJVTA represents a permissible exercise of this authority because it narrowly targets only two specific foreign entities that have longstanding, complex relationships with the United States involving terrorism concerns. The statute's jurisdictional predicates—payments to imprisoned terrorists and their families, and activities conducted on U.S. soil—directly implicate important federal policies aimed at deterring terrorism and protecting American citizens. The political branches' coordinated judgment in enacting this legislation warrants judicial deference, particularly given the statute's limited scope applying only to ATA cases and its clear notice to the PLO and PA that specified conduct would subject them to U.S. jurisdiction. Even assuming a reasonableness inquiry applies under the Fifth Amendment, the PSJVTA satisfies it given the federal government's compelling interest in providing a forum for terrorism victims, the plaintiffs' interest in obtaining relief, and the absence of any unfair burden on these sophisticated international organizations that have litigated in U.S. courts for decades.Justice Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Gorsuch as to Part II, arguing that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause imposes no territorial limits on the federal government's power to extend federal jurisdiction beyond the nation's borders.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.   The Supreme Court held that Tennessee's law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.First, the Equal Protection Clause does not require heightened scrutiny because Tennessee's law does not classify on any bases that warrant such review. The law contains only two classifications: one based on age (allowing treatments for adults but not minors) and another based on medical use (permitting puberty blockers and hormones for certain conditions but not for treating gender dysphoria). Classifications based on age or medical use receive only rational basis review—the most deferential standard of constitutional review. The law does not classify based on sex because it prohibits healthcare providers from administering these treatments to any minor for the excluded diagnoses, regardless of the minor's biological sex. When properly understood as regulating specific combinations of drugs and medical indications, the law treats all minors equally: none may receive these treatments for gender dysphoria, but minors of any sex may receive them for other qualifying conditions like precocious puberty or congenital defects.The law satisfies rational basis review because Tennessee's legislature had reasonable grounds for its restrictions. The state found that these treatments for gender dysphoria carry risks including irreversible sterility, increased disease risk, and adverse psychological consequences, while minors lack the maturity to understand these consequences and many express later regret. Tennessee also determined that the treatments are experimental with unknown long-term effects, and that gender dysphoria can often be resolved through less invasive approaches. Under rational basis review, courts must uphold laws if there are any reasonably conceivable facts supporting the classification. States have wide discretion in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty, noting that recent reports from health authorities in England and other countries have raised similar concerns about the evidence supporting these treatments for minors.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, arguing that Bostock v Clayton County (in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination because of sex includes discrimination based on transgender identity or sexual orientation) should not apply to Equal Protection Clause analysis and criticizing deference to medical experts who lack consensus and have allowed political ideology to influence their guidance on transgender treatments for minors.Justice Barrett authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, arguing that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause because they lack the “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics” of a “discrete group” and because suspect class analysis should focus on a history of de jure (legal) discrimination rather than private discrimination.

This Day in Legal History: United States v. VirginiaOn this day in legal history, June 26, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in United States v. Virginia, striking down the Virginia Military Institute's (VMI) male-only admissions policy. The 7–1 ruling held that the exclusion of women violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized that gender-based government action must demonstrate an “exceedingly persuasive justification” to be constitutional.VMI had long argued that its adversative, military-style education would be compromised by the inclusion of women. In response to the lawsuit, Virginia created a separate program for women at Mary Baldwin College, which the Court found to be inherently unequal. The Court concluded that Virginia failed to show that its gender-based admissions policy was substantially related to an important governmental objective.Justice Ginsburg's opinion stressed that generalizations about gender roles cannot justify the denial of opportunity. The ruling did not require VMI to change its core program but made clear that women must be given equal access to it. This decision marked a significant moment in the legal evolution of gender equality and helped to dismantle one of the most visible public institutions that had resisted coeducation.Justice Scalia dissented, arguing that the decision imposed a rigid standard of gender equality that went beyond the Constitution's text and history. Nevertheless, the ruling reflected the Court's growing skepticism of laws that enforce traditional gender roles. United States v. Virginia remains one of the most cited gender discrimination cases and is considered a hallmark of Ginsburg's judicial legacy.A federal judge has extended a block on the Trump administration's attempt to dismantle Job Corps, a longstanding job training program for low-income youth. U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter ruled that the Department of Labor's plan to abruptly end the program without congressional approval likely violates federal law. The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the National Job Corps Association and several of its contractors.Job Corps, established in 1964, provides educational and vocational training for disadvantaged individuals aged 16 to 24. It currently serves about 25,000 participants at 120 centers nationwide, with an annual budget of $1.7 billion. The administration argued the program was inefficient, citing low graduation rates, poor job placement, and issues with violence and security at centers.However, plaintiffs maintain that only Congress can terminate a federally funded program and that the Labor Department failed to follow statutory procedures for closing individual centers. Judge Carter agreed, stating that once Congress mandates and funds a program, the executive branch cannot unilaterally terminate it.US judge extends block on Trump's bid to eliminate Job Corps program | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco ruled in favor of Meta Platforms, dismissing a copyright lawsuit brought by authors who accused the company of using their books without permission to train its AI system, Llama. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria found the authors failed to show sufficient evidence that Meta's AI training harmed the market for their work—an essential element in proving copyright infringement under U.S. law.While Chhabria emphasized that unauthorized use of copyrighted works for AI training could be illegal in many scenarios, he clarified that his ruling was limited to the plaintiffs' failure to present the right arguments or evidence. This position diverges from another recent ruling in which Judge William Alsup found that Anthropic's AI use of copyrighted content qualified as fair use.The authors' legal team criticized the decision, calling Meta's actions a form of “historically unprecedented pirating,” while Meta praised the outcome and defended fair use as essential for developing transformative AI technologies.This case is part of a broader legal wave in which creators are challenging companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Anthropic over AI systems trained on copyrighted materials. At the heart of the dispute is whether using such content without payment or permission to create AI-generated works constitutes fair use or undermines creative incentives.Meta fends off authors' US copyright lawsuit over AI | ReutersAnd in a piece I wrote for Forbes yesterday, I note the IRS managed an objectively successful 2025 filing season—processing nearly 138 million returns, most of them electronically—but also that success masks deeper structural weaknesses. While headline numbers are strong, the IRS suspended over 13 million returns, largely due to fraud checks or errors, delaying refunds and spotlighting operational vulnerabilities. One of the most glaring issues is the average 20-month wait time for identity theft victims to resolve their cases, many of whom are low-income taxpayers urgently awaiting those refunds.Staffing levels are at crisis lows: the IRS workforce shrank by 26% in the first half of 2025, casting doubt on its ability to maintain performance as the temporary funding from the Inflation Reduction Act winds down. Looking ahead, the 2026 expiration of key provisions from the 2017 tax law will require major administrative overhauls—updates to forms, guidance, and withholding tables—that the current IRS may be too under-resourced to handle.The agency has promising plans, including digitization of paper returns and case system integration, but even the best-designed systems require trained staff to implement and maintain them. Moreover, modernization must be inclusive: 17% of Americans still lack internet access, and an effective IRS must serve them too. Ultimately, tax administration is not just a technical task—it's a distributive justice issue, and how we fund and staff it determines who bears the burden when the system falters.What The IRS' 2025 Filing Season Tells Us About The Future Of Taxes This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In the last several years, numerous minors who identify as transgender have undergone surgery and other medical procedures to mirror common physical features of the opposite sex.In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity. Individuals, joined by the United States, brought suit against Tennessee. They alleged that a ban on “gender affirming care” violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Due Process Clause’s “substantive” component gives parents a right to demand medical interventions for their children, even if a state has found them to be unproven and risky.On June 18th, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute

