Podcasts about fourth circuit

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I unpack the latest in the growing political fight between gun-rights groups and the House GOP over how much National Firearms Act reform can be included in the President's "big beautiful bill" through budget reconciliation. We also cover recent rulings out of the federal courts, including an en banc Ninth Circuit decision upholding the government's ability to permanently disarm all non-violent felons and a Fourth Circuit ruling ruling the same for those with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. Emily Stanley, aka Princess and the Pistol, also joins the show to discuss becoming a gun meme. Special Guest: Emily Stanley.

This week, Ben and Dave tackle two major policy stories making headlines. Ben unpacks the Fourth Circuit's long-awaited ruling in United States v. Chatrie, where the court failed to reach a majority decision on whether geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment. Instead, the panel affirmed the lower court's decision based solely on the good-faith exception, leaving key constitutional questions unanswered. Then, Dave covers the latest twist in the Epic Games v. Apple saga: a federal judge ruled that Apple willfully defied a court order to open up iOS app payment options—referring the company and a senior executive for potential criminal investigation. While this show covers legal topics, and Ben is a lawyer, the views expressed do not constitute legal advice. For official legal advice on any of the topics we cover, please contact your attorney.  Please take a moment to fill out an ⁠audience survey⁠! Let us know how we are doing! Links related to our show this week: ⁠The Fourth Circuit's Geofencing Case Ends Not With a Bang But A Whimper Apple violated court's order to loosen app store rules, judge says Get the weekly Caveat Briefing delivered to your inbox. Like what you heard? Be sure to check out and subscribe to our ⁠Caveat Briefing⁠, a weekly newsletter available exclusively to ⁠N2K Pro⁠ members on ⁠N2K CyberWire's⁠ website. N2K Pro members receive our Thursday wrap-up covering the latest in privacy, policy, and research news, including incidents, techniques, compliance, trends, and more. This week's ⁠Caveat Briefing⁠ covers the story of how a proposed bipartisan U.S. law aims to crack down on semiconductor chip smuggling by mandating location-tracking technology, while President Trump's 2026 budget proposes major cuts to CISA's cybersecurity efforts, signaling shifting federal priorities amid growing concerns over national security and tech competition with China. Curious about the details? Head over to the ⁠Caveat Briefing⁠ for the full scoop and additional compelling stories. Got a question you'd like us to answer on our show? You can send your audio file to ⁠caveat@thecyberwire.com⁠. Hope to hear from you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Privacy: May the government share citizens' protected personal information with the Department of Government Efficiency? - Argued: Mon, 05 May 2025 16:35:16 EDT

President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship has reignited debates over the 14th Amendment and the meaning of citizenship in America. Legal experts Gabriel Chin of the University of California, Davis School of Law; Amanda Frost of the University of Virginia School of Law; Kurt Lash of the University of Richmond School of Law; and Ilan Wurman of the University of Minnesota Law School analyze the legal challenges surrounding birthright citizenship, explore the constitutional and historical arguments on all sides of this debate, and discuss its broader implications for immigration. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources Trump v. CASA, Inc., United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (2025) Trump v. Washington, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2025) Trump v. New Jersey, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2025) Amanda Frost, You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers (2021) Amanda Frost, “The Coming Assault on Birthright Citizenship,” The Atlantic (Jan. 7, 2025) Ilan Wurman and Randy Barnett, “Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship,” The New York Times (Feb. 15, 2025) Ilan Wurman, “Jurisdiction and Citizenship,” Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 25-27 (April 14, 2025) Gabriel “Jack” Chin and Paul Finkelman, “Birthright Citizenship, Slave Trade Legislation, and the Origins of Federal Immigration Regulation,” UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 54 (April 8, 2021) Gabriel J. Chin, “America Has Freaked Out Over Birthright Citizenship For Centuries,” Talking Points Memo (Aug. 2015) Kurt Lash, “Prima Facie Citizenship: Birth, Allegiance and the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause,” SSRN (Feb. 22, 2025) Kurt Lash, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship (2014) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠Sign up⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠live program⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠YouTube⁠. Support our important work. ⁠Donate

