Podcasts about Fourteenth Amendment

Send us a textConnect with Michele at https://www.bookclues.comHeadlines keep tossing around the phrase “civil war,” but what are we really talking about when we invoke that history today? We sit down with historians John Kinder and Jennifer Murray, co-editors of They Are Dead and Yet They Live: Civil War Memories in a Polarized America, to unpack how memory gets made—and why it gets weaponized. From the Lost Cause to the language of conflict we see online, we explore the difference between personal remembrance and public storytelling, and how monuments, textbooks, films, and place names quietly teach us what to honor and what to forget.We trace the often-ignored arc of Reconstruction, connecting the Fourteenth Amendment, federal power, and impeachment debates to the headlines we read now. Jennifer walks us through the Army base renaming saga—why so many installations were named for Confederate officers during the World Wars, how the recent renamings unfolded, and why the political reversal preserved surnames while changing honorees. John explains how these choices aren't just semantics; they're signals about national values, belonging, and who gets to define America's usable past.Throughout, we challenge the casual use of “civil war” as a metaphor for polarization. The real Civil War killed about 2% of the population—equivalent to nearly seven million people today. Any modern internal conflict would look less like tidy blue-gray battle lines and more like fragmented violence with devastating consequences. That's why precision matters: before repeating incendiary language, ask who benefits, what history is being invoked, and what realities are being ignored.If you care about how history shapes power—at courthouses, on battlefields, and across your city's street names—this conversation will change how you see the world around you. Listen, reflect, and then take a second look at the monuments and markers you pass every day. Subscribe, share with a friend who loves history and politics, and leave a review with the one statue or site you see differently now.

The United States is at a tipping point, as the anti-truth movement attempts to erase the history of pivotal moments that advanced racial justice. Related to this movement, the legal theory of originalism falls short of a truthful retelling of history and therefore threatens America's cultural memory. This episode of unpacks originalism and how it has helped fuel recent efforts to dismantle birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment and is a cornerstone of U.S. democracy. Episode guests also discuss progressive originalism, a theory that can help bring the nation closer to a truthful account of history and democratic renewal.Today's host is Karla McKanders, Director of the Thurgood Marshall Institute. She is in conversation with the following guests: - Morenike Fajana: Senior Counsel, Legal Defense Fund - Mark Joseph Stern: Senior Writer, Slate, and Co-Host, Amicus podcastThis epsiode was written and produced by Jakiyah Bradley. Resonate Recordings provided production support.If you enjoyed this episode please consider leaving a review and helping others find it! To keep up with the work of LDF please visit our website at www.naacpldf.org and follow us on social media at @naacp_ldf. To keep up with the work of the Thurgood Marshall Institute, please visit our website at www.tminstituteldf.org and follow us on Twitter at @tmi_ldf.

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., both involve the question of whether states can designate women’s sports based on biological sex consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.In 2020 and 2021, Idaho and West Virginia passed laws that required public schools and colleges to designate sports by biological sex and to forbid males from competing on women’s sports teams. Two male athletes who identified as females, one a middle school shot-put and discus thrower and the other a collegiate cross-country runner, challenged the laws in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Idaho and Southern District of West Virginia, alleging a right to compete in women’s sports and saying the state laws discriminate on the basis of sex and transgender status in violation of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In Little v. Hecox, the Idaho district court entered a preliminary injunction against the Idaho law for violating the Equal Protection Clause, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the West Virginia district court preliminarily enjoined the West Virginia law for violating Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause and then dissolved that injunction, upholding the law at summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered the district court to enjoin the law for violating Title IX.The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and oral argument is set for January 13, 2026. Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how both oral arguments went before the Court.Featuring:Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

In this episode, I reflect on a familiar story about an elephant held in place not by a rope, but by a belief that trying no longer matters. Living in northern Minnesota, and hearing directly from friends and family witnessing events in the Twin Cities, I explore how that same limiting story shows up in moments when constitutional rights are being tested. Drawing on the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments—and Martin Luther King Jr.'s wisdom about power and love—I name what it means for ordinary people to stand together lawfully and nonviolently. This is a reflection on civic courage, community, and why showing up, even without certainty, is how democracy is sustained. The post BOO506 – When Trying Still Matters appeared first on Marcia Hyatt.

This Day in Legal History: Roe v. WadeOn January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, fundamentally reshaping American constitutional law and reproductive rights. In a 7–2 ruling, the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a person's right to privacy, which includes the right to choose to have an abortion. The case arose after a Texas woman, known under the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” challenged state laws that criminalized abortion except to save the life of the mother. Writing for the majority, Justice Harry Blackmun articulated a constitutional framework that balanced the state's interest in regulating abortions with an individual's right to privacy.The Court introduced a trimester system, giving states greater regulatory power as pregnancy progressed but prohibiting outright bans on abortion in the first trimester. This decision effectively invalidated abortion restrictions in dozens of states and became one of the most politically and legally contentious rulings in American history. Roe expanded the constitutional interpretation of the right to privacy, which had been previously recognized in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, but its grounding in substantive due process quickly became a lightning rod for critics.Opponents of the ruling argued that the Constitution did not explicitly guarantee a right to abortion, while supporters saw it as a critical protection of bodily autonomy and gender equality. Over the next five decades, Roe faced continual challenges and legislative efforts aimed at narrowing its scope. Ultimately, in 2022, the Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, returning authority to regulate abortion back to individual states and ending federal constitutional protection for abortion rights. The legacy of Roe v. Wade continues to shape legal discourse, political identity, and reproductive healthcare policy in the United States.A federal appeals court has lifted a temporary order that had limited immigration agents from using tear gas and force against peaceful protesters in Minneapolis, a city currently at the center of a legal and political clash over immigration enforcement. The lower court's injunction—issued by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez—had aimed to protect demonstrators as they protested President Trump's mass deployment of ICE and Border Patrol agents throughout the area. The Biden-era precedent of restrained enforcement has been upended by Trump's aggressive tactics, which now include militarized agents patrolling streets and confronting U.S. citizens, particularly people of color, demanding identification and sometimes using force.The protests intensified after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, an American citizen monitoring ICE activities. In response to mounting legal challenges, including a suit from the Minnesota state government and its largest cities, the Trump administration has doubled down. Not only did the Department of Homeland Security appeal the injunction, but the Justice Department has also launched a criminal investigation into Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, accusing them of obstructing federal law enforcement.The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of the injunction while it considers a longer-term ruling, effectively allowing ICE to resume more aggressive tactics in the meantime. Critics, including Walz and Frey, warn that the Trump administration is intentionally provoking unrest to justify escalated federal intervention. The administration defends its actions as necessary to combat fraud, particularly among Minnesota's Somali community, which Trump has disparaged in stark terms. The legal and political standoff continues, with lawsuits and investigations adding to the tension.US appeals court lifts order curbing immigration agents' tactics against Minnesota protesters | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court appeared reluctant to endorse President Trump's unprecedented attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, signaling concern over the potential threat to the central bank's independence. During oral arguments, justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had the authority to remove Cook without due process, especially given the lack of precedent and the vague legal standard for removing Fed officials “for cause.”The administration cited unproven mortgage fraud allegations—claims Cook denies—as grounds for dismissal. However, several justices, including conservatives like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, expressed concern that firing a Fed governor without a hearing or judicial review could set a dangerous precedent and politicize the central bank. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether minor or disputed past conduct could justify removal without any formal process.Cook argued the allegations were merely a pretext for her removal over policy disagreements, particularly her resistance to Trump's pressure to cut interest rates. The Court's skepticism reflects unease about weakening safeguards designed to insulate the Fed from political interference. District Judge Jia Cobb previously blocked Cook's removal, citing due process concerns and insufficient legal cause.A decision from the Court is expected by June. If the justices rule in Cook's favor or remand the case for further proceedings, it could reinforce limits on presidential power over independent agencies.US Supreme Court appears reluctant to let Trump fire Fed's Lisa Cook | ReutersThe Trump administration has launched a new immigration enforcement campaign in Maine, dubbed “Operation Catch of the Day,” with a focus on targeting criminal offenders—though internal sources indicate the true emphasis is on refugee populations, especially Somalis. Over 100 federal immigration agents have been deployed to the state, intensifying fears in immigrant communities and sparking political backlash.Maine Governor Janet Mills, a Democrat currently running for a U.S. Senate seat, criticized the operation as unwelcome and politically motivated. This mirrors broader national trends, with Trump having already surged thousands of agents into other Democratic-led areas, such as Minnesota, where tensions recently escalated after ICE officers fatally shot a U.S. citizen. In Lewiston, Maine's second-largest city and home to a longstanding Somali refugee community, the mayor condemned ICE's tactics as inhumane and fear-driven.Despite Trump's framing of the effort as a crackdown on criminality, many targeted individuals have no criminal records. Critics argue the campaign serves more as political theater than public safety. Meanwhile, public support for such operations has eroded, especially as aggressive enforcement methods—including tear gas and raids—become more visible. DHS has defended its actions and criticized local leaders like Mills for not fully cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.Trump administration starts immigration operation in Maine | ReutersIn my latest piece for Forbes, I examine the absurdity of President Trump's renewed push to acquire Greenland—this time by threatening tariffs on countries that don't support the plan. Far from making foreign governments pay, these tariffs would, once again, function as a consumption tax on Americans. Drawing from the Kiel Institute's data, I show that during the 2025 “Liberation Day” tariff campaign, 96% of the costs fell on U.S. importers and consumers, not foreign exporters. This new Greenland-linked tariff threat follows the same script, only now it's not even pretending to protect American industry—it's economic coercion for a geopolitical fantasy.I describe how tariffs, sold as leverage, collapse trade volumes without lowering foreign prices. Countries like Brazil and India didn't budge on pricing; they just shipped elsewhere. Meanwhile, Americans paid more for less. I also highlight how small businesses and low-income households feel the pain first, as import costs ripple through the economy, raising prices on both foreign and domestic goods. Despite the $200 billion in customs revenue collected, it amounts to a regressive tax—not a clever policy move.The deeper issue, as I argue, is the unchecked executive power to unilaterally impose tariffs. Current law enables the president to take sweeping trade actions with little oversight, and we're now seeing that power used not for national defense or economic stability, but to punish allies for not acquiescing to a real estate deal. I call on Congress to reclaim its constitutional role in trade policy and set clear limits on executive authority in this arena. Otherwise, we're left with a precedent where tariffs become tools of vanity projects—not national strategy.Tariffs For Greenland—Or, ‘I'll Hold My Breath Until You Turn Blue' 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

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, an in-depth investigatory show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (1/13/26). As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant. !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2q643"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");   Rumble("play", {"video":"v72c1ui","div":"rumble_v72c1ui"}); Video Source Links (In Chronological Order): (20) RyanMatta

# Trump Administration Supreme Court Cases: Week of January 16, 2026Welcome back to Quiet Please. I'm your host, and today we're diving into what's shaping up to be one of the most consequential weeks in recent Supreme Court history. As we head into the final stretch before the Court's April sitting, there are several major cases involving President Donald Trump that could fundamentally reshape American governance and policy for years to come.Let's start with what's happening right now. The Supreme Court is in what experts at SCOTUSblog describe as "maximum overdrive," with ninety-one cases already relisted for consideration and seventeen new cases added just this week. This Friday's conference marks the last real chance for the Court to grant petitions in time for arguments at the April sitting, the final session of this term. That means decisions are coming fast.Now, the Trump administration is front and center in several pivotal cases. According to reporting from the Constitution Center, one of the most immediate cases is Trump v. Cook, which involves the president's attempt to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Cook began her fourteen-year term in 2023, and Trump tried to remove her this year, alleging mortgage fraud from before her appointment. Here's the constitutional tension: the Federal Reserve Act only allows the president to remove board members "for cause." This case will be argued on January twenty-first, just five days from now, and it represents a much smaller preview of the larger question the Court is grappling with in another case, Trump v. Slaughter.That case, heard in December and coming to decision soon, asks whether the president can unilaterally remove members from independent, multi-member federal agencies without statutory cause. If Trump wins, according to legal analysis from Dykema, it would overturn a ninety-year-old precedent established in Humphrey's Executor v. United States. The background here is significant: Trump dismissed FTC officials Alvaro Bedoya and fired Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve, justifying both removals by saying their roles were inconsistent with his administration's policies.But there's more. According to reporting from Axios, the Supreme Court is also preparing to rule on Trump's birthright citizenship executive order in a case called Trump v. Barbara, expected in early 2026. If upheld, this would fundamentally alter the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants, a right that has stood for over a century.Then there's the tariffs case. Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump will determine whether Trump's invocation of a national emergency to impose extensive tariffs on imported goods without congressional approval is constitutional. What's at stake here is enormous. If the Court rules against Trump, the government could be forced to reimburse over one hundred billion dollars in tariffs already collected from businesses and consumers.According to SCOTUSblog, in an interview transcript, Trump himself said he would pursue tariffs through "some other alternative" if the Supreme Court strikes down his current tariffs, showing just how central this issue is to his policy agenda.What makes this moment particularly significant is that Trump has frequently used the Court's emergency docket during his second term to suspend lower court decisions while legal matters unfold. The administration is essentially testing the limits of executive power across multiple fronts simultaneously.These cases represent nothing less than a potential reshaping of the separation of powers, executive authority over independent agencies, the scope of immigration law, and trade policy. Decisions here could determine whether a president can act unilaterally on major policy questions or whether constitutional checks remain in place.Thank you for tuning in today. Come back next week for more as these cases develop. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit quietplease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