This Day in Legal History: JuneteenthOn this day in legal history, June 19, 1865, Union Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, and issued General Order No. 3, announcing that all enslaved people in Texas were free. This day, now known as Juneteenth, marked the effective end of slavery in the United States—coming more than two years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. The delay was due in large part to the limited presence of Union troops in Texas to enforce the proclamation.Granger's announcement informed Texas residents that “all slaves are free,” a declaration that redefined the legal and social landscape of the state and solidified the federal government's authority over the Confederacy's last holdout. While the Emancipation Proclamation had declared freedom for slaves in Confederate states, it did not immediately end slavery everywhere, nor did it provide enforcement mechanisms beyond Union military power. Juneteenth represents the day when emancipation finally reached the furthest corners of the Confederacy through legal and military authority.In the years following, Juneteenth became a symbol of African American freedom and resilience, celebrated with community gatherings, education, and reflection. Texas made Juneteenth a state holiday in 1980, the first state to do so. On June 17, 2021, it became a federal holiday when President Joe Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act into law. The legal significance of Juneteenth lies in its embodiment of both the promise and the delay of justice, highlighting the gap between the law's proclamation and its realization.A conservative legal group, Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP), has sued the Michigan Law Review and its affiliated leadership, claiming that its member selection process illegally favors women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ applicants. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the complaint alleges that personal statements and holistic review metrics are evaluated using race and sex preferences, violating both federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The group contends that conservative students, especially those associated with the Federalist Society, are excluded from review committees due to their presumed opposition to the practice.FASORP is backed by attorney Jonathan Mitchell and America First Legal, led by former Trump official Stephen Miller. The organization has brought similar legal challenges against NYU and Northwestern, and its suit aligns with broader attacks on diversity policies at elite institutions. It seeks an injunction, damages, and court oversight of a revised selection process for the journal, along with a halt to federal funding until changes are made.The group claims violations of Title VI and Title IX, as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Equal Protection Clause. The review's five-part selection process—including essays and grades—has no fixed evaluation formula, which FASORP argues opens the door to discriminatory discretion. Judge Judith E. Levy is assigned to the case.Conservative Group Accuses Michigan Law Review of Selection BiasA federal judge in Texas has struck down a Biden administration rule aimed at protecting the privacy of patients seeking abortions and gender-affirming care. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) overstepped its authority when it adopted the rule, which barred healthcare providers and insurers from disclosing information about legal abortions to state law enforcement. The decision halts enforcement of the rule nationwide.Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, argued that HHS lacked explicit congressional approval to implement heightened protections for procedures viewed as politically sensitive. The rule was introduced in 2024 following the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade, as part of the Biden administration's efforts to defend reproductive healthcare access.The lawsuit was brought by Texas physician Carmen Purl, represented by the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which claimed the rule misused privacy laws unrelated to abortion or gender identity. Previously, Kacsmaryk had temporarily blocked enforcement of the rule against Purl, but this week's decision broadens that to all states.HHS has not responded publicly to the ruling, and a separate legal challenge to the same rule remains active in another Texas federal court. The case underscores ongoing tensions between federal privacy regulations and state-level abortion restrictions in the post-Roe legal environment.US judge invalidates Biden rule protecting privacy for abortions | ReutersXlear, a hygiene product company, has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), challenging the agency's authority to require “substantiation” for product claims under its false advertising rules. The suit, filed in federal court in Utah, follows the FTC's recent decision to drop a case it had pursued since 2021, which alleged that Xlear falsely advertised its saline nasal spray as a COVID-19 prevention and treatment product.Xlear argues that the FTC is exceeding its legal mandate by demanding scientific backing for advertising claims, stating that the FTC Act does not explicitly authorize such a requirement. The company's legal team is leaning on the 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limited the deference courts must give to federal agencies when interpreting statutes—a significant departure from the longstanding Chevron doctrine.The company seeks a court ruling that merely making claims without substantiation does not violate FTC rules. Xlear has also criticized the agency for engaging in what it calls “vexatious litigation,” claiming it spent over $3 million defending itself before the FTC abandoned its lawsuit without explanation.The FTC has not yet commented or made a court appearance in this new case. The challenge could set important precedent on the scope of agency power over advertising standards in the wake of the Supreme Court's shift on judicial deference.Lawsuit challenges FTC authority over 'unsubstantiated' advertising claims | ReutersA federal judge in Rhode Island signaled skepticism toward the Trump administration's attempt to tie federal transportation funding to state cooperation with immigration enforcement. During a hearing, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell questioned whether U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy had legal authority to impose immigration-related conditions on grants meant for infrastructure projects. McConnell, an Obama appointee, challenged the relevance of immigration enforcement to the Transportation Department's mission, drawing a parallel to whether the department could also withhold funds based on abortion laws.The case involves 20 Democratic-led states opposing the April 24 directive, which conditions billions in infrastructure grants on compliance with federal immigration law, including cooperation with ICE. The states argue the requirement is unconstitutional, vague, and attempts to coerce state governments into enforcing federal immigration policy without clear legislative authorization.Justice Department lawyers defended the policy as aligned with national safety concerns, but struggled under McConnell's probing. He noted that the administration's broad language and public stance on sanctuary jurisdictions could not be ignored and appeared to support the states' argument that the directive lacks clarity and statutory grounding.The judge is expected to issue a ruling by Friday, before the states' grant application deadline. This lawsuit is part of a broader legal and political battle as Trump pushes sanctuary cities and states to aid in mass deportations.US judge skeptical of Trump plan tying states' transportation funds to immigration | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Co-hosts Kerri Brinkoeter and Marlene McMichael catch up with Jeremy Story, pastor and founder of Every Student Sent -- a national social network platform for college campus ministries. See www.campusrenewal.org and www.everystudentsent.org. On this program, Jeremy updates listeners on his landmark court case against the Round Rock ISD School Board, filed because the Board barred him from addressing the Board about serious personnel concerns and eventually had him jailed. The case has received national attention and will soon go to trial in federal court. The landmark case addresses potential violations against the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Open Meetings Act.

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia, striking down state laws that banned interracial marriage. The case arose when Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Loving, a Black and Indigenous woman, were sentenced to a year in prison for marrying each other in Washington, D.C., then returning to their home in Virginia, which criminalized interracial unions under its Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The couple's challenge to their conviction eventually reached the nation's highest court.In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the Court, stated that the freedom to marry is a “vital personal right,” and restricting that freedom on the basis of race was “directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The Court emphasized that classifications based solely on race are “odious to a free people” and cannot stand.The decision invalidated laws in 16 states that still prohibited interracial marriage at the time, cementing Loving v. Virginia as a major victory in the civil rights movement. It not only reinforced the constitutional commitment to racial equality but also laid critical groundwork for later decisions involving personal liberty, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2015.A U.S. federal judge ruled that the Trump administration cannot detain Columbia University student and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil based on U.S. foreign policy concerns. The decision, issued by Judge Michael Farbiarz in Newark, found that using a rarely applied immigration law to justify Khalil's detention violated his free speech rights. Khalil, whose green card was revoked in March, has been in detention since then and was the first foreign student arrested amid the pro-Palestinian campus protests following the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel.The court found that Khalil was suffering irreparable harm due to the damage to his career and the chilling effect on his speech. While the ruling bars Khalil's deportation under the foreign policy provision, it does not require his immediate release, allowing the administration until Friday to appeal. Khalil's wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, urged his immediate return to their home in New York, where she cares for their newborn son.Neither the State Department nor the Justice Department commented. The case reflects tensions over U.S. responses to student activism amid global political conflicts, particularly as Trump-era policies are used to target protesters. The foreign policy provision invoked allows deportation of non-citizens if their presence is seen as harmful to U.S. interests, but the court found it unconstitutional in this case.US foreign policy no basis to detain Columbia protester Khalil, judge rules | ReutersCalifornia is taking the Trump administration to court over the deployment of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles amid escalating protests against President Donald Trump's immigration policies. Approximately 700 Marines are set to join 4,000 National Guard troops to support federal agents and protect government property, sparking backlash from state officials who argue the move is illegal and inflammatory. California Governor Gavin Newsom, along with other state and local leaders, contends the deployment violates the state's rights and unnecessarily escalates tensions.The protests, which began in response to a wave of immigration raids, have spread to cities including New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., and are expected to intensify with over 1,800 demonstrations planned for the weekend. Demonstrators in Los Angeles have largely remained peaceful, though incidents of violence and aggressive police responses have been reported. A federal judge in San Francisco will hear arguments Thursday as California seeks a restraining order to halt the military's law enforcement involvement.The Marines have completed crowd control and de-escalation training but are operating under Title 10 of U.S. law, which authorizes limited military involvement in civilian matters. They are permitted to detain individuals interfering with federal duties but are not supposed to engage in regular policing. Trump defended the deployment, calling it essential to maintaining order, while critics, including national Democrats, have called it a dangerous overreach.Marines prepare for Los Angeles deployment as protests spread across USA group of current and former female athletes is appealing the NCAA's $2.8 billion antitrust settlement, arguing that the deal violates Title IX by disproportionately compensating male athletes. Approved by a federal judge on June 6, the settlement allocates 90% of back pay damages to men, largely benefiting football and basketball players. The objectors, represented by attorney John Clune, argue this breakdown reflects a $1.1 billion miscalculation and discriminates against women in violation of federal law.The appeal, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is the first formal challenge to a settlement touted as a major victory for student-athletes. Clune said the agreement lacks meaningful support for women's sports, including basketball and Olympic disciplines, and warned that schools are already discussing cutting programs as a result of the deal's financial structure.Critics of the appeal, including settlement attorney Jeffrey Kessler, claim the Title IX objection is misplaced in an antitrust case and will delay compensation for over 100,000 athletes. Still, the challenge raises questions about gender equity in how the NCAA compensates athletes for past name, image, and likeness (NIL) restrictions.While the total settlement amount isn't being disputed, the appeal could impact future policies around compensation, roster limits, and salary caps. The NCAA says it's continuing with implementation, but the appeal introduces legal uncertainty into an already complex shift in college athletics.NCAA $2.8 Billion Deal Gets Appealed Over Title IX Issues (1)Donald Trump's legal team is attempting to fast-track an appeal of his New York felony conviction by moving the case toward the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump was convicted in Manhattan on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, marking the first time a former or current president has been found guilty of a felony. His attorneys returned to court this week to argue the state case should be shifted to federal jurisdiction.They contend that Trump's actions were connected to his official duties as president and thus should be handled in federal court, where they believe he might receive a more favorable legal environment. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is currently weighing the request, which Trump hopes will pave the way for a rapid review by the Supreme Court.The legal maneuvering is part of a broader strategy to challenge the legitimacy of the New York state trial and delay sentencing or any other consequences. Trump maintains that the case is politically motivated and that the charges are being used to interfere with his political agenda.Trump Seeks Quick Path to Supreme Court in Hush Money Appeal (1) 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

Hear Allan Parker share insight on the Life Clause in the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which already protect the right to life from conception.