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court will decide whether parents have the right to be notified and opt their children out of classroom lessons on gender and sexuality that violate their religious beliefs.In 2022, the Montgomery County, Maryland, School Board introduced storybooks for pre-K through fifth-grade classrooms covering topics like gender transitions and pride parades. Maryland law and the Board’s own policies provide parents the right to receive notice and opt their kids out of books that violate their religious beliefs. However, when parents attempted to exercise this right, the School Board eliminated notice and opt-outs altogether. In response, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, sued the School Board in federal court. The parents argue that storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their kids, and inconsistent with their beliefs.Last year, the Fourth Circuit upheld the School Board’s policy, ruling that the removal of notice and opt-outs does not impose a legally cognizable burden on parents’ religious exercise. The parents appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in January 2025, and arguments are scheduled for April 22nd.The question before the court is: Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt-out?Featuring:Eric Baxter, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!The scales of workplace justice have just shifted. In a unanimous decision that has sent ripples through labor law circles, the Supreme Court has lowered the standard of proof employers need to demonstrate when classifying workers as exempt from overtime pay.At the heart of this groundbreaking case lies EMD Sales, a food distributor whose sales representatives spent long 60-hour weeks stocking shelves, managing inventory, and processing orders at grocery stores across the Washington DC area. These employees, paid only on commission, sued for overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). EMD claimed they were "outside salesmen" – exempt from overtime requirements – but did their day-to-day responsibilities actually constitute "making sales"? The answer depended heavily on whether they were working at chain stores with pre-established corporate agreements or at independent shops where they had more sales autonomy.The Supreme Court didn't rule on whether these particular workers deserved overtime. Instead, they focused on a crucial procedural question: what level of proof should employers need to show when claiming a worker is exempt? Previously, in the Fourth Circuit, employers needed to meet a high "clear and convincing evidence" standard. Now, the Court has established nationwide that only a "preponderance of evidence" – essentially just over 50% likelihood – is required. This seemingly technical change could significantly impact millions of workers' overtime eligibility and shift the power balance in workplace disputes across America.The next time you're wondering whether your job qualifies for overtime protection, remember this watershed case. Understanding your rights has never been more important as the legal landscape evolves. Subscribe to our podcast for more deep dives into the court decisions that directly impact your workplace rights and compensation. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

The Trump White House—led, no doubt, by Trump's chief immigration henchman, Stephen Miller—has taunted the Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit, and all Americans with a sophomoric yet chilling new social media post from the official White House account. The post declares that they will not comply with the Supreme Court's commands regarding due process and the rule of law, effectively declaring war on our Constitutional Republic. Michael Popok sees this as a perverse “call and response” to Federalist icon Judge Wilkinson's request in his order yesterday that the “good brethren” in the Executive Branch perceive the “rule of law as vital” and “summon the best that is within us.” Judge Wilkinson, you have your response. Go to http://mackweldon.com/?utm_source=streaming&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=podcastlaunch&utm_content=LEGALAFutm_term=LEGALAF and get 20% off your first order with promo code LEGALAF Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Judge Boasberg issues a memorandum opinion that concludes that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt for defying court orders in the Alien Enemies Act case.The Fourth Circuit denies Trump's bid to block Judge Xinis' order to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia, as she orders two weeks of discovery prior to considering holding the government in contempt.The ACLU has filed a new habeas petition pursuant to Judge Boasberg's order for due process for those remaining in El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act proclamation. The CIA concedes in a court filing that when it scanned Director John Ratcliffe's Signalgate messages, they were gone.Plus listener questions…Questions for the pod? Questions from Listeners Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

Today on the podcast, we've got a major story for the celiac disease community—one that could set a new legal precedent for accessibility and equal rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).Here's what's happening: The National Celiac Association (NCA), a leading advocacy group for people with celiac disease, just filed an amicus brief (that's a “friend of the court” document) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. They're supporting Eleanor McGinn, a resident of Broadmead, Inc., a senior living community, in her case against the facility. The disAbility Law Center of Virginia is also backing her up.Listen to hear more! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jonathan Byrne and Jackie Tarlton of the Eastern District of North Carolina Federal Public Defender Office discuss recent Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court news.

