Podcasts about Fourteenth Amendment

What Roman Mars Can Learn About Con Law

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 14, 2026 64:25

This episode highlights an often-missed story: the Declaration of Independence didn't just shape the U.S. Constitution—it directly shaped state constitutions, many of which echo its natural-rights language more explicitly than the federal charter. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick argues that reading state constitutional provisions through the Declaration can strengthen enforceable limits on government power. The conversation reframes the Declaration from anniversary rhetoric into a practical interpretive tool in living state constitutional law. Bolick traces a two-way influence between the Declaration and early state charters, pointing to founding-era texts like Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights as a roadmap for Jefferson's phrasing—and noting that later state constitutions continued to incorporate Declaration principles such as equality, popular sovereignty, and inalienable rights. He then connects those ideas to modern doctrine, arguing that state courts can treat natural-rights provisions as meaningful constraints (or interpretive “prisms”) rather than mere preambles, with recent state supreme court decisions illustrating how the Declaration's ideals can translate into concrete protections today. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters: [00:00:26] Chapter 1 — McConnell's framing: the “hidden” constitutional story in state charters The host introduces how state constitutions borrow explicitly from the Declaration and why that matters for modern rights protection. [00:05:59] Chapter 2 — Bolick's thesis: an “enduring symbiosis” between the Declaration and state constitutions Bolick argues the Declaration's influence on state constitutional text and interpretation is deeper and more direct than its influence on the U.S. Constitution. [00:10:46] Chapter 3 — Origins and transmission: Virginia's 1776 rights language and state constitution “laboratories” Bolick explains the two-way borrowing between early state constitutions and the Declaration, including George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights. [00:27:57] Chapter 4 — From principles to doctrine: natural-rights clauses as enforceable limits (with cases) Bolick lays out how courts have used natural-rights provisions as substantive protections or interpretive tools, citing key state cases and modern disputes. [00:46:34] Chapter 5 — Ford's recorded response + Bolick rebuttal: state power, natural rights, and the limits of the frame Ford praises state constitutionalism but complicates the natural-rights narrative; Bolick responds, emphasizing both self-government and enforceable individual rights. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

rights origins constitution declaration thomas jefferson benjamin franklin declaration of independence mcconnell pursuit of happiness john adams simplecast james madison federalism george mason fourteenth amendment arizona supreme court natural rights state constitutions equal protection bolick michael mcconnell ninth amendment clint bolick pam karlan stanford legal

Who Gets To Be a Citizen?

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 13, 2026 48:58

The Supreme Court narrowly upheld birthright citizenship in the 5-4 decision of Trump v. Barbara. But the debate over who is granted citizenship — and who can be stripped of it — is far from over. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

donald trump supreme court citizens immigration simplecast birthright citizenship fourteenth amendment japanese american internment

What the Fourteenth Amendment Protects

Letters from an American

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 10, 2026 8:42

July 9, 2026On July 9, 1868, Americans changed the US Constitution for the 14th time, The Fourteenth Amendment brought the principles of the Declaration to life, requiring the Federal government to protect the equal rights of all American men, The Thirteenth Amendment prohibited slavery on the basis of race, but did not guarantee equality for Black Americans, The Fourteenth Amendment took on the Dred Scott v Sandford decision and provided that all persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US, It also overturned the idea that democracy was created at the state level, forbidding states from making laws that were discriminatory, The principles of the Fourteenth Amendment were behind civil rights decisions of the 50s, 60s, and 70s, Opponents objected, and called for “originalism,” an idea promoted by Robert Bork who was nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan, Reaction to the nomination recognized the importance of the Fourteenth Amendment to equality.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

american americans supreme court letters federal declaration blue sky reaction ronald reagan black americans protects opponents us constitution fourteenth amendment dred scott sandford robert bork thirteenth amendment

From the Courthouse Steps: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.

vice president supreme court ethics fellow west virginia civil rights title ix religious liberties courthouse education policy fourteenth amendment equal protection clause senior legal fellow

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 10, 2026 32:01 Transcription Available

In the consolidated cases Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the Supreme Court held that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states or schools from determining sports eligibility based on biological sex. Join us for a Courthouse Steps webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what it may mean for Title IX, equal protection doctrine, school athletics, and future litigation over sex-based classifications.Featuring:Rachel N. Morrison, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy CenterSarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Senior Legal Fellow, Defending Education

From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Barbara

united states university donald trump law professor supreme court immigration courthouse trump v fourteenth amendment solicitor general in trump minnesota law school richmond school

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 9, 2026 45:42 Transcription Available

In Trump v. Barbara, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, even if their parents are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country, as they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision and the separate opinions.Featuring:Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of LawEric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney GeneralProf. Ilan Wurman, Professor, University of Minnesota Law School

From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Barbara

united states university donald trump law professor supreme court immigration courthouse trump v fourteenth amendment solicitor general in trump minnesota law school richmond school

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 9, 2026 45:42 Transcription Available

In Trump v. Barbara, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, even if their parents are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country, as they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision and the separate opinions. Featuring: Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General Prof. Ilan Wurman, Professor, University of Minnesota Law School

Legal News for Thurs 7/9 - SAVE Database Weaponized Against Voter Rolls, DOJ Threatens State Election Officials and ex-Olympians Bogus DC Reflecting Pool Charges

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 9, 2026 8:34

This Day in Legal History: The Fourteenth Amendment Is RatifiedOn July 9, 1868, South Carolina and Louisiana became the final two states needed to push the Fourteenth Amendment over the three-quarters threshold, and with their votes the amendment was ratified into the Constitution. It is, by almost any measure, the most consequential of the Reconstruction amendments and arguably the most important addition to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights.The amendment was written to answer the central question left open by the Civil War and the abolition of slavery: what did freedom actually mean, and who was entitled to it? Its first section does an enormous amount of work in a single sentence. It establishes birthright citizenship—declaring that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of both the nation and their state. It then forbids any state from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens, from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying any person the equal protection of the laws. Those three clauses—privileges or immunities, due process, and equal protection—became the constitutional text on which vast stretches of modern American law are built.The historical purpose was direct. The framers of the amendment, led in the House by John Bingham, wanted to overrule Dred Scott, which had held that Black Americans could not be citizens, and to constitutionalize the civil rights protections Congress had already tried to enact by statute—putting them beyond the reach of any future hostile Congress or Southern legislature. They understood that emancipation without citizenship and equal protection would be a hollow victory, and they wrote a guarantee that applied against the states, not just the federal government.The significance of July 9, 1868 is hard to overstate, because so much of what we argue about today runs directly through this text. The Equal Protection Clause is the basis of Brown v. Board of Education and school desegregation, of Loving v. Virginia striking down bans on interracial marriage, and of Obergefell recognizing marriage equality. The Due Process Clause became the vehicle for incorporating most of the Bill of Rights against the states, so that free speech, free exercise, and protections for the criminally accused bind state governments too. And the Citizenship Clause is the reason that birthright citizenship is a constitutional guarantee rather than a policy preference—as the Supreme Court reaffirmed just this past term. When you hear debates about who counts as a citizen, what process the government owes a person before it takes something from them, or whether a law treats people equally, you are hearing an argument about the amendment ratified on this date.A federal judge in Florida has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to keep giving four Republican-led states—Florida, Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio—access to a federal database those states use to check whether registered voters are citizens. The order, from U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II in Pensacola, lets the states continue using the system while the underlying legal fight plays out.The database is called SAVE—Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements—a federal system historically used to verify immigration status for benefits. After a revamp last year, it became far more powerful for election purposes: users could search many records at once, and it exposed individuals' Social Security numbers. Several Republican-led states began comparing their voter rolls against SAVE and canceling the registrations of people the database flagged as noncitizens. The problem is what happens when the database is wrong or out of date—people who are in fact citizens can get flagged and purged.That risk is exactly why this ruling sits in tension with another one. Just weeks earlier, on June 22, a different federal judge in Washington, D.C., restricted broader use of the database, warning that relying on it could result in eligible voters being wrongly stripped from the rolls. So you now have two federal courts pointing in different directions—one worried about wrongful purges and limiting the database's use, and one ordering DHS to keep the spigot open for these four states. When trial courts split like this, the disagreement typically has to be resolved higher up, and it means the rules can differ depending on which state and which courtroom you're standing in.The significance is that this is a live fight over the machinery of voter-roll maintenance heading into a midterm election year. There's a genuine and legitimate interest in keeping noncitizens off the voter rolls—but there's an equally real risk that a blunt, error-prone matching process disenfranchises actual citizens who then have to fight to get back on. This ruling tilts toward giving states the verification tool; the D.C. ruling tilts toward protecting against wrongful removals. Watch the appellate courts, because the boundary between list maintenance and unlawful voter purging is about to get drawn more sharply.US judge orders four states be given access to citizenship data for voter checks | ReutersIn a closely related development, the Justice Department has sent letters to all fifty states warning that state and local election officials could face criminal prosecution if they allow noncitizens to remain on their voter rolls. The letters, from Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Department's Civil Rights Division, give officials just five days to respond with a plan to comply. The federal government does have statutes on the books aimed at protecting the integrity of elections and barring noncitizens from voting, and the letters invoke several of them. But the ordinary way these laws work is that you prosecute a person who actually votes illegally, or who knowingly facilitates fraud. What's unusual here is the target: the letters put state and local election administrators—the people who maintain the rolls—on notice that they personally could be charged. That reframes routine election administration as potential criminal exposure for the officials doing it.Think about the position this puts an election official in. Maintaining accurate voter rolls is genuinely hard—people move, die, naturalize, and occasionally register in error—and every state already has processes for it. Now imagine being told by the U.S. Department of Justice that if the federal government later decides your rolls were inadequate, you could be a criminal defendant, and you have five days to send in a compliance plan. Even if few or no prosecutions ever materialize, the threat itself is designed to change behavior—to push officials toward more aggressive purging out of fear of personal liability. Critics call that coercion; the Department frames it as enforcement.The significance is about federal pressure on the decentralized American election system. Elections in this country are run by states and localities, deliberately, so that no single national authority controls the vote. Democratic officials in states like Michigan pushed back hard, noting they've already taken extensive steps to ensure only eligible voters can vote. The letters, arriving alongside the SAVE database fight, are part of a coordinated push ahead of the midterms, and they raise a serious question about the line between legitimate federal enforcement of election laws and using the threat of prosecution to lean on the officials who administer them.US Justice Department tells state officials they could be prosecuted over noncitizen voting | ReutersAnd in a very different kind of case, a former Olympic canoe racer, David Hearn, pleaded not guilty in D.C. Superior Court to a felony charge of deliberately damaging the recently renovated Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Hearn, who is 67 and competed in three Summer Olympics, entered his plea through an attorney at his first court appearance, and his lawyers have described the prosecution as an abuse of power built on what they call a “concocted narrative.”The Reflecting Pool sits on the National Mall between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument and had just undergone a roughly $16 million renovation. Hearn has said he was stopped by National Guard troops and U.S. Park Police and detained for about five hours after pausing at the pool during a 64-mile bike ride in June. He was later indicted on a single felony count of property destruction. The top federal prosecutor for D.C., U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, said six other people were arrested on misdemeanor charges connected to damage at the same site.The legal question worth watching is the gap between the charge and the conduct. Property-destruction law generally requires proof that the defendant intentionally caused the damage, and a felony charge usually turns on the dollar value of that damage. Hearn's defense is essentially that the government has manufactured intent and seriousness out of an innocent encounter—that a man pausing on a bike ride has been turned into a felony defendant. The judge apparently agreed there was little flight or danger risk: Hearn was released without court supervision pending an August 5 status hearing, which tells you something about how the court currently views the threat he poses.The significance here is less about one damaged pool and more about the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Deciding whom to charge, and whether to charge a felony versus a misdemeanor versus nothing at all, is one of the most powerful and least reviewable choices in the legal system. When critics call a prosecution politically motivated or an abuse of power, they're pointing at that discretion. Whether this case is a legitimate property-crime prosecution (it isn't) or an overreach (it is) is exactly what the coming proceedings will test—and it's a useful reminder that the same charging power that holds genuine wrongdoers accountable can also be aimed in ways that raise real fairness concerns.Former US Olympian pleads not guilty in Reflecting Pool vandalism case | 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

