Podcasts about Fourteenth Amendment

In Washington's think tank row, a single document has become a kind of political Rorschach test. Project 2025, a more than 900 page “Mandate for Leadership” assembled by the conservative Heritage Foundation and allied groups, is billed by its authors as a roadmap “to advance positive change for America.” According to Heritage's own description, it is a presidential transition project designed so a conservative administration can “take the reins of government” quickly and decisively. Critics see something very different. The American Civil Liberties Union describes Project 2025 as “a blueprint for a radical restructuring of the executive branch,” warning that it would replace long standing legal safeguards with “right wing ideals” across immigration, civil rights, and reproductive freedom. Democracy Forward, a nonpartisan watchdog, calls it “a systemic, ruthless plan” that could undermine the quality of life for millions, from workers and veterans to parents and students. At the heart of the plan is a sweeping reimagining of federal agencies. The Brookings Institution notes that on education alone, Project 2025 recommends dismantling the U.S. Department of Education, eliminating the Head Start program for low income children, and phasing out Title I funds that support schools in poor communities. It also calls for rescinding federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students and weakening enforcement of disability rights. Brookings warns that these moves would “dramatically reshape the federal government's role” in schooling. The same impulse to centralize power runs through the broader agenda. The Heritage playbook urges a president to assert direct control over the civil service, in part by reviving “Schedule F,” a Trump era job classification that would make it easier to fire career officials and replace them with political loyalists. Democracy Forward reports that Project 2025's authors claim many of these changes could be carried out “through executive branch action alone — without new legislation.” Other proposals reach deeply into daily life. The American Civil Liberties Union highlights language urging mass deportations, new limits on asylum, and even ending birthright citizenship for some children of noncitizens, a direct challenge to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Center for American Progress points to recommendations to raise the Social Security full retirement age from 67 to 69, weaken unions by banning public sector bargaining, and reduce veterans' disability eligibility by narrowing covered conditions and automating denials. Supporters argue that these ideas would cut red tape, restore traditional values, and rein in what they describe as an unaccountable “administrative state.” Opponents counter that, taken together, the proposals would concentrate power in the presidency, erode checks and balances, and roll back protections that many listeners may take for granted. As the next campaign season accelerates, key questions loom: which parts of this blueprint will a future administration embrace, what can be done by executive order, and how will courts and Congress respond. Those decision points will determine whether Project 2025 remains a manifesto on a shelf or becomes a governing reality. Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3Qs For more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

June 3. 2026US Supreme Court allows Alabama to use a 2023 map that had been ruled as unconstitutional because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, As Trump deteriorates mentallly and physically Republican lawmakers and the administration try to grab as much power as possible, Promises of an end to the war on Iran fizzle and the economy is slowing as oil prices increase and credit card delinquencies reach new highs, Russell Vought proposes that OMB should have control over research grants, Trump signs order stripping civil service workers of protected status, And Trump nominates William Pulte as acting director of national intelligence, one of the most important positions in the government, Pulte has no experience in intelligence and his nomination threatens the renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Democrats and some Republicans are pushing back on Pulte's nomination, There has been pushback in the House where a resolution passed telling Trump to stop its strikes on Iran or get congressional approval and a measure that would aid Ukraine advanced, Trump did not react well.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 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

Corporations are people in the eyes of the law. But how did that happen, and why does it hand them rights you don't have?  UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, author of "We the Corporations", traces a 200-year campaign by business to win the constitutional rights of human beings. Bethany McLean and Luigi Zingales press him on what Zingales calls an incredible trick. Corporations insist they're separate from their owners when that shields owners from blame, then argue they're like people when they want to spend on elections or dodge a rule.  Winkler traces how the Fourteenth Amendment, written after the Civil War to protect the newly freed, became a tool for railroads and banks instead. He even describes a lawyer who, by his account, lied to the Supreme Court, producing a journal he claimed proved the amendment was meant for corporations.  Zingales pushes on what comes next: could AI itself qualify for legal personhood, and would that shield big tech from blame? When we ask Winkler for a shred of hope that the long arc doesn't simply keep favoring business, the answer is far shorter and blunter than expected.  Connect with us:

On July 9, 1868, the last of the 28 states needed to approve the Fourteenth Amendment acted, and Secretary of State William Henry Seward formally announced the ratification on July 28. It was a momentous event, a change to our constitutional system so fundamental that historians have put it on a par with the ratification of the original Constitution itself. In many ways, it gave Americans a new constitution.Written by Michael Les Benedict. Narration by Dr. Nicholas B. Breyfogle. Video production by Victoria Paige, Dr. Nicholas B. Breyfogle, Justin Troyer, and Hannah Keller. A transcript is available at https://origins.osu.edu/milestones/july-2018-150-years-fourteenth-amendment.This is a production of Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective at the Goldberg Center in the Department of History at The Ohio State University and the Department of History at Miami University. Be sure to subscribe to our channel to receive updates about our videos and podcasts. For more information about Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective, please visit origins.osu.edu. 

The Fourteenth Amendment conferred citizenship on those born in the United States, but one group was left out: Native Americans. In 1884, a case challenging that position made its way to the Supreme Court. John Elk brought a case against a registrar in Omaha for refusing to register him to vote because he was not considered a citizen. In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to Elk because, as an Indian, he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

This Day in Legal History: The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924On this day in 1924, President Calvin Coolidge signed the Indian Citizenship Act, also called the Snyder Act, declaring that all Native Americans born within the territorial limits of the United States were U.S. citizens. It is one of those laws that sounds, in retrospect, like it cannot possibly have been necessary — and yet it was. For most of the country's first 150 years, the federal government treated Native people as members of separate sovereign nations whose status under American law was, at best, ambiguous. Earlier vehicles for citizenship — the Fourteenth Amendment, the Dawes Act, military service in World War I — had reached only some Native people, and a string of Supreme Court decisions had taken the position that being born inside the United States to a member of a tribe did not, on its own, make a person a citizen.The Snyder Act fixed that with a single sentence.What it did not fix was voting: many states continued to bar Native citizens from the ballot for decades afterward, on a variety of pretexts that were eventually struck down one by one. The Act also did not affect tribal citizenship — Native people are dual citizens of their tribe and the United States, which is part of why federal Indian law continues to occupy a separate doctrinal universe. June 2 is a quietly important date on the calendar of American citizenship, and a reminder that the seemingly obvious questions of who counts as an American have, for long stretches of our history, not been obvious at all.Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced Monday that his office has filed a civil lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, arguing that the company is misleading parents about the safety of ChatGPT and pointing to incidents in which young users were allegedly nudged toward violence by the chatbot. The complaint follows a criminal investigation Uthmeier's office opened in April, after a deadly mass shooting at Florida State University in 2025 that the AG says ChatGPT helped facilitate. Florida is asking for civil penalties and an order forcing OpenAI to redesign the product, including adding meaningful parental controls.The legal angle here is essentially a state consumer-protection theory: a state attorney general claiming that the company's marketing of a product as safe-for-kids is deceptive, and that the company is therefore on the hook under the state's unfair-trade laws. Whether that survives a motion to dismiss is going to depend a lot on whether the court treats ChatGPT as a “product” in the traditional sense — software has, for decades, gotten more leeway than physical products under product-liability law, and Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act has historically immunized platforms for what users post.The new wrinkle is that generative AI doesn't fit neatly into either bucket — ChatGPT produces its own output rather than hosting somebody else's — and several courts are now beginning to grapple with that distinction. Expect this case to be one of the early test cases for how AI companies get sued in the U.S.Florida AG Sues OpenAI, Says ChatGPT Spurs Violence | Law360The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from asbestos victims who had challenged a corporate bankruptcy tactic known as the “Texas Two-Step” — leaving in place a Fourth Circuit ruling that lets companies use the maneuver to corral mass-tort claims into bankruptcy court.The Two-Step works like this: a healthy company splits itself into two using a Texas state-law provision that allows divisional mergers, dumps its asbestos or talc or opioid liabilities into the newly created spinoff, and then puts only the spinoff into Chapter 11. The result is that injury claimants get herded into a bankruptcy proceeding where their leverage is sharply limited, even though the parent company that actually caused the harm is still solvent and operating.The case the Supreme Court turned away involved Bestwall, a spinoff of Georgia-Pacific that has been in Chapter 11 since 2017. The Third Circuit threw out a similar Johnson & Johnson talc-unit bankruptcy in 2023 on the ground that the spinoff wasn't actually in financial distress, but the Fourth Circuit went the other way in this case, and the Supreme Court's denial of review leaves that split standing for now. The bigger picture: a powerful settlement-shaping tool stays on the menu for corporate defendants facing waves of mass-tort litigation, and the next big talc, opioid, or asbestos defendant looking to manage a docket of claims now knows the Two-Step is at least available in the Fourth Circuit.Justices Won't Hear Challenge To ‘Texas Two-Step' Ch. 11 | Law360A group of IKEA customers filed a proposed class action against the Swedish retailer Monday in U.S. federal court, arguing that they overpaid for furniture during the period when President Trump's import tariffs were in effect — tariffs that the Supreme Court has since struck down — and that they are entitled to a share of the refunds the company will now collect from the federal government. It is one of the first big consumer-side cases to follow the Supreme Court's tariff ruling, and the legal theory is novel: importers paid the tariffs, then passed those costs through to consumers in the form of higher sticker prices, and now that the government is sending refunds back to importers, the customers who effectively bore the cost are asking for a piece of that money.Some major shippers like FedEx and UPS have already publicly committed to passing tariff refunds back to their customers; IKEA, the suit alleges, has not. Whether the claim survives depends largely on whether the court is willing to treat the relationship between retailer and customer as something like a constructive trust or unjust enrichment, rather than an arm's-length sale at a final price. If even one of these cases succeeds, expect copycat suits against every other large importer that quietly built tariff costs into retail prices over the last several years.IKEA customers sue for share of Trump tariff refunds | 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

