Podcasts about Fourteenth Amendment

personal explain procedures venue alternatively motions jurisdiction fourteenth amendment federal rules civil procedure twombly pleadings due process clause lecture one

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 17, 2025 5:56

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

Civil Procedure — Lecture One: Jurisdiction, Venue, Pleadings, and Early Motions (Part 1 of 3) (Part 2)

Law School

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 15, 2025 26:03

Short-Answer QuizWhat is the fundamental purpose of personal jurisdiction, and what constitutional provision provides its basis?Personal jurisdiction ensures a court has the authority to compel a defendant to appear and litigate in the forum. Its constitutional basis lies in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, preventing individuals from being unfairly haled into court in distant or unconnected locations.Explain the difference between general and specific personal jurisdiction, providing a brief example of how each might arise.General jurisdiction exists when a defendant's contacts with the forum state are so continuous and systematic that they can be sued there for any claim, even if unrelated to those contacts (e.g., a corporation with its headquarters in a state). Specific jurisdiction arises when the lawsuit directly relates to the defendant's specific contacts with the forum state (e.g., a contract dispute stemming from a sale made in the state).What are the two primary bases for subject matter jurisdiction in federal courts, and what is a key requirement for each?The two primary bases are federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. For federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff's claim must arise under federal law and be evident in the well-pleaded complaint. For diversity jurisdiction, the case must be between citizens of different states (or a state and a foreign national) with an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, and there must be complete diversity of citizenship.How does venue differ from jurisdiction, and what is the primary goal of venue rules?Jurisdiction concerns a court's power to hear a case (either over the person or the subject matter), while venue dictates the specific geographic district where the case should be heard. The primary goal of venue rules is to ensure a convenient and appropriate location for the litigation, considering factors like the parties' residences and where the events occurred.Describe the key elements that must be included in a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought by the pleader.How have the Twombly and Iqbal Supreme Court decisions impacted the federal pleading standard?These decisions raised the pleading standard beyond mere notice pleading, requiring complaints to contain sufficient factual allegations to state a claim that is plausible on its face. This means the factual narrative must be more detailed and suggest a likelihood of liability, rather than just reciting the elements of a cause of action.What are the two main ways a defendant can respond to a complaint after being served? Briefly explain each.A defendant can file an answer, which requires them to admit or deny each of the plaintiff's allegations and assert any affirmative defenses they may have. Alternatively, a defendant can file a pre-answer motion under Rule 12(b), which raises legal objections to the complaint, such as lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to state a claim.List three examples of affirmative defenses a defendant might assert in their answer.Examples of affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations (the lawsuit was filed after the legal deadline), res judicata (the issue has already been decided by a court), and estoppel (the plaintiff is prevented from asserting a claim due to their prior conduct or statements).Under what circumstances can a party amend their pleading "as a matter of course"?A party can amend their pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving the original pleading, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.

Joe DiGenova, Press conference recap

Mornings on the Mall

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 12, 2025 33:51

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

white house columbia attorney judges press conferences fourteenth amendment wmal joe digenova mike opelka

Joe DiGenova interview

Mornings on the Mall

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 12, 2025 12:17

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

columbia attorney judges fourteenth amendment wmal joe digenova mike opelka

Can States Ban the Teaching of Some Controversial Concepts? (Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO v. Edelblut)

Free Speech Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 8, 2025 60:02

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

Murder In Moscow: Kohberger's Motion To Strike The Death Penalty On Grounds Of Vagueness (Part 2) (4/5/25)

state news murder seek strike idaho constitution true crime motion moscow intent death penalty grounds eighth fourteenth amendment bryan kohberger xana kohberger vagueness

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 5, 2025 17:43

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

Murder In Moscow: Kohberger's Motion To Strike The Death Penalty On Grounds Of Vagueness (Part 1) (4/5/25)

state news murder seek strike idaho constitution true crime motion moscow intent death penalty grounds eighth fourteenth amendment bryan kohberger xana kohberger vagueness

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 5, 2025 13:04

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

Murder In Moscow: Kohberger's Motion To Strike The Death Penalty On Grounds Of Vagueness (Part 1) (4/5/25)