united states american education house washington olympic games michigan ohio elections board loving congress indiana iowa reflecting supreme court south carolina republicans rights louisiana civil war maintaining southern democratic pool constitution property olympians deciding critics voters charges social security homeland security black americans national guard reconstruction databases summer olympics threatens justice department dhs pensacola weaponized bogus hearn national mall lincoln memorial superior court obergefell state elections fourteenth amendment washington monument entitlements dred scott us justice department civil rights division harmeet dhillon election officials voter rolls equal protection clause legalnews park police due process clause john bingham david hearn

From the Courthouse Steps: Wolford v. Lopez

partner hawaii supreme court lopez second amendment courthouse fourteenth amendment wolford senior legal fellow

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 8, 2026 31:36 Transcription Available

In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court held that Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. In a 6-3 decision, the majority reasoned that the restrictions fell within the plain text of the Second Amendment and that Hawaii’s proffered historical analogues did not support the constitutionality of its new default rule.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Wolford may mean for Second Amendment litigation.Featuring:Amy E. Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American FreedomJohn Ohlendorf, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC

Intended Consequences: Race and Retribution

Prosecuting Donald Trump

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 6, 2026 57:09

Mary and Andrew start with a deeper dive into the Supreme Court's decision to allow the removal of Temporary Protected Status designations from over 330,000 immigrants from Haiti and Syria — a consequential ruling that affects TPS holders well beyond those who brought the case, leaving over a million people vulnerable to removal. As Andrew notes, this case was based on two claims: one being a statutory challenge that DHS didn't follow the procedures set out by Congress, and the other a constitutional equal protection claim that this TPS status removal was “motivated in part by race” — both of which were struck down 6-3. Then, a look at Trump's latest retribution efforts including the heavy sentences doled out over a protest that ended in a shooting outside the ICE Prairieland Detention Center inTexas one year ago; a felony indictment of former Olympian David Hearn for allegedly tearing part of the liner of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool; and former CIA Director John Brennan going on offense to challenge the DOJ's investigation into him. Plus, Mary and Andrew analyze the DOJ's response to a “show cause” order to unredact some of the Epstein files in a lawsuit filed by journalist Katie Phang. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

jesus christ president ai donald trump mexico law race war ms fire elections elon musk alabama barack obama racism judge congress iran executives middle east legal decision decisions supreme court lawyers ice consequences venezuela mississippi new mexico immigration judgement attorney syria haiti olympians framework epstein election day rhode island denial lawsuit appeal el salvador msnbc declaration jeffrey epstein verdict federal reserve allies scotus firing attorney generals doj executive orders ftc sexual abuse international relations judicial 2020 election jd vance protesters data centers legislative rnc avoidance litigation dhs indictment nomination retribution intended ballots district attorney prosecution mar a lago simplecast iran war religious freedom federal trade commission defamation refusal gerrymandering grand jury air pollution tro tps lining federal judges supreme court decisions iran deal memorandum xai birthright citizenship lincoln memorial republican national committee fourth amendment john brennan department of justice executive branch 14th amendment appeals court us border fourteenth amendment clean air act lisa cook cia director presidential immunity mail in ballots temporary protected status catholic diocese nonpartisan 4th amendment cia director john brennan judicial branch judicial review executive actions legislative branch andrew weissmann temporary restraining order katie phang mary mccord david hearn prosecuting donald trump main justice alabama election

Ann Coulter: Birthright Citizenship Is ABSURD, Stephen Miller Goes NUCLEAR On Supreme Court ‘This is SUICIDE', PragerU- What Is Birthright Citizenship?

American Conservative University

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 6, 2026 23:58

Ann Coulter: Birthright Citizenship Is ABSURD, Stephen Miller Goes NUCLEAR On Supreme Court ‘This is SUICIDE…', PragerU- What Is Birthright Citizenship? Stephen Miller Goes NUCLEAR On Supreme Court In SAVAGE On-Air Rant: ‘This is SUICIDE…' Ann Coulter: Birthright Citizenship Is ABSURD What Is Birthright Citizenship? 5-Minute Videos. PragerU Stephen Miller Goes NUCLEAR On Supreme Court In SAVAGE On-Air Rant: ‘This is SUICIDE…' Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/eiWw3kGOnGY?si=J6BwFI2xwwAUNeg1 Benny Johnson 6.1M subscribers 89,853 views Jul 1, 2026 Stephen Miller went off If you want to help support independent journalism, become a Member: / @bennyjohnson FOLLOW BENNY ON SOCIALS: https://www.bennyjohnson.com/follow CHECK OUT OUR MERCH: https://shop.bennyjohnson.com/ Sign up for The Benny Newsletter: https://www.bennyjohnson.com/newsletter SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST https://www.bennyjohnson.com/thebenny... Ann Coulter: Birthright Citizenship Is ABSURD https://youtu.be/lApoF5aM-lw?si=09dzhevwAZth2PdK The American Conservative 13.3K subscribers 13,176 views Jul 1, 2026 This is a segment from a longer conversation between Andrew Day and Ann Coulter recorded May 20, 2026: • Ann Coulter Talks Massie's Loss, Rubio vs.... Follow Day and Coulter on X. Andrew Day: https://x.com/AKDay89 Ann Coulter: https://x.com/AnnCoulter A new video by The American Conservative Magazine, a publication of the American Ideas Institute. ------ ► Support The American Conservative's Mission to reclaim "Main Street" Conservatism https://www.theamericanconservative.c... Follow The American Conservative on Social Media: Twitter - / amconmag Facebook - / the.american.conservative Instagram – / amconmag YouTube – / amconmag ◎ Subscribe to the The American Conservative's Podcasts" https://www.theamericanconservative.c... What Is Birthright Citizenship? 5-Minute Videos. PragerU Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/MkgspNujMHg?si=eqfXyxJFQHksstAQ Do children born on U.S. soil automatically become American citizens? Many claim the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that they do. Are they right? Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, confronts this question head-on. PragerU 3.45M subscribers 5,880 views Premiered Jun 30, 2026 5-Minute Videos Transcript: What Is Birthright Citizenship? Presented by Amy Swearer Does the Constitution grant citizenship to anyone born in the United States? Even the children of people who've entered the country illegally? Or the children of foreign tourists who owe our country no allegiance? That's the question underlying the controversial issue of birthright citizenship. Many people today take it for granted that the answer is yes: if you're born on American soil, you're an American citizen. Period. End of issue. But is that what the Constitution says? Let's first look at the text of that document, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment. It reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...” Case closed, right? Not so fast. The key phrase here is, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” — it creates a second condition for birthright citizenship beyond merely being born on American soil. But it also raises another question: who is born subject to U.S. jurisdiction? To answer that question, we need some historical context. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, just three years after the end of the Civil War. Its purpose was to rectify the infamous 1857 Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which the Court declared that black Americans were not and could never be citizens. Even after slavery was abolished in 1865, Dred Scott technically remained the law of the land. Black Americans were left in limbo—they were no longer slaves, but they still were not citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment resolved the issue, once and for all. These newly freed slaves and their descendants were certainly born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This had been their home for generations. If they were not American citizens, to which other nation did they still belong? So while the Fourteenth Amendment resolved the issue as it related to race, its authors would have been shocked to learn that we now interpret these words to make citizens of virtually anyone born on U.S. soil, under all circumstances. As Yale Law Professor William C. Robinson explained in his 1875 legal treatise, the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship only to those “born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States”—a condition that requires, at minimum, lawful permanent residence in this country. This was also the original understanding of the federal government. In 1885, for example, the State Department rejected the citizenship claim of a man named Richard Greisser. Yes, Greisser had been born in Ohio eighteen years earlier, but his German parents never intended to stay in the United States. They returned with their son to Germany shortly after his birth. Because Greisser's parents did not owe the United States political allegiance, their son wasn't born subject to its jurisdiction, at least not within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause. Similarly, in 1890, the Justice Department considered the citizenship claim of a child born to one Mary Devereaux, a pregnant Irish woman being held on a ship in New York Harbor. While awaiting immigration approval, Devereaux left the ship for medical treatment and subsequently gave birth in a New York hospital. Authorities later denied her immigration application. Because Devereaux wasn't eligible for lawful admission to the U.S., her U.S.-born daughter was not recognized as a U.S. citizen. Both mother and child were sent back to Ireland. The Supreme Court addressed the question of birthright citizenship in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong was born and raised in San Francisco, the son of Chinese immigrants. In 1895, after a short trip to China, Wong returned to the U.S., only to be detained by authorities and threatened with deportation. Wong sued, arguing that he was an American citizen by birth. The Supreme Court agreed. Access the full transcript here...