This Day in Legal History: The First Act of CongressOn this day in 1789, President George Washington signed the first statute ever enacted by Congress under the new Constitution — “An Act to Regulate the Time and Manner of Administering Certain Oaths,” codified at 1 Stat. 23. The substance was modest: the law prescribed the form of the oath that members of Congress, federal judges, and executive officers were to take to support the Constitution, and gave the states a window in which to swear in their own officials. But the symbolism was enormous. It was the first time the new federal government did the thing governments actually do, which is to pass a law and require people to obey it, and the choice of subject was telling.Before Congress regulated commerce, levied taxes, or built courts, it bound its own officers to the Constitution by oath. The oath clauses in Article II and Article VI have been doing quiet doctrinal work ever since: they ground the Supremacy Clause, they undergird Marbury's claim that judges are bound to follow the Constitution as supreme law, and they sit at the center of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 disqualification debate that the Supreme Court took up in Trump v. Anderson just two years ago. The Oath Act of 1789 is not the kind of statute that gets quoted on bar exams, but it is the original instance of Congress speaking in legal form, and everything the federal government has done since rests on top of it.Uber went after one of its own bellwether plaintiffs Friday in the sprawling multidistrict litigation over alleged passenger sexual assaults, asking U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros in the Northern District of California to impose sanctions on plaintiff B.L. and her counsel at Wagstaff Law Firm for what Uber called “pervasive bad faith” in discovery.The headline accusation, made by Kirkland & Ellis's Michael Vives for Uber, is that B.L.'s privilege log cites cases that don't exist — what Vives suggested may be “hallucinated case law” generated by an AI tool — and Vives floated that as an independent basis for sanctions on top of the alleged document withholding, redactions, and undisclosed witnesses Uber catalogued in its April motion.he legal vehicle here is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which gives a federal court a tiered menu of sanctions for discovery misconduct — fees and costs at the low end, adverse-inference instructions and claim preclusion at the high end — and Uber is asking the court to throw B.L.'s case out of the next bellwether wave entirely. Judge Cisneros noticed during the hearing that what struck her about the briefing was the pattern, not any single incident; she pointed to one example where the plaintiff identified a person as a “friend” and only later produced a fuller set of text messages showing the person was actually a therapist.The judge ordered the plaintiff to file a sur-reply by Thursday before ruling, which means a sanctions order is now teed up. The case sits within In re Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation (MDL No. 3084) before Judge Charles R. Breyer, and any sanctions ruling will set the tone for how the rest of the bellwether pool conducts discovery. If the hallucinated-caselaw piece sticks, this also becomes one of the first real Rule 11 / Rule 37 hybrid sanctions vehicles for generative AI misuse in the MDL context — and the bar will be reading it closely.‘Pervasive Bad Faith': Uber Targets Sex Assault MDL Plaintiff | Law360The Seventh Circuit on Friday told the Northern District of Illinois that the now-standard practice of serving Chinese e-commerce defendants by email in “Schedule A” trademark cases doesn't fly under the Hague Service Convention — at least not when the convention applies, which is a question the district court has to actually answer first. The dispute came up in Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., No. 25-2205, where the hat-maker Kangol sued more than twenty Chinese vendors for trademark infringement and identified them on a sealed “Schedule A” exhibit attached to the complaint — the same procedural pattern that drives the enormous Schedule A docket in Chicago's federal court.Kangol got a default judgment after serving the defendants by email, but one defendant, Hangzhou Chuanyue, appeared and moved to vacate, arguing that the Hague Convention prohibits email service in China and that the convention applies because Hangzhou's address is discoverable. The legal hook is Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention, which permits service “by postal channels” only when the destination state has not objected — and China has affirmatively objected to Article 10(a), full stop.The Seventh Circuit, citing the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, held that whether or not email counts as a “postal channel,” Article 10(a) is unavailable in China, so email service in this case was improper if the convention applied at all. The panel — Judges Thomas Kirsch, Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, and Doris Pryor — reversed the denial of Hangzhou's motion to vacate and sent the case back for the threshold question the district court skipped: did Kangol make reasonably diligent efforts to find Hangzhou's address, which would have triggered the convention.The practical fallout will reach hundreds, possibly thousands, of pending Schedule A cases in Chicago that rely on email service as a matter of course, and plaintiff firms in this space will be scrambling to redo their service strategy.7th Circ. Revives Chinese IP Defendants' Email Service Case | Law360The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Thursday transferred Randall King's proposed class action — the vehicle for a proposed $7.25 billion Roundup settlement with Monsanto — into the Northern District of California MDL before Judge Vince Chhabria, despite vehement objections from absent class members who want the case to stay in Missouri state court.The case-within-a-case is unusual: the King action was filed and preliminarily settled in Missouri state court, then a group of objectors (represented by Keller Postman) removed it to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, and the JPML then tagged it for transfer to the consolidated Roundup MDL. The legal hook here is 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the JPML's transfer authority — paired with CAFA's removal rules, which the settling plaintiffs argue were misused because the objectors aren't “defendants” within the meaning of § 1453 and so cannot remove.The objectors counter that the $7.25 billion deal “launders a liability-management scheme through the courts” by funneling claims of Roundup cancer victims through a Missouri state-court class that an MDL judge would never approve, and they want federal-court scrutiny under Rule 23 and the standards Judge Chhabria has spent years developing in the Roundup litigation. Monsanto, for its part, is on the objectors' side of the venue question — at least tactically — telling Law360 that the case should go back to Missouri state court and it will move to oppose the transfer order.The whole fight is also tied up with the Supreme Court's pending decision in a separate Monsanto case that will determine whether the deal survives at all, because the proposed $7.25 billion is structured around what the Court does there. Whichever way this remand/transfer fight comes out, it is going to be cited in every future class-settlement-jurisdiction tug-of-war for the rest of the decade.$7.25B Roundup Deal Sent To Calif. MDL | Law360A U.S. district judge in Florida said Saturday she will take a closer look at the settlement the Trump administration has reached with itself — or more precisely, with President Trump in his personal capacity — over a long-running IRS lawsuit, scheduling further proceedings to examine whether the deal can stand.The procedural posture is what makes this one interesting: the case involves a federal agency under the President's control settling claims with the President personally, which raises immediate questions about whether anyone is actually adverse to anyone, and whether the resulting consent decree or stipulation can carry the legal weight a normal settlement does. The legal mechanism the judge appears to be invoking is the federal court's inherent supervisory authority over consent decrees and settlements involving the federal government, an authority that runs through cases like Local No. 93 v. City of Cleveland and that the Tunney Act formalizes for antitrust settlements — though here there is no Tunney Act, just the general principle that a federal court doesn't have to rubber-stamp a settlement when there are serious questions about whether the United States was actually represented in the negotiation.The hearing on the issue was set for late May in Miami, with the judge reportedly skeptical that the deal can be approved without further factual development. The political stakes are obvious, but the legal stakes are arguably bigger: if the court can refuse to approve the settlement on the ground that the executive branch was not adverse to itself in any meaningful way, it would create a precedent that constrains every future administration's ability to make its own personal litigation go away through agency action. Expect this one to generate appellate motion practice within weeks.US judge orders review of Trump's IRS lawsuit settlement | 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

American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for June 2, 2026New Hampshire's Proof of Citizenship Law Violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments as Undue Burden, Rules Federal District Judge A federal judge ruled May 29th that New Hampshire's 2024 proof of citizenship law intended to stop a microscopic noncitizen voting and voter fraud threat created a significant burden to eligible voters and violated the U.S. Constitution.  It's the first such law to be tested. Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:U.S. District Court for NH (via New Hampshire Bulletin - Decision in Coalition for Open Democracy v. Scanlan, NH Youth Movement v. Scanlan New Hampshire Bulletin - Ahead of midterms, federal court strikes down NH proof-of-citizenship voter registration law New Hampshire Public Radio - Judge strikes down NH's ‘proof of citizenship' voting lawNH Secretary of State -  Secretary of State David Scanlan Issues Statement Following District Court's Ruling on HB 1569 Related ADM Reports:American Democracy Minute - (Feb. 2026) Proof of Citizenship: Trial Begins on Strict NH Law; FL Bill Advances; VA Bill Ends Voter Roll Searches for Registered Noncitizens 90 Days Before the ElectionAmerican Democracy Minute - (June 2024) NH Voter Suppression Bill Eliminates Sworn Affidavits for Voter Registration, Demanding Citizenship Documents for Otherwise Qualified Voters. It Could Disenfranchise Thousands.Groups Taking Action:Coalition for Open Democracy, ACLU NH, NH Youth MovementFind all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org Subscribe for FREE at Apple Podcasts, Spotify and most podcasting platforms.#NewsAlerts #AmericanDemocracy #HB1569 #VoterSuppression #ProofofCitizenship #NHPolitics #14thAmendment #1stAmendment

Since assuming office at the beginning of 2025, Donald Trump's administration has targeted numerous people in the U.S. Those who have suffered the most and are the most vulnerable to the administration's policies are the ones Trump and his compatriots believe are unworthy of living their lives on U.S. soil in peace, especially so-called “illegal immigrants.” The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) has illegally chased and deported people and even brutally harmed and killed some who tried to resist them. However, the Trump administration is also attempting to justify its agenda via legal means. In early 2025, the U.S. President issued an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship as it had been accepted since the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adopted three years after the end of the Civil War in 1868. While it had long been uncontested that all children born on U.S. soil would gain the country's citizenship, according to this order, this would no longer hold for children of illegal immigrants. Thus, large groups of people would be stripped of their rights. Currently, a case is pending at the U.S. Supreme Court that is supposed to define whether this executive order violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In this conversation, Prof. Martha Jones explains the historical roots of birthright citizenship and the current U.S. administration's attempt to undermine it. Martha Jones is a professor of history at Johns Hopkins University and the author of various books, including Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America, which was published in 2018 by Cambridge University Press.The interview was conducted by Konstantin Kipp. Alina Young edited the audio file.