This Day in Legal History: Wong Kim ArkOn January 14, 1898, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, firmly establishing the doctrine of birthright citizenship under the Constitution.The case arose after Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not U.S. citizens, was denied reentry to the country following a trip abroad. Federal officials argued that because his parents were subjects of the Emperor of China and barred from naturalization, Wong Kim Ark was not a U.S. citizen.The Court rejected that position, holding that citizenship is determined by place of birth, not by the nationality or immigration status of one's parents. In a 6–2 decision, the Court relied heavily on the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment.The majority emphasized that the Amendment codified the common-law rule that nearly all persons born on U.S. soil are citizens. This interpretation directly limited the government's ability to deny citizenship based on race or ancestry.The decision came at a time of intense anti-Chinese sentiment and restrictive immigration laws, including the Chinese Exclusion Act. By ruling in Wong Kim Ark's favor, the Court drew a clear constitutional boundary around congressional power over citizenship.The case has since served as the cornerstone for modern citizenship law in the United States. It remains one of the most frequently cited precedents in debates over immigration, nationality, and constitutional identity.The Supreme Court of the United States is expected to release one or more decisions as it resumes issuing opinions, while several major cases remain unresolved. Among the most closely watched is a challenge to sweeping tariffs imposed by President Trump. The justices typically do not announce in advance which cases they will decide, adding uncertainty to each decision day. The tariffs case, argued in November, raises significant questions about the scope of presidential authority and its economic consequences worldwide.Trump relied on a 1977 emergency powers statute to justify tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners, framing trade deficits and drug trafficking as national emergencies. During oral arguments, both conservative and liberal justices appeared skeptical that the statute authorized such broad trade measures. Lower courts have already ruled that Trump exceeded his authority, and his administration is now seeking reversal. The lawsuits were brought by affected businesses and a coalition of states, most led by Democrats. Other pending cases involve voting rights, religious liberty, campaign finance limits, the firing of a Federal Trade Commission official, and the legality of conversion therapy bans. Together, these disputes reflect a Court grappling with the limits of executive power and regulatory authority.Supreme Court set to issue rulings, with Trump tariffs case still pending | ReutersConservative justices on the Supreme Court appeared inclined to uphold state laws that bar transgender athletes from competing on female sports teams. The Court heard lengthy arguments in cases from Idaho and West Virginia, where lower courts had ruled in favor of transgender students challenging the bans. A majority of the justices expressed concern about adopting a nationwide rule amid ongoing debate over whether medical treatments can eliminate sex-based athletic advantages. Conservative members of the Court emphasized fairness and safety in women's sports, while liberal justices largely signaled support for the transgender challengers. The states argued that their laws lawfully classify athletes by biological sex and are necessary to preserve equal athletic opportunities for women and girls. Lawyers for the challengers contended that the bans discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of constitutional equal protection and federal education law. The Trump administration defended the state laws, urging the Court to leave policy decisions to legislatures rather than judges. The outcome could have far-reaching effects beyond sports, influencing other restrictions on transgender people in public life. A decision is expected by the end of June.US Supreme Court conservatives lean toward allowing transgender sports bans | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that Cornell University, Georgetown University, and the University of Pennsylvania must continue defending against a lawsuit alleging collusion in financial aid practices. The case claims that elite universities worked together to limit competition and give preferential treatment to wealthier applicants. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly rejected the schools' efforts to dismiss the lawsuit, finding enough evidence for the claims to proceed to trial. The plaintiffs argue that the universities violated federal antitrust law over two decades by breaching promises not to consider applicants' financial circumstances. Several other prominent universities previously settled similar claims for a combined total of nearly $320 million, though the remaining defendants deny any wrongdoing. The lawsuit represents more than 200,000 current and former students seeking substantial damages. The judge pointed to evidence suggesting the schools coordinated financial aid policies to avoid competing against one another. He also concluded that the plaintiffs properly defined a nationwide market for elite private universities and filed their claims within the allowable time frame. The decision clears the way for a jury to determine whether the schools unlawfully inflated the cost of attendance.Cornell, Georgetown, UPenn must face lawsuit over financial aid | ReutersThe British Broadcasting Corporation has moved to dismiss Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit stemming from its editing of a January 6, 2021 speech. The broadcaster argues that a Florida court lacks authority over the case because the program was not broadcast in that state. It also contends Trump cannot show he suffered harm, noting that he was re-elected after the documentary aired. Trump alleges the BBC misleadingly combined excerpts of his speech in a way that implied he encouraged supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol, while excluding remarks calling for peaceful protest. The lawsuit asserts violations of Florida's deceptive and unfair trade practices law and seeks billions of dollars in damages across two claims. The BBC has acknowledged the editing error and apologized but maintains the lawsuit is legally flawed. In court filings, the broadcaster argues Trump failed to plausibly allege “actual malice,” a requirement for defamation claims brought by public officials. The BBC also disputes Trump's claim that the documentary was available to U.S. audiences via streaming platforms. It has asked the court to pause discovery while the dismissal motion is pending, citing unnecessary expense if the case is thrown out.BBC seeks to have Trump's $10 billion lawsuit dismissed | 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

Little v. Hecox | 01/13/26 | Docket #: 24-38 24-38 LITTLE, GOVERNOR OF IDAHO V. HECOX DECISION BELOW: 104 F.4th 1061 ORDER OF OCTOBER 20, 2025: RESPONDENT'S REQUEST THAT THE COURT DISMISS THE CASE AS MOOT IS DEFERRED PENDING ORAL ARGUMENT. SEE ACHESON HOTELS, LLC v. LAUFER , 601 U. S. 1, 4 (2023). CERT. GRANTED 7/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Women and girls have overcome decades of discrimination to achieve a more equal playing field in many arenas of American life-including sports. Yet in some competitions, female athletes have become bystanders in their own sports as male athletes who identify as female have taken the place of their female competitors-on the field and on the winners' podium. The Idaho Legislature addressed that injustice by enacting the Fairness in Women's Sports Act, which ensures that women and girls do not have to compete against men and boys no matter how those men and boys identify. The Act-one of 25 such state laws around the country-is consistent with longstanding government policies preserving women's and girls' sports due to the "average real differences" between the sexes. Clark ex rel. Clark v. Ariz. Interscholastic Ass'n, 695 F.2d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 1982). Breaking with this Court's precedents, its own caselaw, other circuit decisions, and biological reality, the Ninth Circuit panel here upheld an injunction against the Act because it prevents "transgender women and girls"-meaning males who identify as women and girls-from competing in "women's student athletics." App.4a-5a. The question presented is: Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 20-35813, 20-35815

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (January 12) - Federal Officer Removal Statute; Issue(s): (1) Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against "any person acting under [an] officer" of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office"; and (2) whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.West Virginia v. B.P.J. (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): (1) Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and (2) whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.Little v. Hecox (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation (January 14) - Sovereign Immunity, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether the New Jersey Transit Corporation is an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes.Wolford v. Lopez (January 20) - Second Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund (January 20) - ERISA; Issue(s): Whether 29 U.S.C. § 1391’s instruction to compute withdrawal liability “as of the end of the plan year” requires the plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions most recently adopted before the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after, but based on information available as of, the end of the year.Trump v. Cook (January 21) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Administrative Law; Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should stay a district court ruling preventing the president from firing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.Featuring:Bradey A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law GroupStephanie L. Freudenberg, Counsel, Schaerr Jaffe LLPJacob H. Huebert, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceRyan D. Walters, Deputy Attorney General, Legal Strategy, Texas(Moderator) Tiffany H. Bates, Associate, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC

Send us a textHard questions sharpen our compassion and our logic. We sit down with Dr. Matt Clark—physician, pastor, and executive director of Personhood South Carolina—to trace personhood from Genesis to the Constitution and ask what equal protection really demands before and after birth. Drawing on scripture, state law, and firsthand stories from clinic sidewalks, we examine why carving out abortion as an exception clashes with both moral clarity and legal consistency, and how misdirected compassion can actually deepen harm for women and children.We unpack the core claim that all humans bear the image of God and explore how the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, along with South Carolina's unborn victims statute, already recognize the life at stake. From there, we tackle the volatile idea that mothers should always be treated as victims, contrasting real cases of coercion—where defenses and conditional immunity apply—with candid admissions of intent that juries are equipped to weigh. We talk frankly about conscience, guilt, and the long tail of post-abortion pain the literature has documented, arguing that truth in love offers a path to mercy that denial cannot.Justice and mercy meet in distinct spheres: the state's ministry of justice restrains evil, while the church's ministry of grace proclaims forgiveness through Christ. We clarify current bills, dispel the fear of automatic death penalties, and point to real-world sentencing patterns that leave room for mercy. Finally, we share details on the upcoming Statehouse press conference and hearing, and how long-term support—prayer, district teams, and monthly gifts—helps build a culture where both mother and child are protected.If this conversation challenged or encouraged you, subscribe, share it with a friend, and leave a review to help others find the show. Then tell us: how should equal protection shape our laws and our compassion?Support the showhttps://www.jacksonfamilyministry.comhttps://bobslone.com/home/podcast-production/

I step into the studio with one question in mind: where do all of Donald Trump's many legal battles actually stand right now, especially in the courts over the past few days?Let's start with the arena that now overshadows almost everything else: the Supreme Court. Axios reports that the justices are gearing up for a series of blockbuster Trump cases this year, and some of the key moves have landed just in recent days and weeks. According to Axios, one of the biggest is Learning Resources v. Trump, the case that will decide whether Donald Trump can use a declared national emergency to impose sweeping tariffs without Congress. A recent Supreme Court docket entry shows that an emergency application tied to this dispute has been set for full argument in January, rather than decided quietly on the shadow docket, a sign the Court knows how massive the stakes are. A ruling against Trump could force the government to refund more than 100 billion dollars in tariffs and sharply limit his ability to drive economic policy through emergency powers alone, something economists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics have been closely watching.But that tariff fight is only one front. Axios also highlights Trump v. Barbara, the case over his executive order targeting birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants. Lower courts have split and issued injunctions, and now the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether a policy Trump calls essential to immigration enforcement can override more than a century of Fourteenth Amendment precedent.On the power front, Axios notes yet another Supreme Court showdown: Trump's attempt to fire independent agency officials like Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and Federal Trade Commission officials Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. The question is whether a president can unilaterally remove these figures for policy reasons, shredding a 90‑year tradition of insulation from raw politics. If Trump prevails here, the presidency's reach over watchdogs and economic regulators could expand dramatically.Zoom out from the Supreme Court, and you see the lower courts straining under wave after wave of Trump‑era litigation. Just Security and Lawfare both maintain litigation trackers showing dozens of ongoing suits targeting Trump's executive orders on everything from conditions of imprisonment to crackdowns on law firms and civil rights groups. These trackers reveal a pattern: plaintiffs argue that Trump's actions routinely stretch or shatter constitutional limits, invoking the First Amendment, due process, equal protection, and separation of powers in case after case.Politico, looking at the criminal and enforcement landscape more broadly, describes what it calls a renaissance in the use and resistance of grand juries around Trump‑related prosecutions. Veteran prosecutors told Politico they had rarely seen grand juries push back on indictments the way some have when confronted with aggressive Trump‑aligned cases, and at least one federal judge has openly criticized what she called “apparent prosecutorial machinations” tied to these efforts. Even where Trump himself is not the defendant, his policies and his Justice Department's tactics keep popping up in the courtroom record.Taken together, the last few days have not brought a single dramatic verdict with Donald Trump at the defense table, but they have tightened the vise around his presidency's legal legacy. Supreme Court calendars, emergency applications, and fresh filings in federal courts all point to 2026 as the year when judges, not voters, will finally decide how far Trump can go on tariffs, immigration, and presidential power itself.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

On June 27, 2025, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire challenging President Trump's Executive Order No. 14,160, which denies birthright citizenship to children born after February 19th, 2025 to parents who are either illegally present in or temporary residents of the United States. On July 10th, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction barring the execution of the order, and, in September, the Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari before judgment. The Court granted cert and will hear oral arguments in early 2026.The case hinges on the question of whether children born to illegal or temporary residents of the United States are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and thus entitled to citizenship under the 14th amendment. Join us for this timely discussion on a case with immense implications for immigration enforcement, our understanding of the 14th amendment, and the meaning of birthright citizenship.Featuring:Trent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCProf. Michael Ramsey, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Prof. Randy Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center

Today, I explain how the United States Supreme Court came to understand the word “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the changes in society's understanding of the cosmos that influenced it. Understanding the evolution of that word is critical to everyone who wants to understand our times and know better how to “walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time” (Colossians 4:5 KJV). "Sons of Issachar" should not miss this one.

Today, I explain how the United States Supreme Court came to understand the word “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the changes in society's understanding of the cosmos that influenced it. Understanding the evolution of that word is critical to everyone who wants to understand our times and know better how to “walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time” (Colossians 4:5 KJV). "Sons of Issachar" should not miss this one.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, I explain how the United States Supreme Court came to understand the word “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the changes in society's understanding of the cosmos that influenced it. Understanding the evolution of that word is critical to everyone who wants to understand our times and know better how to “walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time” (Colossians 4:5 KJV). "Sons of Issachar" should not miss this one.