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

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson previews the Supreme Court's most anticipated pending cases as the term nears its end. She highlights upcoming decisions on nationwide injunctions, Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, evolving standards in discrimination lawsuits, and major cases involving religious exemptions and parental rights in education. Jessica offers her predictions and insight on how these rulings could shape the law and impact daily life, setting the stage for a dramatic finale to the Supreme Court term.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Nationwide Injunctions – Trump v. Washington/New Jersey/California: This case tackles whether federal district courts can issue nationwide injunctions blocking federal policies, as opposed to limiting decisions to just the plaintiffs in the case. The backdrop is Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, which attempts to limit who qualifies as a citizen by birth.Transgender Rights and Equal Protection – Skrmetti: The Court is considering whether Tennessee's ban on certain gender-affirming treatments for minors violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The predicted outcome is that the Court may allow such state restrictions, but notes there could be future challenges regarding parental rights under a different part of the Fourteenth Amendment.Religious Objections in Public Schools – Parental Opt-Outs for LGBTQ-Inclusive Curriculum: A Maryland case considers if public schools must offer opt-outs for parents whose religious beliefs conflict with LGBTQ-inclusive materials and lessons. The prediction: the Court may require such opt-outs under the Free Exercise Clause, but will need to write the opinion carefully to avoid overly broad exemptions.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica

This episode of Justice Above All examines how the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and how today's legal arguments decontextualize the Amendment's historical context in which it was ratified—during Reconstruction, to secure full citizenship and legal equality for formerly enslaved Black people.  Today, multiple Supreme Court decisions reflect an inaccurate and ahistorical reading of the Reconstruction Amendments—the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth—which were enacted to dismantle the legacy of slavery and secure full citizenship and equal protection under the law for all people of African descent.Today's host is Karla McKanders, Director of the Thurgood Marshall Institute. She is in conversation with the following guests: - Lynne Adrine: Alumna, Ludlow Elementary School and President, LKA Strategies- Joel Motley: Civil and human rights advocate, filmmaker, and the son of Constance Baker Motle- Kenji Yoshino: Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law, NYU School of Law and Faculty Director, Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and BelongingFor more information on this episode, please visit https://tminstituteldf.org/brown-v-board-ii-fourteenth-amendment-myth-of-neutrality/.This episode was produced by Jakiyah Bradley and Lauren O'Neil. It was hosted by Karla McKanders. Resonate Recordings edited the episode.If you enjoyed this episode please consider leaving a review and helping others find it! To keep up with the work of LDF please visit our website at www.naacpldf.org and follow us on social media at @naacp_ldf. To keep up with the work of the Thurgood Marshall Institute, please visit our website at www.tminstituteldf.org and follow us on Twitter at @tmi_ldf.

Recorded back in November, the Minister of Defense for the Black Panther Party talks rednecks and shares his time-tested wisdom with the current social revolutionary movement, warns us of past and coming challenges to our solidarity and solutions to overcome the divide-and-conquer tactics that have separated us for far too long. https://www.blackpantherpartywa.com/https://thepantherparty.com/www.instagram.com/bpp.waSpecial thanks to Nathan Evans Fox for his beautiful song.www.instagram.com/nathan.evans.foxThe Black Panthers Ten Point Program:1. We Want Freedom. We Want Power to Determine the Destiny of Our Black Community.We believe that Black people will not be free until we are able to determine our destiny.2. We Want Full Employment for Our People.3. We Want An End to the Robbery By the Capitalists of Our Black Community.We believe that this racist government has robbed us, and now we are demanding the overdue debt of forty acres and two mules. Forty acres and two mules were promised 100 years ago as restitution for slave labor and mass murder of Black people. 4. We Want Decent Housing Fit For The Shelter of Human Beings.5. We Want Education for Our People That Exposes The True Nature Of This Decadent American Society. We Want Education That Teaches Us Our True History And Our Role in the Present-Day Society.We believe in an educational system that will give to our people a knowledge of self. If a man does not have knowledge of himself and his position in society and the world then he has little chance to relate to anything else.6. We Want All Black Men To Be Exempt From Military Service.We believe that Black people should not be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government that does not protect us. 7. We Want An Immediate End to Police Brutality and the Murder of Black People.We believe we can end police brutality in our Black community by organizing Black self-defense groups that are dedicated to defending our Black community from racist police oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all Black people should arm themselves for self-defense.8. We Want Freedom For All Black Men Held in Federal, State, County and City Prisons and Jails.We believe that all Black People should be released from the many jails and prisons because they have not received a fair and impartial trial.9. We Want All Black People When Brought to Trial To Be Tried In Court By A Jury Of Their Peer Group Or People From Their Black Communities, As Defined By the Constitution of the United States.We believe that the courts should follow the United States Constitution so that Black people will receive fair trials. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives a man a right to be tried by his peer group. A peer is a person from a similar economic, social, religious, geographical, environmental, historical, and racial background. To do this the court will be forced to select a jury from the Black community from which the Black defendant came. We have been, and we are being, tried by all-White juries that have no understanding of the “average reasoning man” of the Black community.10. We Want Land, Bread, Housing, Education, Clothing, Justice And Peace.When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect of the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.#BlackPanthers #history #YoungPatriots #FredHampton #redneck #countrymusic #politics #police #racism #ice #democrats #republican #foxnews #workingclass #chicago #aoc #berniesanders #trump

These sources collectively offer a comprehensive overview of criminal procedure in the United States, contrasting it with criminal law and highlighting its purpose in balancing societal security and individual rights. They detail the stages of the criminal justice process, from investigation and arrest through trial, sentencing, and appeals. A key focus is placed on the constitutional protections afforded to defendants, particularly those found in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which cover areas such as unreasonable searches and seizures, protection against double jeopardy and self-incrimination, and the right to counsel and a fair trial. The texts also discuss the structure of federal and state court systems and the role of judicial decisions and precedent in shaping criminal procedure.This conversation delves into the intricate framework of criminal procedure in the United States, exploring its goals, processes, and the constitutional foundations that guide it. The discussion highlights the balancing act between public safety and individual rights, the various stages of a criminal case from investigation to trial, and the role of discretion in real-world applications of the law.TakeawaysCriminal procedure is distinct from criminal law, focusing on the rules of investigation and prosecution.The goals of criminal procedure include accuracy, efficiency, respect, fairness, and equality.The adversarial nature of the system emphasizes the importance of legal representation for defendants.The process involves multiple stages, including investigation, charging, arraignment, and trial.The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, lays the foundation for criminal procedure.Court decisions and statutes further shape the application of criminal procedure.Discretion at various stages can lead to inconsistencies and potential biases in the system.Most criminal cases are resolved through plea bargaining rather than trial.The system strives for ideals of justice but faces real-world challenges.Understanding the gap between the law in books and law in action is crucial for evaluating the justice system.Sound Bites"It's a carefully constructed framework.""Accuracy, getting it right.""The right to counsel is crucial.""Most cases end with a plea deal.""The system isn't a perfect machine."criminal procedure, justice system, constitutional rights, law enforcement, criminal law, due process, trial rights, plea bargaining, legal framework, public safety

This lecture provides an overview of crucial constitutional rights within the realm of criminal procedure, extending from the moment an individual faces charges through potential post-conviction challenges. It details Sixth Amendment trial guarantees, including the rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, confrontation of witnesses, and compulsory process. The lecture then addresses the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy, explaining when it attaches and relevant doctrines like the same-elements test and dual sovereignty. Furthermore, it covers the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection considerations, particularly as they relate to sentencing and prosecution, before discussing the right to counsel at trial and on appeal. Finally, the lecture explores the avenues and limitations of post-conviction remedies, such as habeas corpus.This conversation delves into the essential aspects of trial rights, double jeopardy, due process, and post-conviction review, providing a comprehensive overview of key legal doctrines. It emphasizes the importance of the Sixth Amendment in ensuring fair trials, the complexities surrounding double jeopardy, the implications of the 14th Amendment on due process and equal protection, the right to counsel, and the intricacies of post-conviction remedies like habeas corpus.TakeawaysTrial rights are crucial for ensuring fairness in the legal process.The Sixth Amendment provides essential protections for defendants.Double jeopardy prevents multiple prosecutions for the same crime.The Blockburger test determines if two offenses are the same for double jeopardy.The dual sovereignty doctrine allows both state and federal prosecutions.Due process under the 14th Amendment ensures fairness in sentencing.The right to counsel extends beyond just the trial stage.Ineffective assistance of counsel can be challenged under Strickland.Habeas corpus allows for post-conviction challenges to legality of detention.AEDPA imposes strict limits on federal habeas petitions.Sound Bites"You can't systematically exclude groups.""Crawford changed the whole framework.""The key test is the Blockburger test."

Two points were very clear coming out of the Supreme Court's hearing over President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. 1) There's zero chance that President's Trump's order will be allowed to redefine birthright citizenship as it's been allowed to persist since the onset of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. 2) That there was broad interest in reining in the use of universal injunctions by lower courts.