Corey Brettschneider and John Fugelsang begin with the new redistricting wars, as southern states move to dilute Black Americans' voting power after a green light from the Supreme Court. They look at Tennessee, Alabama, and the Virginia Supreme Court's decision striking down a voting plan approved by voters.Then, they turn to citizenship itself: DOJ support for stripping citizenship from naturalized citizens and Trump's attacks on his own Supreme Court justices. Corey then speaks with Cecilia Wang, National Legal Director of the ACLU, who argued before the Supreme Court against Trump's executive order attacking birthright citizenship, with Trump himself watching from the courtroom. Wang explains why the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment are on her side, how Reconstruction transformed the Constitution, and why the fight over citizenship is part of the larger battle for voting rights, civil liberties, and democracy itself.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Five days after the South Carolina Supreme Court's unanimous ruling overturning Alex Murdaugh's double murder convictions, his defense team filed a seventeen-page Section 1983 civil rights complaint against former Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in Charleston.The complaint alleges Hill, acting under color of state law in her capacity as elected clerk, deprived Murdaugh of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights through deliberate jury interference — conduct the Supreme Court characterized as "shocking" and described as Hill placing "her fingers on the scales of justice."Eric Faddis examines the legal architecture of the federal civil action, including the evidentiary standard Murdaugh must meet, the scope of civil discovery available under federal rules, and the strategic implications of Jim Griffin's public statement that none of the six hundred thousand dollars in requested damages would go to Murdaugh personally.He addresses the prosecutorial gap — Hill's guilty pleas to misconduct, obstruction, and perjury alongside the absence of a jury tampering charge from state prosecutors, followed by the Supreme Court's effective finding of exactly that conduct. He evaluates Attorney General Alan Wilson's public consideration of the death penalty for the retrial and the potential legal friction created by vindictive prosecution doctrine.Footer Links:Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodDisclaimer:This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.Hashtags:#AlexMurdaugh #BeckyHill #MurdaughTrial #SouthCarolina #JuryTampering #Section1983 #TrueCrime #DeathPenalty #MurdaughRetrial #HiddenKillers

Does the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee birthright citizenship to persons born in the United States to parents without permanent immigration status? Please join us for an insightful discussion with a group of scholars who will break down Trump v. Barbara, consider the recent Supreme Court oral argument, and explore the approaches the Court might take as it reaches a decision. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As the nation awaits a potentially landmark Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship, the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy features renowned legal scholar Richard Epstein for an in-depth discussion of the constitutional, historical, and legal arguments surrounding the issue.Epstein, emeritus professor at the New York University School of Law and the University of Chicago Law School, senior fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, and author of the new book The Myth of Birthright Citizenship, recently filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case Trump v. Barbara. In the brief, Epstein argues that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not automatically confer citizenship on children born in the United States to illegal aliens.During the conversation, Epstein explains that understanding the issue requires careful textual and historical analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”According to Epstein, the clause requires more than mere physical presence or birth within the United States. He argues that individuals born owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign, or whose parents are not under the complete jurisdiction of the United States, are excluded from automatic citizenship.The episode also explores Epstein's critique of the Supreme Court's 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which is widely understood as establishing birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Epstein contends the ruling was wrongly decided and should not be extended to cases involving children born to illegal immigrants.Drawing on centuries of legal history, Epstein discusses the overlooked Naturalization Acts from 1790 to 1870, the writings of influential thinkers including William Blackstone and Emer de Vattel, and American legal practices before and after the Civil War. He argues that citizenship historically required allegiance and mutual obligations between citizen and sovereign - not simply birth within territorial boundaries.In his closing commentary, podcast host Mark Krikorian discusses the ongoing legislative battle over funding for CBP and ICE through 2029. Republicans are advancing a budget reconciliation package that could reach the House floor as early as this week or next. Because reconciliation bills can pass with a simple majority, the legislation would bypass the Senate's traditional 60-vote filibuster threshold. Krikorian highlights that the Democratic Party has embraced positions hostile to the existence of immigration enforcement agencies, creating potential political consequences in upcoming debates and elections.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestRichard Epstein is Emeritus Professor at the New York University School of Law and the University of Chicago Law School and Senior Fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.LinksThe Myth of Birthright CitizenshipThe Case Against Birthright CitizenshipBrief of Amicus Curiae: Professor A. Epstein in Support of the Petitioners and ReversalIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Alex Murdaugh has officially filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against former Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill—and legendary trial attorney Neil Rockind is breaking down exactly what this means for the future of this high-profile case.#AlexMurdaugh #BeckyHill #NeilRockind #KillerCrossExamination #JuryTampering #LegalAnalysis #TrueCrime #Lawsuit #MurdaughTrial #ConstitutionalRightsAbout This EpisodeFresh off the heels of the South Carolina Supreme Court's bombshell decision unanimously overturning Murdaugh's double murder convictions, Murdaugh is striking back. His defense team has launched a 17-page federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, accusing Becky Hill of deliberately violating his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair trial before an impartial jury.In this episode of Killer Cross Examination, host Neil Rockind dives deep into the shocking details of the complaint. From allegations that Hill tampered with jurors to secure a quick guilty verdict to boost her own book sales, to the Supreme Court's blistering declaration that she placed her "fingers on the scales of justice," Neil dissects the unprecedented legal maneuvers at play.Neil breaks down the core elements of the lawsuit, including:The Allegations of Misconduct: How Hill allegedly instructed jurors not to be "fooled" or "confused" by the defense and held private, unrecorded conversations with the jury foreperson.The Motive: The shocking claim that Hill compromised a double murder trial for the "siren call of celebrity" and a desire to buy a lake house via book revenue.The $600,000 Damage Claim: Why Murdaugh is suing to recover the massive retirement funds spent on a trial corrupted by state misconduct.The Implication for the Retrial: What happens next now that state prosecutors plan to retry Murdaugh from square one.As a veteran defense attorney who fights daily against government overreach and misconduct, Neil Rockind provides the ultimate masterclass on why protecting constitutional trial rights matters—no matter who the defendant is.About Neil Rockind - Neil Rockind is a trial lawyer. Neil Rockind is often considered a bet the farm/company type of lawyer, taking on cases where the stakes are “all in.” Neil Rockind appears regularly on television and in the news, defends people in serious court cases, is a regular guest on the Law and Crime Network and also discusses popular trials and cases and current events with other top lawyers around the country. Neil Rockind has won just about every award imaginable, has represented athletes, celebrities, musicians, public figures and has obtained acquittals in all varieties of cases. His nickname is "The Rockweiler" and he's known for his cross examination style.Neil Rockind:Https://www.X.com/neilrockindlawHttps://www.instagram.com/rockindlaw https://www.rockindlaw.com/http://www.killercrossexamination.com/*************************************Subscribe to Killer Cross Examination® PodcastAPPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/424RIys...GOOGLE PODCASTS: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...AUDIBLE:https://www.audible.com/pd/Podcast/B0...******************************************Fair Use DoctrineThe contents are under fair use. It may contain copyrighted materials whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This, in our view, is fair use pursuant to section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. We retain no rights to that material. To the extent the videos capture images or likenesses, we do not own the rights to those images, likenesses, etc and only use them pursuant to the fair use doctrine.All other rights are reserved.