The Epstein Chronicles

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 5, 2025 13:04

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

state news murder seek strike idaho constitution true crime motion moscow intent death penalty grounds eighth fourteenth amendment bryan kohberger xana kohberger vagueness

Murder In Moscow: Kohberger's Motion To Strike The Death Penalty On Grounds Of Vagueness (Part 2) (4/5/25)

The Epstein Chronicles

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 5, 2025 17:43

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

state news murder seek strike idaho constitution true crime motion moscow intent death penalty grounds eighth fourteenth amendment bryan kohberger xana kohberger vagueness

Innocent Until Proven Guilty: Unpacking the Presumption of Innocence (Part 2 of 2)

Law School

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 5, 2025 14:50

Key Themes and Important Ideas:1. Foundational Importance:The presumption of innocence is presented as a "vital safeguard that underpins the entire criminal justice system" and "serves as the bedrock of our legal protections."It ensures that "the burden remains on the state to prove its case and that no person is punished without a clear, evidentiary demonstration of guilt."2. Historical Roots:The concept has origins in ancient legal traditions, including Roman law, where the state's responsibility to prove guilt began to take shape.The common law tradition in medieval Europe further refined the notion, with English jurists articulating that the accused did not bear the burden of proving innocence.The maxim “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” – "the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies" – encapsulates the core of the presumption of innocence.3. Constitutional and International Enshrinement:While not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, the principle is "inferred from the due process clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."Internationally, Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."These codifications affirm it as both a legal principle and a fundamental human right.4. Operation within the Criminal Justice System:It places the "burden of proof squarely on the prosecution" throughout a criminal trial.The state must present evidence that meets the high standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."This standard is intentionally rigorous due to the high stakes involved (freedom, reputation, life).Ambiguity in evidence must be viewed "in favor of the accused," acting as a "shield against wrongful conviction."5. The Meaning of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt":It does not imply absolute certainty or mathematical precision.It means the evidence must be "so convincing that a reasonable person would have no logical reason to doubt the defendant's guilt."Any "reasonable uncertainty about the accused's guilt" after considering all evidence compels a verdict of not guilty.6. Practical Implications for Legal Actors:Prosecutors: Bear a "heavy responsibility" to gather robust, reliable evidence and present a case leaving little room for doubt. They cannot rely on "conjecture, bias, or even circumstantial evidence that fails to meet the stringent threshold of certainty." Effective practice demands "ethical principles and rigorous standards of proof."Defense Attorneys: Have a "powerful tool" to argue for their clients' rights by emphasizing the prosecution's burden. They can highlight gaps or inconsistencies to "sow reasonable doubt." Their role is often to ensure the state fails to meet its burden, not necessarily to prove absolute innocence.7. Seminal Case Law:Courts have "repeatedly reaffirmed that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of fair trials."Landmark decisions have explicitly stated that "the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and that any ambiguity in the evidence must benefit the defendant."Appellate courts have underscored that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a "firm requirement" for conviction.8. Impact on the Jury's Role:Jurors are instructed to approach the case with the understanding that the defendant is presumed innocent.These instructions are "vital to ensuring that jurors do not allow their personal biases or preconceived notions to influence their judgment."It acts as a "check against potential miscarriages of justice" by ensuring rigorous and impartial scrutiny of the prosecution's case.

Legal News for Fri 4/4 - GOP States Target Law Firm DEI Practices, Proposed Millionaire Tax Hike and Law Professors Behind Perkins Coie

The Moscow Murders and More

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 4, 2025 12:06

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

Murder In Moscow: Kohberger's Motion To Strike The Death Penalty On Grounds Of Vagueness (Part 1) (4/4/25)