Imagine you are stopped by law enforcement. Maybe you were doing something wrong, maybe not. At this point, when you are in the custody of law enforcement, whose safety matters more, yours or the officers? In the 2017 Fourth Circuit case United States v. Robinson, while not specifically put this way, the question came up, does officer safety trump your right against unreasonable search and seizure, even your own safety?

Brendan Carr's career in telecommunications policy spans over a decade. He began his legal career as a clerk for Judge Dennis W. Shedd of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Later, he worked as an attorney at Wiley Rein LLP, focusing on appellate, litigation, and telecom practices. In 2012, Carr joined the FCC as a staffer, working on spectrum policy and competition matters. He then served as the lead advisor to FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai on wireless, public safety, and international issues. Carr was later appointed as the FCC's General Counsel, representing the agency in court and serving as its chief legal advisor. In 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Carr to serve as an FCC Commissioner, and he was confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate on August 3, 2017. He was sworn into office on August 11, 2017. In January 2025, Carr was elevated to the position of FCC Chairman by President Trump during his second term.

President Trump's executive orders against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are back in effect after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stayed a nationwide injunction, posing new compliance challenges for federal contractors. In this week's episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Nathaniel M. Glasser and Frank C. Morris, Jr., outline the implications for employers, focusing on the False Claims Act, whistleblower risks, and the need for certification of compliance with anti-discrimination laws. Tune in to learn what steps your organization can take to mitigate potential penalties and retaliation claims. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw383 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and legislation with guests including Alan Gottlieb and Cam Edwards. The conversation covers the recent federal court split regarding under 21 gun rights, the implications of the National Firearms Act (NFA), and the ongoing challenges surrounding assault weapons bans. The episode emphasizes the importance of these legal battles and their potential impact on Second Amendment rights. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics surrounding Second Amendment rights, including the role of the ATF, legal challenges, and the implications of recent legislation such as Oregon's Measure 114. The conversation also touches on the Aikens Accelerator case, expectations from Pam Bondi's office, and the potential impact of Trump's executive orders on gun rights. The episode features insights from David Codrea, a long-time contributor, who shares his perspectives on the current state of gun rights and the challenges faced by advocates. In this episode of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters and his guests discuss a range of topics including the significance of Lexington Green, the current state of the Democratic Party, and the political maneuvers of Donald Trump. The conversation shifts to the implications of Trump's executive orders on the ATF and the recent 11th Circuit decision regarding the rights of young adults to purchase firearms. The roundtable format allows for a dynamic exchange of ideas and opinions, culminating in a discussion about the future of gun rights and the political landscape. Keywords Armed American Radio, gun rights, Second Amendment, federal court, under 21 gun rights, NFA, short barrel rifles, assault weapons ban, Trump executive order, gun control, Second Amendment, ATF, gun rights, legal challenges, Pam Bondi, Trump, Aikens Accelerator, Oregon Measure 114, gun control, firearms, Lexington Green, Gun Owners Action League, Democratic Party, Trump, Executive Orders, 11th Circuit, Young Adults Rights, Political Commentary, Armed American Radio, Freedom Takeaways The 11th Circuit upheld the under 21 gun ban, causing a split with the Fifth Circuit. The Supreme Court may need to address the issue of gun rights for 18-20 year olds. The NFA's restrictions on short barrel rifles are being challenged in court. Recent weather events have impacted communities in the South, highlighting the importance of support. Gun rights advocates are optimistic about future legal challenges to restrictive laws. The discussion around the NFA and its implications for gun ownership continues to evolve. The Fourth Circuit's assault weapons ban case remains unresolved, with potential for Supreme Court involvement. Trump's executive order on gun control is under scrutiny, with expectations for significant changes. The conversation reflects a broader concern about the erosion of Second Amendment rights. Grassroots opposition to gun control measures is growing, even in traditionally liberal states. Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of Second Amendment rights. The ATF's role in regulating firearms is under scrutiny. Legal challenges against the ATF are ongoing and complex. The Aikens Accelerator case exemplifies the challenges faced by gun owners. Pam Bondi's actions are critical for the future of gun rights. Trump's executive orders could have significant implications for gun laws. Oregon's Measure 114 raises concerns about state-level gun control. Kevin Starrett is recognized for his efforts in defending Second Amendment rights. The conversation highlights the need for unity among gun rights advocates. The episode underscores the ongoing battle for gun rights in America. Mark Walters highlights the importance of Lexington Green in American history. The Gun Owners Action League is organizing a significant event to celebrate freedom.