This Day in Legal History: Plessy v. FergusonOn May 18, 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Plessy v. Ferguson, a case that became one of the most infamous constitutional decisions in American history. The dispute arose from a Louisiana law requiring separate railroad cars for Black and white passengers. Homer Plessy, who was of mixed race, deliberately sat in a whites-only rail car to challenge the law. After he was arrested, Plessy argued that the statute violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and held that racial segregation did not violate the Constitution as long as the separate facilities were considered equal. This became known as the “separate but equal” doctrine.In practice, the doctrine gave legal cover to segregation across the South and helped support the broader Jim Crow system. The Court treated segregation as a matter of public policy rather than as a badge of racial inferiority imposed by law. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote the majority opinion, reasoning that enforced separation did not necessarily imply inequality. Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented, warning that the Constitution should be color-blind and that the ruling would become as harmful as the Court's decision in Dred Scott. His dissent later became one of the most important statements in American civil-rights law. For nearly six decades, Plessy allowed governments to maintain racially separate schools, transportation, and public facilities.The decision was finally undermined in 1954, when the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education and rejected segregation in public education. Plessy remains a stark example of how constitutional interpretation can either protect civil rights or help entrench systems of inequality.A proposed class action filed in Washington federal court accuses Amazon of keeping money it allegedly collected from customers through prices inflated by now-invalidated Trump administration tariffs. The plaintiffs say Amazon could seek refunds from the federal government after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the tariffs, but has refused to do so because it wants to stay in President Trump's good graces. The lawsuit claims Amazon passed tariff costs on to shoppers, then failed to commit to returning that money even though other retailers have allegedly pursued refunds. The customers point to Amazon's abandoned plan to show tariff-related price increases on product pages as evidence that the company can identify both the tariff amounts and the consumers who paid them. They also claim Amazon backed away from that plan after criticism from the Trump administration and a call involving Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.The complaint alleges violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The plaintiffs say Amazon misled consumers by suggesting tariffs were not increasing prices, while allegedly raising prices on certain low-cost goods after the tariffs took effect. They also argue Amazon failed to tell customers it would not seek tariff refunds even if the tariffs were later found unlawful. The proposed class would include Amazon customers who paid tariff-related surcharges from February 4, 2025, through February 20, 2026. The suit estimates the class could include tens of millions of buyers and seeks to recover money the plaintiffs say belongs to consumers. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other major companies, including Nike, Sony, Nintendo, Costco, Temu, and FedEx.Amazon Skipped Tariff Refunds To Appease Trump, Suit Says - Law360The Federal Circuit held its biennial judicial conference in Washington, D.C., bringing together its active judges, agency leaders, district judges who have recently sat by designation, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Solicitor General D. John Sauer. Chief Judge Kimberly Ann Moore opened the event with lighter moments, including praise for Senior Judge Raymond C. Clevenger and the debut of an AI-generated Federal Circuit theme song meant to make the court feel more accessible. The conference did not address the ongoing suspension of Judge Pauline Newman, although she attended the event while continuing to challenge the suspension at the Supreme Court. Judge Moore said the court issued 630 opinions in 2025, its highest total in a decade, and noted an effort to use fewer one-line Rule 36 affirmances. Still, court leaders and practitioners criticized Rule 36 decisions, especially because they give lower courts and litigants little explanation.The judges also discussed en banc arguments, emphasizing that lawyers must stay focused because full-court arguments leave little time for extended exchanges with any one judge. A major theme was the renewed use of district judges sitting by designation, with 23 visiting judges helping decide nearly 200 cases since February 2024. Visiting district judges said the experience gave them a new appreciation for appellate work, the quality of Federal Circuit advocacy, and the process of narrowing trial records into appealable issues. Federal Circuit judges also described sitting on other courts, including in criminal sentencing matters, which several said gave them a deeper appreciation for the workload and human stakes faced by district judges. The judges offered practical advice to lawyers, urging them to narrow issues, address weaknesses directly, provide full context for citations, and make appropriate concessions. USPTO Director John Squires also appeared and defended his approach to discretionary denials of inter partes review petitions, saying he is returning the process to what Congress intended under the America Invents Act.Fed. Circ. Drops A Theme Song, Talks Guest Judges - Law360President Donald Trump has dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury Department, a move linked to discussions about creating a $1.8 billion compensation fund for people who claim they were unfairly investigated by prior administrations. The court filing did not describe any settlement, but Trump's lawyers said the case was still early enough that he could dismiss it without court permission or IRS approval.The dismissal was filed “with prejudice,” meaning Trump cannot bring the same claim again. Trump and his sons filed the lawsuit in January, accusing the IRS of failing to protect confidential tax information after his tax records were leaked. A former IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, was sentenced to prison for leaking Trump's tax information as well as records belonging to many others. Trump brought the case as a private citizen, not in his official role as president. The federal judge overseeing the case had already questioned whether a sitting president could properly seek personal monetary damages from an agency inside the executive branch.The dismissal follows settlements in lawsuits brought by Trump allies, including Michael Flynn and Carter Page. Shortly after Trump's filing, House Democrats submitted a brief accusing him of self-dealing and arguing that any attempt to use the court process to support a settlement should be closely reviewed.Trump drops lawsuit against IRS amid talks of establishing a $1.8 billion fund for allies | CNN Politics This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In 2015 the Supreme Court decided in the case Obergefell v. Hodges, that the Fourteenth Amendment protected the right for homosexuals to get marriage. In 2026 the State of Tennessee is working on legislation that points out that private groups are organizations are not bound by the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore by Obergefell.

Today's episode jumps right into the introduction of law professor Adam Macleod, a renowed expert on common law, by the Chair of the Tennessee Senate's judiciary committee in 2019. Professor Macleod testified about the relationship of common law to the forgotten and overlooked Ninth Amendment, and their relationship to the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that "persons" are not to be deprived of "life" without "due process of law." Everyone needs to absorb his testimony, even if it takes repeated listens. It is the understanding of the Constitution and the legislative branch rarely taught in law schools!

Today's episode jumps directly into the introduction of nationally respected law professor Adam MacLeod and his testimony before the Tennessee Senate's judiciary committee in 2019. His testimony supported pro-life legislation I had drafted to challenge Roe v. Wade. It is a critical primer on the relationship of common law to the forgotten Ninth Amendment, and their relationship to the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. His testimony explains what the U.S. Supreme Court got wrong in justifying abortion. It is also the path forward for states to have the unborn declared a legal person with a right to life. Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's episode jumps right into the introduction of law professor Adam Macleod, a renowed expert on common law, by the Chair of the Tennessee Senate's judiciary committee in 2019. Professor Macleod testified about the relationship of common law to the forgotten and overlooked Ninth Amendment, and their relationship to the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that "persons" are not to be deprived of "life" without "due process of law." Everyone needs to absorb his testimony, even if it takes repeated listens. It is the understanding of the Constitution and the legislative branch rarely taught in law schools!

Unleashed: The Political News Hour with Nate Cain – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on April 29 that Louisiana's congressional map constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Separately, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down a Democrat-backed voter-approved amendment that sought to bypass the state's independent...

The Klan Claims A ScallywagJump to the AD-FREE Safe House EditionEpisode 477 tells the story of Judge George W. Ashburn — Union colonel, scalawag, author of the state's civil rights provisions — who is gunned down by the Ku Klux Klan in their Georgia debut. The killers are caught, tried, and freed through a devil's bargain: their liberty exchanged for ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.More ASSASSINATIONSBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/true-crime-historian--2909311/support.You can pay more if you want to, but rent at the Safe House is still just a buck a week, and you can get access to over 400 ad-free episodes from the dusty vault, Safe House Exclusives, direct access to the Boss, and whatever personal services you require.We invite you to our other PULPULAR MEDIA podcasts:If disaster is more your jam, check out CATASTROPHIC CALAMITIES, telling the stories of famous and forgotten tragedies of the 19th and 20th centuries. What could go wrong? Everything!For brand-new tales in the old clothes from the golden era of popular literature, give your ears a treat with PULP MAGAZINES with two new stories every week.This episode includes AI-generated content.

“Parental rights” is a rallying cry for today's American conservatives, signaling opposition to mandatory vaccination and “woke” public school curricula. In Every Man's Home a Castle: Parental Rights and the Makings of Modern Conservatism (Princeton UP, 2026), Dr. Julia Bowes traces the origins of the modern parental rights movement to the nineteenth century, when the introduction of compulsory schooling laws, child labor regulations, and vaccine requirements provoked a resistance rooted in the presumed right of white men to govern their homes. A wide-ranging coalition—including Irish Catholic immigrants in Illinois, Mormon enclaves in Utah, and Protestant clergy in Virginia—believed that the state had usurped the “natural rights” of parents and “invaded the home.”Dr. Bowes shows how, by the turn of the century, those disparate voices had coalesced into national conservative movements. Anti-vaccinationists, alternative medical practitioners, and parents who opposed compulsory school medical exams joined forces to form the National League for Medical Freedom. Deciding a case brought by conservative Catholic lawyers, the Supreme Court declared parental rights a “fundamental liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. And the Sentinels of the Republic, a conservative citizen's lobby, mobilized a campaign to defeat the proposed federal Child Labor Amendment, bringing together pro-family and free-market politics with far-reaching consequences.Exploring the emergence of parental rights as an antistatist ideology through legal cases, legislative debates, and political movements, Dr. Bowes argues that the expansion of state power over children provoked such fierce opposition because the paternal rights of white men—considered the “rights-bearing” individuals of American democracy—were widely viewed as the mark and measure of their independence. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

“Parental rights” is a rallying cry for today's American conservatives, signaling opposition to mandatory vaccination and “woke” public school curricula. In Every Man's Home a Castle: Parental Rights and the Makings of Modern Conservatism (Princeton UP, 2026), Dr. Julia Bowes traces the origins of the modern parental rights movement to the nineteenth century, when the introduction of compulsory schooling laws, child labor regulations, and vaccine requirements provoked a resistance rooted in the presumed right of white men to govern their homes. A wide-ranging coalition—including Irish Catholic immigrants in Illinois, Mormon enclaves in Utah, and Protestant clergy in Virginia—believed that the state had usurped the “natural rights” of parents and “invaded the home.”Dr. Bowes shows how, by the turn of the century, those disparate voices had coalesced into national conservative movements. Anti-vaccinationists, alternative medical practitioners, and parents who opposed compulsory school medical exams joined forces to form the National League for Medical Freedom. Deciding a case brought by conservative Catholic lawyers, the Supreme Court declared parental rights a “fundamental liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. And the Sentinels of the Republic, a conservative citizen's lobby, mobilized a campaign to defeat the proposed federal Child Labor Amendment, bringing together pro-family and free-market politics with far-reaching consequences.Exploring the emergence of parental rights as an antistatist ideology through legal cases, legislative debates, and political movements, Dr. Bowes argues that the expansion of state power over children provoked such fierce opposition because the paternal rights of white men—considered the “rights-bearing” individuals of American democracy—were widely viewed as the mark and measure of their independence. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

“Parental rights” is a rallying cry for today's American conservatives, signaling opposition to mandatory vaccination and “woke” public school curricula. In Every Man's Home a Castle: Parental Rights and the Makings of Modern Conservatism (Princeton UP, 2026), Dr. Julia Bowes traces the origins of the modern parental rights movement to the nineteenth century, when the introduction of compulsory schooling laws, child labor regulations, and vaccine requirements provoked a resistance rooted in the presumed right of white men to govern their homes. A wide-ranging coalition—including Irish Catholic immigrants in Illinois, Mormon enclaves in Utah, and Protestant clergy in Virginia—believed that the state had usurped the “natural rights” of parents and “invaded the home.”Dr. Bowes shows how, by the turn of the century, those disparate voices had coalesced into national conservative movements. Anti-vaccinationists, alternative medical practitioners, and parents who opposed compulsory school medical exams joined forces to form the National League for Medical Freedom. Deciding a case brought by conservative Catholic lawyers, the Supreme Court declared parental rights a “fundamental liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. And the Sentinels of the Republic, a conservative citizen's lobby, mobilized a campaign to defeat the proposed federal Child Labor Amendment, bringing together pro-family and free-market politics with far-reaching consequences.Exploring the emergence of parental rights as an antistatist ideology through legal cases, legislative debates, and political movements, Dr. Bowes argues that the expansion of state power over children provoked such fierce opposition because the paternal rights of white men—considered the “rights-bearing” individuals of American democracy—were widely viewed as the mark and measure of their independence. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