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 4, 2025 13:04

In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR29-22-2805), the defense filed a Motion to Strike the State's Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty on the grounds of vagueness in balancing aggravating and mitigating factors. The defense argues that Idaho's capital sentencing framework lacks clear standards for jurors to weigh these factors, potentially leading to arbitrary and unconstitutional death sentences. They contend that the absence of explicit guidelines violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment and guarantee due process.Furthermore, the defense highlights that the broad and vague nature of Idaho's statutory aggravating factors results in a majority of first-degree murder cases being eligible for the death penalty, failing to genuinely narrow the class of offenders subject to capital punishment. They assert that this overbreadth does not adequately differentiate between cases warranting the death penalty and those that do not, thereby undermining the constitutional requirement for a clear and fair sentencing process. Consequently, the defense requests the court to preclude the death penalty in Kohberger's case, citing these constitutional concerns.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:090524-Motion-Strike-States-Notice-Intent-Seek-Death-Penalty.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

state murder seek strike idaho constitution true crime motion moscow intent death penalty grounds eighth fourteenth amendment bryan kohberger kohberger vagueness

Murder In Moscow: Kohberger's Motion To Strike The Death Penalty On Grounds Of Vagueness (Part 2) (4/4/25)

The Moscow Murders and More

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 4, 2025 17:43

In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR29-22-2805), the defense filed a Motion to Strike the State's Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty on the grounds of vagueness in balancing aggravating and mitigating factors. The defense argues that Idaho's capital sentencing framework lacks clear standards for jurors to weigh these factors, potentially leading to arbitrary and unconstitutional death sentences. They contend that the absence of explicit guidelines violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment and guarantee due process.Furthermore, the defense highlights that the broad and vague nature of Idaho's statutory aggravating factors results in a majority of first-degree murder cases being eligible for the death penalty, failing to genuinely narrow the class of offenders subject to capital punishment. They assert that this overbreadth does not adequately differentiate between cases warranting the death penalty and those that do not, thereby undermining the constitutional requirement for a clear and fair sentencing process. Consequently, the defense requests the court to preclude the death penalty in Kohberger's case, citing these constitutional concerns.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:090524-Motion-Strike-States-Notice-Intent-Seek-Death-Penalty.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

state murder seek strike idaho constitution true crime motion moscow intent death penalty grounds eighth fourteenth amendment bryan kohberger kohberger vagueness

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Louisiana v. Callais

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 1, 2025 60:05

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

law professor court supreme court louisiana robinson sr gonzalez laundry purcell voting rights act courthouse fourteenth fourteenth amendment oral arguments equal protection thornburg ardoin free speech & election law

Legal News for Fri 3/28 - Republicans Gut Overdraft Fee Caps, Trump Whines About WilmerHale, Attacks DEI Grants and a Judge Orders Yemen War Chat Logs Preserved

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 28, 2025 12:46

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

Understanding the Voting Rights Case from Louisiana at the Supreme Court

Passing Judgment

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 26, 2025 9:35

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

Legal News for Tues 3/25 - SCOTUS LA Redistricting Case, Judge Slams Trump's Deportations, DOJ Targets Law Firms Mean to Trump, State Corporate Tax Sharing Agreements

Let Me Tell You Why You're Wrong Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 25, 2025 8:30

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

Season 2 - Episode 9 - Don't Blame the Judges - Read the Constitution - The Future of the Democratic Party

Ford News

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 24, 2025 43:49

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

united states future citizens bernie sanders blame judges thousands constitution hillary clinton maga alexandria ocasio cortez democratic party trump administration brett kavanaugh state department persons yale law school fourteenth amendment in segment two

Ep 362: Flip Flop The Government No Stop

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 17, 2025 53:14

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

government republicans scotus schumer flip flop fourteenth amendment

Postscript: How Trump's Executive Order Contradicts Birthright Citizenship

New Books in American Studies

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 14, 2025 41:39

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

Postscript: How Trump's Executive Order Contradicts Birthright Citizenship

New Books in Politics

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 14, 2025 41:39

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

Postscript: How Trump's Executive Order Contradicts Birthright Citizenship

New Books Network

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 13, 2025 41:39

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

Postscript: How Trump's Executive Order Contradicts Birthright Citizenship

New Books in Political Science

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 13, 2025 41:39

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

Postscript: How Trump's Executive Order Contradicts Birthright Citizenship

New Books in Law

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 13, 2025 41:39

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

Postscript: How Trump's Executive Order Contradicts Birthright Citizenship

New Books in American Politics

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 13, 2025 41:39

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

Legal News for Tues 3/4 - Lawsuit Challenges Trump's Discriminatory Attacks on Haitians and Venezuelans, SEC Drops Case Against Kraken, Mobile Worker Tax Hellscape

california clubs constitutional school districts lc fourteenth amendment oakland schools