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and legislation with guests including Alan Gottlieb and Cam Edwards. The conversation covers the recent federal court split regarding under 21 gun rights, the implications of the National Firearms Act (NFA), and the ongoing challenges surrounding assault weapons bans. The episode emphasizes the importance of these legal battles and their potential impact on Second Amendment rights. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics surrounding Second Amendment rights, including the role of the ATF, legal challenges, and the implications of recent legislation such as Oregon's Measure 114. The conversation also touches on the Aikens Accelerator case, expectations from Pam Bondi's office, and the potential impact of Trump's executive orders on gun rights. The episode features insights from David Codrea, a long-time contributor, who shares his perspectives on the current state of gun rights and the challenges faced by advocates. In this episode of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters and his guests discuss a range of topics including the significance of Lexington Green, the current state of the Democratic Party, and the political maneuvers of Donald Trump. The conversation shifts to the implications of Trump's executive orders on the ATF and the recent 11th Circuit decision regarding the rights of young adults to purchase firearms. The roundtable format allows for a dynamic exchange of ideas and opinions, culminating in a discussion about the future of gun rights and the political landscape. Armed American Radio, gun rights, Second Amendment, federal court, under 21 gun rights, NFA, short barrel rifles, assault weapons ban, Trump executive order, gun control, Second Amendment, ATF, gun rights, legal challenges, Pam Bondi, Trump, Aikens Accelerator, Oregon Measure 114, gun control, firearms, Lexington Green, Gun Owners Action League, Democratic Party, Trump, Executive Orders, 11th Circuit, Young Adults Rights, Political Commentary, Armed American Radio, Freedom Takeaways The 11th Circuit upheld the under 21 gun ban, causing a split with the Fifth Circuit. The Supreme Court may need to address the issue of gun rights for 18-20 year olds. The NFA's restrictions on short barrel rifles are being challenged in court. Recent weather events have impacted communities in the South, highlighting the importance of support. Gun rights advocates are optimistic about future legal challenges to restrictive laws. The discussion around the NFA and its implications for gun ownership continues to evolve. The Fourth Circuit's assault weapons ban case remains unresolved, with potential for Supreme Court involvement. Trump's executive order on gun control is under scrutiny, with expectations for significant changes. The conversation reflects a broader concern about the erosion of Second Amendment rights. Grassroots opposition to gun control measures is growing, even in traditionally liberal states. Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of Second Amendment rights. The ATF's role in regulating firearms is under scrutiny. Legal challenges against the ATF are ongoing and complex. The Aikens Accelerator case exemplifies the challenges faced by gun owners. Pam Bondi's actions are critical for the future of gun rights. Trump's executive orders could have significant implications for gun laws. Oregon's Measure 114 raises concerns about state-level gun control. Kevin Starrett is recognized for his efforts in defending Second Amendment rights. The conversation highlights the need for unity among gun rights advocates. The episode underscores the ongoing battle for gun rights in America. Mark Walters highlights the importance of Lexington Green in American history. The Gun Owners Action League is organizing a significant event to celebrate freedom.