No Occasion for Despair

Plodcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 6, 2026 15:59

IT'S HERE! Pre-Order the 4th installment of the Ashtown Burial Series at ashtownburials.com.In this episode, Douglas Wilson considers the Supreme Court's birthright-citizenship decision and possible paths forward, examines the sin of making and worshiping the golden calf, and reviews Kurt Vonnegut's practical writing advice in Pity the Reader. For more from Doug, subscribe to Canon+: https://canonplus.com/

S E1331: In Class with Carr, Ep. 330: “Belonging Beyond 1776: The Semiquincentennial Blues”

This Is Karen Hunter

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 6, 2026 144:57

As the United States notes the 250th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence, it confronts its deepest crisis of structural political integrity since its Civil War and Reconstruction. The ritual corridor between Juneteenth and July 4 exposes the widening gap between US founding mythologies and its lived political realities. This year's observance arrives amid the Trump administration's transformation of the government's America250 commemoration into a religio-fascist, cult of personality-driven “Freedom 250” spectacle, while the Supreme Court's 6-3/5-4 Birthright Citizenship ruling in Trump v. Barbara saw four justices prepared to abandon the Reconstruction/Second Founding itself by effectively rewriting the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Taken together with renewed efforts to restrict immigration, weaken the administrative state, and redefine citizenship, these developments raise the central question of this year's semiquincentennial: what becomes of a polity built on competing definitions of belonging when its white nationalist-fueled authority permanently fractures? Using the Africana Studies framework, today's session continues the work of reframing the semi-quincentennial not as a celebration of 1776 but as an opportunity to rethink time, citizenship, and political community through the last 250 years of African self-determination. Provoked in part by the competing constitutional visions of Black Justices Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson and Clarence Thomas, we examine citizenship as both shield and struggle, contrasting narratives of inclusion, fealty, and liberation. From the Negro Convention Movement and Reconstruction to today's battles over birthright citizenship, the SAVE Act, and the policing of bodies and borders, we ask whether the US is entering a post-white nationalist era of rebirth or the final stage of an empire unable to survive its founding contradictions. By tracing Africana Governance work in fifty-year intervals, we use this symbolic anniversary to connect movements, rituals, institutions, and ideas that reveal far deeper meaning than any official national narrative,, laying the foundation for the remaining part of this year's continuing exploration of liberation, governance, memory, and self-determination.Are you a member of Knarrative? If not, we invite you to join our community today by signing up at: https://www.knarrative.com. As a Knarrative subscriber, you'll gain immediate access to Knubia, our growing community of teachers, learners, thinkers, doers, artists, and creators. Together, we're making a generational commitment to our collective interests, work, and responsibilities. Join us at https://www.knarrative.com and download the Knubia app through your app store or by visiting https://community.knarrative.com.To shop Go to:TheGlobalMajorityMore from us:Follow on X: https://x.com/knarrative_https://x.com/inclasswithcarrFollow on Instagram IG / knarrative IG/ inclasswithcarr Follow Dr. Carr: https://www.drgregcarr.comhttps://x.com/AfricanaCarrFollow Karen Hunter: https://karenhuntershow.comhttps://x.com/karenhunter IG / karenhuntershowSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Birthright Citizenship and the Future of the Fourteenth Amendment

The WorldView in 5 Minutes

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 6, 2026 33:17

Stanford's Fred Smith examines the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship decision, its historical roots in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the questions the Court leaves unresolved. --- The Fourteenth Amendment opens with a simple constitutional promise: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. In a closely divided Supreme Court decision, that understanding of birthright citizenship is once again tested through competing readings of text, history, and precedent. In this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Fred Smith, a leading scholar of the federal courts, joins Pam Karlan to examine the Court's ruling in Trump v. Barbara and the history behind the Citizenship Clause. The discussion traces the Clause to Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to Black Americans, and to the Reconstruction-era effort to overturn it, as well as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood to affirm birthright citizenship for those born on U.S. soil. The discussion highlights deeper disagreements over how that history should shape constitutional meaning today. Smith and Karlan explore tensions between originalist approaches, reliance on precedent, and questions about congressional authority over citizenship. At stake is not only the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the broader question of who the Constitution recognizes as part of the American political community—and who gets to decide. Links: Fred Smith >>> Stanford Law School Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

united states american donald trump court supreme court stanford constitution black americans brett kavanaugh reconstruction clause simplecast federal court samuel alito sonia sotomayor neil gorsuch immigration law birthright citizenship stanford law school justice thomas fourteenth amendment dred scott sandford fred smith equal protection clause thirteenth amendment wong kim ark civil rights law english common law statutory interpretation pam karlan stanford legal

Constitutional Law Foundations: Due Process, Incorporation, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Protections, Takings, and Property Rights

Law School

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 5, 2026 61:19

public rights foundations property fundamental protections constitutional law due process property rights procedural incorporation fifth amendment fourteenth amendment fundamental rights substantive takings takings clause

“Young Washington” movie in theaters tonight; Clarence Thomas: Birthright citizenship devalues what it means to be American citizen; Ethiopian Christian convert from Islam attacked and forced to flee

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 3, 2026

It's Friday, July 3rd, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Ethiopian Christian convert from Islam attacked and forced to flee As a child in Gawo Kebe, Ethiopia, Taha Dinka faithfully attended the mosque and adhered to his community's Islamic beliefs. He never imagined his life would ever take a different direction, reports International Christian Concern. In 2019, Dinka heard the Gospel and decided to follow Jesus. He said, “When I accepted Christ, I felt peace in my life. I believed God had rescued me from darkness.” However, the decision that brought him hope also opened the door for rejection, threats, and persecution. Soon after his conversion, Dinka began facing strong opposition from those closest to him because of his faith in Christ. Dinka said, “People I loved turned against me, and some even told me I had betrayed my family and my religion. Others warned me that I would suffer or die if I continued following Christ.” Christian converts from Islam in Muslim-majority areas often face violence and even death threats. In August 2025, Dinka said, “I was violently attacked and forcefully removed from my home because I had refused to renounce Christianity. The attacks left me injured and traumatized. I was beaten because I would not deny Jesus. At that moment, I realized my life was truly in danger.” He was forced to flee in search of safety. In Matthew 10:22, Jesus said, "You will be hated by everyone because of Me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” House Speaker Johnson puts SAVE Act in budget reconciliation bill Here in the United States, On Wednesday. House Speaker Mike Johnson said he is aiming to push the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE America Act, through a third budget reconciliation bill, reports NewsNation. Johnson's remarks came shortly after President Trump canceled a signing ceremony for a sweeping bipartisan housing package, saying he will not sign the legislation until the Senate passes the voter ID bill. The SAVE America Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and the presentation of an ID to cast a ballot. The bill passed the House, but has stalled in the Senate, where Democrats have vowed to oppose it, leaving it short of the votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has repeatedly dismissed Trump's calls to eliminate or reform the filibuster in order to pass the bill. Johnson talked to the president about adding the SAVE America Act to the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA so that the entire bill including the funding of the troops and the SAVE America Act would only need a simple majority vote. Here's Speaker Johnson at the Wednesday press conference. JOHNSON: “The SAVE America Act, as passed in February unanimously by all Republicans -- and that's components of the proof of citizenship to register to vote and voter ID when you show up to vote, that will be merged onto the [National Defense Authorization Act] and transmitted to the Senate as one bill. That's the most efficient, effective way to do it.” Call your two Senators at 202-224-3121 and urge them, whether they are Democrat or Republican, to support the National Defense Authorization Act which has the SAVE America Act added to it. Clarence Thomas: Birthright citizenship devalues what it means to be American citizen In a lengthy dissent, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took the majority to task for interpreting the Constitution to mean that citizenship is automatically conferred on anyone born in the United States, regardless of the legal status of the parents, Thomas argued that the ruling “devalues” what it means to be an American citizen. In the 6-3 decision on June 30th, the majority held that an executive order President Donald Trump issued on the first day of his second term violated the Constitution. The order directed that only children born on American soil to legal residents are automatically citizens of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment states, in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” In his dissent, Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, noted as Trump previously argued, that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. It was in direct response to the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision of 1857, which held that blacks were not citizens. Thomas wrote, “Both the Civil Rights Act [of 1866] and the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race. Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States.” He added, “Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority,” Under Trump's proposal, birthright citizenship would be limited to those with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Babies born to temporary visitors or people who entered the country illegally would not be citizens at birth, reports NBC News. Young Washington movie in theaters tonight On the cusp of America's 250th birthday tomorrow, Angel Studios* and Wonder Project release the movie “Young Washington” nationwide tonight. Watch the trailer. It follows the early life of George Washington as he transforms from an ambitious, awkward youth into a military commander. Facing class barriers, he secures a job surveying the Ohio Valley, only to stumble into the bloody triggers of the French and Indian War. Directed by Jon Erwin, who also produced the House of David TV series, the historical drama explores Washington's steep climb into Virginia's upper crust. William Franklyn-Miller, the 22-year-old British actor, portrays George Washington, Ben Kingsley portrays Robert Dinwiddie, and Kelsey Grammer portrays Thomas Fairfax. When setbacks shake George's faith in a kind, loving God, he gets angry. He tells his mother, “Providence placed me here. Why? For me to fail?” Focus on the Family says that Mary Washington, George's mother, serves up one of the movie's best lines. She says, “Failure is the tutor sent by God. If you don't learn from it, you fail twice. If you do learn from it, you've earned wisdom.” After George improbably survives a disastrous battle, a Native American chief—one who fought alongside the French—demands to meet George. His own warriors had George in their sights repeatedly. He claims they “never miss.” And yet, somehow, George stands before him, uninjured. The Indian chief tells him, “The Creator chose you. You have been shielded by the Spirit.” (Get the booklet entitled The Bulletproof George Washington by David Barton) Shortly thereafter, George shows up in Virginia Lt. Gov. Robert Dinwiddie's office with a bullet hole in his hat and a well-earned reputation for surviving impossible situations. Listen to the scene from the “Young Washington” movie. DINWIDDIE: “What happened, Washington? All those bullet holes in your jacket? How are you alive?” WASHINGTON: “I don't know.” Proverbs 16:9 says, "A man's heart plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps". The movie, Young Washington, dramatizes the events leading up to the French and Indian War, including the war's initial bloody triggers. PluggedIn.com warns that the film is not suitable for young children because there's plenty of fighting, shooting and chopping. And while none of it is particularly bloody or gory, it may come as a shock for those expecting a gentler “Christian” film. *Note: Angel Studios is owned by the Mormons also known as the “Church” of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Worldview cautions our listeners to remember that Mormons teach a false gospel and an unbiblical worldview. So, please be discerning in the viewing of any Angel Studios productions. 15-year-old listener from Eswatini, Africa sounds off Yesterday, 21 Worldview listeners took the time to send me an email about what they enjoy about this newscast. I'll be sharing their emails throughout this month. If you are one of the 21 people who wrote me, thank you! Eli McSeveney, a 15-year-old in Eswatini, Africa, bordered by South Africa and Mozambique, wrote me at Adam@TheWorldview.com. He said, “We listen to The Worldview in 5 Minutes every day, mid-morning, when we take a break from our homeschool over a cup of tea. I love that I can trust the facts you give, unlike CNN. But my favorite part is right at the end, when you urge us to ‘Seize the day for Jesus Christ!' “Quinn, age 13, said, ‘I love how Mr. Adam McManus addresses the transgender issue. He says a man, who is ‘pretending to be woman.' And the regular updates on the persecution of Christians throughout the world is eye opening.' “And Bianca, my mom, said, ‘Thank you for your team's faithfulness in bringing us truth. We find that you help us make sense of the news, and we feel hopeful instead of distraught. And thank you for the Bible verses that shed light on how to interpret what is going on.'” 7 Worldview listeners gave $800 yesterday Yesterday, 7 Worldview listeners stepped up to the plate and invested their treasure to ensure that The Worldview stays on the air for another 365 days. Our thanks to Jason in Fairbanks, Alaska and Steven in Jacksonville, Florida – both of whom gave $50. We're grateful to God for Janice in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Susan in Hoyt, Kansas – both of whom gave $100. And we appreciate the generosity of Samuel in Fellsmere, Florida and Jeremy in Swansea, Wales -- both of whom gave $150 as well as Linda in Hanahan, South Carolina who gave $200. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please. (drum roll sound effect) $2,562. (sound effect of people cheering) In the first three days of our month-long fundraiser, we are seriously behind! We need to raise $9,888 by 12 midnight tonight, Friday, July 3rd – when a lot of people are on vacation -- to get back on track toward our $123,500 finish line come July 31st. I've got 2 brainstorms. First, would you consider being one of 30 listeners to make a donation, no matter how small? Whether it's $5 or $500, give what you feel the Lord has placed on your heart. Second, if the Lord has blessed you financially, would you be open to being one of 5 people to give a one-time gift of $1,000? Go to TheWorldview.com, click on Give, select the dollar amount, and make sure to click on the “recurring” button if that's your wish. This Christian newscast does not bow to our politically correct culture. We champion the truth and a Biblical worldview. That is why you love it! Invest in it today so that this newscast can continue. Again, go to TheWorldview.com, click on Give. Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, July 3rd, in the year of our Lord 2026. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