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 4, 2025 7:35

This Day in Legal History: Abraham Lincoln Inaugurated On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as the 16th president of the United States, taking office at a time of immense national turmoil. Seven Southern states had already seceded from the Union, and the country teetered on the brink of civil war. In his inaugural address, Lincoln struck a careful balance between firmness and conciliation, stating that while he had no intention to interfere with slavery where it existed, he would also not allow the Union to be dissolved. He appealed to the South's “better angels” and warned that secession was unlawful, emphasizing that the Constitution was designed to create “a more perfect Union.” This speech set the tone for a presidency marked by Lincoln's deep empathy for the downtrodden and his capacity for personal growth. Often celebrated for his moral clarity, Lincoln was also a leader willing to change his mind when confronted with new information. As the Civil War progressed, his views on slavery evolved, culminating in the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. He once said, “I shall adopt new views as fast as they shall appear to be true views,” an acknowledgment of his willingness to adapt when justice demanded it. This intellectual humility was one of his greatest strengths, allowing him to navigate the unprecedented crisis before him. His presidency, which began on this day, would redefine the nation's understanding of freedom, democracy, and leadership.Lincoln's presidency saw the transformation of a man as much as a nation. When he first took office, he publicly questioned the intellectual equality of Black people and initially supported only limited measures to restrict slavery's expansion. However, as the war unfolded and he engaged with Black leaders like Frederick Douglass, Lincoln's views evolved dramatically. By the end of the conflict, he not only issued the Emancipation Proclamation but also argued for Black suffrage, stating in his final speech that he believed Black men deserved the right to vote. He also expressed openness to women's suffrage, a radical position for the time. That April 11, 1865, speech, in which he publicly called for Black enfranchisement, enraged John Wilkes Booth, who declared, “That is the last speech he will ever make!” Three days later, Booth made good on his threat, assassinating Lincoln at Ford's Theatre. Lincoln's first inauguration marked the beginning of a journey that would not only reshape his own beliefs but also alter the course of American history—at the cost of his life and those of 400,000 of his fellow Americans.Immigrant rights groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's decision to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian and Venezuelan migrants. The lawsuit, brought in Boston federal court, opposes Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's move to accelerate the expiration of deportation protections and work permits for 521,000 Haitians by August. This reverses the Biden administration's previous extension of TPS for Haiti through February 2026. A similar decision was made for Venezuelan TPS recipients, with protections ending as early as April 2 for 348,000 individuals, a move already facing separate legal challenges. The lawsuit, filed by advocacy groups and individual migrants, argues that DHS lacked the authority to revoke an existing TPS extension and acted based on racial bias and political motivations. It cites past disparaging remarks by Trump about Haitian and Venezuelan immigrants as evidence of discrimination, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantees. The Department of Homeland Security has not yet responded.By way of brief background, the lawsuit claims the administration's actions violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. While the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly provides equal protection against state discrimination, the Fifth Amendment has been interpreted to extend similar protections against federal government actions. Plaintiffs argue that the abrupt termination of TPS disproportionately harms Haitian and Venezuelan migrants and is driven by racial and ethnic bias rather than lawful considerations.Lawsuit challenges Trump's end to Haitian, Venezuelan deportation protections | ReutersKraken announced that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has agreed in principle to dismiss its lawsuit accusing the cryptocurrency exchange of operating as an unregistered securities exchange. The dismissal, which comes with no admission of wrongdoing, penalties, or required business changes, is with prejudice, preventing the SEC from refiling the case. Kraken criticized the lawsuit as a politically motivated effort by the Biden administration that hindered innovation. The SEC, which had sued Kraken in 2023 under former Chair Gary Gensler's leadership, has shifted its approach to crypto regulation since Trump's return to office. Recently, the agency also dropped a similar case against Coinbase and is considering settling a civil fraud case against Justin Sun. The lawsuit had accused Kraken of facilitating crypto trades without proper regulatory compliance, but the company maintained that crypto assets do not fall under traditional securities laws.In legal terms, a dismissal with prejudice means the case is permanently closed and cannot be refiled. This is significant for Kraken because it ensures the SEC cannot bring the same claims against the company in the future. This type of dismissal often indicates that the plaintiff (in this case, the SEC) has decided not to pursue the matter further due to legal weaknesses or shifting priorities.Kraken says SEC to dismiss lawsuit | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg Tax this week focuses on the Multistate Tax Commission's (MTC) proposed rule aimed at simplifying tax compliance for mobile workers. While the proposal is a step in the right direction—creating a safe harbor for those working in nonresident states for 20 days or fewer—it doesn't go far enough to address the real burdens faced by workers and businesses.To make the rule truly effective, I argue that three key modifications are needed: increasing the safe harbor threshold to 30 days, implementing an income-based sliding scale, and eliminating arbitrary carve-outs for certain high-income professionals.Currently, 41 states impose income tax on nonresidents, with some—like Arkansas and Delaware—triggering tax obligations after just one day of work. This creates a compliance nightmare for mobile workers, who may have to file multiple state tax returns for short business trips. The MTC's 20-day threshold is an improvement, but expanding it to 30 days would better align with existing state policies and recommendations from tax advocacy groups.Additionally, the MTC's one-size-fits-all approach fails to differentiate between income levels. A sales rep earning $50,000 a year and a hedge fund manager making $5 million shouldn't be treated the same. A sliding scale—offering a longer grace period for lower-income earners while maintaining stricter thresholds for high-income, highly mobile workers—would make compliance fairer and more practical. Pegging the income thresholds to inflation would further ensure middle-class workers aren't disproportionately impacted over time.Finally, the proposal's exclusion of professional athletes, entertainers, and undefined “persons of prominence” is problematic. These individuals are denied the safe harbor, while a high-earning executive or consultant would benefit from it. The distinction isn't based on income but on profession, creating an arbitrary and inconsistent standard. If fairness and clarity are the goals, the MTC should remove these exceptions.With states actively debating mobile workforce tax reforms and Congress failing to pass a federal solution for nearly two decades, now is the time to get this right. Expanding the threshold, implementing an income-based scale, and removing unfair carve-outs would make the rule more equitable and increase the likelihood of state adoption. 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