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and legislation with guests including Alan Gottlieb and Cam Edwards. The conversation covers the recent federal court split regarding under 21 gun rights, the implications of the National Firearms Act (NFA), and the ongoing challenges surrounding assault weapons bans. The episode emphasizes the importance of these legal battles and their potential impact on Second Amendment rights. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics surrounding Second Amendment rights, including the role of the ATF, legal challenges, and the implications of recent legislation such as Oregon's Measure 114. The conversation also touches on the Aikens Accelerator case, expectations from Pam Bondi's office, and the potential impact of Trump's executive orders on gun rights. The episode features insights from David Codrea, a long-time contributor, who shares his perspectives on the current state of gun rights and the challenges faced by advocates. In this episode of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters and his guests discuss a range of topics including the significance of Lexington Green, the current state of the Democratic Party, and the political maneuvers of Donald Trump. The conversation shifts to the implications of Trump's executive orders on the ATF and the recent 11th Circuit decision regarding the rights of young adults to purchase firearms. The roundtable format allows for a dynamic exchange of ideas and opinions, culminating in a discussion about the future of gun rights and the political landscape. Armed American Radio, gun rights, Second Amendment, federal court, under 21 gun rights, NFA, short barrel rifles, assault weapons ban, Trump executive order, gun control, Second Amendment, ATF, gun rights, legal challenges, Pam Bondi, Trump, Aikens Accelerator, Oregon Measure 114, gun control, firearms, Lexington Green, Gun Owners Action League, Democratic Party, Trump, Executive Orders, 11th Circuit, Young Adults Rights, Political Commentary, Armed American Radio, Freedom Takeaways The 11th Circuit upheld the under 21 gun ban, causing a split with the Fifth Circuit. The Supreme Court may need to address the issue of gun rights for 18-20 year olds. The NFA's restrictions on short barrel rifles are being challenged in court. Recent weather events have impacted communities in the South, highlighting the importance of support. Gun rights advocates are optimistic about future legal challenges to restrictive laws. The discussion around the NFA and its implications for gun ownership continues to evolve. The Fourth Circuit's assault weapons ban case remains unresolved, with potential for Supreme Court involvement. Trump's executive order on gun control is under scrutiny, with expectations for significant changes. The conversation reflects a broader concern about the erosion of Second Amendment rights. Grassroots opposition to gun control measures is growing, even in traditionally liberal states. Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of Second Amendment rights. The ATF's role in regulating firearms is under scrutiny. Legal challenges against the ATF are ongoing and complex. The Aikens Accelerator case exemplifies the challenges faced by gun owners. Pam Bondi's actions are critical for the future of gun rights. Trump's executive orders could have significant implications for gun laws. Oregon's Measure 114 raises concerns about state-level gun control. Kevin Starrett is recognized for his efforts in defending Second Amendment rights. The conversation highlights the need for unity among gun rights advocates. The episode underscores the ongoing battle for gun rights in America. Mark Walters highlights the importance of Lexington Green in American history. The Gun Owners Action League is organizing a significant event to celebrate freedom.

Jonathan Byrne and Alicia Penn of the District of South Carolina Federal Public Defender Office discuss recent Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court news.

In breaking news, a 3rd appellate court has dealt a severe blow to Trump's efforts to rip birthright citizenship out of the US Constitution by executive order, with the 1st Circuit in Boston refusing Trump's emergency application to block a nationwide preliminary injunction to stop Trump‘s destruction of birthright citizenship. Michael Popok explains how this new decision by the First Circuit compares to similar decisions at the Ninth Circuit and Fourth Circuit, and what that means for the next move by the Trump administration at the US Supreme Court. Head to https://manukora.com/legalaf to receive $25 off your starter kit today! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, we're covering significant updates shaping workplace policies, including shifts in regulations and enforcement related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); evolving approaches to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) compliance; and recent changes in National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) guidance. Anti-DEI Executive Orders Blocked, but Employers Scale Back A Maryland district court temporarily blocked significant portions of two anti-DEI executive orders signed in the early days of President Trump's administration. This story is still developing, and last week, the Trump administration appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Regardless of whether the executive orders survive, many federal contractors and private businesses are assessing and adjusting DEI policies, programming, and public statements. EEOC Cracks Down on DEI and Gender Identity Policies Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said in a recent statement that the agency will seek to root out “unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination.” Lucas noted that the EEOC will also target the Biden administration's “gender identity agenda” as well as anti-American bias at private businesses. NLRB Rescinds Biden-Era Guidance Acting NLRB General Counsel William Cowan recently rescinded a group of Biden-era memos from former General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. With the firing of member Gwynne Wilcox in the first days of the Trump administration, the NLRB has no quorum and cannot currently issue decisions, but more reversals are likely coming. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw380 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Second Amendment: May Congress prohibit illegal immigrants from possessing firearms? - Argued: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 14:51:25 EDT