“Parental rights” is a rallying cry for today's American conservatives, signaling opposition to mandatory vaccination and “woke” public school curricula. In Every Man's Home a Castle: Parental Rights and the Makings of Modern Conservatism (Princeton UP, 2026), Dr. Julia Bowes traces the origins of the modern parental rights movement to the nineteenth century, when the introduction of compulsory schooling laws, child labor regulations, and vaccine requirements provoked a resistance rooted in the presumed right of white men to govern their homes. A wide-ranging coalition—including Irish Catholic immigrants in Illinois, Mormon enclaves in Utah, and Protestant clergy in Virginia—believed that the state had usurped the “natural rights” of parents and “invaded the home.”Dr. Bowes shows how, by the turn of the century, those disparate voices had coalesced into national conservative movements. Anti-vaccinationists, alternative medical practitioners, and parents who opposed compulsory school medical exams joined forces to form the National League for Medical Freedom. Deciding a case brought by conservative Catholic lawyers, the Supreme Court declared parental rights a “fundamental liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. And the Sentinels of the Republic, a conservative citizen's lobby, mobilized a campaign to defeat the proposed federal Child Labor Amendment, bringing together pro-family and free-market politics with far-reaching consequences.Exploring the emergence of parental rights as an antistatist ideology through legal cases, legislative debates, and political movements, Dr. Bowes argues that the expansion of state power over children provoked such fierce opposition because the paternal rights of white men—considered the “rights-bearing” individuals of American democracy—were widely viewed as the mark and measure of their independence. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

“Parental rights” is a rallying cry for today's American conservatives, signaling opposition to mandatory vaccination and “woke” public school curricula. In Every Man's Home a Castle: Parental Rights and the Makings of Modern Conservatism (Princeton UP, 2026), Dr. Julia Bowes traces the origins of the modern parental rights movement to the nineteenth century, when the introduction of compulsory schooling laws, child labor regulations, and vaccine requirements provoked a resistance rooted in the presumed right of white men to govern their homes. A wide-ranging coalition—including Irish Catholic immigrants in Illinois, Mormon enclaves in Utah, and Protestant clergy in Virginia—believed that the state had usurped the “natural rights” of parents and “invaded the home.”Dr. Bowes shows how, by the turn of the century, those disparate voices had coalesced into national conservative movements. Anti-vaccinationists, alternative medical practitioners, and parents who opposed compulsory school medical exams joined forces to form the National League for Medical Freedom. Deciding a case brought by conservative Catholic lawyers, the Supreme Court declared parental rights a “fundamental liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. And the Sentinels of the Republic, a conservative citizen's lobby, mobilized a campaign to defeat the proposed federal Child Labor Amendment, bringing together pro-family and free-market politics with far-reaching consequences.Exploring the emergence of parental rights as an antistatist ideology through legal cases, legislative debates, and political movements, Dr. Bowes argues that the expansion of state power over children provoked such fierce opposition because the paternal rights of white men—considered the “rights-bearing” individuals of American democracy—were widely viewed as the mark and measure of their independence. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

“Parental rights” is a rallying cry for today's American conservatives, signaling opposition to mandatory vaccination and “woke” public school curricula. In Every Man's Home a Castle: Parental Rights and the Makings of Modern Conservatism (Princeton UP, 2026), Dr. Julia Bowes traces the origins of the modern parental rights movement to the nineteenth century, when the introduction of compulsory schooling laws, child labor regulations, and vaccine requirements provoked a resistance rooted in the presumed right of white men to govern their homes. A wide-ranging coalition—including Irish Catholic immigrants in Illinois, Mormon enclaves in Utah, and Protestant clergy in Virginia—believed that the state had usurped the “natural rights” of parents and “invaded the home.”Dr. Bowes shows how, by the turn of the century, those disparate voices had coalesced into national conservative movements. Anti-vaccinationists, alternative medical practitioners, and parents who opposed compulsory school medical exams joined forces to form the National League for Medical Freedom. Deciding a case brought by conservative Catholic lawyers, the Supreme Court declared parental rights a “fundamental liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. And the Sentinels of the Republic, a conservative citizen's lobby, mobilized a campaign to defeat the proposed federal Child Labor Amendment, bringing together pro-family and free-market politics with far-reaching consequences.Exploring the emergence of parental rights as an antistatist ideology through legal cases, legislative debates, and political movements, Dr. Bowes argues that the expansion of state power over children provoked such fierce opposition because the paternal rights of white men—considered the “rights-bearing” individuals of American democracy—were widely viewed as the mark and measure of their independence. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

“Parental rights” is a rallying cry for today's American conservatives, signaling opposition to mandatory vaccination and “woke” public school curricula. In Every Man's Home a Castle: Parental Rights and the Makings of Modern Conservatism (Princeton UP, 2026), Dr. Julia Bowes traces the origins of the modern parental rights movement to the nineteenth century, when the introduction of compulsory schooling laws, child labor regulations, and vaccine requirements provoked a resistance rooted in the presumed right of white men to govern their homes. A wide-ranging coalition—including Irish Catholic immigrants in Illinois, Mormon enclaves in Utah, and Protestant clergy in Virginia—believed that the state had usurped the “natural rights” of parents and “invaded the home.”Dr. Bowes shows how, by the turn of the century, those disparate voices had coalesced into national conservative movements. Anti-vaccinationists, alternative medical practitioners, and parents who opposed compulsory school medical exams joined forces to form the National League for Medical Freedom. Deciding a case brought by conservative Catholic lawyers, the Supreme Court declared parental rights a “fundamental liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. And the Sentinels of the Republic, a conservative citizen's lobby, mobilized a campaign to defeat the proposed federal Child Labor Amendment, bringing together pro-family and free-market politics with far-reaching consequences.Exploring the emergence of parental rights as an antistatist ideology through legal cases, legislative debates, and political movements, Dr. Bowes argues that the expansion of state power over children provoked such fierce opposition because the paternal rights of white men—considered the “rights-bearing” individuals of American democracy—were widely viewed as the mark and measure of their independence. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts.

“Parental rights” is a rallying cry for today's American conservatives, signaling opposition to mandatory vaccination and “woke” public school curricula. In Every Man's Home a Castle: Parental Rights and the Makings of Modern Conservatism (Princeton UP, 2026), Dr. Julia Bowes traces the origins of the modern parental rights movement to the nineteenth century, when the introduction of compulsory schooling laws, child labor regulations, and vaccine requirements provoked a resistance rooted in the presumed right of white men to govern their homes. A wide-ranging coalition—including Irish Catholic immigrants in Illinois, Mormon enclaves in Utah, and Protestant clergy in Virginia—believed that the state had usurped the “natural rights” of parents and “invaded the home.”Dr. Bowes shows how, by the turn of the century, those disparate voices had coalesced into national conservative movements. Anti-vaccinationists, alternative medical practitioners, and parents who opposed compulsory school medical exams joined forces to form the National League for Medical Freedom. Deciding a case brought by conservative Catholic lawyers, the Supreme Court declared parental rights a “fundamental liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. And the Sentinels of the Republic, a conservative citizen's lobby, mobilized a campaign to defeat the proposed federal Child Labor Amendment, bringing together pro-family and free-market politics with far-reaching consequences.Exploring the emergence of parental rights as an antistatist ideology through legal cases, legislative debates, and political movements, Dr. Bowes argues that the expansion of state power over children provoked such fierce opposition because the paternal rights of white men—considered the “rights-bearing” individuals of American democracy—were widely viewed as the mark and measure of their independence. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“Parental rights” is a rallying cry for today's American conservatives, signaling opposition to mandatory vaccination and “woke” public school curricula. In Every Man's Home a Castle: Parental Rights and the Makings of Modern Conservatism (Princeton UP, 2026), Dr. Julia Bowes traces the origins of the modern parental rights movement to the nineteenth century, when the introduction of compulsory schooling laws, child labor regulations, and vaccine requirements provoked a resistance rooted in the presumed right of white men to govern their homes. A wide-ranging coalition—including Irish Catholic immigrants in Illinois, Mormon enclaves in Utah, and Protestant clergy in Virginia—believed that the state had usurped the “natural rights” of parents and “invaded the home.”Dr. Bowes shows how, by the turn of the century, those disparate voices had coalesced into national conservative movements. Anti-vaccinationists, alternative medical practitioners, and parents who opposed compulsory school medical exams joined forces to form the National League for Medical Freedom. Deciding a case brought by conservative Catholic lawyers, the Supreme Court declared parental rights a “fundamental liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. And the Sentinels of the Republic, a conservative citizen's lobby, mobilized a campaign to defeat the proposed federal Child Labor Amendment, bringing together pro-family and free-market politics with far-reaching consequences.Exploring the emergence of parental rights as an antistatist ideology through legal cases, legislative debates, and political movements, Dr. Bowes argues that the expansion of state power over children provoked such fierce opposition because the paternal rights of white men—considered the “rights-bearing” individuals of American democracy—were widely viewed as the mark and measure of their independence. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