This Day in Legal History: West Coast HotelOn December 16, 1936, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, a case that would become a cornerstone in constitutional law and mark a significant turning point in the Court's approach to economic regulation. At issue was the constitutionality of Washington State's minimum wage law for women, which had been challenged by the West Coast Hotel Company after Elsie Parrish, a maid, sued for back wages.The case arrived during a period when the Court had consistently struck down New Deal-era economic regulations, relying on a broad interpretation of “freedom of contract” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Earlier cases like Lochner v. New York had enshrined a judicial skepticism toward government interference in labor and wage arrangements.However, in Parrish, the Court's posture shifted. The eventual decision, handed down in 1937, upheld the minimum wage law, effectively signaling the end of the so-called Lochner era. The majority reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the health and well-being of workers, particularly vulnerable low-wage employees.Justice Owen Roberts, who had previously sided with the Court's conservative bloc, voted with the majority—his move later came to be known as “the switch in time that saved nine,” as it followed President Roosevelt's controversial proposal to expand the Court.The decision validated broader governmental authority to regulate the economy, and it cleared the path for many New Deal policies to take root. It also marked a recalibration in the balance between individual economic liberty and the public interest.West Coast Hotel remains a landmark case in US constitutional history, exemplifying how judicial interpretation can evolve in response to changing social and economic realities.The 2025 tax-and-spending law introduced an overtime tax deduction that was billed as relief for overworked, working-class Americans. But the reality shaping up for the 2026 filing season is far more complicated—and far less beneficial—than its political framing suggested. The deduction does not exempt overtime pay from taxation; instead, it offers a narrow, post-withholding deduction that workers must calculate themselves, often without support from their employers or sufficient guidance from the IRS.The structure of the deduction is flawed: it only applies to the “half” portion of time-and-a-half pay and is capped at $12,500. For lower-wage workers to take full advantage, they must clock extraordinary amounts of overtime—something not feasible for many. Meanwhile, employers are actively disincentivized from helping employees understand or claim the benefit. If they report eligibility and make an error, they could face legal penalties, while doing nothing carries no risk. The system thus favors inaction and leaves employees to fend for themselves.Without clear W-2 guidance or safe harbor rules, the deduction becomes accessible primarily to those with tax professionals or payroll tools—functioning as a quiet subsidy for the well-advised. For others, it's a bureaucratic maze with limited reward. To prevent administrative failure, the IRS should at least provide a legal safe harbor for employers and model W-2 language. A more ambitious fix would be a flat-rate standard deduction for eligible workers, reducing complexity. Until then, this “relief” policy punishes transparency, discourages compliance, and places the greatest burden on those with the fewest resources.Trump Overtime Tax Break More a Political Tagline Than Tax ReliefDonald Trump filed a lawsuit in federal court in Miami seeking up to $10 billion in damages from the BBC, alleging defamation and violation of Florida's unfair trade practices law. The suit stems from an edited segment in a BBC Panorama documentary that combined parts of Trump's January 6, 2021 speech—specifically his calls to “march on the Capitol” and to “fight like hell”—while omitting language where he encouraged peaceful protest. Trump claims the edit falsely portrayed him as inciting violence and caused substantial reputational and financial harm.The BBC had previously admitted to an error in editing, apologized publicly, and acknowledged the clip could give a misleading impression. However, the broadcaster argues that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit. UK officials have backed the BBC's position, saying it has taken appropriate steps. Despite this, Trump's legal team claims the broadcaster has shown no real remorse and continues to engage in what they describe as politically motivated misrepresentation.The documentary in question aired before the 2024 U.S. presidential election and triggered significant fallout for the BBC, including the resignations of its top two executives. While the program did not air in the U.S., it was available via BritBox—a BBC-controlled streaming service—and possibly distributed in North America through licensing deals with Canadian firm Blue Ant Media.Legal experts say Trump faces a high bar in U.S. courts under First Amendment standards. He must prove not only that the edited content was false and defamatory, but also that the BBC acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. The BBC may argue that the content was substantially accurate and did not materially harm Trump's reputation. Other networks, including CBS and ABC, previously settled defamation claims with Trump after his 2024 election victory.Trump seeks up to $10 billion in damages from BBC over editing of January 6 speech | ReutersU.S. law school enrollment surged 8% in 2025, reaching a 13-year high with 42,817 first-year students, according to new data from the American Bar Association. The increase follows an 18% rise in law school applicants and continues a multi-year upward trend, fueled by a mix of economic uncertainty, political intensity, and a growing interest in legal careers. The sluggish job market for college graduates, coupled with the centrality of legal issues during Donald Trump's second presidential term, has contributed to renewed interest in law degrees.A significant number of prospective students also cited personal and social motivations. A survey of 15,000 LSAT takers found rising interest in using law degrees to “help others” and “advocate for social justice,” with both reasons seeing double-digit percentage increases over last year. The pool of LSAT test-takers has grown as well, signaling likely continued enrollment growth in 2026.Some elite law schools, including Harvard, enrolled their largest first-year classes in over a decade. However, the long-term outlook remains uncertain. Legal employment has been strong in recent years, with the class of 2024 posting record job placement, but experts warn that advances in artificial intelligence could reduce demand for new associates—particularly at large firms offering high salaries. Smaller sectors like government and public interest law may struggle to absorb excess graduates if hiring slows.US job market, politics fuel 8% surge in law school enrollment | ReutersDonald Trump's controversial plan to build a $300 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the White House grounds is facing its first legal challenge in federal court. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued Trump and several federal agencies, alleging that the demolition of the East Wing to make way for the ballroom violated multiple preservation laws and bypassed required reviews. The group is seeking a temporary restraining order to halt ongoing construction, citing irreversible damage to the historic structure.Since returning to office in January, Trump has made high-profile aesthetic changes to the White House, including installing gold accents in the Oval Office and converting the Rose Garden lawn into a patio modeled after Mar-a-Lago. But the scale and visibility of the ballroom project has drawn particularly intense criticism, especially as heavy machinery was seen dismantling the 120-year-old East Wing.The lawsuit argues that no president, including Trump, has the unilateral authority to alter protected parts of the White House without following procedures involving public input and reviews by agencies like the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts.The administration defended the project as lawful, citing historical precedent and presidential authority to modify the executive residence. It emphasized that above-ground construction was not scheduled to begin until April, rendering emergency relief unnecessary. Still, the National Trust contends that public consultation and proper approvals are not optional and must be upheld regardless of the project's timeline or presidential status.Trump's $300 million White House ballroom makeover faces day in court | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must extend the deadline for states to implement new immigration-related restrictions on food aid benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai in Oregon, came in response to a lawsuit brought by 21 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. The states argued they were not given adequate time or clarity to comply with the new rules, which were tied to President Donald Trump's domestic policy legislation passed in July.The USDA had initially set a November 1 deadline for states to comply with the restrictions, which limit SNAP benefits to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. However, the guidance issued on October 31 created confusion by implying that some lawful residents—such as those who entered the U.S. as asylees or refugees—were ineligible, contrary to what the law allowed. The USDA later revised the guidance, but still maintained the November 1 deadline.Judge Kasubhai extended the grace period for compliance until April 9, finding the original deadline arbitrary and harmful to state budgets. He noted that the USDA's sudden guidance rollout undermined states' ability to respond and eroded trust in federal-state cooperation. The ruling blocks the USDA from penalizing states that don't meet the earlier deadline while the lawsuit proceeds.USDA must give states more time to implement new food aid restrictions, judge rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Bill of Rights RatifiedOn December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was officially ratified, marking a foundational moment in American legal history. With Virginia becoming the crucial eleventh state to approve the measure, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution achieved the three-fourths majority required for adoption. These amendments were crafted in response to fears that the newly formed federal government might trample on individual freedoms, a concern strongly voiced by the Anti-Federalists during the Constitution's ratification debates. Drafted primarily by James Madison, the Bill of Rights was intended to secure essential civil liberties and limit government power.The amendments enshrine core protections such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press, the right to bear arms, and safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. They also provide important rights to those accused of crimes, including the right to a fair trial, protection against self-incrimination, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. At the time, these provisions applied only to the federal government, but their scope was later expanded through the Incorporation Doctrine using the Fourteenth Amendment.The ratification of the Bill of Rights represented a political compromise but ultimately became a defining element of American constitutional identity. Over the centuries, courts have invoked these amendments in countless rulings, from free speech cases to gun rights and due process protections. The Bill of Rights not only shapes modern legal debates but also remains a symbol of the nation's enduring commitment to individual liberty and the rule of law. Its ratification on this day in 1791 continues to influence how justice is understood and delivered in the United States.Judge Hannah Dugan of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court is on trial for allegedly obstructing an immigration arrest in her courtroom, a case seen as a test of Donald Trump's aggressive immigration enforcement policies. Federal prosecutors accuse Dugan of helping a Mexican migrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, evade arrest by redirecting ICE agents and escorting the defendant through a non-public exit after his hearing. Dugan, who has been suspended from the bench, has pleaded not guilty to charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstructing federal proceedings.Prosecutors claim she acted corruptly and misled law enforcement, allegedly showing anger when she learned of ICE's presence and insisting a judicial warrant was needed. Dugan's defense argues she acted in good faith, following courthouse policy designed to handle ICE encounters after previous controversial arrests. The trial highlights growing legal and political tensions around courthouse arrests, which critics say intimidate immigrants and undermine trust in the legal system. The outcome could influence how far judges and local officials can go in pushing back against federal immigration actions.Wisconsin judge faces trial for stopping courtroom arrest of migrant in Trump crackdown | ReutersCalifornia filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for cutting over $33 million in federal grants intended for commercial vehicle safety programs. The U.S. Department of Transportation, led by Secretary Sean Duffy, justified the funding termination by claiming California failed to properly enforce English proficiency requirements for truck drivers. California argues its standards align with federal rules and called the decision unlawful and harmful to public safety and the economy.The lawsuit comes amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to crack down on non-English-speaking and non-U.S. citizen truck drivers. This includes halting commercial driver visas and threatening similar funding cuts in states like New York and Minnesota. The administration has also targeted Democrat-led states for other transportation-related penalties. In California's case, the withheld funds were designated for safety inspections, audits, traffic enforcement, and education programs.California contends that its licensed drivers are involved in significantly fewer fatal crashes than the national average, challenging the administration's justification. The legal dispute reflects escalating tensions between federal agencies and Democratic states over immigration and transportation enforcement.California sues Trump administration over terminated transportation grants | ReutersA federal judge ruled that evidence seized from Daniel Richman, a former attorney for ex-FBI Director James Comey, was wrongfully retained by prosecutors, presenting a hurdle for any new charges against Comey. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered the Department of Justice to return the files but allowed a sealed copy to remain with the court should prosecutors later obtain a valid warrant. Richman had filed a lawsuit claiming the DOJ had improperly held onto materials seized during an investigation that ended in 2021 without charges.While the judge found the DOJ's actions amounted to an unreasonable seizure, she declined to prevent the department from pursuing future leads based on the information already reviewed. The seized files had been used earlier this year to support an indictment against Comey, accusing him of making false statements and obstructing Congress over his 2020 testimony.That indictment, along with one against New York Attorney General Letitia James, was dismissed last month after it was found the prosecutor involved had been unlawfully appointed. The judge's ruling now complicates the DOJ's ability to revive its case against Comey, a frequent critic of Donald Trump and a central figure in past investigations into Trump's conduct.Judge says Comey evidence was wrongfully retained, creating hurdle for new charges | ReutersA California jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $40 million to two women who claimed its talc-based baby powder caused their ovarian cancer. The jury awarded $18 million to Monica Kent and $22 million to Deborah Schultz and her husband, finding the company failed to warn consumers despite allegedly knowing of the product's risks for decades. Both women testified that they used the powder for over 40 years and have undergone extensive cancer treatments since their diagnoses in 2014 and 2018.J&J denies the product causes cancer and plans to appeal the verdict, calling it an “aberrant” outcome. The company points out that no major U.S. health agency has definitively linked talc to ovarian cancer and argues that plaintiffs' claims rely solely on legal arguments rather than scientific consensus.This is the first talc trial to move forward since J&J's latest bankruptcy attempt, aimed at resolving over 67,000 similar lawsuits, was rejected by the courts. The company previously stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the U.S. in 2020. While it has faced some large verdicts—including a $4.69 billion award in a past case—it has also won dismissals and reductions on appeal. In addition to ovarian cancer claims, J&J is also facing suits linking its talc products to mesothelioma, with some recent verdicts exceeding $900 million.Jury orders Johnson & Johnson to pay $40 million to two women in latest talc trial | 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