Second Amendment: May the federal government prohibit the sale of handguns to those under 21? - Argued: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 14:47:11 EDT

Federalism: May Maryland prefer graduates of state universities, when distributing marijuana licenses? - Argued: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 17:3:41 EDT

Join us as the Honorable Andre M. Davis, a retired judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, shares insights from his extensive legal career. Judge Davis discusses his early influences as a law clerk in the courts where he eventually served, his professional journey through the state and federal benches, and what motivates him today.

In the U.S., so-called "per se" antitrust crimes require nothing more than proof that the conduct occurred, relieving prosecutors of the difficult job of proving harm to competition. Is the Fourth Circuit's 2023 opinion in U.S. v. Brewbaker part of a growing judicial trend toward limiting the prosecution of per se cases? Ann O'Brien, the co-leader of Sheppard Mullin's Antitrust and Competition Practice Group, joins Alicia Downey and Brendan Coffman to talk about Brewbaker and its implications for applying the per se standard in criminal antitrust actions. Listen to this episode to hear about whether the rule of reason might be applied in the criminal context and the U.S. Department of Justice's possible responses to a changing legal landscape. With special guest: Ann M. O'Brien, Partner, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Related Links: Ann O'Brien & Emme Tyler, “Chipping Away at Per Se: Is Brewbaker a Harbinger or Aberration?” ABA Antitrust Law Section Committee Articles (June 6, 2024) United States v. Brewbaker, 87 F.4th 563 (4th Cir. 2023) United States v. Brewbaker, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari of the United States, No.23-1365 (S. Ct. June 28, 2024) Hosted by: Alicia Downey, Downey Law LLC and Brendan Coffman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Free Speech: May immigration judges challenge a rule prohibiting them from speaking publicly about immigration in their personal capacities? - Argued: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 10:58:49 EDT

Jonathan Byrne and Alicia Penn of the District of South Carolina Federal Public Defender Office discuss recent Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court news.

Jonathan Byrne and Josh Carpenter of the Western District of North Carolina Federal Public Defender Office discuss recent Fourth Circuit and Sentencing Guidelines news.