united states america god jesus christ american family spotify donald trump movies church lord babies spirit bible house washington state americans british french young gospel africa christians creator christianity failure philadelphia focus pennsylvania theater south africa indian facing biblical cnn proverbs alaska invest south carolina kansas republicans muslims democrats id civil war islam senate native americans wales constitution google play senators generations providence jacksonville mormon forced directed south dakota ethiopia islamic gov app store drum convert george washington amazon music blacks ethiopian nbc news seize attacked flee worldview in matthew mozambique clarence thomas swansea latter day saints civil rights act fairbanks neil gorsuch hoyt birthright citizenship kelsey grammer ben kingsley american citizens ndaa national defense authorization act eswatini house speaker mike johnson newsnation indian wars fourteenth amendment dred scott ohio valley mary washington dinka this christian jon erwin under trump house speaker johnson virginia lt pluggedin hanahan

Today's Poll Question: Should U.S. citizenship require allegiance - or just being born here?

The Smerconish Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 3, 2026 11:25

Today's Poll Question at Smerconish.com: Should U.S. citizenship require allegiance or just being born here? The Supreme Court reaffirmed birthright citizenship, but Michael argues the legal ruling doesn't end the policy debate. He explains why he believes the Court correctly interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment while asking whether automatic citizenship based solely on birthplace remains the right approach. Drawing on international comparisons, Justice Samuel Alito's dissent, the naturalization process, and his own experience speaking at a citizenship ceremony, Michael explores whether American citizenship should be rooted in allegiance, consent, and commitment—or continue to be granted simply by birth on U.S. soil. Listen here, then vote! And be sure to rate, review and share this podcast! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

american drawing court supreme court scotus citizenship require allegiance simplecast samuel alito birthright citizenship fourteenth amendment poll question smerconish should u

Defying Reason - Ep 26-260

The Kevin Jackson Show

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 2, 2026 38:40

[X] SB – Scott Jennings about America under attackThe Constitution isn't a scratch-off lottery ticket. You don't accidentally win citizenship because your mom's contractions beat TSA.[X] SB – Part 2Some people read the Fourteenth Amendment like it's a promotional flyer: Congratulations! Free citizenship! No purchase necessary."The Founders wrote a Constitution. Today, some people read it like it's a coupon.Given these stats, it's no wonder people want to drop anchor babies in America.In ONE STATE they matched SNAP records with Vehicle registrations and found 14,000 with luxury cars 3 Bentleys 3 Ferraris 11 Lamborghinis 59 Maseratis 41 Porsches 244 Alfa Romeos 306 Land Rovers 2,098 Teslas. 3,636 Lexuses, 2,560 Mercedes 1,914 BMWsFor a country we're constantly told is collapsing under the weight of racism, capitalism, climate change, gluten, and mean tweets... there sure are a lot of people trying to get in.Nobody's advertising:"Vacation in North Korea. Stay for the freedom."Nobody's saying,"Honey, book that emergency flight to Somalia. The baby's due Thursday!"If America is such a horrible place, why is there an entire global industry dedicated to getting American citizenship?There are consultants.Lawyers.Travel agencies.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Georgia Politics: Rick Jackson, Jon Ossoff, Mike Collins & SCOTUS Decisions

Peach Pundit Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 2, 2026 67:14

America turns 250, and Georgia politics is not taking the holiday week off. Scot Turner and Buzz Brockway break down the latest in the Georgia governor's race, including Rick Jackson's push for Republican unity, the lingering divide with Burt Jones, Shelley Winter's endorsement, and the Jackson campaign's increasingly sharp social-media game against Keisha Lance Bottoms. They also revisit the Georgia special session and Scot's conversation with Lt. Gov. nominee Greg Dolezal about the election-bill compromise, Senate negotiations, and how quickly assumptions can change under the Gold Dome. Then, the conversation turns to Jon Ossoff's opening attack on Mike Collins over former chief of staff Brandon Phillips, whether that message will stick with voters, and the broader fight for Georgia's U.S. Senate seat. Finally, Scot and Buzz dig into the biggest recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions through a Georgia lens: campaign-finance coordination, the future of Georgia political parties and PACs, girls' sports and the Riley Gaines Act, absentee ballots received after Election Day, UOCAVA ballots, and the ongoing debate over birthright citizenship. In this episode: Rick Jackson, Burt Jones, Keisha Lance Bottoms, and Georgia GOP unity Shelley Winter endorses Rick Jackson Greg Dolezal and the special-session election bill Jon Ossoff's attack on Mike Collins and Brandon Phillips Brian Kemp's suspensions of Georgia sheriffs NRSC v. FEC and what it could mean for Georgia campaign finance law The Riley Gaines Act and women's sports Absentee ballot deadlines, UOCAVA ballots, and election confidence Birthright citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment, and constitutional process America's 250th birthday and the Fourth of July Peach Pundit Podcast is Georgia's conversation about politics, elections, campaigns, public policy, and the people shaping the Peach State.

Birthright Citizenship Is Not a Presidential Permission Slip | TMP #1084

Let's Talk: The Tony Michaels Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 2, 2026 4:59

Send us Fan MailBirthright citizenship is not a presidential permission slip.In today's Opening Argument, Tony Michaels tells the story of a barbershop just outside Atlanta, Georgia, where three American stories collide: one family from Ireland, one family brought here in chains, and one American born here to parents from Haiti.The question is simple, but dangerous:Who gets to decide who belongs?Donald Trump's attempt to challenge birthright citizenship was not just an immigration fight. It was a test of whether a president can narrow the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment by executive order.The Constitution already gives the answer:“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”The debate is legitimate.The shortcut is not.No president gets to stand over the Fourteenth Amendment with an eraser. Citizenship is not something granted by presidential approval. It is a constitutional promise.Get your free Constitution at https://thecoffmanchronicle.kit.com/pocket-constitutionPresented by Squawk Boss Coffee. Get the free Freshness Guide at https://wakeupyourcoffee.com/Find more at https://www.thecoffmanchronicle.com/Support the show

united states american donald trump ireland presidential haiti constitution citizenship birthright citizenship fourteenth amendment permission slip