Can pregnancy help centers have First and Fourteenth Amendment rights? Janet Parshall will answer that question in this week’s commentary.Become a Parshall Partner: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/inthemarket/partnersSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Bush v. GoreOn December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Bush v. Gore, effectively ending the Florida recount and resolving the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. The per curiam opinion held that the Florida Supreme Court's method for ordering a manual recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment due to inconsistent standards across counties. The Court also ruled that there was not enough time to implement a constitutionally valid recount before the deadline for certifying electors.The decision was one of the most controversial in the Court's history. It was split 5-4 along ideological lines, with the majority—led by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor—arguing that allowing the recount to continue would irreparably harm Bush. The dissent, written by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter, criticized the majority for intervening in a state election process and undermining public confidence in judicial neutrality.The ruling effectively awarded Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush, giving him 271 electoral votes—one more than needed to win the presidency—despite losing the national popular vote to Al Gore. The case remains a flashpoint in debates over judicial activism, the politicization of the courts, and the role of federal courts in state election matters. It also raised enduring questions about election integrity and the limits of judicial power in resolving political disputes.The watchdog group American Oversight filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Commerce and Justice Departments, demanding records of legal arrangements between the Trump administration and nine major law firms. The group had submitted eight Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in October seeking details about agreements in which the firms pledged to provide nearly $940 million in pro bono or discounted legal services to the federal government. After receiving inadequate responses, the group took legal action to compel the release of any related contracts, communications, or internal legal analyses.The agreements were announced by Trump earlier in the year on social media, shortly after he issued executive orders targeting law firms for their previous political and diversity-related work. American Oversight is particularly concerned about whether the deals were transparent and whether they might have influenced government policy or enforcement decisions. Several firms—Kirkland & Ellis, Paul Weiss, Simpson Thacher, and Skadden Arps—were reported to have been involved in trade matters or other projects with the administration. None of the firms or the agencies responded to requests for comment.This lawsuit follows a similar legal action by Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute, which alleged in October that related federal record requests had been improperly denied. Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers have also asked several of the firms to explain their government work, but the firms declined, citing client confidentiality and discretion in matter selection.Trump administration sued for records of law firm deals | ReutersA federal judge blocked a renewed attempt by immigration authorities to detain Kilmar Abrego, just one day after his court-ordered release from ICE custody in Pennsylvania. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had previously ordered Abrego's temporary release, but an immigration judge quickly issued a new directive requiring him to report back to detention by the following morning. In response, Abrego's attorneys filed an emergency request to stop the re-detention, which Xinis granted.In her ruling, Judge Xinis emphasized that judicial decisions must be respected and cannot be reversed hastily without due process. Abrego's case has drawn national attention, serving as a high-profile example of what critics view as the Trump administration's heavy-handed immigration enforcement tactics. Originally deported in March to El Salvador under disputed circumstances, Abrego was returned to the U.S. in June to face charges related to human smuggling.Supporters argue his case reflects serious due process violations, while administration officials have maintained he poses a public safety risk. The legal tug-of-war over Abrego's detention has become emblematic of broader legal and political conflicts surrounding immigration enforcement and civil liberties under the Trump administration.Judge blocks new effort to detain Kilmar Abrego | ReutersA federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration acted unlawfully when it attempted to terminate a FEMA program designed to help states prepare for natural disasters. U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns sided with a coalition of 20 mostly Democratic-led states, finding that the administration overstepped its authority by trying to cancel the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and redirect its funds elsewhere without congressional approval.The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees FEMA, had labeled the program wasteful and politically driven when it moved to end it in April. Judge Stearns rejected that rationale, emphasizing that Congress—not the executive branch—has the power to decide how federal funds are spent. He previously issued an order in August blocking FEMA from diverting more than $4 billion in BRIC funding. In this latest decision, he ordered the program reinstated and required FEMA to take immediate steps to undo its termination.Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell praised the ruling, stating it would save lives by preserving funding for critical infrastructure improvements meant to prevent disaster-related harm. The Department of Homeland Security, in contrast, denied that it had ended BRIC and accused the court of siding with a politicized narrative, claiming the program had been misused by the Biden administration.Since its launch, BRIC has approved over $4.5 billion in grants for nearly 2,000 disaster mitigation projects, many located in vulnerable coastal states. The lawsuit, led by states like Washington and Massachusetts, argued that canceling the program delayed or canceled hundreds of vital community projects aimed at reducing disaster risk.Trump administration unlawfully canceled disaster prevention program, US judge rules | ReutersPresident Trump announced an executive order threatening to withhold federal broadband funding from states with AI regulations deemed obstructive to national technological dominance. The order targets state-level laws that the administration argues create a fragmented, burdensome environment for AI innovation, particularly for startups. Trump emphasized the need for a single, centralized regulatory system, positioning the U.S. to compete more aggressively with China in the AI sector.The order authorizes the Commerce Department to review state AI laws and restrict access to the $42 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment fund for non-compliant states. It also criticizes anti-discrimination measures in states like Colorado, claiming such laws inject “ideological bias” into AI development. While the administration supports certain safeguards, such as child protection, it aims to dismantle what it sees as excessive oversight.Critics argue the move undermines state authority and risks public safety. Representative Don Beyer warned the order violates the 10th Amendment and discourages meaningful congressional action. State leaders from both parties have defended their right to regulate AI, citing the federal government's inaction on tech legislation. States like New York, California, and Florida have already enacted laws addressing AI's risks, from data transparency to deepfake bans.Trump threatens funding for states over AI regulations | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Abigail Leahey and her classmates.This week, we are proud to present a performance of singular clarity, youthful ambition, and the product of more than a little bit of dedicated practice: The First Scale March, recorded live on December 10th at a school Winter Concert. Its thematic simplicity belies its pedagogical complexity: it is equal parts warm-up and war cry. The holidays are upon us.The featured artist, Abigail, is one of several violins. She was born in New Jersey in 2014 and has been defying expectations and delighting her family ever since. A gifted writer, illustrator, softball player, and—crucially—violinist, she began studying the instrument in earnest in early 2025. In a bold display of ambidextrous courage, she agreed to learn the instrument right-handed.Abigail's musical sensibility combines the raw urgency of a student recital with the unmistakable rhythmic intensity of a group trying very hard to play the same tempo at the same time. Her phrasing evokes a deep respect for the discipline of practice; she has come a long way—and is still going.We are honored to showcase this piece as a representative work from a performer at the dawn of her musical journey, backed by a supporting cast of equally determined string players. With hearts full and bows raised, they march forward—one note at a time. 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

Gabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who often shares his faith in public. In May 2021, when sharing his faith near an amphitheater in a public park in Brandon, Mississippi, the city’s chief of police confronted Olivier with a recently amended city ordinance requiring “protests” to occur in a designated area. Olivier repositioned himself but soon returned when the designated area proved remote and isolating. The city charged Olivier for violating the ordinance, and he pled nolo contendere and agreed to pay a fine. Olivier then challenged the ordinance under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking an injunction prohibiting future enforcement of the law against his expressive activity. The district court barred Olivier’s request for injunctive relief, applying the preclusion doctrine from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As a result, Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance, even though he alleges that it continues to restrict his speech and risks future penalties. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, splitting from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and deepening a circuit split on whether Heck applies to noncustodial plaintiffs who cannot access habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote, over dissents arguing Olivier’s plea should not bar future constitutional protection. In July, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.Featuring:Nathan Kellum, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Steven Burnett, Clinical Instructional Fellow, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School

The Supreme Court has taken up Donald's unprecedented challenge to end birthright citizenship—directly targeting a constitutional guarantee that has defined America for more than 150 years. In this episode, we unpack the Fourteenth Amendment, the landmark Wong Kim Ark decision that secured citizenship for children of immigrants, and why the Trump regime is now trying to unravel that legacy.We break down what Donald's lawyers are claiming, what legal scholars are warning, and what's truly at stake: the status, security, and futures of tens of thousands of U.S.-born children. This isn't just a court case—it's a battle over the meaning of America itself.Subscribe and stay tuned. The decision ahead could redefine who gets to call themselves a citizen by birth. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Episode 400, Ken and Dave discuss SCO)TUS taking up the Fourteenth Amendment, Somali fraud, double tapping boats, an upcoming execution in Georgia, the worst congressional candidate, tiny cars, and the DC bomber. Sports & Coaching Buzz Discussion of Championship Saturday and the potential for Alabama to beat Georgia in the SEC title game, affecting playoff standings. The devaluation of college bowls due to the playoff system. Deion Sanders received a major salary raise at Colorado despite the team running a deficit and the lack of on-field results. Florida (UF) poached Georgia Tech's Offensive Coordinator Buster Faulner, a move viewed as a necessary career stepping stone for Faulner. National Politics and Trump Trolling Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green (MTG) attended a public hearing to oppose a proposed bio energy plant in her district, while simultaneously skipping congressional votes. Trump's "unforced errors": removing free entry to national parks on **MLK Day and Juneteenth**, replacing them with free entry on his birthday (June 14th), and naming the National Peace Institute after himself. The hosts suggest this behavior harms the Republican party. Birthright Citizenship Case at SCOTUS: The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging the interpretation of the 14th Amendment's phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which currently allows "tourism babies" (babies born in the US to non-resident parents) to gain citizenship. Trump approved Tiny Cars for manufacturing in the US, following a visit to Korea. This move challenges EPA regulations that previously restricted smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles. Minnesota Fraud Scandal and Military Action Somali Fraud Scandal: Allegations of massive welfare, healthcare, and SBA fraud (potentially billions of dollars) in Minnesota, tied to the state's generous welfare system. This fraud reportedly has ties to a political network close to Ilhan Omar and involves state funds meant for school children's meals being pocketed, with money allegedly sent to Somali warlords. The "Tap It Twice" Incident: Debate over the Navy Admiral's order for a second drone strike on a disabled Venezuelan drug boat with two survivors clinging to the wreckage. The hosts argue the second strike was permissible under the mission objectives to disable the vehicle. Georgia Crime and Local Issues Georgia Execution ("The Hot Shot"): A man convicted of the 2003 murders of two real estate agents (Lorie Brown and Cindy Williams) in a Cobb County model home is set for execution on the 17th, concluding a 22-year legal battle. Savannah Watershed Tax: The city proposed a new tax based on the square footage of non-permeable areas (roofs, driveways) on private property. A gun was found in a bathroom at Durham Middle School in Cobb County during a school play, leading to parental panic and discussion of how often firearms are accidentally left behind by concealed carriers. Election Results and Congressional Candidate Democrat Aftyn Behn lost a special election for a Tennessee congressional seat by only nine points in a district Donald Trump won by 22 points. Bane was heavily criticized for being a "nasty woman" who campaigned against Nashville culture and country music. The Would-Be DC Bomber: An individual named Brian Cole Jr. was finally arrested for placing viable pipe bombs outside the RNC and DNC buildings nearly five years ago. The suspect is described as an anarchist, with speculation that the arrest was delayed as he did not fit the initial media narrative of a white, pro-Trump extremist.

Olivier v. City of Brandon | 12/03/25 | Docket #: 24-993 24-993 OLIVIER V. BRANDON, MS DECISION BELOW: 2023 WL 5500223 CERT. GRANTED 7/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Gabriel Olivier is a Christian who feels called to share the gospel with his fellow citizens. After being arrested and fined for violating an ordinance targeting "protests" outside a public amphitheater, Olivier brought a § 1983 suit under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to declare the ordinance unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement against him in the future. The Fifth Circuit, applying its precedent construing this Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), held that Olivier's prior conviction barred his § 1983 suit because even the prospective relief it seeks would necessarily undermine his prior conviction. The Fifth Circuit acknowledged the "friction" between its decision and those of this Court and other circuits. Over vigorous dissents, the Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote. The questions presented are: 1. Whether, as the Fifth Circuit holds in conflict with the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, this Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars § 1983 claims seeking purely prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished before under the law challenged as unconstitutional. 2. Whether, as the Fifth Circuit and at least four others hold in conflict with five other circuits, Heck v. Humphrey bars § 1983 claims by plaintiffs even where they never had access to federal habeas relief. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-60566

This Day in Legal History: Rosa Parks ArrestedOn December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama, for refusing to surrender her seat to a white passenger on a segregated city bus. Parks, a 42-year-old Black seamstress and longtime activist, had been sitting in the “colored” section when the driver demanded she move. Her quiet but firm defiance violated local segregation laws, which mandated racial separation in public transportation and required Black passengers to yield seats to white passengers when buses became crowded. Parks' arrest became a catalyst for the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a coordinated campaign to end racial segregation on public transit.The boycott began four days later, organized by the Montgomery Improvement Association, with a then-unknown Martin Luther King Jr. as its president. It lasted over a year, during which thousands of Black residents refused to use the city's buses, severely impacting the transit system's finances. The protest was not only a powerful act of collective resistance but also a carefully structured legal challenge. Civil rights attorneys, including Fred Gray, filed a federal lawsuit—Browder v. Gayle—on behalf of several Black women who had experienced bus segregation.In November 1956, the federal district court ruled that Montgomery's segregated bus system was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision, and on December 20, 1956, the boycott officially ended when the Court's ruling was implemented. Rosa Parks' arrest and the movement it sparked marked a turning point in the American civil rights struggle. Her individual act of resistance ignited a mass movement and set the stage for future legal and social change.The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a key copyright case today involving Cox Communications and several major record labels, including Sony, Warner, and Universal. The case centers on whether Cox can be held financially liable for allegedly enabling its users to illegally download music. A jury originally awarded the labels $1 billion in 2019 after finding Cox secondarily liable for over 10,000 copyright infringements, but the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed part of that decision, leading to a retrial on damages.Cox argues it shouldn't be held accountable for users' actions, warning that a ruling against it could force ISPs to terminate internet access for entire households or public institutions over alleged piracy. The company claims it reasonably handled piracy reports and criticized the notion that it failed to act. In contrast, the labels accuse Cox of ignoring thousands of infringement notices and protecting profitable repeat offenders while readily cutting off nonpaying customers.Big tech companies like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft have sided with Cox, suggesting that a ruling for the labels could harm the internet economy. Meanwhile, the Trump administration—represented by Solicitor General John Sauer—is supporting Cox's view that merely knowing about piracy isn't enough to establish liability. Industry groups in music, film, and publishing back the labels, arguing that Cox's stance threatens collaborative anti-piracy efforts. The Supreme Court's decision could reshape how ISPs respond to copyright violations.US Supreme Court to hear copyright dispute between Cox and record labels | ReutersFollowing a deadly shooting in Washington, D.C., involving an Afghan immigrant accused of killing a National Guard member, President Donald Trump has intensified efforts to restrict legal immigration. Within 48 hours of the attack, Trump paused Afghan immigration applications, launched a review of asylum approvals from the Biden era, and hinted at expanded vetting under his existing travel ban targeting 19 countries. These moves revive and build upon restrictive immigration policies from Trump's first term, now framed as necessary for national security.Critics argue the administration is exploiting a tragic but isolated incident to justify sweeping immigration rollbacks. Afghan advocacy groups stressed that Afghan immigrants undergo extensive vetting and should not be broadly blamed. While Trump and top officials suggested large-scale reforms—like ending federal benefits for non-citizens and denaturalizing those deemed a threat—federal agencies have so far announced more limited actions, such as case reviews for applicants from travel-ban countries.Legal experts warn that some of the proposed policies, including denying welfare to lawful residents and mass denaturalization, would likely be ruled unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the administration is signaling an aggressive stance, despite polls showing declining public approval of Trump's immigration policies. Meanwhile, Democrats accuse Trump of targeting law-abiding immigrants and using fear-based tactics for political gain.Trump sharpens focus on legal immigration after National Guard shooting | ReutersA federal judge's decision to ban generative AI from his chambers after an intern used it in a flawed court opinion has sparked debate over how technology should be used in the legal system. Judge Julien Neals of New Jersey attributed the error in a June ruling to a law student who used AI in violation of their school's policy, prompting Neals to prohibit AI use entirely among his staff. His response to Senator Chuck Grassley drew concern from legal academics and judges who argue that banning AI outright may be shortsighted.Proponents of AI in the judiciary say the technology, if used responsibly, could reduce case backlogs and improve efficiency amid staffing shortages. Judge Xavier Rodriguez of Texas ran an experiment comparing traditional opinion writing with AI-assisted drafting, showing significant time savings without sacrificing quality. He and others advocate for structured AI use, emphasizing vetting, fact-checking, and clear protocols to preserve judicial integrity.Magistrate Judge Allison Goddard and law professors like David Kemp suggest that instead of bans, institutions should focus on teaching students ethical and effective AI use. With many law students already accustomed to using generative AI, schools are scrambling to develop policies and training. Some institutions, like the University of Chicago Law School, have embraced AI integration, while others lag behind. The incident in Judge Neals' courtroom has become a wake-up call for courts and law schools to align on responsible AI use in legal education and practice.Judges' AI Blunders Spark Debate on Technology Use in CourtsLuigi Mangione, accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in a high-profile shooting outside a Manhattan hotel, appeared in court today for key pretrial hearings. The 27-year-old, arrested in December 2024, has pleaded not guilty to murder and multiple related charges in both state and federal cases. The hearings will determine whether crucial evidence—including a 3-D printed gun, silencer, and journal writings found in Mangione's backpack—can be used at trial. His defense argues that the items were obtained through an illegal search during his arrest in Pennsylvania and that statements he made to police should also be excluded.Prosecutors dispute those claims and are seeking to admit the materials, which they argue implicate Mangione in the killing. Mangione, who has gained a controversial following among critics of the U.S. healthcare system, faces life in prison if convicted of second-degree murder. In a separate federal case, prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty. Earlier in September, two terrorism charges were dismissed after a judge ruled there was insufficient evidence Mangione intended to intimidate healthcare workers or influence government policy.The hearings, overseen by Judge Gregory Carro, are expected to last through the week and include testimony from arresting officers. No trial date has yet been set, and Mangione remains in federal custody in Brooklyn.Luigi Mangione due in court for pretrial hearings over US healthcare executive's killing | 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