This lecture provides an overview of crucial constitutional rights within the realm of criminal procedure, extending from the moment an individual faces charges through potential post-conviction challenges. It details Sixth Amendment trial guarantees, including the rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, confrontation of witnesses, and compulsory process. The lecture then addresses the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy, explaining when it attaches and relevant doctrines like the same-elements test and dual sovereignty. Furthermore, it covers the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection considerations, particularly as they relate to sentencing and prosecution, before discussing the right to counsel at trial and on appeal. Finally, the lecture explores the avenues and limitations of post-conviction remedies, such as habeas corpus.SummaryThis lecture series on Criminal Procedure delves into the essential rights and protections afforded to defendants under the U.S. Constitution. It covers the Sixth Amendment's trial rights, the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy protections, and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection guarantees. The discussion also highlights the importance of the right to counsel, post-conviction remedies, and emerging issues in criminal law, providing a comprehensive overview of the principles that govern the criminal justice system.TakeawaysThe Sixth Amendment guarantees a fair trial through various rights.Double jeopardy prevents multiple prosecutions for the same offense.Due process includes both procedural and substantive protections.The right to counsel is fundamental for a fair trial.Post-conviction remedies allow for challenging convictions.Emerging technologies pose new challenges to criminal procedure.The Equal Protection Clause ensures non-discriminatory enforcement of laws.The right to an impartial jury is crucial for justice.Procedural default can block federal review of claims.New evidence can lead to claims of actual innocence in court.Sound Bites"The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial.""Due process ensures fair procedures in adjudication.""Access to counsel is essential for a fair trial."Criminal Procedure, Trial Rights, Double Jeopardy, Due Process, Equal Protection, Right to Counsel, Post-Conviction Remedies, Legal Standards, Criminal Justice Reform

Fourteenth Amendment..."Three Things You Need to Know"...DNC not really liking David Hogg...new ice cream sandwich at Costco...eye drop recallSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

QUESTION PRESENTED: On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. This order reflects the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

This Day in Legal History: Salmon P. Chase DiesOn May 7, 1873, Salmon P. Chase—former Chief Justice of the United States and one of the most prominent legal minds of his generation—died at the age of 65. Chase was a towering figure in antebellum legal and political life, best known for his ardent antislavery positions and constitutional rigor. A fierce abolitionist, he earned the nickname “Attorney General for Runaway Slaves” for his pro bono work defending fugitives in Ohio. Decades before the Civil War, Chase and Abraham Lincoln had crossed paths not as allies, but as legal adversaries. In an 1855 Illinois case—Effie Afton v. Rock Island Bridge Company—Chase represented steamboat interests, while Lincoln defended the nascent railroad industry; the trial featured two future titans on opposite sides of a commercial dispute that mirrored the country's growing sectional divisions.Despite their early courtroom rivalry and later competing candidacies for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination, Lincoln recognized Chase's legal acumen and political influence. He appointed him Secretary of the Treasury, where Chase proved instrumental in financing the Union war effort and creating a national banking system. Ever ambitious, Chase maneuvered politically from within Lincoln's cabinet, seeking the presidency even as he served. In 1864, Lincoln elevated Chase to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, where he presided over pivotal Reconstruction-era cases and the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson.As Chief Justice, Chase dissented in Bradwell v. Illinois and the Slaughter-House Cases, signaling a broader vision for the Fourteenth Amendment than the Court ultimately embraced. His dissents advocated for civil rights and economic fairness at a time when the Court was beginning to retreat from radical Reconstruction. Chase died on May 7, 1873, after collapsing in New York, ending a career that spanned law, finance, politics, and constitutional interpretation.A federal judge struck down an executive order by President Donald Trump targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, ruling it violated the First Amendment and due process protections. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found the order to be retaliatory, noting it was motivated by the firm's past legal work and its association with political opponents, including Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. The ruling relied heavily on Trump's own public comments—more than 20 of which were cited in the lawsuit—including social media posts and statements made during official events. These remarks, spanning from 2017 through his current term, were used to show the administration's intent to punish the firm for its perceived political stance.Trump's directive revoked security clearances for the firm's lawyers, blocked federal contracts, and limited their access to government officials. Howell emphasized that the problem wasn't Trump's personal criticisms but the official actions taken against the firm based on those views. The case illustrates how Trump's characteristic unfiltered commentary undermined legal defenses by revealing the political motivations behind executive actions. Howell also cited similar coercive behavior toward other major law firms, some of which made significant concessions to avoid being targeted. Legal experts noted that this ruling could influence outcomes in related cases involving other firms.How Trump's own words helped him lose a fight with law firm Perkins Coie | ReutersSamsung Electronics announced that its subsidiary, Harman International, will acquire the audio business of U.S.-based Masimo for $350 million. The move is aimed at bolstering Samsung's position in the global consumer audio market, which is projected to grow from $60.8 billion in 2025 to $70 billion by 2029. The company emphasized that integrating Masimo's audio operations with Harman will enhance its sound technology offerings and create synergies across its mobile, TV, and home appliance divisions. The deal aligns with Samsung's broader strategy to pursue significant mergers and acquisitions to address investor concerns and drive growth. Samsung reaffirmed its commitment to delivering concrete M&A outcomes during its annual shareholder meeting in March.Samsung Electronics says unit Harman acquires Masimo's audio business for $350 mln | ReutersA growing number of wealthy defendants are pursuing pardons from President Donald Trump, some spending over $1 million on legal teams, lobbyists, and consultants to improve their chances. The pardon process under Trump's second term has become informal and politically charged, with access and loyalty appearing to play major roles in who receives clemency. Business figures such as Trevor Milton, founder of Nikola Corp., have successfully received pardons after building political connections, contributing to Trump's campaign, and framing their prosecutions as examples of a weaponized justice system.Traditional channels for clemency through the Justice Department have largely been bypassed, replaced by direct appeals to the White House and advocacy from influential allies. Lawyers well-connected to Trump's circle are reportedly charging premium fees to prepare pardon bids. High-profile figures including crypto executives Sam Bankman-Fried and Roger Ver, as well as media entrepreneur Carlos Watson, have sought or secured relief through this unofficial route. Trump's administration claims it is correcting injustices, but critics argue the system now favors those with money and political ties.Lawyers Are Quoting $1 Million in Fees to Get Pardons to TrumpA federal judge in Rhode Island has blocked the Trump administration from proceeding with layoffs at three small federal agencies, issuing a preliminary injunction against a March 14 executive order that aimed to eliminate or drastically reduce the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), and the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA). Chief Judge John McConnell ruled that the order was likely unlawful, calling it “arbitrary and capricious” and in conflict with the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing Congress's authority to make laws and allocate funding.The coalition of states challenging the order argued the closures would cause immediate harm, and McConnell agreed, noting that MBDA had essentially been reduced to zero staff, making it impossible to administer its programs. The ruling rejected the administration's claim that the harms were merely speculative and emphasized that irreparable harm had already occurred. The judge also denied a request by the Trump administration to delay enforcement of the injunction. The legal fight is ongoing, but the decision represents a significant obstacle to Trump's broader efforts to restructure the federal government by executive order.Trump Must Halt Layoffs at Three Small Agencies, Judge Says (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode, host Corey Nathan reflects on where we stand as a country several months into the current administration. With candor and conviction, Corey explores the themes of democracy, decency, and due process. Drawing from scripture, the Constitution, and commentary by thought leaders like David Brooks and Mike Madrid, this episode delivers a compelling, timely snapshot of America's civic health—and what's at stake moving forward. What's Discussed: Why the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments are more important than ever The consequences of immigration policies that bypass due process How the economy (including tariffs and inflation) is impacting voters What swayed key constituencies in the 2024 election What to watch for heading into 2026 and 2028 Episode Highlights: [00:02:00] Framing the episode: A “temperature check” on America [00:05:00] The First Amendment under threat [00:07:00] Due process and the constitutional rights of all persons [00:14:00] What really moved voters in 2024 (spoiler: price of eggs + immigration) [00:17:00] A powerful quote from David Brooks on civilizational foundations [00:22:00] Legal attacks and a defense of constitutional law [00:29:00] Polling data showing shifts in public opinion [00:34:00] Real-world impact on families, students, and small businesses Featured Quotes: “Nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” “Don't talk to me about Donald Trump being a brilliant businessman—he's a brilliant thief.” “For me, it's about democracy and decency. Always has been.” Resources Mentioned: David Brooks: "What's Happening Is Not Normal" (NYT) – www.nytimes.com/2025/04/17/opinion/trump-harvard-law-firms.html Adam Unikowsky on Substack – adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/the-case-for-suing Mike Madrid's Substack, The Great Transformation – substack.com/@madridmike