Inside the Supreme Court's Key 2026 Decisions

Celebrate Kids Podcast with Dr. Kathy

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 2, 2026 36:07

Jeff Fisher discusses a term marked by major rulings across executive power, voting, and civil rights, and what they signal about the Court's trajectory. --- The Supreme Court has wrapped up a consequential term, issuing decisions that could shape executive power, constitutional rights, and the balance between the branches of government for years to come. Rulings on birthright citizenship, independent federal agencies, voting rights, transgender athletes, and Fourth Amendment digital privacy all landed within weeks of one another, offering a rare, wide-angle view of where the Court is headed. In this episode, Professor Jeff Fisher joins Pam Karlan to unpack the term's biggest rulings. Fisher and Karlan co-direct the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, and are among the nation's leading experts on Supreme Court litigation and constitutional law, regularly briefing and arguing cases before the Court, giving them a close vantage point on its work. The discussion traces how the Court is navigating open clashes with President Trump even as it advances long-standing goals of the conservative legal movement, and examines the Court's growing use of history and tradition as a tool of constitutional interpretation. Fisher and Karlan also discuss disagreements among the justices and consider how recent decisions may be emboldening the executive branch. Links: Jeff Fisher >>> Stanford Profile Opinions of the Court 2025 >>> US Supreme Court Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction 00:00:57 How to understand this Supreme Court term 00:03:12 A divided Court with rising tensions 00:04:35 Digital privacy and the Fourth Amendment 00:07:35 The Court and the democratic process 00:09:07 Race-conscious law and disparate impact 00:11:09 Election rules, fraud claims, and voting rights 00:14:56 Birthright citizenship and the limits of originalism 00:16:36 History, tradition, and judicial reasoning 00:18:39 Presidential power and independent agencies 00:23:08 The future of the unitary executive theory 00:25:31 Trump, the shadow docket, and executive authority 00:26:08 Immigration, presidential rhetoric, and Court deference 00:28:17 Presidential facts, tweets, and legal reality 00:30:48 Transgender rights and the law of school sports 00:32:23 Why context matters in Supreme Court decisions 00:35:47 Conclusion Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Birthright Citizenship

Letters from an American

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 1, 2026 11:37

June 30, 2026Trump signed an executive order, on his first day in office, declaring that there was no birthright citizenship, The ACLU and others sued the administration, The Fourteenth Amendment established birthright citizenship, After the Civil War former Confederates denied Black Southerners basic rights, The Republican Congress passed a civil rights bill in 1866 but President Andrew Johnson vetoed it, When Congress wrote the 14th Amendment, it acknowledged that the Constitution had already established citizenship for all persons born or naturalized in the US, The 14th Amendment was challenged in the late 19th century, but the Supreme Court upheld it in 1898, After that, It seemed the law was settled, After Trump issued his executive order, judges all sided against him, and today the current court upheld birthright citizenship, But many have said that the Supreme Court should never have even taken the case, And four of the nine current Supreme Court justices appear to be willing to rewrite the Constitution, MAGA is pressing the administration to step up immigration enforcement in response. Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

american congress supreme court civil war letters constitution maga amendment blue sky confederate aclu birthright citizenship andrew johnson fourteenth amendment after trump republican congress black southerners

Birthright Citizenship Fight Enters a New Chapter

3 Martini Lunch

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 1, 2026 20:26 Transcription Available

Radio host Craig Collins, who hosts The Craig Collins Show, fills in for Greg on the Wednesday 3 Martini Lunch. Join Jim and Craig as they discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on birthright citizenship, an NPR reporter's erroneous reporting on Justice Samuel Alito's retirement, and a New Jersey Congressman's return to office after four months of leave, where he received treatment for depression.First, Jim and Craig address the Supreme Court's upholding of birthright citizenship and express their concerns with birth tourism. Given the Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Jim argues that any changes to birthright citizenship must come from lawmakers.Next, they blast the major reporting failure by NPR reporter Nina Totenberg, who claimed Justice Alito was retiring, without sufficient confirmation. Totenberg claims to have misheard Chief Justice John Roberts mention retirements and jumped to the conclusion that he was referring to Justice Alito. NPR quickly retracted the reporting.Finally, Jim and Craig react to Republican Thomas Kean Jr.'s return to Congress after taking a four-month sabbatical to deal with a depression diagnosis. Prior to speaking publicly about his departure, the Congressman had stated an undisclosed medical issue for the reason of his absence. Jim and Craig question whether Congress members with mental health diagnoses are apt to work in a career with immense scrutiny.Please visit our great sponsors:HomeServeFor 50% less your first year, go to https://HomeServe.com/Martini to find the plan that's right for you. Savings compared to renewal price. Void in Florida.IncogniTake control of your digital footprint today. Use code 3ML at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/3ML.New episodes every weekday.

Guiding Kids Through the Transgender Sports Debate: Considering the Supreme Court's West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox Decision

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 1, 2026 28:42

The Supreme Court has issued one of its most significant rulings yet on transgender participation in school sports, and parents are left wondering how to explain it to their children. In this episode of Facing the Dark, Wayne and Dr. Kathy unpack the decision and move beyond the headlines to explore what it means for identity, compassion, and truth. The Court ruled unanimously that state laws restricting participation in girls' sports based on biological sex do not violate Title IX, and by a 6–3 majority held that these laws also do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The case arose after transgender student-athletes—including Becky Pepper-Jackson in West Virginia and Lindsay Hecox in Idaho—challenged state laws requiring athletes to compete according to their biological sex. Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that states may preserve women's sports for biological females and determine eligibility based on biological sex, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in dissent, argued that excluding transgender women from women's sports still constitutes discrimination "on the basis of sex." Rather than focusing only on the legal questions, Wayne and Dr. Kathy explore the deeper issue every family faces: How do we help our children develop a secure identity in Christ so they can engage difficult cultural conversations with both conviction and compassion? They discuss why security forms identity, why identity shapes belonging, and how parents can teach their children to hold firmly to biblical truth while treating every person with dignity, kindness, and genuine love.

kids writing debate facing court decision supreme court dark idaho west virginia transgender identity in christ guiding brett kavanaugh title ix fourteenth amendment justice ketanji brown jackson equal protection clause

Community Connection - July 1 2026 - Tina Cosby with Open Lines and Contributing Analyst James Patterson

Community Connection With Tina Cosby

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 1, 2026 101:53 Transcription Available

**Heat Wave and Supreme Court Rulings: A Conversation on Community Connection**This week on Community Connection, the conversation is hot - literally. The heat wave sweeping across the country has everyone talking, and our hosts are discussing the extreme heat warning in effect for central Indiana. But it's not just the weather that's on their minds. They're also diving into the recent Supreme Court rulings that have left many feeling concerned about the future of democracy.In this episode, the hosts discuss the impact of the heat wave, from the dangers of prolonged exposure to the importance of staying hydrated. They also touch on the recent Supreme Court rulings, including the decision on immigration and the Fourteenth Amendment. One of the hosts shares a personal story about the importance of understanding the history behind the Fourteenth Amendment and how it affects people's lives today.The conversation also takes a turn into the world of politics, with a discussion on the Democratic Socialists making waves in the primaries and the need for change within the Democratic party. The hosts also talk about the importance of voting and how it can make a difference in the lives of individuals and communities.If you're looking for a conversation that's both informative and thought-provoking, tune in to this episode of Community Connection. Join the conversation and hear from the hosts as they discuss the issues that matter most to you.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

indiana supreme court democratic analysts cosby contributing democratic socialists james patterson community connection fourteenth amendment open lines

The Supreme Court Is a Mess

Prosecuting Donald Trump

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 20:48

As Andrew puts it, Chief Justice John Roberts is “cherry-picking.” He's flying solo in this short edition of Main Justice (more to come with Mary in the next episode). Andrew gives a quick briefing on several of the Supreme Court's most consequential end-of-term rulings, starting with the decision not to hear an appeal in the E. Jean Carroll case. Andrew also touches on the Court's decision to uphold a Mississippi law to allow mail-in ballots that are sent by Election Day to be counted but saves his deepest analysis for two similar cases with opposing decisions: the firings of Lisa Cook and Rebecca Slaughter. While the Court ruled that the Trump administration must have cause to dismiss Cook from the Federal Reserve, it allowed the government to fire Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission, a decision which Andrew calls deeply flawed showing the conservative majority's support for a “unitary executive.” And finally, Andrew breaks down the Court's narrow decision to uphold birthright citizenship, and why the tight 5-4 split is the story. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

president ai donald trump law war ms fire elections alabama barack obama racism judge iran executives middle east legal court decision decisions supreme court lawyers mississippi mess cook immigration judgement attorney framework election day rhode island denial appeal msnbc declaration verdict federal reserve allies scotus firing attorney generals doj executive orders ftc sexual abuse international relations slaughter judicial 2020 election jd vance protesters data centers legislative rnc avoidance litigation dhs nomination ballots district attorney prosecution mar a lago simplecast iran war religious freedom federal trade commission defamation refusal gerrymandering grand jury john roberts tro federal judges supreme court decisions iran deal memorandum birthright citizenship republican national committee fourth amendment department of justice executive branch 14th amendment appeals court us border fourteenth amendment lisa cook presidential immunity mail in ballots nonpartisan 4th amendment judicial branch executive actions judicial review legislative branch andrew weissmann temporary restraining order mary mccord prosecuting donald trump main justice alabama election

Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Ruling: Why Congress Can Override It | 6/30/26

Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 55:29

This will be the most important show you listened to analyzing the Supreme Court's anchor baby opinion. What is more important than the opinion itself is what Trump, Congress, the red states, and the political Right will do in response. Today, you will learn why it is impossible for the Supreme Court to be correct about the Fourteenth Amendment, why it's impossible the court has the authority to rule on this with finality, and why Trump and Congress have an obligation to only use their powers in concert with the Constitution and the social compact. Today's ruling is only a travesty if we allow it to be. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

donald trump congress supreme court constitution ruling birthright citizenship override fourteenth amendment

Birthright Citizenship Survives! How America's 250th Birthday Celebration is Going (with Kevin Ryan)