Mastering Constitutional Law: A Deep Dive into America's Legal FrameworkThe conversation delves into the fundamental conflict in constitutional law, emphasizing the balance between government power and individual liberty. It highlights the dual role of the Constitution as both a framework for government authority and a protector of personal freedoms. The discussion encourages listeners to analyze legal issues through the lens of this core conflict, asking critical questions about the source of governmental power and the rights it may infringe upon.Imagine stepping into a conversation that has been ongoing for over 200 years—a dialogue about power, liberty, and identity. This is the essence of constitutional law, a subject that is as dynamic as it is foundational. Whether you're preparing for a law school exam or seeking a comprehensive review, understanding constitutional law is crucial.The Blueprint of Power: At its core, the Constitution serves as both a structural blueprint and a charter of liberties. It delineates the distribution of power among the three branches of government—Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary—and between the federal government and the states. This division is intentional, designed to prevent the concentration of power and ensure a system of checks and balances.Judicial Review: A pivotal concept in constitutional law is judicial review, established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison. This principle empowers courts to declare laws unconstitutional, ensuring that the Constitution remains a binding framework rather than a mere suggestion.Federalism and the Commerce Clause: Federalism describes the division of power between the federal government and the states. The Commerce Clause, granting Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, has been a focal point of constitutional interpretation, reflecting the tension between national uniformity and state autonomy.The Charter of Liberties: The Constitution also serves as a charter of liberties, protecting individual rights through the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. These rights, including free speech, due process, and equal protection, are the shields against governmental overreach.Constitutional law is not static; it evolves with society, shaped by text, history, and judicial interpretation. As you delve into this subject, remember that you're not just learning rules—you're engaging in a national conversation about the values that define our democracy. Subscribe now to stay informed on the latest insights in constitutional law.TakeawaysIt all boils down to one single core conflict.A tug of war between two massive opposing forces.The big showdown is government power versus individual liberty.The Constitution is a blueprint for creating a powerful government.It also serves as a charter of liberties that limits that power.Every fact pattern in law is about this clash.Always ask where the government's power is coming from.Consider what right is being infringed upon.Understanding this concept makes constitutional law clearer.This duality is essential for analyzing legal issues.constitutional law, government power, individual liberty, Constitution, legal principles, civil rights, constitutional conflicts

Anna Lange, an employee with the Houston County Sheriff’s Office, sought “male-to-female sex change surgery.” The county’s employer-provided health insurance policy covered some treatments for gender dysphoria, but it excluded drugs, services, and supplies for a “sex-change” (among other categories). Lange sued, claiming the policy discriminated based on sex and transgender status in violation of Title VII. The district court, affirmed by an Eleventh Circuit panel, held that the policy facially violated Title VII under Bostock v. Clayton County. On rehearing en banc, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the county’s policy, which drew a line between which treatments it covers, “is not facial discrimination based on protected status.”Lange v. Houston County, decided on September 9, 2025, is one of the first circuit court decisions to apply the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which held that Tennessee’s law prohibiting healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to transition a minor's gender did not discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Join Christopher Mills and Rachel Morrison for a discussion of Lange, its application of Skrmetti and Bostock, and its implications for Title VII and insurance coverage.Featuring:Christopher E. Mills, Principal, Spero Law LLC(Moderator) Rachel N. Morrison, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

This Day in Legal History: Mississippi BurningOn November 21, 1964, a federal grand jury convened in Meridian, Mississippi, and indicted 19 men in connection with the murders of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner—three civil rights workers abducted and killed by the Ku Klux Klan during Freedom Summer. The brutal killings had shocked the nation, but Mississippi officials refused to pursue murder charges, prompting the federal government to step in. Lacking jurisdiction over homicide, federal prosecutors turned to a rarely used provision of the Reconstruction-era Civil Rights Act of 1870, charging the defendants with conspiracy to violate the victims' civil rights.This legal maneuver led to United States v. Price (1967), a pivotal Supreme Court case that affirmed the federal government's authority to prosecute state actors and private citizens working in concert to deprive others of constitutional rights. The Court unanimously held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment could be enforced through criminal prosecution when state officials or their proxies engaged in unlawful conduct.At trial, seven of the defendants, including a deputy sheriff, were convicted—though none received more than ten years in prison. Several of the most notorious perpetrators, including Edgar Ray Killen, evaded justice for decades. Still, the case marked one of the first successful federal efforts to hold white supremacists accountable for racial violence in the Jim Crow South.The Mississippi Burning case revealed both the limits of federal power—since murder charges were off-limits—and its emerging role as a necessary backstop when local justice systems failed. It signaled a new willingness by the Department of Justice to engage in civil rights enforcement, even in the face of deep local hostility. The grand jury's action on this day helped set legal and moral precedent for future federal interventions in civil rights cases.Google is making a final argument in federal court to avoid a forced breakup of its advertising technology business, as the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) wraps up its antitrust case. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema already ruled in April that Google maintains two illegal monopolies in the ad tech space. Now the court is weighing remedies, with the DOJ and several states pushing for the sale of Google's AdX exchange, a key platform where digital ads are auctioned in real time.During an 11-day trial that began in September, the DOJ argued that only a forced divestiture would effectively curb Google's anticompetitive conduct. In response, Google contended that breaking up its ad business would be technically disruptive and harmful to customers. The company also emphasized that it would comply with less drastic remedies.The trial represents one of the most serious legal threats to Google's ad empire to date. While Google has largely avoided major penalties in previous antitrust actions, this case—and others still pending against Meta, Amazon, and Apple—could mark a turning point in federal enforcement against Big Tech.Google has pledged to appeal any adverse ruling, including Judge Brinkema's earlier decision and a separate finding in Washington that declared Google's dominance in online search and advertising unlawful. In that case, Google was not forced to sell its Chrome browser but was ordered to share more data with competitors.The outcome of this trial could have lasting implications for the structure of the digital ad industry and the future of antitrust enforcement in the tech sector.Google aims to dodge breakup of ad business as antitrust trial wraps | ReutersAs the federal government considers limiting state regulation of artificial intelligence, many U.S. states are moving in the opposite direction—introducing legislation to curb algorithmic pricing practices that may be inflating costs for consumers. These laws target the growing use of software that sets prices based on personal data, such as location, browsing history, and past purchases. Critics argue this enables businesses to charge consumers what they're perceived to be willing to pay, not a fair market rate.Former FTC Chair Lina Khan, now advising New York City's incoming administration, is helping shape efforts to leverage state authority to combat such practices. Laws already passed in New York and California prohibit algorithmic collusion in rental markets, and 19 other states are considering similar bills to restrict price-setting based on competitor data.The issue has attracted bipartisan concern. Utah Republican Tyler Clancy plans to introduce legislation aimed at giving consumers more control over the data companies collect and use to personalize prices. Advocacy groups like Consumer Reports warn that AI-driven pricing risks exacerbating inequality, allowing companies to charge different prices based on who they think the buyer is—effectively punishing certain groups of consumers.Meanwhile, President Trump is reportedly considering an executive order that would block state-level AI rules, escalating the tension between federal deregulation efforts and state-led consumer protection initiatives.US states take aim at data-driven pricing to ease consumer pain | ReutersIn a landmark decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court has become the first high court in the U.S. to ban prosecutors from introducing expert testimony that shaking alone can cause the internal injuries typically attributed to Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). The 6–1 ruling came in two separate child abuse cases involving fathers accused of harming their infant sons. The court held that the state failed to show sufficient scientific consensus across relevant fields, particularly from biomechanical engineering, to justify presenting SBS as a reliable diagnosis in the absence of external trauma.While SBS has long been used to explain serious injuries like brain swelling and internal bleeding in infants—forming the basis for thousands of abuse prosecutions—the court emphasized that scientific evidence must be broadly accepted and reliable, not speculative or limited to select disciplines. Pediatricians and neurologists largely support the SBS diagnosis, but the court noted that the foundational research stemmed from a 1968 whiplash study, and the biomechanics field has not confirmed that shaking alone, without head impact, can produce the injuries.One of the defendants, Darryl Nieves, had his case dismissed, while the other, Michael Cifelli, remains charged but plans to seek dismissal based on the ruling. The decision opens the door for challenges in past SBS convictions and may limit future prosecutions relying solely on SBS testimony.Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis wrote that the door isn't permanently closed—if future research can establish consensus, such testimony may be admitted. But for now, the ruling significantly raises the bar for the use of SBS in court. Justice Rachel Wainer Apter dissented, warning that the majority gave too much weight to a single scientific field over others.New Jersey high court first in US to ban Shaken Baby Syndrome testimony | ReutersA piece I wrote for Forbes this week examined how Foreign Bank and Financial Account (FBAR) reporting enforcement has evolved into a penalty system wildly out of sync with the actual harm caused. I opened with the United States v. Saydam decision, where a dual citizen was hit with a $437,000 civil penalty for failing to file FBAR forms—even though the government's tax loss was only about $29,000. There was no fraud, no evasion, and no criminal behavior, yet the punishment looked like something reserved for offshore tax schemers. I argued that this case shows how FBAR has drifted far from its original purpose under the Bank Secrecy Act, which was aimed at serious financial crime, not routine reporting lapses.In the article, I explained how the concept of “willfulness” has morphed into something elastic enough to include recklessness or even simple inattention, giving the IRS license to impose penalties of up to 50% of an account's highest balance per year. That structure means the punishment often bears no relation to any underlying tax obligation. Saydam's case illustrates this perfectly—the government simply took his highest‑balance year, sliced it in half, spread it across the years he didn't file, and ended up with a crushing figure.I also emphasized that the people being hit hardest aren't drug traffickers or money‑launderers; they're ordinary taxpayers with overseas ties—dual citizens, immigrants, retirees—whose “wrongdoing” is usually limited to missing a form. The court's acknowledgment that FBAR penalties are indeed “fines” under the Eighth Amendment should have prompted a stronger proportionality analysis, but instead it set a very forgiving standard for the government, effectively blessing massive penalties for paperwork lapses.In my view, when penalties exceed the actual tax loss by a factor of fifteen, we're no longer talking about a compliance tool—we're talking about a punitive revenue mechanism. The system now incentivizes extracting large sums from people who pose no threat to the tax base. Saydam didn't hide money or lie about his income; he just didn't file a disclosure. Yet he now faces nearly half a million dollars in liability. As I wrote, if this is the precedent, FBAR has stopped being a transparency measure and has become a blunt instrument aimed at immigrant taxpayers.The Rise And Proliferation Of Excessive FBAR PenaltiesThis week's closing theme is by Henry Purcell.This week's closing theme comes from Purcell, the brilliant English Baroque composer often called “the Orpheus Britannicus” for the beauty and depth of his music. Born in 1659 and active during the late 17th century, Purcell's work bridged the gap between Renaissance polyphony and the emerging Baroque style, blending French elegance, Italian expressiveness, and a distinctly English sensibility. Though he died young at just 36, his influence on British music would echo for centuries.While his “Ode to Saint Cecilia”—written for the patron saint of music—is his most direct connection to November 22, the official feast day of Saint Cecilia, Purcell's music is appropriate listening for this week. His compositions often graced the St. Cecilia Day festivals held annually in London, celebrating music itself as a divine art.The Overture in G minor, which closes our episode today, is not among his ceremonial odes but showcases many of his signature strengths: tight contrapuntal writing, a dark, dignified mood, and striking harmonic shifts that feel centuries ahead of their time. The overture begins with a slow, solemn introduction before launching into a more vigorous section, where rhythmic vitality meets melodic restraint.It's a concise, powerful piece that reflects Purcell's talent for writing music that is both emotionally direct and structurally refined. Though originally composed for a larger suite or theatrical context, it stands on its own as a miniature masterwork. As the week draws to a close and Saint Cecilia's Day approaches, Purcell's music reminds us that even in constraint—of time, of scale, of form—there can be grandeur.And with that, enjoy Purcell's Overture in G minor! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In Born Equal: Remaking America’s Constitution, 1840–1920, Prof. Akhil Reed Amar traces the arc of American constitutional debate from the post-Founding era to the Progressive Era, focusing especially on America’s fundamental question raised originally by our Declaration of Independence: what does it mean to say that all men and women are “created equal”? To explore this question and the broader themes of his book, he will be interviewed by AEI senior fellow Adam White. Featuring: Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Law School (Moderator) Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State