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

The Brady Rule is a legal principle that requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense in criminal cases. The rule is named after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland (1963), which held that the prosecution has a constitutional obligation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment.The Brady Rule applies to all evidence that is favorable to the defendant, including evidence that tends to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness. The rule also requires the prosecution to disclose any evidence that is known to the government, whether or not the prosecution intends to use the evidence at trial. This includes evidence that is in the possession of law enforcement agencies, as well as evidence that is in the possession of other government agencies, such as intelligence agencies.In this episode, we discuss the new information and how it may come into play during the trial.(commercial at 6:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho prosecutors disclosing info about 'internal affairs investigation' related to officer on Kohberger case | Fox NewsSource:Giglio Information Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On May 15, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order which seeks to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. Legal scholars 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 join Jeffrey Rosen to debate the scope of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.   Resources Gabriel J. Chin and Paul Finkelman, “Birthright Citizenship, Slave Trade Legislation, and the Origins of Federal Immigration Regulation,” UC Davis Law Review (April 8, 2021)  Ilan Wurman, “Jurisdiction and Citizenship,” Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No.25-27 (April 14, 2025)  Amanda Frost, “The Coming Assault on Birthright Citizenship,” The Atlantic (Jan. 7 2025)  Kurt Lash, “Prima Facie Citizenship: Birth, Allegiance and the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause,” SSRN (Feb. 22, 2025)  Amanda Frost, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, U.S. House of Representatives (Feb. 25, 2025)  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

The purpose of personal jurisdiction is to ensure that a court has the authority to compel a defendant to appear and litigate in a particular forum. This authority is constitutionally grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires that a defendant have sufficient connections with the forum state.General personal jurisdiction exists when a defendant's contacts with the forum state are so systematic and continuous that they can be sued there for almost any matter, even if the underlying events occurred elsewhere (e.g., a corporation's principal place of business is in the state). Specific personal jurisdiction arises when the lawsuit stems directly from the defendant's contacts with the forum state (e.g., a contract signed and performed within the state).The two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties, while diversity jurisdiction permits federal courts to hear cases between citizens of different states or between a state citizen and a foreign national, provided the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.The well-pleaded complaint rule dictates that for a case to fall under federal question jurisdiction, the federal issue must be presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. It is not sufficient for a federal question to arise only as a defense or a counterclaim.Venue rules determine the specific district within a court system where a case should be heard, focusing on the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the location of evidence or the events at issue. Factors determining proper venue often include the defendant's residence, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or where property involved in the lawsuit is located.Following Twombly and Iqbal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. This requires more than conclusory statements or a recitation of the elements of a cause of action; the factual allegations must allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.When responding to a complaint, a defendant can file an answer, admitting or denying the plaintiff's allegations and asserting any affirmative defenses, or file a pre-answer motion under Rule 12(b) to raise defenses like lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. Asserting affirmative defenses in the answer is crucial because failure to do so can result in their waiver.Under Rule 15, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving the original pleading, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.The "minimum contacts" test, established in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, states that for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, that defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. These contacts must be purposeful and related to the claim.The "amount in controversy" requirement for diversity jurisdiction currently stands at more than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. This threshold is important because it ensures that federal courts, when exercising jurisdiction based solely on the diverse citizenship of the parties, are addressing cases of sufficient financial significance.

This Day in Legal History: LochnerOn April 17, 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lochner v. New York, a landmark case in American constitutional law that struck down a New York law limiting bakery workers to a 60-hour workweek and 10-hour workday. The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause by interfering with the freedom of contract between employers and employees. Justice Rufus Peckham, writing for the majority, held that the state had overreached its police powers because the law did not have a sufficient connection to health or safety.This decision launched what is known as the “Lochner era,” a period lasting into the 1930s during which the Supreme Court routinely struck down economic regulations on the basis that they infringed upon economic liberties. Critics of the ruling saw it as judicial activism favoring corporate interests over workers' rights, while supporters viewed it as a defense of individual liberty and limited government.Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote a famous dissent, arguing that the Constitution does not enshrine any particular economic theory and warning against the Court imposing its own views on legislation. His dissent later became influential in shaping modern constitutional jurisprudence.The Lochner decision has since been largely discredited and is no longer considered good law, but it remains a critical case in debates over substantive due process, judicial restraint, and economic regulation.Google is facing a class action lawsuit in the UK that could result in damages of up to £5 billion ($6.6 billion), alleging it abused its dominant position in the online search market. Filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the case argues that Google's control of the search engine landscape allowed it to inflate advertising prices. The suit claims Google secured exclusive deals with phone manufacturers and Apple to make its search engine the default option, effectively excluding competitors.The claim also alleges Google offered better functionality and features for its own ads, making it harder for rivals to compete. Led by competition law expert Or Brook, the suit represents thousands of businesses who argue they had no real alternative to using Google Ads. Brook emphasized that visibility on Google is critical for businesses, calling its control a form of monopoly power.Google rejected the allegations as speculative and said it would fight the lawsuit, maintaining that users and advertisers choose its services because they are effective, not because they are forced to. Meanwhile, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority launched a separate investigation into Google's practices earlier this year, citing its dominant role in UK search and advertising markets.Google faces 5 billion pound UK lawsuit for abusing dominance in online search | ReutersThe Associated Press (AP) has accused the Trump White House of ignoring a court order that reinstated the news agency's access to press events. The dispute centers around a federal judge's finding that the AP was unlawfully retaliated against for refusing to use the term “Gulf of America” in place of the historically recognized “Gulf of Mexico” in its reporting, as requested by President Trump. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden ruled that the White House likely violated the AP's First Amendment rights and ordered that access restrictions be lifted while the case proceeds.Despite this, AP lawyers say the White House continues to exclude its journalists from the press pool, including access to the Oval Office and presidential travel. In response, the White House implemented a new policy removing all wire services, including AP, Reuters, and Bloomberg, from permanent pool status, placing them instead in a rotating system with about 30 other outlets. The AP claims this is a veiled attempt to continue its exclusion.Both Reuters and the AP criticized the policy, noting that many media outlets, especially smaller and international ones, depend on wire service coverage for timely updates on presidential actions. The White House has appealed Judge McFadden's ruling, with arguments scheduled before a federal appellate court.AP accuses Trump White House of defying court order restoring access | ReutersThe California attorney general's office has declined to support Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI, stating in a public letter that the legal action doesn't appear to serve the state's public interest. Musk, who co-founded OpenAI but later left, accuses the company and CEO Sam Altman of abandoning its nonprofit mission in favor of profit. He urged the state to join his lawsuit, arguing the transition to a for-profit model undermines the original intent of the organization.The attorney general's office responded that Musk hadn't demonstrated how the lawsuit would benefit the public and raised concerns that he may be trying to control OpenAI's assets for personal gain. This comes after Musk's consortium offered an unsolicited $97 billion bid for the company earlier this year. Musk's legal team pushed back, claiming the state misunderstood his intentions and noting support from former OpenAI employees and philanthropic leaders who oppose the company's restructuring.OpenAI, which is still legally a nonprofit in California, must get approval from the state for its planned governance changes. The company says the changes are essential to secure $40 billion in investment and that the nonprofit will retain a stake in the for-profit entity, helping it fulfill its mission long-term.Musk filed his lawsuit in 2024, asserting OpenAI had strayed from its founding purpose of developing AI to benefit humanity. A jury trial is scheduled for next year. Meanwhile, Musk has launched a competing AI firm, xAI, and Altman has accused him of trying to sabotage a rival.California attorney general declines to join Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

4/11/2025 Guest host: Mike Opelka Hour-3 Listen as Mike Opelka talks with Joe DiGenova; Attorney, and Former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. They discuss the Judges, rulings, and the Fourteenth Amendment. For more coverage on the issues that matter to you, visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 3-6pm.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

4/11/2025 Guest host: Mike Opelka Hour-3 Listen as Mike Opelka talks with Joe DiGenova; Attorney, and Former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. They discuss the Judges, rulings, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Also: Today's White House press conference recap. For more coverage on the issues that matter to you, visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 3-6pm.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR29-22-2805), the defense filed a Motion to Strike the State's Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty on the grounds of vagueness in balancing aggravating and mitigating factors. The defense argues that Idaho's capital sentencing framework lacks clear standards for jurors to weigh these factors, potentially leading to arbitrary and unconstitutional death sentences. They contend that the absence of explicit guidelines violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment and guarantee due process.​Furthermore, the defense highlights that the broad and vague nature of Idaho's statutory aggravating factors results in a majority of first-degree murder cases being eligible for the death penalty, failing to genuinely narrow the class of offenders subject to capital punishment. They assert that this overbreadth does not adequately differentiate between cases warranting the death penalty and those that do not, thereby undermining the constitutional requirement for a clear and fair sentencing process. Consequently, the defense requests the court to preclude the death penalty in Kohberger's case, citing these constitutional concerns.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:090524-Motion-Strike-States-Notice-Intent-Seek-Death-Penalty.pdf

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR29-22-2805), the defense filed a Motion to Strike the State's Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty on the grounds of vagueness in balancing aggravating and mitigating factors. The defense argues that Idaho's capital sentencing framework lacks clear standards for jurors to weigh these factors, potentially leading to arbitrary and unconstitutional death sentences. They contend that the absence of explicit guidelines violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment and guarantee due process.​Furthermore, the defense highlights that the broad and vague nature of Idaho's statutory aggravating factors results in a majority of first-degree murder cases being eligible for the death penalty, failing to genuinely narrow the class of offenders subject to capital punishment. They assert that this overbreadth does not adequately differentiate between cases warranting the death penalty and those that do not, thereby undermining the constitutional requirement for a clear and fair sentencing process. Consequently, the defense requests the court to preclude the death penalty in Kohberger's case, citing these constitutional concerns.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:090524-Motion-Strike-States-Notice-Intent-Seek-Death-Penalty.pdf