This Day in Legal History: Salmon P. Chase DiesOn May 7, 1873, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase died, ending one of the most unusual legal and political careers in American history. Chase had been an antislavery lawyer, a U.S. senator, governor of Ohio, Abraham Lincoln's secretary of the Treasury, and then Chief Justice of the United States. He was also one of the many talented and ambitious men around Lincoln who did not begin as an admirer of him. Before Lincoln became president, Chase had encountered him as a lawyer and reportedly did not think much of him, viewing him as a rough western attorney rather than a national figure. After Lincoln defeated him for the Republican nomination in 1860, Chase had reason to believe a summons to the White House might be an occasion for Lincoln to enjoy the victory. Instead, Lincoln offered him one of the most important jobs in the government: secretary of the Treasury.It was a revealing moment in Lincoln's political genius, because he was willing to place a rival who had underestimated him in a position of enormous responsibility during the Civil War. Chase helped finance the Union war effort and became closely associated with the creation of a national banking system and the issuance of paper currency. In 1864, Lincoln elevated him again by appointing him Chief Justice of the United States.As Chief Justice, Chase presided over the 1868 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, a major constitutional test of presidential power and congressional authority. Near the end of his life, Chase dissented in the Slaughter-House Cases, one of the first major Supreme Court interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's majority read the Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause narrowly, limiting a provision that many had hoped would become a strong source of federal protection for civil rights. Chase's dissent placed him on the side of a broader understanding of Reconstruction's constitutional promise. His death mattered not only because of the offices he held, but because it came at a moment when the Supreme Court was deciding whether the Civil War amendments would transform American law or be read down almost as soon as they were adopted.Apple customers have asked a California federal judge to preliminarily approve a proposed $250 million settlement over claims that Apple overstated the artificial intelligence features available on the iPhone 16. The proposed class includes people who bought any iPhone 16 model or certain iPhone 15 models between June 10, 2024, and March 29, 2025. The customers allege Apple advertised enhanced Siri capabilities as part of its Apple Intelligence rollout even though those features were not yet available. Under the settlement, eligible class members who submit valid claims would receive $25 per device, with payments possibly rising to $95 per device depending on participation. Apple is also expected to provide additional Siri-related Apple Intelligence updates in the future at no extra cost.The plaintiffs said settlement made sense because AI-related consumer claims are still legally novel and would carry risk if the case continued. Apple had argued that its marketing was not deceptive because it had already released many Apple Intelligence features and had disclosed that other features would arrive over time. The case began in March 2025 and later became part of a consolidated set of related lawsuits in the Northern District of California. The parties conducted discovery, consulted experts, and participated in three full-day mediation sessions before reaching the proposed deal. Plaintiffs' lawyers plan to seek up to $70 million in fees, plus up to $600,000 in expenses. The settlement does not resolve separate securities or shareholder cases claiming Apple misled investors about the timing of the Siri rollout. Apple said it settled to remain focused on developing products and services, while maintaining that it has already introduced numerous Apple Intelligence tools.Apple Reaches $250M Deal Over Claims It Overhyped IPhone AI - Law360Bayer has agreed to acquire Perfuse Therapeutics, a San Francisco biopharma company, in a deal worth up to $2.45 billion. The transaction gives Bayer full rights to PER-001, a drug candidate in phase-two clinical development for glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy. Bayer will pay $300 million upfront, with the rest tied to development, regulatory, and sales milestones. Perfuse focuses on treatments that improve blood flow to the retina, with the goal of addressing conditions that can lead to blindness. Bayer said the acquisition strengthens its ophthalmology pipeline and supports its effort to develop new therapies for serious eye diseases.The deal is being handled legally by Baker McKenzie for Bayer, with partners Alan Zoccolillo, Oren Livne, and Jieun Tak leading the team. Goodwin Procter is advising Perfuse. The transaction still needs antitrust clearance and approval from Perfuse shareholders. Bayer is being advised financially by BofA Securities, while Centerview Partners is advising Perfuse. Bayer and Perfuse said glaucoma could affect about 112 million people by 2040, while diabetic retinopathy could affect 160 million people by 2045.Baker McKenzie-Led Bayer To Buy Perfuse For Up To $2.45B - Law360 UKThe California Supreme Court is considering whether drugmakers can be held legally responsible for stopping development of a potentially safer drug while continuing to sell an already-approved medication. The case involves Gilead Sciences and roughly 24,000 HIV patients who took drugs containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, or TDF. TDF-based drugs received FDA approval in 2001, but they were associated with possible kidney and bone side effects. Gilead later began developing a related drug, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, or TAF, which patients say had fewer side effects. The company stopped developing TAF in 2004, arguing that it was not different enough from TDF to justify further investment.The patients claim Gilead delayed TAF for business reasons, including to protect TDF sales and time TAF's release around the expiration of TDF patents. Gilead argues that allowing the negligence claims to proceed would punish companies for researching possible improvements and could discourage innovation. The company says the lower court rulings effectively create a “duty to innovate,” even when the drug already on the market is not alleged to be defective. The patients respond that the case is not about forcing endless research, but about whether Gilead unreasonably delayed a safer alternative for profit. A ruling for the patients could expand product-liability exposure for pharmaceutical companies, while a ruling for Gilead could limit claims based on decisions not to commercialize drugs still in development.California's highest court to consider whether drugmakers have ‘duty to innovate' | 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

American legal scholar Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University (NYU), joins the show by phone with in-studio guest Hugh Hallman, Attorney, Educator, and former Mayor of Tempe, for the full hour to talk about his recently-authored book The Myth of Birthright Citizenship: What the Fourteenth Amendment Really Says. They dive into the complexities of the Fourteenth Amendment, exploring its history and the concept of birthright citizenship. Professor Epstein shares his expertise, shedding light on the nuances of the amendment and its impact on modern society. With a focus on the intersection of law and history, this conversation is a must-listen for anyone interested in constitutional law and its relevance today.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

From the historical meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to the lasting impact of Wong Kim Ark, In this episode of Let's Brief It, we break down the Supreme Court's upcoming case Trump v. Barbara.Joined by Leon Rodriguez and Wendy Feng, we explore how precedent, executive action, and constitutional interpretation collide and what longstanding interpretations shifts could mean for the Fourteenth Amendment and the future of citizenship in the United States.Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations.Want to get ahead of the pack? Joining the D.C. Bar Law Student Community (LSC) can get you there. Your LSC membership will provide resume and skills boosting opportunities and one-on-one access to local practicing attorneys. To learn more, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

What does the Supreme Court’s latest ruling on redistricting mean for the future of American elections? On this episode of The Truth with Lisa Boothe, Lisa is joined by Zack Smith of the The Heritage Foundation to break down the Court’s major decision striking down Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. They unpack the clash between the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, what this means for redistricting battles in states like Texas, California, Virginia, and Florida, and how it could impact congressional control in the upcoming midterms. Plus, they discuss the growing legal war over political vs. racial gerrymandering, the role of census data, and why this decision could trigger a nationwide redistricting domino effect. Is this a win for equal protection under the Constitution—or the beginning of a new political arms race?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Memphis Massacre was a truly horrific wave of destruction and violence, including sexual violence, against the Black community of Memphis just a year after the end of the U.S. Civil War. Research: “Memphis Daily Appeal Interviews Frances Thompson (1876),” SHEC: Resources for Teachers, accessed April 9, 2026, https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/3717. “The Outrage Mill.” The North Missouri Register. 9/14/1876. “The Reports of the Committees of the House of Representatives Made during the First Session Thirty-ninth Congress, 1865-’66.” Washington: Government Printing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/SERIALSET-01274_00_00-002-0101-0000/context Blank, Christopher. “Do The Words 'Race Riot' Belong On A Historic Marker In Memphis?” Code Switch. NPR. 5/2/2016. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/05/02/476450908/in-memphis-a-divide-over-how-to-remember-a-massacre-150-years-later Britannica Editors. "Memphis massacre of 1866". Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 Feb. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/event/Memphis-Race-Riot. Accessed 8 April 2026. Carriere, Marius. “An Irresponsible Press: Memphis Newspapers and the 1866 Riot.” Tennessee Historical Quarterly , Spring 2001, Vol. 60, No. 1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42628498 Davis, Justin A. “How a disabled Black trans woman left her mark on 19th-century Memphis.” The Emancipator. 6/13/2024. https://theemancipator.org/2024/06/13/topics/histories/how-a-disabled-black-trans-woman-left-her-mark-on-19th-century-memphis/ Donald, Bernice Bouie. “When the Rule of Law Breaks Down: Implications of the 1866 Memphis Massacre for the Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Boston Law Review. Vol. 98. 2018. Equal Justice Institute. “On this day - Apr 30, 1866: White Police and Mobs Terrorize and Kill Black Residents in Memphis.” https://calendar.eji.org/racial-injustice/apr/30 Harper’s Weekly. “The Memphis Riots.” 5/26/1866. Johnson, Charles F. and T.W. Gilbreth. “The Freedmen’s Bureau Report on the Memphis Race Riots of 1866.” 5/22/1866. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-freedmens-bureau-report-on-the-memphis-race-riots-of-1866/ Kimberley, Lewis. “’If you kill him, you have got to kill me first’: examining individual and collective loyalties during the Memphis Massacre (1866).” American Nineteenth Century History. Vol. 25, 2024. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14664658.2024.2316465 O’Donovan, Susan and Beverly Bond. “ ‘A History They Can Use’: The Memphis Massacre and Reconstruction’s Public History Terrain.” The Journal of the Civil War Era. 8/15/2016. https://www.journalofthecivilwarera.org/2016/08/history-can-use-memphis-massacre-reconstructions-public-history-terrain/ Stryker, Susan. “To Appear As We Please.” Aperture, Winter 2017, No. 229, Future Gender. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44898154 Walker, Barrington. “'This is the White Man's Day': The Irish, White Racial Identity, and the 1866 Memphis Riots.” Left History. Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997. https://doi.org/10.25071/1913-9632.5336 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I never thought I'd be glued to the Supreme Court docket like this, but here we are, listeners, in the thick of it. Just last fall, the justices heard arguments in a blockbuster case straight out of President Donald Trump's playbook: whether his Executive Order 14160 violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Rutgers Law School professors are calling it one of the most pivotal issues of 2026, as it challenges who gets U.S. citizenship by birth—potentially rewriting birthright rules that have stood for over a century. Imagine the ripple effects on families, borders, and elections if the Court sides with the challengers.But that's not all unfolding in these past few days. On April 21, Yankee Institute reported how Connecticut lawmakers are playing a risky game, pushing bills to tweak laws mid-litigation. Take Senate Bill 450—it's aimed right at an active lawsuit over the state's 2021 move to scrap religious exemptions for school vaccines. The bill declares that Connecticut's Religious Freedom Restoration Act won't apply to immunizations, even in pending cases, yanking the legal standard out from under the court's feet. Critics say it's a pattern: lawmakers repealing rules while courts decide if they were broken, raising red flags on accountability. Is it legal? Courts will say, but it smells like dodging scrutiny.Shifting to tax battles with echoes of big penalties, The National Law Review detailed IRS moves from April 6. Taxpayers in Hirsch v. US Tax Court are begging the Supreme Court to extend the 2024 SEC v. Jarkesy ruling, demanding jury trials for civil fraud penalties topping $15 million—tied to faked US Virgin Islands residency claims. A win could hobble IRS audits everywhere. Meanwhile, the IRS proposed overhauling its Voluntary Disclosure Program, swapping a one-time 75% fraud penalty for 20% accuracy-related hits spread over six years, plus a 90-day payback deadline. Practitioners cheer ditching the huge lump sum but warn cumulative costs could still sting.And labor law's buzzing too. JD Supra notes the National Labor Relations Board is back in action this April, with Crystal Stowe Carey as General Counsel since January, issuing guidance to protect workers' rights. Yet nominations like James Macy's on April 13 keep it in flux, shadowed by Supreme Court fights over agency independence.Whew, from citizenship showdowns to mid-case law tweaks, these legal fires are burning hot. What's next? Stay tuned, because the courts never sleep.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AIThis episode includes AI-generated content.