This Day in Legal History: Gettysburg AddressOn November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, months after the blood-soaked Civil War battle that left over 50,000 dead or wounded. The speech nearly didn't make it—Lincoln's draft was reportedly misplaced during the train ride to Gettysburg, and he completed the final version just the night before the ceremony. The headliner that day was Edward Everett, a famed orator who delivered a two-hour address rich in historical detail and classical references. Lincoln followed with a two-minute speech of just 271 words.Drawing inspiration from Pericles' Funeral Oration in ancient Athens, Lincoln sought to elevate the sacrifices of Union soldiers into a reaffirmation of democratic ideals. He framed the war as a test of whether a nation “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” could endure. In his address, Lincoln humbly suggested that “the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,” asserting that the deeds of the fallen, not words, would be remembered by future generations.Afterward, Lincoln reportedly told his bodyguard, “that speech won't scour,” using a Midwestern farming phrase to express doubt about its impact. But Everett, recognizing its brilliance, wrote to Lincoln the next day to say that the president had accomplished in two minutes what he had failed to do in two hours. Indeed, Everett himself is now most famous for his connection to Lincoln's words. Though met with mixed reviews at the time, the speech has since eclipsed the Battle of Gettysburg itself in cultural memory and certainly legal significance.Lincoln's words at Gettysburg echoed something he had written five years earlier, after his defeat in the 1858 Illinois Senate race to Stephen Douglas. Reflecting on what seemed like the end of his political career, Lincoln wrote, “and though I now sink out of view, and shall be forgotten, I believe I have made some marks which will tell for the cause of civil liberty long after I am gone.” These words, penned just two years before he became president, speak to Lincoln's deep conviction that principles—not personal success—leave the most enduring legacy. The Gettysburg Address ultimately became one of those “marks,” still telling for the cause of civil liberty over 160 years later.The Gettysburg Address endures not just as a piece of oratory but as a touchstone of American constitutional values, echoing through the Fourteenth Amendment and generations of civil rights jurisprudence.A federal judge in Virginia will hear arguments from former FBI Director James Comey's legal team seeking dismissal of criminal charges against him, alleging the case was politically motivated by President Donald Trump's long-standing animosity. Comey's lawyers argue the prosecution is a form of “vindictive” retaliation for his public criticism of Trump, who has often called for Comey's prosecution since firing him in 2017. Comey, charged in September with making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation, has pleaded not guilty and is pursuing multiple avenues to have the case thrown out before trial.The hearing will also examine the controversial role of Lindsey Halligan, a former Trump personal lawyer with no prosecutorial background, appointed as interim U.S. Attorney overseeing the case. A separate judge is reviewing whether Halligan's appointment was lawful, while a magistrate judge recently flagged serious procedural concerns with how she handled the grand jury that indicted Comey. Prosecutors maintain that Trump's public statements and criticism of Comey do not meet the legal threshold for a vindictive prosecution claim and argue the charges are legitimate.Comey's case is part of a broader pattern, with other Trump critics, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and former national security adviser John Bolton, also facing charges following Trump's calls for retribution. Legal observers are closely watching whether courts will allow such prosecutions to proceed given the appearance of political targeting.US judge to weigh Trump's influence over case against ex-FBI chief Comey | ReutersCravath, Swaine & Moore has kicked off the 2025 year-end bonus season for major U.S. law firms by announcing associate bonuses of up to $140,000. According to an internal memo, standard year-end bonuses will range from $15,000 for first-year associates (on a pro-rated basis) to $115,000 for the most senior associates. Additionally, the firm will issue special bonuses between $6,000 and $25,000, aligning with bonus levels previously set by competitor Milbank.Cravath, long viewed as a market-setter in associate compensation, made the announcement on Tuesday, prompting at least one other major firm—Paul Hastings—to follow suit with matching payouts. These bonuses mirror those issued last year, maintaining pressure on peer firms to remain competitive in compensation.Currently, associates at top U.S. firms earn base salaries ranging from $225,000 to $435,000 depending on seniority. Firms often wait for Cravath to act before making their own compensation decisions. The announcement comes amid strong financial performance across the legal sector, with a surge in client demand—especially for transactional work—reported in the third quarter. Analysts suggest this demand positions firms for a profitable close to 2025.Cravath sets pace for US law firm bonuses, promising associates up to $140K | ReutersCravath Doles Out Associate Bonuses Ranging Up to $140,000 (2)The U.S. Senate is set to question Michael Selig, President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), with a focus on his views on cryptocurrency regulation and election betting markets. Selig, currently the chief counsel for the SEC's crypto task force and an adviser to Republican SEC chair Paul Atkins, has been an outspoken supporter of pro-crypto policies. In a recent social media post, he pledged to help make the U.S. the “Crypto Capital of the World.”Trump's administration has embraced the crypto sector, rolling back enforcement efforts and enacting a regulatory framework for stablecoins. The CFTC could gain expanded oversight powers under the proposed CLARITY Act, which passed the House in July and is now being reviewed by the Senate. That legislation aims to clarify when a digital asset is a commodity versus a security, a long-standing jurisdictional issue between the CFTC and the SEC.Selig's nomination follows the withdrawal of Trump's earlier pick, Brian Quintenz, who alleged his nomination was derailed by pressure from major crypto donors, the Winklevoss twins. Senators are expected to press Selig on his approach to inter-agency cooperation, how he would regulate crypto spot markets, and how the CFTC might handle politically sensitive areas like election betting. Currently, only one commissioner remains on the CFTC, Republican Caroline Pham, who is serving as acting chair and has signaled plans to step down once a new leader is confirmed.Senate to grill Trump's pick for CFTC head on crypto regulation | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on Tuesday that Donald Trump cannot revive his defamation lawsuit against CNN over its use of the term “Big Lie” to describe his false claims about the 2020 presidential election. Trump filed the suit in 2022, arguing that the phrase linked him to Nazi propaganda and unfairly compared him to Adolf Hitler. However, both the district court and the appeals court found that CNN's language constituted protected opinion, not provable falsehoods.The court emphasized that Trump failed to demonstrate that CNN's statements were factually false, which is a necessary element of a defamation claim. While Trump asserted that “Big Lie” was unambiguous and defamatory, the panel disagreed, finding the term inherently subjective and open to interpretation—particularly in political contexts. They noted that if politically charged terms like “fascist” are ambiguous, then “Big Lie,” which is facially apolitical, must be considered at least as ambiguous.Trump had also tried to compare CNN's interpretation of his actions to his own self-assessment, in which he saw himself as exercising constitutional rights. But the court held that differing views on Trump's conduct are subjective and not subject to clear proof. The district court's refusal to reconsider or allow Trump to amend the complaint was upheld, as he failed to present new evidence or show any legal error.The opinion was issued per curiam by Judges Adalberto Jordan, Kevin Newsom, and Elizabeth Branch.Trump Fails to Revive Defamation Suit Against CNN Over ‘Big Lie' This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of The Sober Gay Guy Podcast, host TJ shares personal updates following his recent surgery, discusses holiday preparations, and reflects on current events affecting the community. He touches on the importance of consistency in personal growth, community engagement through food donations, and mental health awareness. The episode also includes a review of Guillermo del Toro's Frankenstein and a heartfelt thank you to veterans.Q: Do governments workers and military get back pay after a government shutdown?A: Yes, government employees are legally guaranteed back pay for work missed during a government shutdown, as established by the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019. This applies to both furloughed employees and those who are "excepted" and work without pay during the shutdown. The pay is provided once the shutdown has ended and is at the employee's standard rateKim Davis defied a US court order when she denied marriage license to same sex couples in August of 2015.Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Movie: Frankenstein: A film by Guillermo DelToro Available in theaters & on NetflixBook: The deep magic of daily Consistency By: Robin Sharma Available as an audiobooks, paperback & hardcoverFood Pantry: Beyond Hunger Food Pantry: gobeyondhunger.orgCurrent Book: The Prophet: Kahlil Gibran Available in paperback & hardcover

This Day in Legal History: John Jay First SCOTUSOn November 6, 1789, John Jay was sworn in as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the development of the federal judiciary. Appointed by President George Washington, Jay was a prominent figure in the American founding, having co-authored The Federalist Papers and served as President of the Continental Congress. His confirmation by the Senate came just weeks after the Judiciary Act of 1789 formally established the structure of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. At the time of his appointment, the Court held limited power and prestige, lacking even a permanent home or a defined role within the balance of government.Jay's tenure as Chief Justice lasted from 1789 to 1795 and was characterized more by circuit riding—traveling to preside over lower federal courts—than by Supreme Court rulings. Nonetheless, he helped lay the procedural and institutional groundwork for the Court's future authority. One of his few significant decisions came in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which asserted that states could be sued in federal court, a holding that was quickly overturned by the Eleventh Amendment. Jay also took on diplomatic duties, most notably negotiating the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794, which aimed to resolve lingering tensions from the Revolutionary War.Though his judicial legacy on the bench was modest, Jay's influence as the Court's inaugural leader was crucial in legitimizing the judiciary as a coequal branch of government. He later declined a reappointment to the position in 1800, citing the Court's lack of power and institutional independence. The role of Chief Justice would eventually evolve into a central force in constitutional interpretation, but it was Jay who first gave the office its shape. This milestone in legal history underscores the slow and deliberate construction of American judicial authority, which did not arrive fully formed but was built case by case, institution by institution.The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, a case that raises major constitutional and statutory questions about the scope of presidential power—particularly in the context of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At the heart of the dispute is whether the word “regulate” in IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The case touches on foundational issues in constitutional law, including statutory interpretation, the nondelegation doctrine, emergency powers, and the “major questions” doctrine. The Court must assess not just what the statute says, but also how to interpret the silence—IEEPA never mentions “tariffs” or “taxes”—in light of Congress's constitutional power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce.From a textualist standpoint, the omission of “tariffs” suggests Congress did not intend to delegate that taxing authority to the executive. From a purposivist view, the debate turns on whether Congress meant to arm the president with broad economic tools to respond to emergencies or to narrowly limit those powers to national security concerns. Additional arguments center on legislative history and the principle of avoiding surplusage, as opponents claim interpreting “regulate” to include “tariff” would render other statutes that explicitly mention tariffs redundant.The nondelegation doctrine also plays a key role. If IEEPA is read to permit the president to impose tariffs, critics argue it may represent an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power—particularly taxing power—absent a clear “intelligible principle” to guide executive discretion. The Court is also being asked to consider whether the president's determination of an “emergency” under IEEPA is reviewable and whether actions taken in response to such emergencies must still adhere to constitutional limits. The outcome of this case could significantly redefine the boundary between congressional authority and executive power in trade and economic policy.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5, 2025, in a case challenging President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had exceeded his authority by bypassing Congress to enact tariffs, which are traditionally under legislative control. The legal debate centered on whether IEEPA's grant of authority to “regulate importation” includes the power to impose long-term tariffs, and whether doing so constitutes a “major question” requiring explicit congressional authorization.Chief Justice John Roberts, among others, expressed concern that Trump's use of IEEPA effectively allowed the executive to impose taxes—a core congressional function. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether there was any precedent for interpreting “regulate importation” as tariff-imposing authority, while Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that IEEPA was designed to limit, not expand, presidential power. Some conservative justices, like Brett Kavanaugh, were more receptive, referencing historical precedents like Nixon's use of similar powers.The administration argued the tariffs were necessary to respond to trade deficits and national security threats and warned that removing them could lead to economic harm. But critics, including business representatives and Democratic-led states, warned of a dangerous shift in power toward the executive. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested such an interpretation of IEEPA could permanently shift trade powers away from Congress, violating constitutional checks and balances.Lawyer for Trump faces tough Supreme Court questions over legality of tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Senate confirmed Eric Tung to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 52-45 party-line vote, making him President Donald Trump's sixth appellate court appointee in his second term. Tung, a former federal prosecutor and Justice Department lawyer, most recently worked at Jones Day, where he focused on commercial litigation and frequently represented cryptocurrency interests. His confirmation came over the objections of California's Democratic senators, who criticized his past statements and writings on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gender roles.Tung has been a vocal legal advocate for controversial positions, including support for the independent state legislature theory and the argument that stablecoin sales fall outside SEC regulation. While he pledged to follow Supreme Court precedent, critics raised concerns about his originalist approach to constitutional rights. He faced intense scrutiny during his confirmation hearings for remarks made at a Federalist Society event and earlier in life, including statements about gender roles that drew fire from Senator Alex Padilla.Despite these concerns, Tung's legal career earned strong endorsements from colleagues and conservative legal allies. He clerked for Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch and has experience handling judicial nominations from within DOJ. Tung fills the seat vacated by Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, a fellow conservative, ensuring ideological continuity on the Ninth Circuit.Former DOJ, Jones Day Lawyer Confirmed as Ninth Circuit JudgeThe California Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom, seeking to block the implementation of new congressional maps approved by voters just a day earlier via Proposition 50. The measure, backed by Newsom and passed by wide margins, suspends the state's independent redistricting commission and installs a Democratic-leaning map that could endanger five Republican-held congressional seats. Newsom has framed the move as a direct response to Texas' mid-cycle redistricting, which is expected to boost Republican power in the 2026 midterms.The GOP lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, argues that the new maps violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as the primary factor in redrawing districts to favor Hispanic voters. The plaintiffs, represented by attorney Mike Columbo of the Dhillon Law Group, claim the state legislature lacked sufficient justification to use race in this way and failed to meet the legal standards required under the Voting Rights Act.Republicans also contend that Proposition 50 diminishes the political voice of non-Hispanic groups and constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The suit, Tangipa v. Newsom, is backed by the National Republican Congressional Committee and includes Republican lawmakers and candidates as plaintiffs. It mirrors legal challenges in Texas, where courts are evaluating claims of racial bias in redistricting. The outcome of these cases could significantly affect congressional control heading into the latter half of President Trump's second term.California Republicans Sue to Block New Congressional Maps (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