Oakland School District Discriminates Against Christian Clubs

Faith and Freedom

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 28, 2025 11:00

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

Litigation Update: Cerame v. Slack

Live at America's Town Hall

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 27, 2025 40:41

In June 2021, the Superior Court of Connecticut approved amendments to Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4, which defines professional misconduct. The amendments expanded the definition of misconduct in subsection (7) to include engaging in "conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination...in conduct related to the practice of law" based on a long list of protected characteristics including "race, color, ancestry, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, status as a veteran, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or marital status".In November 2021, Mario Cerame and Timothy C. Moynahan, two Connecticut lawyers who regularly presented on issues potentially implicated by the new rule, brought suit, alleging the rule as amended violated their First and Fourteenth Amendments. They argued the rule was impermissibly overbroad and chilled lawful speech in so far as it was unclear what speech may be interpreted to be violative of the rule. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. Cerame and Moynahan appealed to the Second Circuit, which, in December 2024 vacated the district court's decision, ruling they did have standing and remanding for further proceedings.Join us for a litigation update for this interesting case implicating professional responsibility, ABA model rules, and free speech with Margaret Little of NCLA, which represents Cerame and Moynahan.Featuring:Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston

law professor connecticut slack litigation aba superior court fourteenth amendment second circuit south texas college professional conduct josh blackman law houston senior litigation counsel ncla free speech & election law

The 14th Amendment and the History of Reconstruction

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 18, 2025 62:25

The National Constitution Center and the Federal Judicial Center convene leading historians for conversations on Reconstruction and the Constitution. Pamela Brandwein of the University of Michigan, Sherrilyn Ifill of Howard University School of Law, and Ilan Wurman of the University of Minnesota Law School explore the 14th Amendment and the history of Reconstruction. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program is presented in partnership with the Federal Judicial Center. Resources Ilan Wurman, The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment (2020) Pamela Brandwein, Rethinking the Judicial Settlement of Reconstruction (2011) Sherrilyn Ifill, “Why are U.S. courts afraid of the 14th Amendment? Because it's radical,” The Washington Post (Nov. 23, 2023) Sherrilyn Ifill, “Yes, this is America: Why I'm Creating the 14th Amendment Center for Law and Democracy,” Substack (July 7, 2023) 14th Amendment Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Civil Rights Bill of 1866 The Reconstruction Amendments Brown v. Board of Education Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at programs@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

ceo university history law michigan board democracy constitution rethinking amendment reconstruction civil rights act 14th amendment fourteenth amendment howard university school national constitution center jeffrey rosen minnesota law school sherrilyn ifill