Does anyone who is born on our land automatically receive citizenship? Not according to the Fourteenth Amendment, but that hasn't stopped the courts from messing this up. Which is exactly what I expect from the Supreme Court in the case Trump v. Barbara.

With Trump v. Barbara before the Supreme Court, Ilan Wurman, professor of law at the University of Minnesota, joins the show to discuss his scholarship on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause.  JURISDICTION AND CITIZENSHIP by Ilan Wurman https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/2026/02/49.Wurman.pdf Clearing Up Confusion on Birthright Citizenship by Ilan Wurman https://americanmind.org/salvo/clearing-up-confusion-on-birthright-citizenship/ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PROFESSOR ILAN WURMAN IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/392842/20260127175852031_Trump%20v%20Barbara%20-%20Wurman%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20FINAL.pdf The Constitution of 1789: A New Introduction by Ilan Wurman Amazon.com: The Constitution of 1789: A New Introduction: 9781009485692: Wurman, Ilan: Books

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen at 6 AM on April 22, 2026, watching the legal world spin around President Donald Trump like a whirlwind, but here we are, listeners. Just yesterday, on April 21, the U.S. Department of Justice dropped a bombshell in Montgomery, Alabama—a federal grand jury indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center on 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel announced it from Washington, with the FBI and IRS Criminal Investigation leading the probe. Two forfeiture actions aim to claw back the alleged proceeds, though it's all allegations for now, and a conviction could strip away their ill-gotten gains, according to the Justice Department's press release.But that's not all keeping Trump's legal orbit buzzing these past few days. Shift over to the Supreme Court, where his Executive Order 14160—aimed at redefining birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment—is hanging by a thread. SCOTUSblog reports that during two hours of oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara last week, justices gave the administration's push an icy stare, hinging on a novel take on "domicile." The government argues a mother's domicile should limit citizenship for kids born on U.S. soil, but without that buy-in, the order likely crumbles. Rutgers Law School professors predict a pivotal ruling this term, clashing with the Immigration and Nationality Act, and we might not hear until late June.Meanwhile, Trump's immigration enforcement machine keeps humming. Vasquez Law in Smithfield, North Carolina, details how fresh 2026 executive orders ramp up electronic monitoring, tighten green card rules for applicants, and boost local-federal cop cooperation from Florida to nationwide. Dreamers and undocumented folks face expedited removals, prioritized by public safety risks—policies echoing back to 2016 but supercharged now to protect Americans, as their blog outlines in a grim timeline from initial encounters to appeals dragging months.And don't sleep on the DOL front—Mayer Brown notes that on April 15, the Department of Labor released Technical Release 2026-01, sparked by Trump's December 2025 executive order. It cracks down on ERISA retirement plans' proxy voting and advisory services, ensuring fiduciary duty aligns with worker interests.From Alabama indictments to Supreme Court showdowns, Trump's legal moves are reshaping enforcement, citizenship, and more, proving the past week's drama is just the latest chapter. Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AIThis episode includes AI-generated content.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen this early on a crisp April morning in 2026, but here I am, coffee in hand, scrolling through the latest legal fireworks swirling around President Donald Trump. Just days ago, on April 1st, the Supreme Court chambers in Washington, D.C., echoed with oral arguments in Trump v. United States, a blockbuster case challenging Executive Order 14160. Rutgers Law School professors are calling it one of the most pivotal issues of the year, as it questions whether Trump's order redefining birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act holds water. Picture this: the justices grilling lawyers over who qualifies as a U.S. citizen by birth, with Trump's team arguing it bolsters national security while opponents cry foul on constitutional grounds. Rutgers Law highlights how this could reshape immigration law overnight, sending shockwaves through families across America.But that's not all keeping me up at night. Fast-forward to April 7th, and G37 Chambers' International Legal News roundup drops a bombshell from the White House. They're defending Trump amid Middle East tensions, stating outright that "the US President, Donald Trump was making the entire region safer." It's tied to broader foreign policy moves, like Syria's new Investment Arbitration Centre in Damascus, launched post-Assad to lure investors—moves Trump champions as stabilizing the chaos. Guernica 37's weekly updates from the International Criminal Court and European Court of Human Rights paint a picture of global legal chess, with Trump's administration pushing back hard.Shifting gears to the courts back home, the Southern District of New York is heating up with a wild twist on sanctions. The National Law Review reports that the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control issued then revoked a license for legal fees to defend former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores de Maduro. They're on the SDN List, facing narcotics and firearms charges after a dramatic U.S. Army rendition via Operation Southern Spear. Maduro's lawyers are firing back, claiming it guts their Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Fifth Amendment due process—echoes that make you wonder if similar sanction snags could ever loop in U.S. political heavyweights like Trump.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's fall 2025 arguments in Fernandez v. United States and Rutherford v. United States linger like a storm cloud, potentially curbing judges' power on compassionate releases for prisoners. Rutgers Law notes this could trap countless inmates in "extraordinary and compelling" limbo, a reform battle Trump-era policies have fueled.As the sun rises here on April 15th, these threads weave a tapestry of power, borders, and justice that's anything but sleepy. From the Supreme Court's marble halls to Damascus streets, Trump's legal orbit keeps the world spinning.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

In the fourth episode of Season 7 of Emphasis Added,  we sit down with Professor Laura Portuondo, a constitutional law scholar whose work focuses on reproductive rights and justice, gender equality, and the First Amendment. The conversation begins with her path into the law, reflecting on her academic journey and early experiences, including her time clerking in the federal courts and how those roles helped shape her legal perspective.The discussion then turns to her transition into academia and the development of her scholarly interests. Professor Portuondo offers insight into her work on reproductive rights and justice, breaking down the constitutional foundations of these issues and the ways they intersect with broader questions of privacy, equality, and individual liberties.Throughout the episode, she explores the evolving legal landscape following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, unpacking its constitutional implications and the unresolved questions it leaves behind. She also examines the tension between state authority and personal freedoms, as well as the increasing overlap between First Amendment protections and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees, particularly in areas like free speech, equal protection, and regulation in the digital age.Finally, Professor Portuondo shares her perspective on what constitutional issues may be on the horizon and reflects on the direction of the Court and the future of these critical legal questions.Tune in for a thoughtful conversation on constitutional law, reproductive justice, and the shifting boundaries of rights in today's legal landscape.To get a mailing or electronic subscription to the Houston Law Review click here.  For more Emphasis Added content, follow us on Instagram and check out our video content on YouTube!

In the 6 AM Hour: Larry O’Connor and Patrice Onwuka discussed: Ian Prior’s MoCo Lawsuit: America First Legal (AFL) has filed a formal federal complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education against Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Rockville, Maryland, alleging that the district’s “gender identity” policies violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution as well as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and urging the Trump Administration to investigate. Melania on Epstein: Melania Trump made an announcement yesterday refuting suggestions that she had connections to Jeffrey Epstein. Spanberger News: Virginia Gov. Spanberger signed legislation yesterday raising Virginia’s minimum wage to $15 an hour while vetoing a bill that would have paved the way for a casino in Fairfax County. Fairfax Groper Guilty: The illegal immigrant accused of groping girls in Fairfax High School has been found guilty of nine counts of assault. The judge also found Israel Flores Ortiz not guilty of three of the counts and dismissed one additional count. This comes after the victims were called to testify in court on Thursday. Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Audible, and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Friday, April 10, 2026 / 6 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

VR27 - This week on Vapid Response Wednesday we take a look at the liars, losers, frauds, and suckers angling for a federal bench who have worked up, developed,  and sold the “other side” of the Fourteenth Amendment's simple guarantee of birthright citizenship, which failed so badly in front of the Supreme Court last week. What kinds of people are out there trying to say that “anyone born or naturalized in the United States” doesn't mean exactly what it says? We review and discuss how a Fox News talkshow host, a deeply unserious law professor, and the lawyer most responsible for the events of January 6th, 2021 all did their part to radically reshape the US Constitution and who will benefit from it going forward. Watch this episode on YouTube! The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Library of Congress (1868) “The Birthright Con,” Jamelle Bouie, The New York Times (April 1, 2026) (recommended reading!) “If SCOTUS upholds birthright citizenship it will be at its own peril,” Breccan Thies, The Federalist (April 1, 2026) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!  