During the Civil War, the U.S. federal government abolished slavery without reimbursing enslavers, diminishing the white South's wealth by nearly 50 percent. After the Confederacy's defeat, white Southerners demanded federal compensation for the financial value of formerly enslaved people and fought for other policies that would recognize abolition's costs during Reconstruction. As Amanda Laury Kleintop shows in Counting the Cost of Freedom: The Fight Over Compensated Emancipation After the Civil War (University of North Carolina Press, 2025), their persistence eventually led to the creation of Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which abolished the right to profit from property in people. Surprisingly, former Confederates responded by using Lost Cause history-making to obscure the fact that they had demanded financial redress in the first place. The largely successful efforts of white Southerners to erase this history continues to generate false understandings today. Kleintop draws from an impressive array of archival sources to uncover this lost history. In doing so, she demonstrates how this legal battle also undermined efforts by formerly enslaved people to receive reparations for themselves and their descendants—a debate that persists in today's national dialogue. Amanda Laury Kleintop is assistant professor of history at Elon University. Ryan Tripp is an adjunct for universities and California community colleges. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

During the Civil War, the U.S. federal government abolished slavery without reimbursing enslavers, diminishing the white South's wealth by nearly 50 percent. After the Confederacy's defeat, white Southerners demanded federal compensation for the financial value of formerly enslaved people and fought for other policies that would recognize abolition's costs during Reconstruction. As Amanda Laury Kleintop shows in Counting the Cost of Freedom: The Fight Over Compensated Emancipation After the Civil War (University of North Carolina Press, 2025), their persistence eventually led to the creation of Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which abolished the right to profit from property in people. Surprisingly, former Confederates responded by using Lost Cause history-making to obscure the fact that they had demanded financial redress in the first place. The largely successful efforts of white Southerners to erase this history continues to generate false understandings today. Kleintop draws from an impressive array of archival sources to uncover this lost history. In doing so, she demonstrates how this legal battle also undermined efforts by formerly enslaved people to receive reparations for themselves and their descendants—a debate that persists in today's national dialogue. Amanda Laury Kleintop is assistant professor of history at Elon University. Ryan Tripp is an adjunct for universities and California community colleges. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

During the Civil War, the U.S. federal government abolished slavery without reimbursing enslavers, diminishing the white South's wealth by nearly 50 percent. After the Confederacy's defeat, white Southerners demanded federal compensation for the financial value of formerly enslaved people and fought for other policies that would recognize abolition's costs during Reconstruction. As Amanda Laury Kleintop shows in Counting the Cost of Freedom: The Fight Over Compensated Emancipation After the Civil War (University of North Carolina Press, 2025), their persistence eventually led to the creation of Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which abolished the right to profit from property in people. Surprisingly, former Confederates responded by using Lost Cause history-making to obscure the fact that they had demanded financial redress in the first place. The largely successful efforts of white Southerners to erase this history continues to generate false understandings today. Kleintop draws from an impressive array of archival sources to uncover this lost history. In doing so, she demonstrates how this legal battle also undermined efforts by formerly enslaved people to receive reparations for themselves and their descendants—a debate that persists in today's national dialogue. Amanda Laury Kleintop is assistant professor of history at Elon University. Ryan Tripp is an adjunct for universities and California community colleges. 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

During the Civil War, the U.S. federal government abolished slavery without reimbursing enslavers, diminishing the white South's wealth by nearly 50 percent. After the Confederacy's defeat, white Southerners demanded federal compensation for the financial value of formerly enslaved people and fought for other policies that would recognize abolition's costs during Reconstruction. As Amanda Laury Kleintop shows in Counting the Cost of Freedom: The Fight Over Compensated Emancipation After the Civil War (University of North Carolina Press, 2025), their persistence eventually led to the creation of Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which abolished the right to profit from property in people. Surprisingly, former Confederates responded by using Lost Cause history-making to obscure the fact that they had demanded financial redress in the first place. The largely successful efforts of white Southerners to erase this history continues to generate false understandings today. Kleintop draws from an impressive array of archival sources to uncover this lost history. In doing so, she demonstrates how this legal battle also undermined efforts by formerly enslaved people to receive reparations for themselves and their descendants—a debate that persists in today's national dialogue. Amanda Laury Kleintop is assistant professor of history at Elon University. Ryan Tripp is an adjunct for universities and California community colleges. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

During the Civil War, the U.S. federal government abolished slavery without reimbursing enslavers, diminishing the white South's wealth by nearly 50 percent. After the Confederacy's defeat, white Southerners demanded federal compensation for the financial value of formerly enslaved people and fought for other policies that would recognize abolition's costs during Reconstruction. As Amanda Laury Kleintop shows in Counting the Cost of Freedom: The Fight Over Compensated Emancipation After the Civil War (University of North Carolina Press, 2025), their persistence eventually led to the creation of Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which abolished the right to profit from property in people. Surprisingly, former Confederates responded by using Lost Cause history-making to obscure the fact that they had demanded financial redress in the first place. The largely successful efforts of white Southerners to erase this history continues to generate false understandings today. Kleintop draws from an impressive array of archival sources to uncover this lost history. In doing so, she demonstrates how this legal battle also undermined efforts by formerly enslaved people to receive reparations for themselves and their descendants—a debate that persists in today's national dialogue. Amanda Laury Kleintop is assistant professor of history at Elon University. Ryan Tripp is an adjunct for universities and California community colleges. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-south

During the Civil War, the U.S. federal government abolished slavery without reimbursing enslavers, diminishing the white South's wealth by nearly 50 percent. After the Confederacy's defeat, white Southerners demanded federal compensation for the financial value of formerly enslaved people and fought for other policies that would recognize abolition's costs during Reconstruction. As Amanda Laury Kleintop shows in Counting the Cost of Freedom: The Fight Over Compensated Emancipation After the Civil War (University of North Carolina Press, 2025), their persistence eventually led to the creation of Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which abolished the right to profit from property in people. Surprisingly, former Confederates responded by using Lost Cause history-making to obscure the fact that they had demanded financial redress in the first place. The largely successful efforts of white Southerners to erase this history continues to generate false understandings today. Kleintop draws from an impressive array of archival sources to uncover this lost history. In doing so, she demonstrates how this legal battle also undermined efforts by formerly enslaved people to receive reparations for themselves and their descendants—a debate that persists in today's national dialogue. Amanda Laury Kleintop is assistant professor of history at Elon University. Ryan Tripp is an adjunct for universities and California community colleges.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson welcomes Jan Wolfe of Reuters to break down a major Supreme Court case that could reshape voting rights nationwide. They discuss how a challenge to Louisiana's congressional map escalated into a broader attack on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—one of the remaining federal protections against racial discrimination in voting. Jan and Jessica unravel the complexities of the case, the Supreme Court's skepticism, and the potential consequences: from narrowing how race can be considered in redistricting, to making it much harder to bring successful claims under Section 2. The episode also takes a look at other high-profile cases on the Supreme Court's docket, including questions of executive power and social issues, highlighting the legal and political stakes at play this term.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is at a crossroads:Following the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby County decision (which gutted Section 5 preclearance provisions), Section 2 remains the primary tool to challenge racially discriminatory voting practices. This case could either hobble or maintain its effectiveness, depending on how the justices rule.The current dispute reflects broader battles over race and "colorblindness":The case sits at the intersection of redistricting and the recent trend in the Court toward a “colorblind” constitutional interpretation—reminiscent of last year's affirmative action ruling. The outcome could make it significantly harder to prove voting power is being diluted due to race, with huge consequences for minority representation.The Court's decision may have national ripple effects—or remain narrow:While the justices have options ranging from a sweeping redefinition of Section 2 to a narrow ruling specific to Louisiana, the oral arguments showed splintering among conservatives and uncertainty about the ultimate path forward. Watch for possible “off ramps” that limit the case's impact nationally.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

This Day in Legal History: John Marshall Harlan DiesOn October 14, 1911, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan I died, closing the chapter on one of the Court's most powerful voices of dissent. Appointed in 1877 by President Rutherford B. Hayes, Harlan served for 34 years and left an indelible mark on constitutional law—not through majority opinions, but through unwavering dissents that often read as moral indictments of the Court's direction.Most famously, Harlan stood alone in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), rejecting the Court's embrace of “separate but equal” and warning that the Constitution is “color-blind.” At a time when the legal system was ratifying segregation, Harlan insisted that racial classifications violated both the spirit and letter of the Fourteenth Amendment. His lone dissent—widely criticized at the time—would later become foundational to the Court's reversal in Brown v. Board of Education more than half a century later.But Harlan's commitment to constitutional principles extended beyond race. He defended civil liberties in United States v. E.C. Knight Co., supported expansive readings of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and warned against unchecked corporate power. His approach was rooted in a belief that the Reconstruction Amendments were designed not just to end slavery, but to secure full legal equality.Though his views often put him in the minority, time has proven Harlan prophetic. His jurisprudence helped shift the constitutional center of gravity in the 20th century, as future courts took up the causes he championed alone. Remarkably, his grandson, John Marshall Harlan II, would go on to sit on the Court as well, carving out his own legacy in cases like Katz v. United States and Reynolds v. Sims.Justice Harlan I's death marked the loss of a constitutional conscience—one that held firm against the tide of his era. His dissents remain a blueprint for principled judging, reminding us that sometimes the most enduring legal influence comes not from prevailing, but from refusing to go along.In a massive trial that began this week in London's High Court, over 1.6 million claimants are suing several major carmakers—including Mercedes-Benz, Ford, Nissan, Renault, Peugeot, and Citroën—over allegations that they used illegal “defeat devices” to cheat diesel emissions tests. The lawsuit, one of the largest in UK legal history, follows in the wake of Volkswagen's 2015 “dieselgate” scandal and targets vehicles manufactured between 2012 and 2017.Claimants argue that these manufacturers deliberately programmed cars to meet legal nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions standards only under lab testing, while on-the-road emissions were allegedly up to 12 times higher—harming the environment and misleading consumers. They seek compensation for what they claim was a systemic, industry-wide choice to cheat rather than comply with the law.The defendants deny any wrongdoing, rejecting comparisons to VW and maintaining that emissions systems are legally and justifiably calibrated to function differently under certain conditions for technical and safety reasons. A central point of contention is whether the sample vehicles in the case contain prohibited defeat devices.The trial currently focuses on 20 vehicles, but its outcome will set a precedent for nearly 850,000 claims and influence another 800,000 similar suits against other carmakers, including Vauxhall/Opel and BMW. The court's decision on liability is expected by mid-2026, with damages to be determined separately.Carmakers accused in huge UK lawsuits of cheating diesel emissions tests | ReutersVisa and Mastercard have agreed to a $199.5 million settlement to resolve a class action brought by merchants who alleged the companies colluded to shift fraud-related costs onto businesses. Filed in federal court in Brooklyn, the settlement—still awaiting judicial approval—stems from a lawsuit first initiated in 2016, challenging rule changes that made merchants liable for chargebacks when they hadn't upgraded to chip-enabled point-of-sale systems.The plaintiffs argued this policy shift violated antitrust laws, claiming Visa and Mastercard moved in parallel to implement changes that benefited the networks while leaving merchants exposed to fraud losses without any offsetting fee reductions. According to the proposed agreement, Visa will pay $119.7 million and Mastercard will contribute $79.8 million. Discover and American Express, also named in the litigation, previously agreed to a $32.2 million settlement.While all four companies deny wrongdoing, plaintiffs' lawyers praised the deal, saying it recovers around 13% of the best-case damages scenario and over half of a more conservative estimate. Mastercard stated the settlement supports its broader efforts to increase security through technological upgrades, while Visa and the plaintiffs' counsel did not comment.This case is separate from the larger $5 billion settlement Visa and Mastercard reached in 2019 over allegations of fixing credit and debit card fees.Visa, Mastercard agree to $199.5 million settlement in merchants' class action | ReutersFederal courts in California and Alabama recently fined two attorneys thousands of dollars for submitting legal filings that contained fake case citations generated by AI. These sanctions highlight a persistent problem: despite repeated warnings, some lawyers continue to rely uncritically on generative AI tools that produce fictitious case law, a phenomenon known as “hallucination.” Judges in both cases criticized the attorneys for failing to verify the AI-generated content, calling the misconduct more serious than simple oversight.In Alabama, Judge Terry F. Moorer imposed a $5,000 sanction on James A. Johnson, a court-appointed criminal defense attorney, who filed a motion containing fabricated citations. The judge noted that Johnson used a Microsoft Word plugin called Ghostwriter Legal and submitted the motion during a holiday weekend while caring for a relative, but emphasized that such explanations do not excuse the lack of basic diligence. Johnson must now disclose the sanctions order in all cases he handles for the next year, and his client—visibly upset in court—requested new counsel, delaying the case.In California, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín fined attorney Edward A. Quesada $1,000 after his civil filing contained at least three false citations. Quesada admitted he had run out of time and may have accidentally copied one fake citation from an AI-generated web summary. He was also ordered to complete a CLE course on responsible AI use, with the judge citing his failure to stay informed about relevant legal technologies as a violation of professional conduct rules.Fake AI Citations Produce Fines for California, Alabama LawyersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I examine the property rights implications at the heart of Pung v. Isabella County, a case the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear. I argue that when the government seizes and sells property for unpaid taxes, “just compensation” shouldn't be defined by whatever price the property fetches at a government-run auction. That process—entirely designed and controlled by local officials—often prioritizes administrative efficiency over fair market value, turning tax sales into what I describe as “clearance rack” events.The problem is structural. Local treasurers are incentivized to close the books quickly rather than ensure former owners recover equity. That means the government may undersell a home, pay itself the back taxes, and call it a day—leaving the former owner uncompensated for the true value of what they lost. Worse, when courts treat the auction price as constitutionally adequate, they allow the taker to set the value of what it took.I draw a comparison to Tyler v. Hennepin County, where the Court ruled the government can't pocket surplus proceeds from a tax sale. Pung asks the natural follow-up: what rules apply when determining how much surplus exists? If courts accept fire-sale auction prices as “just compensation,” they effectively endorse an end-run around the Fifth Amendment.As a compromise, I propose a clear rule: auction prices should only be presumed fair if they fall within 10% of an appraised value. Outside that range, the burden should shift to the government to prove the sale was legitimate. After all, if local governments want the legitimacy of a market sale, they need to run a sale that looks like one. Otherwise, taxpayers are left holding the bag—punished not for failing to pay taxes, but for the government's indifference to recovering real value from their property. 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