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR29-22-2805), the defense filed a Motion to Strike the State's Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty on the grounds of vagueness in balancing aggravating and mitigating factors. The defense argues that Idaho's capital sentencing framework lacks clear standards for jurors to weigh these factors, potentially leading to arbitrary and unconstitutional death sentences. They contend that the absence of explicit guidelines violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment and guarantee due process.​Furthermore, the defense highlights that the broad and vague nature of Idaho's statutory aggravating factors results in a majority of first-degree murder cases being eligible for the death penalty, failing to genuinely narrow the class of offenders subject to capital punishment. They assert that this overbreadth does not adequately differentiate between cases warranting the death penalty and those that do not, thereby undermining the constitutional requirement for a clear and fair sentencing process. Consequently, the defense requests the court to preclude the death penalty in Kohberger's case, citing these constitutional concerns.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:090524-Motion-Strike-States-Notice-Intent-Seek-Death-Penalty.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR29-22-2805), the defense filed a Motion to Strike the State's Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty on the grounds of vagueness in balancing aggravating and mitigating factors. The defense argues that Idaho's capital sentencing framework lacks clear standards for jurors to weigh these factors, potentially leading to arbitrary and unconstitutional death sentences. They contend that the absence of explicit guidelines violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment and guarantee due process.​Furthermore, the defense highlights that the broad and vague nature of Idaho's statutory aggravating factors results in a majority of first-degree murder cases being eligible for the death penalty, failing to genuinely narrow the class of offenders subject to capital punishment. They assert that this overbreadth does not adequately differentiate between cases warranting the death penalty and those that do not, thereby undermining the constitutional requirement for a clear and fair sentencing process. Consequently, the defense requests the court to preclude the death penalty in Kohberger's case, citing these constitutional concerns.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:090524-Motion-Strike-States-Notice-Intent-Seek-Death-Penalty.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This Day in Legal History:  MLK AssassinatedOn April 4, 1968, civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated while standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. King had traveled to Memphis to support striking sanitation workers, emphasizing his ongoing commitment to economic justice alongside racial equality. His death sent shockwaves through the United States, triggering riots in more than 100 cities and accelerating the passage of key civil rights legislation.King was a central figure in the American civil rights movement, having led campaigns against segregation, voter suppression, and economic inequality. His advocacy relied heavily on nonviolent protest and legal strategies that tested the limits of constitutional protections and federal civil rights enforcement. The assassination drew intense public scrutiny to the federal government's role in protecting civil rights activists.James Earl Ray, an escaped convict, was arrested and charged with King's murder. He pleaded guilty in 1969, avoiding a trial, but later recanted and sought to withdraw the plea. Controversy surrounding the investigation and conviction has persisted for decades, with some—including members of King's own family—questioning whether Ray acted alone or was part of a larger conspiracy.King's assassination directly influenced the U.S. Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited housing discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin. The legislation had faced significant resistance before King's death but was passed just days afterward. His assassination also galvanized greater federal attention to civil rights enforcement under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.A group of 12 Republican-led states, including Texas, Florida, and Missouri, has asked 20 major U.S. law firms to provide documentation on their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The request, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, seeks to determine whether the firms' practices comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws. In a letter sent Thursday, the states referenced recent concerns raised by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which had previously asked the same firms for similar information.Paxton cited potential violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that some law firms may use hiring policies that prioritize race, sex, or other protected characteristics. He also pointed to possible state-level violations, including those related to deceptive trade practices. The letter specifically called out programs such as diversity fellowships and hiring goals aimed at increasing representation from historically marginalized groups.The states argue they have authority to investigate and enforce laws that prohibit employment discrimination, including policies that may inadvertently or intentionally favor individuals based on race or other traits. Firms named include top legal players like Kirkland & Ellis, Ropes & Gray, and Skadden, Arps.GOP-Led States Want 20 Law Firms to Disclose Their DEI PracticesRepublicans are considering a significant shift in tax policy by potentially introducing a new top tax bracket for individuals earning $1 million or more annually. The proposed rate, currently under discussion, would range from 39% to 40%, marking a departure from the party's longstanding resistance to tax increases. This idea is part of a broader effort to offset the cost of a multi-trillion dollar tax package being developed by Trump administration allies and Republican lawmakers.Also on the table is a return to the 39.6% top income tax rate previously enacted during the Obama administration, replacing the current 37% rate for high earners. The GOP aims to pass the new tax legislation within months, renewing provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act while incorporating new deductions and reforms to appeal to middle- and working-class voters.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has emphasized the urgency of making Trump's earlier tax cuts permanent and stabilizing markets following recent tariff announcements. The evolving plan reflects a broader ideological shift within the Republican Party toward more populist economic messaging.To help pay for the new tax measures, the proposal also includes eliminating the carried interest loophole used by hedge fund and private equity managers and expanding deductions such as those for car loan interest and tipped wages. Trump's campaign promises — including removing taxes on overtime pay and Social Security benefits — are being considered for inclusion as well.Republicans Debate Hiking Top Tax Rate to 40% For Millionaires - BloombergOver 300 law professors from top institutions, along with legal advocacy groups across the political spectrum, have filed court briefs supporting Perkins Coie in its lawsuit against an executive order issued by Trump. The order, signed on March 6, penalizes the law firm for its work with Hillary Clinton and its internal diversity policies by restricting its access to federal buildings, officials, and contracts. Professors from Yale, Harvard, and Stanford argued the order is unconstitutional and undermines the independence of the legal profession.Their brief warned that targeting a firm for political reasons threatens any lawyer or firm that chooses to oppose the president in court, calling the order a dangerous precedent. Advocacy groups such as the ACLU and the Cato Institute echoed that concern, labeling Trump's action an attack on the legal system and a threat to Americans' right to legal representation.The White House responded by defending the order as a lawful measure to align federal partnerships with the administration's policies, criticizing the lawsuit as an attempt to preserve "government perks." Meanwhile, the Justice Department has requested that a Washington federal judge dismiss the lawsuit. Other firms named in similar orders — Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — have also filed suits, while some, like Skadden Arps and Paul Weiss, have made agreements with the White House to avoid sanctions.Law professors, legal groups back Perkins Coie in lawsuit over Trump order | ReutersThis week's closing music comes from one of the most innovative and influential composers of the 20th century: Igor Stravinsky. Known for revolutionary works like The Rite of Spring and The Firebird, Stravinsky continually reinvented his style throughout his long career. Born in 1882 near St. Petersburg, Russia, and passing away on April 6, 1971, in New York City, Stravinsky's life spanned continents, world wars, and artistic upheavals. While he is best remembered for his large-scale ballets and orchestral works, he also composed for smaller forms, including a fascinating piece titled simply Tango.Composed in 1940, Tango marks Stravinsky's first original composition written entirely in the United States after his move from Europe. At the time, he was living in Hollywood and adapting to a new cultural and musical environment. The piece is short, dark, and rhythmically sharp—more brooding than danceable—and carries the flavor of the tango tradition filtered through Stravinsky's idiosyncratic, angular style. It was originally written for piano, though Stravinsky later orchestrated it.Tango reflects Stravinsky's interest in blending traditional forms with modernist dissonance and unpredictability. It's a brief but compelling listen that offers a very different side of a composer often associated with thunderous orchestras and ballet scandals. Its rhythmic complexity and stark character echo the uncertainties of the time it was written, just as World War II was escalating. The piece serves as a reminder that even in exile, Stravinsky continued to experiment, innovate, and absorb new influences. As we remember his death on April 6, Tango is a fitting close—wry, lean, and unmistakably Stravinsky.Without further ado, Igor Stravinsky's Tango — enjoy! 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

Louisiana's congressional districts, which it redrew following the 2020 census, currently sit in a state of legal uncertainty.The map initially only had one majority-black district. However, following a 2022 case called Robinson v. Ardoin (later Laundry), which held that it violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana re-drew the map to include two majority-black congressional districts.In January 2024, a different set of plaintiffs sued alleging the new map violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. A 2-1 panel agreed the new map violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and enjoined the new map. Given the timing, the case briefly went up to the Supreme Court which granted an emergency application for stay, citing Purcell v. Gonzalez. That allowed the 2022 map to be used for the 2024 elections.Now the case is before the Supreme Court again, this time with a range of issues for the court to address including: (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