April 1, 2026Trump attended the Supreme Court hearing of the case under which he hopes to end birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, The Fourteenth Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision and established that Black men were citizens, While discriminatory laws persisted until after WWI, the Supreme Court always upheld the citizenship of children born in the US, In the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision, the court upheld birthright citizenship, Trump appeared at the Supreme Court presumably to intimidate the justices during the hearing, The ACLU's Cecilia Wang, herself a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, argued the case for the plaintiffs.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

It's Friday, April 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 Pakistani Christian legislator's bill would end forced conversions to Islam On March 31st, a Pakistani Christian lawmaker introduced a bill to criminalize forced religious conversions to Islam with penalties of up to five years in prison, reports Morning Star News. Falbous Christopher submitted the Punjab Protection of the Rights of Religious Minorities Bill 2026 in a renewed attempt to address a long-standing human rights challenge affecting Pakistan's religious minorities, particularly Christian and Hindu women and underage girls. No doubt his bill was inspired by stories like Maira Shahbaz, a 14-year-old Christian girl, who was abducted and forced to convert to Islam and marry a Muslim man in April 2020. Micah 6:8 urges us “to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”  Abduction of girls, forced conversion to Islam, and forced marriages are out of keeping with all three. Trump: We'll be free from Iranian wickedness and nuclear blackmail On Wednesday night, President Donald Trump addressed the nation with an update on “Operation Epic Fury,” the United States war with Iran. TRUMP: “We are on track to complete all of America's military objectives shortly. We're going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We're going to bring them back to the stone ages, where they belong. In the meantime, discussions are ongoing. “Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change. But regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders' deaths. They're all dead. The new group is less radical and much more reasonable. “Yet, if during this period of time, no deal is made, we have our eyes on key targets. If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric-generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously. We have not hit their oil, even though that's the easiest target of all, because it would not give them even a small chance of survival or rebuilding. “They have no anti-aircraft equipment. Their radar is 100% annihilated. We are unstoppable as a military force. The nuclear sites that we obliterated with the B2 Bombers have been hit so hard that it would take months to get near the nuclear dust. “We have all the cards. They have none. They were the bully of the Middle East, but they're the bully no longer. Tonight, every American can look forward to a day when we are finally free from the wickedness of Iranian aggression and the specter of nuclear blackmail.” War Secretary Hegseth quoted from imprecatory Psalms On March 25th, War Secretary Pete Hegseth quoted from the imprecatory Psalms and invoked divine wrath against the enemies of the United States during introductory remarks he made at the first monthly prayer service at the Pentagon since the outbreak of the war in Iran, reported The Christian Post. Hegseth read from a military chaplain's prayer used ahead of the January 3rd, 2026 operation to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro which he implied was equally relevant in the battle against the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Listen. HEGSETH: "Almighty God, who trains our hands for war and our fingers for battle, You who stirred the nations from the north against Babylon of old, making her land a desolation where none dwell: behold now the wicked, who rise against Your justice and the peace of the righteous. "Snap the rod of the oppressor, frustrate the wicked plans of the ungodly. By the blast of Your anger, let the evil perish. Let their bulls go down to slaughter, for their day has come; the time of their punishment. Pour out Your wrath upon those who plot vain things and blow them away like chaff before the wind." Psalm 17:13 says, “Rise up, LORD, confront them, bring them down; with your sword. Rescue me from the wicked.” Constitution expert predicts Supreme Court will affirm birthright citizenship Appearing on The Human Events podcast, Mike Davis, the founder of the Article III Project, predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court appears likely to affirm “birthright citizenship” for illegal aliens.  Listen. DAVIS: “I worry this is a 7-2 case.” JACK PROSOBIEC: “Wow!” DAVIS: “I worry that the only two justices who will have the courage to follow the law here are Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Sam Alito. I worry that the Chief Justice [John Roberts] and the three Trump justices [Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett] will join the three leftists [Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson]  who will always vote against President Trump. “The law is so crystal clear here. We the people, the sovereign citizens of America, get to decide who comes, who goes, get to decide who our fellow citizens are. We certainly did not give that away after the Civil War. “The 14th Amendment, the birthright citizenship clause, was to correct an egregious wrong with the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision that held that the freed slaves are not citizens. We fixed that with the 14th Amendment. There is a Supreme Court case that has extended that to lawful and permanent residents of the United States. “There is no way that the proponents of the 14th Amendment ever agreed to give birthright citizenship to illegal aliens!” If the Supreme Court does affirm birthright citizenship for illegal aliens it would be a major blow to both President Donald Trump's agenda and the Constitution. President Trump, first president to hear oral arguments, walked out Remarkably, President Trump heard the oral arguments in that birthright citizenship case in person, becoming the first sitting U.S. president ever to do so. At 11:20am on Wednesday, President Trump expressed his fury in a one-sentence post on Truth Social. “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow “Birthright” Citizenship!” The Western Journal reported that on the day he took office in January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing that only children born to parents “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States are citizens, quoting from the Fourteenth Amendment. NASA launches Artemis II to travel around the moon And finally, on Wednesday night at 6:35pm Eastern, NASA launched the long-awaited Artemis II mission from Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Listen. ANNOUNCER 1: “Here we go. 10-9-8-7 RS 25 engines lift 4-3-2-1. Booster ignition and lift off. The crew of Artemis II now bound for the moon. Humanity's next great voyage begins.” ANNOUNCER 2: “Good roll pitch.” ANNOUNCER 3: “Houston now controlling the flight of Integrity on the Artemis II mission around the moon.” The crew — NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, Christina Koch and Victor Glover, as well as Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen — were the first people to launch toward the moon since the Apollo 17 mission in 1972, more than 50 years ago, reported NBC News. However, they will not land on the lunar surface. Rather, the 10-day mission is designed as a step toward a landing in 2028, building a base on the moon, and eventually, toward NASA's goal of establishing a long-term presence on the moon. Living on the moon will involve inhabiting shielded, pressurized modules or underground lava tubes to protect against radiation, extreme temperatures, and toxic lunar dust. Among other issues for those who colonize the moon: How would they get power? How would they breathe? and How would they get food? Watch a live stream from the cockpit of Artemis II through a special link in our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com. Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, April 3rd, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or 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.

The Supreme Court tackled a question Wednesday that most Americans probably thought was settled: are the American-born children of immigrants American citizens? The Constitution seems pretty clear -- Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads 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.” But an executive order issued on President Donald Trump's first day back in the White House argued, “The Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.” That order was quickly met by a number of lawsuits. During oral arguments on Wednesday, most of the Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical that the 14th Amendment means something other than what it says. Melissa Murray, professor at the New York University School of Law and co-host of Crooked Media's Strict Scrutiny, joins the show to break down the birthright citizenship question.And in headlines, Trump threatens to withdraw the U.S. from NATO even though he'd need Congressional approval to do so, Republicans say they finally have a plan to fund DHS, and statues mocking the president keep popping up across the nation's capital.Show Notes: Check out Melissa's book – https://tinyurl.com/5ay6txmw Call Congress – 202-224-3121 Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/y4y2e9jy What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/ For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

The Supreme Court arguments on birthright citizenship, constitutional law experts on the Fourteenth Amendment, Artemis II launches, and economists consider government welfare and private charity. Plus, Cal Thomas on the myth of the lone wolf, a record-setting ride, and the Thursday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donateAdditional support comes from Dordt University, equipping students to serve others with faith, skill, and conviction while they complete their Master of Social Work degree in just four years.And from the Joshua Program at St. Dunstan's Academy in the Blue Ridge Mountains: work, prayer, and adventure for young men. stdunstansacademy.orgShare the message of Christ with friends and family this Easter using the film, Heaven, How I Got Here. This compelling one-man performance starring Stephen Baldwin tells the story of the thief on the cross next to Jesus. It helps a viewer understand that getting into heaven has nothing to do with living a good life, but relies completely on the grace of God. Available in 30 languages, Heaven, How I Got Here could change the life of someone you know today. Learn more at openthebible.org/heaven

A case in which the Court will decide whether Executive Order No. 14,160 issued by President Donald, which denies U.S. birthright citizenship to children born in the United States solely because their parents are in the country unlawfully or on temporary visas, is consistent with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a).

From South Carolina's blocked tax relief to Europe shaking off U.S. influence, today's episode exposes the forces reshaping America. Donald Trump faces the Supreme Court over birthright citizenship while multiple top-level U.S. scientists disappear under mysterious circumstances. Is it incompetence, coincidence, or something more sinister?

South Carolina lawmakers block tax relief while sitting on billions—why no break for you? Meanwhile, global tensions rise as Donald Trump faces a major Supreme Court showdown over birthright citizenship, and Europe signals a potential break from U.S. economic dominance. Plus—an unsettling pattern emerges as multiple high-level scientists tied to advanced weapons programs mysteriously disappear. Coincidence… or something bigger?