Kate, Leah, and Melissa preview what fresh hell SCOTUS has in store for us this term, including challenges to the Fourteenth Amendment and the Court's continued obsession with fighting the culture wars. Then, after breaking down the latest legal news, the hosts welcome Lieutenant Governor of Illinois–and Senate candidate–Juliana Stratton to discuss Trump's plan to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, how state and local governments can push back against this administration, and what gives her hope in this fight. Finally, a game to commemorate Chief Justice Roberts' 20 long years on the Court. This episode was recorded live at the Athenaeum Center in Chicago.Favorite things:Leah: Bone Valley: A True Story of Injustice and Redemption in the Heart of Florida, Gilbert King; Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights, Lisa Graves; One Battle After Another; The Life of a Showgirl, Taylor SwiftKate: WBEZ Chicago; Block Club Chicago; Chicago Reader; The Chicago Sun-Times on Broadview; Heart the Lover, Lily KingMelissa: Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ezra Klein Hash Out Their Charlie Kirk Disagreement; Tony Shalhoub's Breaking Bread (CNN); Mexodus (Audible's Minett a Lane Theater); Meghan Markle in Balenciaga Learn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In his book Grant's Enforcer: Taking Down the Klan Guy Gugliota offers a gripping story of the early years after the Civil War and the campaign led by President Ulysses S. Grant's attorney general Amos T. Akerman to destroy the Ku Klux Klan. Akerman, a former Georgia slaveholder and the only Southerner to serve in a Reconstruction cabinet, was the first federal lawman to propose using the Fourteenth Amendment to prosecute civil rights violations.Gugliotta uses newspapers, documents, and first-person stories, including thousands of pages of testimony under oath taken by a Congressional joint committee tasked in 1871 to study the Ku Klux Klan, a breathtaking compilation of accounts by Ku Klux targets, their attackers, local and national politicians, public officials and private citizens. The result is a vivid portrait of the Reconstruction South through the career of this surprising man.Guy joins us in conversation this week to talk about how Grant and Akerman took down the Klan.

Created to assure that newly-freed slaves would receive equal legal protection, the Fourteenth Amendment has come to dominate federal jurisprudence. This is not a good thing.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/how-fourteenth-amendment-empowers-judicial-activism

Gabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who often shares his faith in public. In May 2021, when sharing his faith near an amphitheater in a public park in Brandon, Mississippi, the city’s chief of police confronted Olivier with a recently amended city ordinance requiring “protests” to occur in a designated area. Olivier repositioned himself but soon returned when the designated area proved remote and isolating. The city charged Olivier for violating the ordinance, and he pled nolo contendere and agreed to pay a fine. Olivier then challenged the ordinance under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking an injunction prohibiting future enforcement of the law against his expressive activity. The district court barred Olivier’s request for injunctive relief, applying the preclusion doctrine from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As a result, Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance, even though he alleges that it continues to restrict his speech and risks future penalties. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, splitting from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and deepening a circuit split on whether Heck applies to noncustodial plaintiffs who cannot access habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote, over dissents arguing Olivier’s plea should not bar future constitutional protection. In July, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.Featuring:Nathan Kellum, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Tobias S. Loss-Eaton, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP

Created to assure that newly-freed slaves would receive equal legal protection, the Fourteenth Amendment has come to dominate federal jurisprudence. This is not a good thing.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/how-fourteenth-amendment-empowers-judicial-activism

Welcome back to another After Dark episode of the Iron Sights Podcast. My guest today is Phil Downs, partner at Cholakian & Associates, former U.S. Marine Infantry Platoon Commander, and seasoned civil defense litigator. Our conversation goes well beyond report writing. We dig into the nuances of use of force, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the non-uniformity of the U.S. judiciary system. Phil breaks down how legal language is frequently misunderstood, misapplied, and how those misunderstandings play out on our streets and in our courtrooms. Whether you're a law enforcement professional, a legal enthusiast, or a citizen who wants to better understand and protect your rights, this episode delivers a roadmap to strengthen both your knowledge and application of constitutional protections. Share this with friends, family, or anyone who values the importance of clear understanding of their rights.Timestamps:000:00 Intro07:43 Guest Background12:62 Reporting Challenges20:23 Legal & Training Gaps36:32 Case Studies44:25 Hesitation & Decisions50:09 Gadget Reliance57:29 Crowd Control Issues01:01:03 Better Training01:07:07 Innovation & Mental Health01:16:21 Context & Communication01:21:04 Report Writing Tips01:34:50 Accurate Reporting01:43:54 Law & Society01:47:28 Closing RemarksRed Dot Fitness Training Programs:rdfprograms.comOnline Membership (Full Access To All Programs & Virtual Coaching):https://www.reddotfitness.net/online-membershipVirtual Coaching:https://www.reddotfitness.net/virtual-coachingSelf-Guided Programs:https://www.reddotfitness.net/Self-Guided-Programs1Connect With Us:Website - https://ironsightspodcast.com/Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/ironsightspodcast/Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of the First Amendment, focusing on its key principles, historical context, and the evolution of its interpretation. The discussion covers the incorporation doctrine, freedom of speech, the distinction between content-based and content-neutral restrictions, and the various tiers of scrutiny applied in legal analysis. Imagine sitting in your constitutional law class, surrounded by casebooks and notes, with the First Amendment staring back at you like a complex puzzle. This cornerstone of our legal system is not only fundamental to understanding American law but also a critical component of law school exams and the bar. Let's delve into the key principles of the First Amendment and how they apply in legal exams.Understanding the Text: The First Amendment guarantees fundamental freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It begins with the phrase, "Congress shall make no law," explicitly limiting federal legislative power. However, the Supreme Court has recognized implied rights beyond the explicit text, such as the freedom of association and belief, which are crucial for exam analysis.Incorporation Doctrine: Initially, the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, applied only to the federal government. The incorporation doctrine, through the Fourteenth Amendment, extended these protections to state and local governments. Understanding this historical context is vital for a complete legal analysis.Freedom of Speech: The bedrock principle of freedom of speech is that it is generally presumed to be protected unless it falls within specific exceptions. This presumption is rooted in the idea of a marketplace of ideas, where the government cannot restrict expression based on its message, ideas, subject matter, or content.Content-Based vs. Content-Neutral Restrictions: A critical aspect of First Amendment analysis is distinguishing between content-based and content-neutral restrictions. Content-based restrictions regulate speech because of its message and are presumptively unconstitutional, facing strict scrutiny. Content-neutral restrictions regulate something other than the content and are subject to intermediate scrutiny.Forum Analysis: The physical location of speech profoundly impacts its protection. Traditional public forums, like streets and parks, receive the strongest protections, while non-public forums, like military bases, receive the least. Understanding forum analysis is crucial for setting up exam analysis.Exceptions to Protected Speech: Certain categories of speech, such as incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, and obscenity, receive no or limited First Amendment protection. Knowing these exceptions is essential for tackling First Amendment hypotheticals.Freedom of Religion: The First Amendment also encompasses the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, which have evolved significantly. The Establishment Clause prohibits government promotion of religion, while the Free Exercise Clause protects individual religious liberty. Understanding the dynamic interpretation of these clauses is key for exams.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest legal insights and exam tips!TakeawaysThe First Amendment is foundational to American law.Historical context is crucial for understanding constitutional rights.Incorporation doctrine applies federal rights to state actions.Freedom of speech is generally protected unless it falls into specific exceptions.Content-based restrictions face strict scrutiny, while content-neutral ones face intermediate scrutiny.Forum analysis is essential for determining speech protections.Certain categories of speech are unprotected or less protected.First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, constitutional law, legal analysis, incorporation doctrine, speech restrictions, public forums, commercial speech, government speech

     Slam The Gavel Podcast welcomes Edyta (Edie) Hanna Basista. Edie is a civil rights advocate, trauma survivor, and pro se federal plaintiff in Basista & Palacios v. Batch, et al., a landmark constitutional lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.     The case names 25 defendants, including judges, elected officials, attorneys, police officers, former spouses, licensed therapists, and state-contracted service providers, for their roles in a coordinated pattern of constitutional violations. Edyta's parental access was severed without a finding of unfitness, without an evidentiary hearing, and without lawful adjudication. Sealed trauma records were unlawfully disclosed. Court access was obstructed through procedural manipulation. Judicial actors refused to recuse despite personal and political conflicts, and retaliation was used to silence her legal efforts.     This is not a custody matter, it is a federal civil rights case grounded in binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and asserting violations of the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Supremacy Clause, the ADA, and VAWA. The lawsuit exposes how courts and state-aligned professionals weaponized trauma, disability status, and indigency to deny her access to justice — and how that abuse was not accidental, but institutional.     Edyta Basista stands not only for herself, but for every parent, survivor, and disabled litigant who has been denied a fair hearing under law. Her case demands federal enforcement of constitutional rights where state systems have failed, and forces the question: Who protects the rights of the vulnerable when the courts become the violators?To Reach Edie Basista:  ehbasista@gmail.com and on Facebook: Edie Basista.Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.com   https://ko-fi.com/maryannpetrihttps://www.zazzle.com/store/slam_the_gavel/about*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyrightSupport the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

All fifty states mandate certain vaccinations for schoolchildren. Forty-six of them allow religious exemptions. New York once did as well, maintaining such exemptions for more than half a century before eliminating them in 2019. Medical exemptions remain.Members of the Amish community now challenge New York’s policy, claiming that opposition to vaccines is integral to their “traditional way of life,” as recognized in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The Petitioners include three Amish parents, one representing all Amish and Mennonites in New York, as well as three Amish schools—funded by and serving Amish communities on Amish land. In 2022, the state charged these schools with violating its vaccination law and levied $118,000 in penalties.The Petitioners defended themselves by filing a Section 1983 action in federal court, raising an as-applied challenge under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the case, and the Second Circuit affirmed under Employment Division v. Smith’s rational basis framework. The Petitioners are seeking Supreme Court review.Featuring:Robert M. Overing, Deputy Solicitor General, Alabama Office of the Attorney General(Moderator) Hon. Sean D. Jordan, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

In 2020 and 2021, Idaho and West Virginia passed laws that required public schools and colleges to designate sports by biological sex and to forbid males from competing on women’s sports teams. Two male athletes who identified as females, one a middle school shot-put and discus thrower and the other a collegiate cross-country runner, challenged the laws in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Idaho and Southern District of West Virginia, alleging a right to compete in women’s sports and saying the state laws discriminate on the basis of sex and transgender status in violation of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In Little v. Hecox, the Idaho district court entered a preliminary injunction against the Idaho law for violating the Equal Protection Clause, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the West Virginia district court preliminarily enjoined the West Virginia law for violating Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause and then dissolved that injunction, upholding the law at summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered the district court to enjoin the law for violating Title IX.The Supreme Court accepted certiorari on both of these cases and will consider whether states can designate women’s sports based on biological sex consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss these cases and the broader issues at play, including the scope of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause as they relate to school sports and gender identity.Featuring:Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and the Director for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education