Politics Politics Politics

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 101:01

The Supreme Court wrapped up its term with three major decisions, and one surprise that turned out not to be a surprise after all. NPR briefly published a report that suggested Justice Samuel Alito was retiring, which would have handed Donald Trump another Supreme Court appointment, but that story was pulled, leaving us to wonder when that announcement might finally land.The actual rulings were significant enough on their own, though. The Court rejected Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders, effectively settling a legal argument that immigration hawks have wanted decided for decades. They've argued for years that the phrase “under the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment leaves room to limit birthright citizenship. Trump finally brought that argument to the Supreme Court, and the Court disagreed. At least for now, this feels like settled law, and I'm curious to see where immigration activists go from here.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The Court also upheld Idaho and West Virginia laws banning transgender athletes from women's and girls' sports. The ruling says Title IX permits sex-separated teams based on biological sex, and while the liberal justices wanted a narrower constitutional review, they agreed on the Title IX question. It feels like this issue has reached a legal endpoint. It's remarkable that Title IX has become the vehicle for defending these policies, but I don't see much room left for this fight in the courts.The final decision struck down federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, ruling that the caps violate the First Amendment. Republicans are understandably celebrating because the National Republican Senatorial Committee brought the case, while Democrats are warning about billionaire influence and corruption. I tend to think the real victim here is the political middleman. Most of this money was getting where it wanted to go anyway. People donate to party committees because they want those organizations directing resources into competitive races. If you're worried about billionaire influence, I think the darker corners of campaign finance remain a much bigger issue than the official party committees.Meanwhile, the national media has finally caught up to something I've been talking about for weeks: gas prices keep falling even though every expert expected the opposite after the war with Iran began. I first noticed it at my local gas station in Austin, and it didn't line up with the conventional wisdom that prices shoot up like a rocket and come down like a feather. Now that same question is being asked everywhere. National gas prices have fallen for five straight weeks, crude oil has drifted back into what I'd consider a normal range, and we're steadily moving away from the price spike that followed the conflict. Trump is even publicly pressuring retailers to get prices down to $2.50 a gallon, although it's pretty obvious he'd be thrilled just to get them back near $3.The diplomacy behind all of this is getting more interesting. Iran launched drones at supertankers over the weekend, the United States responded with strikes on missile sites near the Strait of Hormuz, and shipping resumed. At the same time, the Trump administration appears to be running a good cop, bad cop strategy. JD Vance has focused on keeping negotiations alive, while Marco Rubio's trip through the Gulf helped produce an Israel-Lebanon agreement tied to a broader deal with Iran and expanded shipping options through Oman. If crude oil keeps falling despite all of that, then the question I can't shake is the same one I've been asking for weeks: what exactly is Iran's leverage? If they're negotiating denuclearization and they can't keep energy prices elevated, then I need somebody who understands the Iranian system better than I do to explain where the leverage actually is.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:21 - Tom Kean00:06:41 - Supreme Court Decisions00:12:17 - Iran and Gas Prices00:24:28 - Interview with Kevin Ryan00:46:57 - Colorado Primaries00:54:29 - House of Representatives00:57:46 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, con't01:36:37 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Birthright Citizenship: The History Behind the Debate | Martha S. Jones (Re-Release)

The Electorette Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 51:35

A timely re-release exploring the history behind one of the Supreme Court's most consequential constitutional questions. With the Supreme Court poised to issue a landmark ruling on birthright citizenship, I'm re-releasing one of the most important conversations we've had on the subject. In this episode, historian Martha S. Jones discusses her groundbreaking book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America, which traces the origins of birthright citizenship long before the Fourteenth Amendment—and long before today's immigration debates. We explore how free and formerly enslaved Black Americans fought to define who belonged in the United States, challenged efforts to deny them citizenship, and helped lay the foundation for one of the Constitution's most consequential guarantees. We also discuss the Dred Scott decision, the colonization movement, the legal strategies Black Americans used to claim their rights, and why understanding this history is essential to understanding the debate today. Although this conversation was originally recorded in 2019, its historical context is arguably even more relevant today. If you found this conversation helpful, like this episode and follow @electorette for more conversations on democracy, constitutional rights, and the people shaping America's future. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

united states america race debate supreme court rights constitution black americans re release birthright citizenship history behind fourteenth amendment dred scott antebellum america martha s jones birthright citizens a history

6-30-26 - 9am - SCOTUS Birthright Citizenship Ruling

The Situation with Michael Brown

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 33:14 Transcription Available

In a surprising turn of events, the Supreme Court has handed down a decision that's got everyone talking. Today's ruling on birthright citizenship has left many scratching their heads, and our host is here to break it down. But before diving into the details, he takes a moment to celebrate Pride Month in a unique way – by wearing a rainbow shirt and making a statement about inclusivity.This episode is all about the Supreme Court's decision on birthright citizenship, and our host is not afraid to share his thoughts on the matter. He argues that the Court's reasoning is flawed and that the decision is a result of a misunderstanding of the Constitution. He also delves into the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it relates to the current case. But what's really interesting is the way the Court's decision has split the conservative justices, with some agreeing with the majority and others dissenting.One of the key points of contention is the idea that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Fourteenth Amendment is not just about geography, but about allegiance. Our host makes a compelling argument that the Court's decision is not just about the Constitution, but about the way we think about citizenship and what it means to be an American. He also highlights the importance of the dissenting opinions, which offer a different perspective on the issue.If you're interested in learning more about this complex and timely topic, tune in to this episode to hear our host's take on the Supreme Court's decision and the implications it has for our understanding of citizenship and the Constitution.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

american court supreme court constitution pride month scotus ruling birthright citizenship fourteenth amendment

Hour 1: Should a baby born in America automatically be an American?

The Scoot Show with Scoot

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 38:11

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, ruling 6–3 that the policy is unconstitutional. Handed down on June 30, 2026, the landmark decision in Trump v. Barbara (alternatively cited as Trump v. CASA) firmly establishes that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees automatic citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status.

american donald trump babies news supreme court casa handed automatically fourteenth amendment

Full Show 6/30/2026: New Supreme Court ruling proves Americans don't care about civics

The Scoot Show with Scoot

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 107:28

On today's show, The U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, ruling 6–3 that the policy is unconstitutional. Handed down on June 30, 2026, the landmark decision in Trump v. Barbara (alternatively cited as Trump v. CASA) firmly establishes that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees automatic citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Is the WNBA uncomfortable with Caitlin Clark because she gets so much attention, brings in new fans, and doesn't fit the image some people want for the league? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states are allowed to count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day. In Watson v. Republican National Committee, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 ruling that allows states to count late-arriving mail-in ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Debbie Bresler of the Crescent City Countdown Club joins the show to talk about Go 4TH on the River, New Orleans' world-class 4th of July celebration marking America's 250th birthday.

america donald trump americans news care new orleans supreme court casa wnba election day proves caitlin clark handed civics supreme court ruling republican national committee fourteenth amendment supreme court justice amy coney barrett

BORN IN THE USA: Supreme Court Reaffirms Birthright Citizenship

Broeske and Musson

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 30:49

The Supreme Court struck down an executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship, ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States. In a 6–3 decision, the Court reaffirmed longstanding precedent that birthplace—not parent immigration status—determines citizenship. Please Like, Comment and Follow 'Broeske & Musson' on all platforms: --- The ‘Broeske & Musson Podcast’ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever else you listen to podcasts. --- ‘Broeske & Musson' Weekdays 9-11 AM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 FM KMJ | Facebook | Podcast| X | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | InstagramSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

united states spotify court supreme court newstalk birthright citizenship fourteenth amendment born in the usa

Constitutional Law Foundations: Congressional Power, Federalism, Commerce, Taxing, Spending, Section Five, Preemption, and the Dormant Commerce Clause

Law School

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 62:54

state congress states spending foundations congressional immunity prospective taxing constitutional law federalism fourteenth amendment preemption commerce clause tenth amendment proper clause dormant commerce clause

Legal News for Fri 6/26 - SCOTUS Immigration and Gun Rights Signals Pretty Clear, Real Estate Class Action Transparency Ruling Major Shift