Is DEI on Its Way Out?

new orleans league tragedy louisiana establishing sherman attacking sheridan brutality postwar recovers fourteenth amendment freedmen secret missions

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 18, 2025 88:37

Due to impending inclement weather this event has been converted to a webinar. Please feel free to join our live (virtual) audience on Wednesday, February 12th at 12:30 PM ET via the Zoom registration link or catch the discussion via livestream! Panel: David BernsteinFounder & CEO, Jewish Institute for Liberal Values Kimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation Prof. Yascha Mounk, Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University;Contributing Editor, The Atlantic; Senior Fellow, The Council on Foreign Relations Nicole Neily, President, Parents Defending Education (Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman,Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law ---Does DEI rise and fall due to cultural fads that tend to come and go, or is DEI mainly driven by substantive provisions of civil rights law that are much harder to unravel? Are DEI programs morphing from a primarily race-based focus to a gender and sex-based focus, or does their focus remain on race and ethnicity? This panel will discuss how DEI is impacting federal civil rights issues, consider federal, state, and local levels, and debate whether DEI has passed its high-water mark. Featuring:David Bernstein, Founder & CEO, Jewish Institute for Liberal ValuesKimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal FoundationProf. Yascha Mounk, Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University; Contributing Editor, The Atlantic; Senior Fellow, The Council on Foreign RelationsNicole Neily, President, Parents Defending Education(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

ceo founders president culture professor zoom practice executive director atlantic council dei civil rights senior fellow johns hopkins university international affairs contributing editor fourteenth amendment yascha mounk jewish institute human rights under law kenneth l marcus

Preview: New Orleans: Fourteenth Amendment: Robert Cwiklik, author "Sheridan's Secret Mission," recovers the spectacular tragedy of the White League attacking the Freedmen of Louisiana and re-establishing brutality post-war -- and how Grant and

The John Batchelor Show

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 17, 2025 2:58

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

The 14th Amendment and the History of Reconstruction

We the People

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 14, 2025 62:35

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

america history law board democracy rethinking amendment reconstruction town hall civil rights act ncc 14th amendment fourteenth amendment naacp legal defense fund jeffrey rosen sherrilyn ifill

Episode 117: Loving, the 14th Amendment, and Interracial Marriage in the South with Dr. Kathryn Schumaker

Historians At The Movies

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 12, 2025 87:40

This week we dive headfirst into discussions over the Fourteenth Amendment, birthright citizenship, racial discrimination, families, hope, and love with Dr. Kathryn Schumaker as we talk about 2016's Loving and her new book Tangled Fortunes: The Hidden History of Interracial Marriage in the Segregated South.About our guest:Dr. Kathryn Schumaker's scholarship is focused on intersections of race, gender, and American law. Her new book, Tangled Fortunes: The Hidden History of Interracial Marriage in the Segregated South (Basic Books, January 2025), explores how interracial families survived in the hostile political, social, and legal environment of Jim Crow Mississippi. She is also the author of Troublemakers: Students' Rights and Racial Justice in the Long Twentieth Century (NYU Press, 2019). She has received grants and fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Academy of Education and Spencer Foundation, the American Historical Association, and the American Society for Legal History.

What's Next for Birthright Citizenship?

The Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 5, 2025 60:49

On his first day in office, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled Protecting The Meaning And Value of American Citizenship which moves to end birthright citizenship practice which guarantees that U.S.-born children are citizens regardless of their parents’ status.The next day, attorneys general from 22 states sued to block the Executive Order by asserting that the President is attempting to eliminate "a well-established and longstanding Constitutional principle" by executive fiat.Join this expert panel for a discussion of this important and timely topic.Featuring:Amy E. Swearer, Senior Legal Policy Analyst, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage FoundationProf. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution(Moderator) Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law

university california president donald trump law legal berkeley civil rights executive orders constitutional american enterprise institute visiting fellow birthright citizenship fourteenth amendment nonresident senior fellow american citizenship judicial studies richmond school meese center emanuel s heller professor john c yoo

What the Hell Is Going On: WTH is Going On With Birthright Citizenship? Adam White Explains (#301)

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 30, 2025

On President Trump's first day in office, he issued an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” attempting to change the current understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment by declaring that the children of illegal immigrants or people on temporary visas born in the United States are not granted citizenship. While many […]

united states hell meaning protecting birthright citizenship fourteenth amendment adam white american citizenship

WTH is Going On With Birthright Citizenship? Adam White Explains

What the Hell Is Going On

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 30, 2025 67:08

On President Trump's first day in office, he issued an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” attempting to change the current understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment by declaring that the children of illegal immigrants or people on temporary visas born in the United States are not granted citizenship. While many Americans may agree that the unfortunate realities of “birth tourism” and “anchor babies” in the U.S. need to be curbed or stopped, Trump's executive order has been criticized as unconstitutional and the wrong way to approach the issue. How are presidents of both parties subverting Congress in their pursuit of legislative goals? And how did President Obama's action on DACA and President Biden's declaration on the Equal Rights Amendment help create precedent for Trump's actions today? Adam White is the Laurence H. Silberman Chair in Constitutional Governance and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on the Supreme Court and the administrative state. Concurrently, he codirects the Antonin Scalia Law School's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State. Before joining AEI, he was a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute.Read the transcript here. Subscribe to our Substack here.

Birthright and Birthwrong

Amarica's Constitution

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 29, 2025 106:29

The Trump Administration takes office, and the Constitution is immediately in the crosshairs. An executive order targeting birthright citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment is issued on the first day, with an even more extreme version of its renouncement than had previously been contemplated. The pushback begins in a Washington courtroom, and a Federal District Judge shoots it down with a nationwide injunction. But surely the legal battle continues; we are here to arm you with Professor Amar's arguments, articulated over many years and well in advance of this crisis. Text, history, structure, precedent, and more are placed in the service of the Constitution and one of its most fundamental and consequential sentences. You should be in a position to argue this case before the Supreme Court after listening to this episode. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com

washington supreme court constitution trump administration birthright cle fourteenth amendment

Birthright Citizenship: The SCOTUS case that solidified the 14th Amendment

Civics 101

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 23, 2025 26:00

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

guide supreme court user scotus civics 14th amendment birthright citizenship fourteenth amendment solidified nhpr hannah mccarthy wong kim ark nick capodice

Bryan Kohberger's Amended Motion To Strike The Intent To Seek Capital Punishment (Part 2) (1/23/25)

state news seek strike idaho constitution true crime motion intent eighth capital punishment fourteenth amendment bryan kohberger amended xana kohberger

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 23, 2025 17:24

In the case CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger's legal team filed an Amended Motion to Strike the State's Notice of Intent to Seek Death on the grounds that Idaho's execution methods—lethal injection and firing squad—constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The defense argued that Idaho currently lacks the means to carry out executions humanely, citing issues such as the unavailability of lethal injection drugs and the potential psychological distress caused by prolonged uncertainty on death row.During a hearing on November 7, 2024, Ada County District Judge Steven Hippler considered these arguments. The prosecution maintained that Idaho law provides for both lethal injection and firing squad as legal execution methods, asserting that the state retains the capability to enforce capital punishment. Judge Hippler agreed with the prosecution, noting that even if Kohberger were convicted and sentenced to death, it would likely be many years before an execution date, during which time methods and protocols could evolve. Consequently, on November 20, 2024, Judge Hippler denied the defense's motion, allowing the death penalty to remain a potential sentence in Kohberger's upcoming trial scheduled for August 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:102424-Amended-Motion-to-Strike-Intent-Seek-Death-Method-Execution.pdf

Bryan Kohberger's Amended Motion To Strike The Intent To Seek Capital Punishment (Part 1) (1/23/25)