This Day in Legal History:  Wong Kim Ark becomes Wong Kim ArkOn March 28, 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, affirming that a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrant parents was a U.S. citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese nationals who were legally residing in the U.S. but ineligible for naturalization due to prevailing immigration laws. After a visit to China in 1895, he was denied re-entry on the grounds of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which severely restricted immigration from China and barred Chinese nationals from becoming citizens.The Court rejected the government's argument that children of Chinese immigrants were not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and thus not entitled to birthright citizenship. In a 6–2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of the nationality or immigration status of their parents. This decision established a major precedent for interpreting the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and reinforced the principle of jus soli, or right of the soil.The ruling came during a period of intense anti-Chinese sentiment, when the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and its extensions aimed to restrict Chinese immigration and civil rights. Wong Kim Ark was a significant rebuke to efforts that sought to limit the constitutional rights of U.S.-born children of immigrants, and it laid the foundation for future interpretations of birthright citizenship.The Senate's vote to repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's $5 cap on overdraft fees is a clear signal: protecting bank profits matters more to Senate Republicans than shielding consumers from predatory financial practices. With a 52-48 vote, Republicans—joined by only one Democrat—moved to dismantle a regulation designed to curb exploitative overdraft charges that routinely hit working-class Americans the hardest.This isn't a technical policy disagreement—it's a choice to side with an industry that routinely charges Americans up to $35 for covering small shortfalls, even when the overdrafted amount is often less than the fee itself. The CFPB's rule was narrow, targeting only large banks and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets, and still allowed higher fees if justified by actual costs. It was a modest, evidence-based consumer protection measure.The financial industry's immediate lawsuit and the GOP's use of the Congressional Review Act to kill the rule reveal the coordinated effort to preserve a lucrative revenue stream. The overdraft fee fight is just one piece of a broader Republican strategy to roll back protections the CFPB has implemented—protections meant to hold powerful financial institutions accountable.No one should mistake this vote as anything other than what it is: an effort by Senate Republicans to keep consumers on the hook, ensuring that banks and credit unions can continue bleeding them dry in the name of "choice" and "flexibility"—buzzwords that conveniently mask an enduring deference to corporate power. They'll couch these kinds of moves in language of fairness–pretending they ensure lower-income consumers are given access to these financial instruments. A moment's reflection, however, makes it clear that even under their best dressed reasoning they're looking to enable banks to charge exorbitant fees to account holders in precarity. Senate Votes to Repeal CFPB's $5 Cap on Bank Overdraft Fees (1)Yesterday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order against the prominent law firm WilmerHale, following its connections to Robert Mueller, the former special counsel who led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The order directs federal agencies to cancel contracts with WilmerHale's clients, revoke lawyers' security clearances, and restrict access to U.S. government buildings. This is part of a broader strategy targeting law firms with ties to Mueller's investigation, including Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, and Jenner & Block.Trump criticized Mueller's investigation as an example of government overreach, labeling it as politically motivated. In addition to its ties to Mueller, Trump also accused WilmerHale of discriminatory practices in its diversity programs, echoing similar claims against other law firms earlier this month. The firm, which has a long-standing history of handling high-profile cases, responded by labeling the order unlawful and vowed to seek appropriate remedies.WilmerHale, a major player in litigation with over 1,100 lawyers, represents a variety of high-profile clients, including Gilead, Comcast, and Meta Platforms. The firm has also been involved in cases challenging actions taken by the Trump administration, fueling further tensions. Notably, Trump also targeted other firms for their involvement in the Russia investigation and opposition research, but some, like Paul Weiss, have managed to have orders rescinded by agreeing to specific terms, including providing legal services aligned with Trump's agenda.Trump Hits WilmerHale With Executive Order Over Mueller Ties (2)Trump targets another law firm, citing ties to Robert Mueller | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a Labor Department rule that would force grant recipients to abandon their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly in Chicago, halts a two-week enforcement window of a January executive order that required organizations receiving federal funds to certify they don't operate any DEI initiatives—even those unrelated to their grants.The case was brought by Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT), a nonprofit that trains women for skilled labor jobs and receives federal funding. The judge sided with CWIT's argument that the DEI restriction violates First Amendment protections, noting that such a rule could pressure grantees into self-censorship. Kennelly also blocked the Labor Department from terminating CWIT's funding under Trump's directive to eliminate “equity-related grants,” though this protection applies only to CWIT and not nationwide.Kennelly's order represents a legal pushback against Trump's broader effort to dismantle DEI initiatives across government agencies and contractors. While a federal appeals court recently upheld a temporary ban on DEI programs in federal agencies and contracting businesses, this ruling suggests courts may scrutinize how far the administration can go in policing DEI-related activity outside direct federal oversight.The ruling underscores an emerging legal battleground over free speech, anti-discrimination law, and the limits of executive authority in regulating DEI efforts.Judge blocks Trump's Labor Department from requiring grant recipients to abandon DEI | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to preserve Signal messages exchanged by top officials regarding planned military strikes in Yemen. The messages, inadvertently shared with a journalist from The Atlantic, revealed internal discussions involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe about timing and targets of attacks against the Houthi militant group. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's ruling mandates that all Signal messages sent between March 11 and March 15 be retained by the agencies involved.The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by American Oversight, a government watchdog group, which argued that the use of auto-deleting messaging apps like Signal violated federal record-keeping laws. The lawsuit doesn't focus on the national security aspects of the disclosure but rather on the legal obligation of government agencies to preserve official communications.The controversy deepened after Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly criticized Boasberg, accusing him of political bias and claiming he was attempting to obstruct Trump's agenda. Trump himself has previously called for Boasberg's impeachment after the judge blocked a deportation policy targeting Venezuelan migrants—an action later upheld by an appeals court.The White House has not commented on the matter, but the episode has sparked scrutiny over the administration's handling of sensitive military planning and whether efforts to bypass official communication channels undermine transparency and accountability.Judge orders Trump administration to preserve Yemen attack plan messages | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Sergei Rachmaninoff.This week's closing theme is one of the most beloved and instantly recognizable moments in all of classical music: Variation XVIII from Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Op. 43 by Sergei Rachmaninoff, in a solo piano arrangement by Schultz. Rachmaninoff composed the Rhapsody in 1934 during his later years in exile from Russia, blending his romantic sensibilities with virtuoso brilliance. The work is a set of 24 variations on the 24th Caprice by Niccolò Paganini, itself a legendary theme known for dazzling technical demands.While most of the piece is fiery and rhythmic, the 18th variation stands apart—lyrical, sweeping, and emotionally expansive. In fact, it's a musical inversion of Paganini's theme, reimagined as a lush romantic melody that seems to rise straight out of the piano's depths. Rachmaninoff himself admitted it was his favorite part of the piece, and it's easy to understand why: it's tender, grand, and full of longing.This solo arrangement by Schultz pares down the orchestral drama but keeps all the expressive power, letting the piano sing with full-hearted warmth. The variation has since transcended its classical origins, appearing in films, commercials, and pop culture, yet it never loses its emotional punch. It's the kind of music that doesn't need explanation—it just resonates.Rachmaninoff, ever the late Romantic in a century veering toward modernism, poured his soul into his music. This variation, placed deep in a virtuosic whirlwind, emerges like a moment of clarity—an unguarded confession in a storm. Let it carry you out this week. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica examines a pivotal voting rights case before the Supreme Court concerning Louisiana's congressional district lines. The case touches on the conflict between the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Jessica reviews the legal arguments, reflects on past decisions like Shelby County, and explores the case's broader implications. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Voting Rights Act and Supreme Court Case: Jessica Levinson delves into a Supreme Court case concerning the Voting Rights Act, highlighting a challenge over Louisiana's congressional districting. The essential question is whether the state violated the Act by diluting voting power or violated the Fourteenth Amendment by using race excessively in district creation.Louisiana District Lines Controversy: After the census, Louisiana's district lines came under scrutiny for having only one majority minority district, leading to lawsuits. The state later redrew the map to include two majority minority districts, sparking a new suit from non-African American voters claiming the excessive use of race in drawing these lines.Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause: The tension between complying with the Voting Rights Act and the constraints of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause is a major theme. The conversation touches on recent affirmative action cases, emphasizing the court's perspective that race should not be the predominant factor.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica

This Day in Legal History: Scottsboro Boys ArrestedOn this day in legal history, March 25, 1931, nine Black teenagers were arrested in Paint Rock, Alabama, accused of raping two white women aboard a freight train. The arrests set off one of the most infamous legal sagas of the 20th century, exposing the deep racial injustices of the Jim Crow South. The teens, later known as the Scottsboro Boys, were quickly indicted and tried in Scottsboro, Alabama. Just twelve days after their arrest, an all-white jury sentenced most of them to death in a series of rushed, chaotic trials marked by inadequate legal representation.Public outrage and national attention, particularly from Black communities and civil rights organizations, led to multiple appeals. In Powell v. Alabama (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the defendants' right to counsel had been violated, setting a precedent that effective legal representation is essential in capital cases. Later, in Norris v. Alabama(1935), the Court found that the systematic exclusion of Black jurors violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Despite these victories, the road to justice was long and uneven. Several of the Scottsboro Boys remained imprisoned for years, and none received a full measure of legal vindication during their lifetimes. Their ordeal became a powerful symbol of the racial bias embedded in the American legal system and spurred greater attention to the rights of defendants in criminal trials. The legacy of the case continues to influence debates over due process, racial discrimination, and criminal justice reform.At a U.S. appeals court hearing on March 24, 2025, Circuit Judge Patricia Millett sharply criticized the Trump administration's deportation of Venezuelan migrants, suggesting they were given fewer rights than Nazis who were removed under the same legal authority during World War II. The administration invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act—a rarely used law last applied to intern Axis nationals during WWII—to justify deporting alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua without immigration court rulings. The court is reviewing whether a temporary ban issued by Judge James Boasberg on such deportations should remain in place. Government attorneys argued that national security and executive authority over foreign affairs justify bypassing normal legal procedures.Family members and lawyers for deportees contest the gang allegations, saying they are based on flimsy evidence like tattoos. One deported man was a professional soccer coach whose tattoo referred to Real Madrid. Judge Millett questioned whether the deported migrants had any opportunity to dispute the gang labels before removal, calling the process rushed and opaque.The deportations, carried out on March 15, sent over 200 people to El Salvador, where they are being held in a high-security prison under a U.S.-funded deal. The ACLU claims the administration defied Boasberg's court order by speeding up removals to preempt judicial intervention. The government has since invoked the state secrets privilege to avoid disclosing further flight details. The case is now a flashpoint over presidential power, immigration enforcement, and judicial oversight, with the Supreme Court Chief Justice issuing a rare rebuke after Trump called for Boasberg's impeachment.Nazis were treated better than Venezuelans deported by Trump, judge says at hearing | ReutersOn March 24, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over Louisiana's congressional map, which increased the number of Black-majority districts from one to two. The case pits efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act against claims that the new map violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by relying too heavily on race. Louisiana officials defended the map, saying it was drawn to protect Republican incumbents rather than based on racial motives. They argued the redistricting was politically, not racially, driven—particularly to preserve the districts of House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise.Civil rights groups and Black voters countered that the map was a necessary remedy after a 2022 ruling found the prior version likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting strength. A 2024 lower court ruling blocked the updated map, saying race predominated in its design. The Supreme Court justices appeared divided, with liberal Justice Sotomayor skeptical that race had dominated the redistricting process, and conservative Chief Justice Roberts pointing to the odd shape of the second Black-majority district as potential evidence of racial gerrymandering.Justice Gorsuch challenged whether any consideration of race in map-drawing runs afoul of constitutional protections. The Court had previously allowed the new map to be used for the 2024 elections, but a final ruling is expected by June. The outcome could have broad implications for how states navigate the tension between addressing historic racial discrimination in voting and avoiding unconstitutional race-based districting.US Supreme Court wrestles with Louisiana electoral map with more Black-majority districts | ReutersThe Justice Department, under President Trump's direction, has launched an “immediate review” of law firms that have challenged his administration in court, wielding Rule 11 as a tool to pursue sanctions for allegedly frivolous litigation. The memo, issued March 21, empowers Attorney General Pam Bondi to target lawyers not just for recent cases, but for conduct going back eight years—reviving a rarely enforced mechanism that requires legal filings to be non-frivolous and not made for improper purposes. While legal experts note that courts are typically cautious about imposing Rule 11 sanctions, the administration's move is seen as a political shot across the bow of the legal profession.Trump has already threatened prominent firms with revoked security clearances and canceled federal contracts, but one firm, Paul Weiss, avoided penalties by agreeing to a $40 million pro bono commitment to Trump-aligned causes and an audit of its diversity programs. That deal, far from resolving the issue, may have signaled that capitulation invites more pressure. As anyone who's dealt with a bully could have predicted: surrender doesn't end the harassment—it encourages it. The only way to improve your position is to raise the cost of targeting you, yet many law firm leaders (and institutions of higher education, if we're being fair) seem to have missed that lesson the first time they encountered it.Now, those same leaders face the possibility of serious professional consequences for doing exactly what lawyers are supposed to do: advocate for clients and challenge government overreach. Trump's order also singles out individuals like Democratic elections attorney Marc Elias, whom the memo connects to the long-disputed Steele dossier, despite no formal wrongdoing. Critics warn that the DOJ's probe could evolve into a tool to intimidate or sideline legal opposition to Trump, reshaping the legal landscape by discouraging firms from representing those who stand against the administration.Legal scholars have labeled the move a dangerous politicization of Rule 11, pointing out that it essentially makes Bondi the judge and Trump the executioner. In weaponizing a procedural rule with ambiguous standards and rare enforcement, the administration isn't just threatening lawsuits—it's undermining the adversarial system that keeps government power in check.DOJ Launches 'Immediate Review' of Law Firms After Trump MemoCalifornia's new disclosure law on municipal corporate tax-sharing agreements is a welcome move toward transparency, but it's not enough to stop the ongoing drain of public revenue. For years, corporations have exploited the split in California's sales tax—where 1.25% goes to local jurisdictions—by striking deals with cities that offer kickbacks in exchange for routing sales through their borders. This has created a race to the bottom, with municipalities, especially smaller ones, effectively subsidizing some of the world's richest companies in hopes of boosting their own budgets. These deals don't create new economic activity; they just reshuffle where sales are counted and where tax dollars land.While the new law will finally shine a light on these practices starting in April, disclosure without action won't solve the problem. Cities will still have incentives to offer generous tax rebates, and many will rush to lock in long-term deals before limits are imposed. What we need is immediate legislative action to cap how much of their tax base cities can give away. A ceiling tied to a city's budget or economic profile would prevent reckless giveaways while preserving flexibility for true economic development.We should also require that any shared tax revenue be reinvested in local infrastructure or services, not handed over as corporate windfalls. Waiting for more data only gives cover to continue harmful deals that are already draining school, safety, and infrastructure funding. Policymakers don't need years of reports—they need the courage to stop the bleeding now.Transparency Alone Won't Fix California's Corporate Tax Drain 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

Brian flies solo on this edition of Ford News as Johnathan recovers from a bad car accident. (Go wish Johnathan well on X HERE @FordJohnathan5)Segment One is all about the powers of the judiciary. We focus on the rulings of Federal Judge James "Jeb" Boasberg. MAGA thinks he should be impeached for doing his job. MAGA tends to forget The Constitution and the three co-equal branches of government. They also seem to forget that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process rights to all "persons," not just citizens of this country.  Oh, and let's not forget that Boasberg was Brett Kavanaugh's roomie at Yale Law School and was also the federal judge allowing the State Department to release Hilary Clinton's emails. He is far from a "liberal activist judge."In Segment Two, Brian talks about the speaking tour that AOC and Bernie Sanders are on. Thousands of people have come out to see them speak about the rising oligarchy in the United States and the fact that the Trump Administration does not represent the values or the plight of the working class in this country. But, who will be the future messenger and face of the Democratic Party? Will it be AOC or will someone else rise to the occasion? We discuss.LINKS Boasberg and the Judiciaryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Boasberghttps://www.cnn.com/2025/03/22/politics/who-is-judge-james-boasberg/index.htmlhttps://www.axios.com/2025/03/23/trump-boasberg-courts-constitutional-crisishttps://bensguide.gpo.gov/j-check-balanceThe Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee rights to Persons not just Citizens https://www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/equality/due-process-equal-protection-and-disenfranchisement/The Future of the Democratic Partyhttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/23/us/politics/aoc-sanders-democrats-2028.html

Ep. 362 Ken and Dave discuss the Schumer flip, Republicans eating each other, gold versus stocks, federal judges blocking layoffs, SCOTUS takes on the Fourteenth Amendment, and justice for “blackface”.

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship 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

These discriminatory denials violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments and California state law. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

Preview: New Orleans: Fourteenth Amendment: Robert Cwiklik, author "Sheridan's Secret Mission," recovers the spectacular tragedy of the White League attacking the Freedmen of Louisiana and re-establishing brutality post-war -- and how Grant and Sherman failed to stop the crimes. More later. 1871 New Orleans floods

Jeffrey Rosen discusses the 14th Amendment with Sherrilyn Ifill, the head of the 14th Amendment Center for Law & Democracy at Howard Law School and the former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Pamela Brandwein, author of Rethinking the Judicial Settlement of Reconstruction, and Ilan Wurman, author of The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment. They discuss the historical events that gave rise to the 14th Amendment and debate its original meaning. This conversation was originally streamed live as part of the NCC's America's Town Hall program series on February 10, 2025, in partnership with the Federal Judicial Center.  Resources Ilan Wurman, The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment (2020)  Pamela Brandwein, Rethinking the Judicial Settlement of Reconstruction (2011)  Sherrilyn Ifill, “Why are U.S. courts afraid of the 14th Amendment? Because it's radical,” The Washington Post (Nov. 23, 2023)  Sherrilyn Ifill, “Yes, this is America: Why I'm Creating the 14th Amendment Center for Law and Democracy,” Substack (July 7, 2023)  14th Amendment  Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964  The Civil Rights Act of 1866  The Reconstruction Amendments  Brown v. Board of Education  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. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

Most of us know about birthright citizenship, but not many people have ever heard of Wong Kim Ark and the landmark Supreme Court decision that decided both his fate and the fate of a U.S. immigration policy that endures to this day.This is the case that solidified the Fourteenth Amendment as we understand it today.    CLICK HERE: Visit our website to see all of our episodes, donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more! To see Civics 101 in book form, check out A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works by Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice, featuring illustrations by Tom Toro.Check out our other weekly NHPR podcast, Outside/In - we think you'll love it!