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 26, 2026 8:22

This Day in Legal History: Windsor and ObergefellOn two separate June 26ths, exactly two years apart, the Supreme Court made history by recognizing marriage equality as a constitutional right. These decisions fundamentally transformed American law and represented victories for millions of Americans.On June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. DOMA had defined marriage, for federal law purposes, as a union only between one man and one woman. This meant that even though some states had legalized same-sex marriage, the federal government refused to recognize those marriages for tax purposes, immigration, federal benefits, and countless other legal matters. Edith Windsor, a woman who had been married to her female partner for over 40 years, faced a massive federal estate tax bill after her wife's death because the federal government refused to recognize their marriage. She sued, arguing that DOMA violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. The Court agreed. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that DOMA “violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government.” The decision meant that same-sex couples legally married under state law now had to be recognized by the federal government. It was a stunning victory—but not a complete one, because some states still didn't allow same-sex marriage at all.Two years later, on June 26, 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court took the final step. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the Fourteenth Amendment. This was different from Windsor. Windsor said the federal government must recognize marriages that states allowed. Obergefell said states must allow same-sex couples to marry in the first place. The decision meant that in all 50 states, same-sex couples could get married and have their marriages recognized and protected by law. Justice Kennedy again wrote the majority opinion, describing marriage as “the foundation of the family” and emphasizing that the right to marry has been recognized as vital in our history and tradition. He wrote about the personal dignity of same-sex couples and their commitment to each other: “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.”For most of American history, the law told millions of Americans they weren't allowed to marry the person they loved. The law denied same-sex couples basic rights that heterosexual couples took for granted—hospital visitation, inheritance, tax benefits, the ability to make medical decisions for each other. Windsor and Obergefell said that's unconstitutional. They affirmed that equal protection of the law means you can't be denied basic rights because of who you love.These two decisions, decided on the same date two years apart, represent one of the most dramatic shifts in constitutional law in decades. They show how the Constitution evolves to protect fundamental rights, and they demonstrate that the arc of justice, though long, bends toward equality. Millions of same-sex couples across America now have the legal right to marry, to have their marriages recognized, and to be treated equally under the law. For many, these decisions represented not just legal victories but personal affirmations that their relationships, their love, and their families matter.The Supreme Court has signaled its approval of restrictive immigration policies, suggesting the Trump administration will succeed in making immigration law more difficult for immigrants and more favorable to enforcement.The Supreme Court has been reviewing several immigration cases involving Trump administration policies designed to restrict immigration. Based on recent oral arguments and the Court's questioning during those arguments, many observers believe the Court will side with the Trump administration on immigration issues. This represents a significant shift. For decades, the courts have sometimes limited executive power over immigration, recognizing that even though the President has broad authority over immigration, the Constitution still applies. Immigrants have constitutional rights, including due process protections before being deported. But the current Supreme Court appears skeptical of these limitations.The President does have significant power over immigration—deciding who can enter the country and who must leave. But the Constitution doesn't disappear just because immigration is involved. People facing deportation deserve notice, a chance to be heard, and due process. The Supreme Court appears to be tilting toward giving the Trump administration even broader immigration power, with fewer constitutional protections for immigrants. This signals that restrictive immigration policies will likely succeed in the courts.If the Court rules in favor of the administration's immigration policies, it will embolden more restrictive immigration enforcement. Immigrant communities will face greater risks of deportation. The ruling will signal that courts defer heavily to the Executive Branch on immigration matters, even when constitutional rights are at stake. This represents one of the most significant shifts in immigration law in decades, moving away from judicial protection of immigrants' constitutional rights and toward deference to executive immigration enforcement.On immigration, Supreme Court accedes to Trump's restrictive agenda | Reuters The Supreme Court has ruled to expand Second Amendment protections and has indicated it intends to take more gun rights cases in the coming years. This signals a fundamental shift in how the Court views the right to bear arms.For decades, the Second Amendment was interpreted as primarily protecting gun ownership for militia purposes. But in 2008, in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns for lawful purposes like self-defense. That decision was controversial—it overturned decades of precedent and limited gun regulations. Since Heller, courts have struggled with the question: If people have a constitutional right to own guns, what gun regulations can the government still impose? The Supreme Court has now signaled it's willing to expand Second Amendment protections even further. The Court has indicated it will hear more gun rights cases, and recent decisions and comments suggest the Court will protect gun ownership rights broadly.The Constitution protects free speech, but you can still have laws against yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. The question with the Second Amendment is: What reasonable regulations can the government impose while still respecting the constitutional right? Gun rights advocates say any regulation is an unconstitutional restriction. Gun safety advocates say common-sense regulations like background checks and waiting periods are reasonable. The Supreme Court is signaling it will take the gun rights side of that debate and will continue expanding Second Amendment protections beyond what was previously recognized.This signals that many gun regulations that have existed for years—regulations that public opinion supports—may be struck down as unconstitutional. States will lose authority to regulate firearms. The Court's expansion of Second Amendment rights will make it harder for the government to pass gun safety legislation. This represents a dramatic constitutional shift away from allowing gun regulations and toward treating gun ownership as a nearly absolute right. It will likely lead to more mass shooting deaths if gun safety measures are struck down, but it reflects the current Supreme Court's deep commitment to gun rights.US Supreme Court expands Second Amendment rights, eyes more gun cases | Reuters A federal judge has ordered that settlement records in a real estate class action case be unsealed and made available to the public. The ruling represents a victory for transparency and accountability.In class action lawsuits, many companies settle rather than go to trial. The settlement typically includes both money paid to class members and a “confidentiality agreement” that keeps the details of the settlement secret. These confidentiality clauses often protect the company's reputation by keeping the details of what went wrong hidden from the public. In this real estate class action, a federal judge decided that the public's right to know outweighs the company's interest in keeping the settlement secret.If a company deceives consumers or engages in unfair practices, and then settles the lawsuit while keeping the details secret, the public never learns what happened. Other consumers stay in the dark about the company's practices. The company's wrongdoing goes unexamined. The judge found that when a company settles a public lawsuit involving alleged harm to consumers, the public has a legitimate interest in knowing what the company did and what it agreed to pay. Transparency protects consumers and holds companies accountable. Settlements should not be used as a tool to hide corporate wrongdoing. The order to unseal the settlement records means the public can now read the details of what the company allegedly did, what harm it caused, and what it agreed to pay.This ruling protects the public's right to information about corporate misconduct. It makes it harder for companies to settle lawsuits while keeping their wrongdoing secret. It encourages companies to settle in ways that are fair, because they know the details will be public. As more settlement records are unsealed, companies will face pressure to behave more honestly, knowing their practices may be exposed in court documents. This decision represents an important check on corporate power and a protection of consumer interests.US judge orders unsealing of settlement-related records in real estate class action | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Declaration of Independence and Conditions for Democratic Flourishing

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 23, 2026 52:03

In the opening episode of The Declaration at 250, Michael McConnell introduces former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and historian David Kennedy to ask a deceptively simple question: what does it actually take for democracy to work? Rice argues that the Declaration of Independence marks not the birth of democracy, but the end of tyranny—and that the real work begins afterward. Democracies flourish only when citizens build durable institutions: a workable balance of power among branches, an independent judiciary, and (often most crucially) a vibrant civil society that channels protest into law, governance, and everyday problem-solving. Drawing on her experiences—from segregated Birmingham to global transitions—Rice highlights how democracies fail when executives become unchecked (Russia) or when states are too weak to govern (Afghanistan), and how they can succeed when institutions gain legitimacy over time (Poland, Kenya, and examples shaped by external constraints like the EU). Kennedy responds by tracing the Declaration's promise of equality as principle, observed condition, aspiration, and enforceable law—while emphasizing the tension between democratic equality and a pluralistic society. He closes with a warning about declining trust in institutions and one another, urging renewed attention to civil society—the practical, local, often unglamorous work that turns founding ideals into lived reality. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters:[00:00:00] Welcome & series launch (Karlan + McConnell) Pam Karlan introduces the special episode; Michael McConnell launches The Declaration at 250 and the project's guiding question. [00:00:54] Framing the episode: What does democracy need to flourish? McConnell previews the episode's focus on democratic flourishing, featuring Condoleezza Rice with response from historian David Kennedy. [00:02:04] Rice: The Declaration ends tyranny; democracy is the harder next step Rice argues the Declaration is fundamentally revolutionary—overthrowing the old—raising the problem of how revolutions become democracies. [00:06:05] Rice: America's conditions, near-failures, and why separation of powers matters Rice describes the U.S. “luck,” the near-collapse under the Articles and the Civil War, and the Constitution's durability through distributed power. [00:11:37] Rice: Civil rights, law, and a “second founding” (1964–65) Drawing on personal experience and movement strategy, Rice emphasizes institutional change—litigation, amendments, and landmark legislation—as democracy's engine. [00:20:00] Rice: Institutions vs. culture—lessons from Russia, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Poland, Kenya, Hungary Rice rejects “DNA for democracy” explanations and shows how executive strength, civil society, and institutional legitimacy shape success or failure. [00:32:33] Kennedy: Equality's evolving meaning—and the civil society trust crisis Kennedy traces equality from Jefferson to the 14th Amendment and warns that declining trust and civic know-how signal weakening civil society. [00:42:52] Kennedy's question: “Spirit of constitutionalism,” plus depersonalization (social media/suburbanization) Rice defines constitutionalism as lived civic practice beyond paper rights; both discuss forces eroding community and shared institutions before closing. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

spirit russia dna european union drawing afghanistan vladimir putin civil war poland kenya birmingham secretary democratic constitution stanford university rice conditions abraham lincoln declaration amendment vatican ronald reagan flourishing framing thomas jefferson declaration of independence mcconnell tunisia french revolution margaret thatcher voting rights polarization simplecast arab spring andrew jackson national archives democracies pope john paul ii civil society emancipation proclamation condoleezza rice alexis de tocqueville afl cio gettysburg address george wallace constitution day thurgood marshall fourteenth amendment perestroika checks and balances boris yeltsin robert putnam separation of powers american founding david kennedy bowling alone equal protection clause democracy in america michael mcconnell boris nemtsov suburbanization brown v. board of education pam karlan stanford legal

Legal News for Mon 6/22 - CA Parental Notification Ruling, Trump Birthright Citizenship Fight Rolls on and Cameras in Federal Courtrooms?

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 22, 2026 6:55

This Day in Legal History: Plessy v. FergusonOn June 7, 1896, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation in the United States. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court ruled 7-1 that states could require separate facilities for Black and white people as long as those facilities were “separate but equal.” Homer Plessy, a man of mixed race, had violated a Louisiana law by sitting in a “whites only” railroad car. When arrested, he challenged the law as unconstitutional. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote for the majority that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed political and legal equality but not social equality, and that the law was reasonable. Justice John Marshall Harlan issued a lone dissent, famously writing: “Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens.”This doctrine of “separate but equal” stood for nearly 60 years, providing legal cover for Jim Crow laws and racial apartheid across the South. Schools were drastically unequal in funding and resources. Hotels, restaurants, bathrooms, and water fountains were segregated by race. The doctrine was finally overturned in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which acknowledged that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Plessy v. Ferguson represents one of the most consequential wrong turns in Supreme Court history. What made it so damaging was not just the ruling, but the Court's apparent good faith in the “separate but equal” framework—a comfort with the idea that segregation could be constitutional if resources were distributed evenly, a comfort the Court itself never actually required states to achieve. The case shows how courts can legitimize injustice through neutral-sounding language and deference to legislatures.A federal appeals court ruled this week that California schools cannot keep secret a student's gender identity transition from their parents. Think of it this way: California had passed a law giving schools discretion to withhold from parents information about changes to a student's gender expression or identity, reasoning that this protected students from potentially harmful family reactions. But the court found this violated parents' constitutional rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children. The Supreme Court has long recognized that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. This includes decisions about their education and health.California's policy attempted to create an exception to parental notification by allowing schools to conceal information about gender identity changes from parents without parental knowledge or consent. The court said California went too far. The judges acknowledged that student safety is a legitimate concern, but concluded that blanket policies allowing schools to hide information from parents violate the constitutional rights that parents have.This case sits at the intersection of three important values: parental rights, student privacy, and student safety. On one side, parents argue they need information to support their children's development and health. On the other, supporters of the California policy argued that some students face rejection or harm from parents if they learn about gender transitions, and that schools need confidentiality to protect vulnerable youth. The court sided with parental notification rights, but left open the question of whether schools can still withhold information in specific cases where there's evidence of abuse or danger. The ruling doesn't mean schools must immediately report every aspect of a student's identity; rather, it means they generally cannot have a blanket policy of concealing gender-related information from parents.California Gender Transition Parental Notification CaseThe Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case with potentially enormous implications for citizenship law in America. Here's what's at stake: On his first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order attempting to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents entered the country illegally or are living and working in the U.S. on temporary visas. This directly challenges the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.”For over 150 years, the United States has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to mean that virtually anyone born on U.S. soil becomes a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Trump's order says the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of illegal aliens and temporary visa holders. The administration argues that these children are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the way the amendment requires. Legal scholars and immigration advocates counter that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” simply means not immune from U.S. law—which applies to everyone in the country, citizen and non-citizen alike.This case could affect millions of people. The U.S. currently grants automatic citizenship to roughly 250,000 to 375,000 children born to undocumented immigrants each year. If Trump v. Barbara succeeds, those children would not automatically be citizens. The case will require the Supreme Court to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment—one of the most fundamental provisions in the Constitution. The Court hasn't definitively ruled on the citizenship status of children born to undocumented immigrants in modern times. The outcome will reshape American immigration law and the path to citizenship for generations to come.Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration ActionsA Senate Judiciary Committee advanced two bipartisan bills that would expand camera access in the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courtrooms. The bills, the Cameras in the Courtroom Act and the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, now move to the full Senate for possible consideration. Supporters say the measures would make the judiciary more transparent by allowing the public to see important proceedings without having to attend in person. Senator Chuck Grassley, who chairs the committee and co-sponsored both bills, argued that Americans should be able to observe cases that affect the whole country, especially at the Supreme Court. Senator Amy Klobuchar also supported the effort, comparing courtroom access to the public's ability to watch Congress on C-SPAN.The federal judiciary opposes the proposals and warned that cameras could create problems for jury trials, witness safety, courtroom security, and the administration of justice. The Supreme Court has traditionally barred video coverage, although it began offering live audio of oral arguments during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Cameras in the Courtroom Act would require televised coverage of public Supreme Court proceedings unless a majority of justices found that cameras would violate due process. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act would give federal judges broader discretion to allow photography, recording, broadcasting, or televising of court proceedings. That bill also includes safeguards for jurors and witnesses, limits coverage of private conversations, and would expire after three years unless Congress renews it.US Senate panel advances bills allowing cameras in US Supreme Court, lower courts | 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

MM#485--The Umpire Who Joined The Game

Theory 2 Action Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 21, 2026 13:40 Transcription Available

FAN MAIL--We would love YOUR feedback--Send us a Text MessageHe told America judges are umpires, not lawmakers. Two decades later, Chief Justice John Roberts is still calling balls and strikes, but sometimes it sounds like he's redrawing the strike zone.We dig into the irony and the real-world consequences of Roberts' “institutionalist” approach, starting with one of the most debated Supreme Court decisions of our time: the Obamacare individual mandate in *NFIB v. Sebelius*. We walk through why conservatives thought the Commerce Clause argument was clean, why Roberts initially seemed to agree, and how the case turned on a single reframe: treating the penalty as a tax under Congress' taxing power. That move didn't just keep a law alive, it reshaped how many people trust the Court.Then we hold that up against Molly Hemingway's portrait of Justice Samuel Alito, a justice known less for smoothing edges and more for saying what he thinks, even when it's uncomfortable. From the Citizens United State of the Union moment to Alito's willingness to let dissents stand on the record, we explore what “courage” looks like on a bench that is always being read through a partisan lens.Finally, we connect the same tension to a live controversy over birthright citizenship in Trump versus Barbara, the Fourteenth Amendment, and *Wong Kim Ark*. When Roberts fires back, “it might be a new world, but it's certainly the same Constitution,” we ask what consistency really demands.Key Points from the Episode:• Roberts' confirmation-hearing metaphor and the legitimacy problem • How the Roberts Court moves law right while Roberts surprises conservatives • The Obamacare individual mandate and the “penalty as a tax” reasoning • Molly Hemingway's portrait of Alito as the road not taken • Alito's “not true” reaction to Obama after Citizens United • Trump versus Barbara and the Fourteenth Amendment debate over birthright citizenship • What “same Constitution” means when the stakes are political Links

Legal News for Thurs 6/18 - Polymarket is Gambling in Michigan, Temu Wiretap Suit Survives and a Do Not Call Class Action

James Wilson Institute Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 18, 2026 6:34

This Day in Legal History: Susan B. Anthony Fined for VotingOn this day in 1873, in a federal courtroom in Canandaigua, New York, Judge Ward Hunt fined Susan B. Anthony one hundred dollars for the crime of voting. Anthony had walked into a polling place in Rochester on November 5, 1872, and cast a ballot for Ulysses S. Grant. She was arrested two weeks later under a federal statute, the Enforcement Act of 1870, that made it a crime to “knowingly” vote without being legally entitled to. Her defense was straightforward: the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified four years earlier, said that all persons born in the United States were citizens, and citizenship carried with it the right to vote. Judge Hunt did not let the jury decide. He directed a verdict of guilty without even letting them deliberate — something that would be plainly unconstitutional today — and then asked Anthony if she had anything to say before sentence was passed.She did.She told the court that it had trampled on her natural rights, her civil rights, her political rights, and her judicial rights, and that under such circumstances she would never pay a dollar of the unjust penalty.She never did.Hunt declined to jail her for nonpayment, which would have given her the path to appeal she wanted, and the case died without ever reaching the Supreme Court. The Nineteenth Amendment, which finally guaranteed women the right to vote, was ratified forty-seven years later, in 1920 — fourteen years after Anthony's death. The lesson lawyers usually take from the case is procedural — about directed verdicts, about appellate review, about the ways a determined trial judge can keep a constitutional question off the docket. The lesson worth keeping today is broader. The legal system that one generation treats as obvious common sense is the one a later generation looks back on and cannot understand how anyone thought was just. Anthony lost in court and won in history. That happens more often than the daily case law makes it look.A federal judge in Michigan ruled Wednesday against Polymarket, a platform that lets people place bets on the outcomes of sports games. Here's what happened: Polymarket had tried to convince Michigan's regulators that what it does is not really gambling — it's a sophisticated financial product called a “swap,” something only the federal government regulates. Polymarket's argument was: we're not a sportsbook, we're a financial market, just like commodity futures markets. A wheat farmer, for example, might use that kind of contract to lock in a price for next year's harvest. Michigan's gaming regulators weren't buying it. They said Polymarket looked and acted like an illegal sportsbook — people betting on sports without a license — and shut it down. Polymarket went to federal court asking the judge to block Michigan from enforcing the law while the lawsuit continues. The judge said no.He found that Polymarket's argument didn't make sense; if something is a bet on a football game, calling it something else doesn't change what it is. The judge also said that even if Polymarket lost the Michigan market, that's a business loss that money can compensate — not the kind of serious, immediate harm that would justify stopping Michigan from enforcing its own gambling laws. This case matters because it will help determine how the federal government and individual states regulate online prediction markets going forward. Right now, companies like Polymarket are in legal limbo, unable to operate in states that say they're gambling, while arguing they should operate under federal financial rules. The courts need to settle which it is.Mich. Judge Opens Door For Prediction Market EnforcementAn Illinois federal judge ruled Wednesday that a class action lawsuit can proceed against an advertising-technology company that allegedly snuck Americans' personal information to PDD Holdings, the Chinese parent company of the discount-shopping app Temu. Think of it this way: when you visit websites or use apps, tracking code collects information about you — what you click on, what you buy, where you're located. That's normal ad-tech business. But this company allegedly took that data and secretly sent it to China for the Chinese parent company's benefit. The lawsuit uses two legal theories. First: the federal wiretap law makes it illegal to secretly intercept someone's communications or data without permission — and the plaintiffs argue this is exactly what happened.The company embedded invisible code on websites that grabbed user data without asking. Second: there's a new government regulation that forbids sending Americans' sensitive personal data to countries the U.S. government considers hostile. China is on that list. The company argued the lawsuit should be dismissed, claiming what it does is standard advertising practice and not really interception. The judge disagreed. He said the lawsuit makes plausible claims of wrongdoing and can proceed. Why this matters: this is one of the first big tests of whether tech companies can keep hiding data-sharing practices in fine-print privacy policies. The judge is signaling that burying consent in a privacy policy probably isn't enough if you're secretly sending data to foreign adversaries. The case will now move to discovery — where lawyers dig through company records — and that's usually expensive enough to push companies toward settlement.Ad Seller Can't Shake Wiretap Suit Over Temu Data TransfersA class action lawsuit filed Wednesday accuses Hilton Grand Vacations — the timeshare and vacation club subsidiary of Hilton Hotels — of repeatedly calling consumers who had registered their phone numbers on the federal Do Not Call list. This is a straightforward violation of federal law. The Do Not Call list is the registry that exists specifically so people can stop getting telemarketing calls. If your number is on that list, companies can't call you to pitch products unless you've done business with them recently or given them permission. Hilton allegedly ignored that. According to the complaint, the company and its marketing contractors called people repeatedly, sometimes years after their numbers were registered on the Do Not Call list, pitching timeshare vacation packages. Here's why the damages can be huge: the federal law lets you sue for $500 per violation — per call. If a company makes a mistake and thinks the violation was intentional, the damages triple to $1,500 per call. In a class action involving thousands of unwanted calls, those numbers balloon fast. Hilton and other timeshare companies have historically tried to escape liability by claiming their contractors made the calls, not Hilton itself. But courts increasingly reject that defense. If Hilton controlled the marketing campaign and the contractors worked on Hilton's behalf, Hilton is responsible. The law here is actually simpler than most litigation: a company's obligation is clear, and the violation is easy to prove if calls were made to numbers on the federal Do Not Call list.Hilton Facing Class Action Over Marketing Calls 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

Citizenship & 14th Amendment with Prof. David Upham

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 18, 2026 51:01

Our latest Anchoring Truths Podcast episode focuses on a new book Taking American Citizenship Seriously: The Recovery of the Fourteenth Amendment. Our guest is the author that book, David R. Upham. With the book, Professor Upham delivers a comprehensive account of the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment. Drawing on a close textual analysis, Upham shows how the framers shaped the Amendment to secure the rights to life, liberty, and property for all through due process and equal protection, while reaffirming birthright citizenship for nearly everyone born on U.S. soil. He also recovers the Amendment's promise to protect core citizenship rights—including the freedoms to travel, engage in commerce, speak freely, bear arms, and live free from racial discrimination or civic exclusion. By recovering this originalmeaning, the book challenges later interpretations and offers fresh insights for today's constitutional debates.Professor David R. Upham is an Associate Professor of Law at St. Thomas University College of Law. He earned his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law and his Ph.D. in Politics from the University of Dallas, along with degrees from Middlebury College and Boston College.

university politics law drawing prof associate professor amendment citizenship boston college middlebury college 14th amendment texas school fourteenth amendment upham

Legal News for Mon 6/15 - Judge McConnell Scolds DOJ, Google Sues Chinese Gemini Phishing Ring, Judge Blocks Trump's Xenophobic Parks Orders