This Day in Legal History: New York Grants Women Right to VoteOn November 6, 1917, New York became one of the first eastern states to grant women the right to vote, a pivotal victory for the suffrage movement in the United States. The state's voters approved a constitutional amendment that extended suffrage to women, marking a significant shift in public opinion and advancing the national push for equal voting rights. New York was the most populous state to enact such a measure, lending critical momentum to the cause and demonstrating that widespread support for women's suffrage was achievable in even the largest urban areas.This victory was the result of decades of persistent activism and organizing by leaders such as Carrie Chapman Catt, who spearheaded the Empire State Campaign Committee, and countless local suffragists who canvassed tirelessly for public support. Women in New York had actively campaigned, held rallies, and built coalitions, especially focusing on mobilizing working-class women and men. The successful vote was seen as a clear mandate for gender equality and significantly influenced other states and Congress.New York's decision to enfranchise women not only energized the movement but also helped propel the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920, which granted voting rights to women nationwide. This milestone in New York underscored the growing acknowledgment of women's role in public and political life, laying groundwork for further social and political reforms across the country.The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case concerning whether a heightened standard of proof is necessary for employers claiming that workers are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Currently, there is a split among federal circuits on this issue, with the Fourth Circuit requiring a "clear and convincing" evidence standard, while other circuits apply the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which means the employer must show it is more likely than not that an exemption applies. The case has significant implications for both workers' rights and business costs.Representing E.M.D. Sales, attorney Lisa Blatt argued that the default civil standard, preponderance of the evidence, should apply to FLSA cases, as imposing a stricter standard would burden employers and potentially lead to layoffs. Conversely, Lauren Bateman, representing employees and supported by Public Citizen, contended that because FLSA regulations protect critical worker health, safety, and economic welfare, a higher standard is warranted to ensure these protections are meaningful.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson underscored that the FLSA aims not only to provide fair pay but also to ensure a safe workplace and expand employment, suggesting the importance of potentially adopting a stricter standard. Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas raised questions about why the FLSA should receive special treatment over other laws that also protect essential rights, such as those addressing discrimination.The case attracted varied views on the potential broader impacts of raising the standard of proof. Some justices, like Samuel Alito, questioned how the court would measure the relative importance of rights across federal laws. The Justice Department, represented by Aimee Brown, supported the employer's position, noting that Congress enacts many laws with public benefits, yet courts rarely apply a heightened standard of proof in such cases.The Supreme Court's eventual decision could standardize how proof requirements are applied in overtime cases and influence both worker protections and business practices across the country.US Supreme Court Leans Toward Business in Overtime Dispute (1)A new lawsuit accuses Pfizer Inc. of failing to warn patients that its contraceptive injection, Depo-Provera, could increase the risk of brain tumors. Plaintiff Taylor Devorak filed the complaint in California, alleging that Pfizer and other manufacturers had a duty to research and disclose potential links between Depo-Provera, as well as similar progesterone-based drugs, and intracranial meningiomas, a type of brain tumor. The lawsuit seeks damages based on claims of failure to warn, defective design, negligence, and misrepresentation.Devorak's case follows similar lawsuits filed recently in California and Indiana. Her complaint notes that although the drug has been FDA-approved for over 30 years and widely used, Pfizer has not updated the U.S. labeling to reflect these risks, even as health authorities in the EU and UK now include warnings about meningioma for such medications. A 2024 study published in the *British Medical Journal* found a substantial increase in risk for brain tumors with prolonged use of medroxyprogesterone acetate, the active ingredient in Depo-Provera.In response, Pfizer asserts that Depo-Provera has been a safe option for millions and plans to “vigorously defend” against the claims. The case has brought renewed attention to safety and disclosure practices in the pharmaceutical industry, particularly around long-established medications.Pfizer Accused of Hiding Contraceptive's Brain Tumor Link (1)Following Donald Trump's recent election as U.S. president, the criminal cases against him are likely to be halted for the duration of his term. Trump, the first former president to face criminal charges, had four active prosecutions, including charges related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, a hush-money payment linked to Stormy Daniels, and unlawful retention of classified documents. Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges and dismissed the cases as politically motivated, has stated he would immediately dismiss Special Counsel Jack Smith, responsible for the federal prosecutions on election interference and document retention.While Trump can halt federal cases, he has less control over state cases, such as the New York hush-money and Georgia election interference cases. However, his presidency could still effectively delay or complicate these proceedings. Legal experts expect delays in his New York sentencing, which had already been postponed, citing potential presidential immunity arguments.In Georgia, Trump's lawyers are working to pause proceedings under the argument that a sitting president should not face criminal prosecution. Additionally, his team has challenged Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis's involvement, aiming to disqualify her based on alleged misconduct. Ultimately, experts believe Trump's presidency will prevent the state-level cases from moving forward until his term concludes.Trump's impending return to White House brings criminal cases to a halt | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Facebook's effort to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit brought by shareholders who claim the company misled investors about the misuse of user data. The lawsuit, initiated by Amalgamated Bank in 2018, argues that Facebook violated the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose the 2015 Cambridge Analytica data breach, which affected over 30 million users and contributed to Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Shareholders allege that Facebook presented data privacy risks as hypothetical even though the breach had already occurred.Facebook contends that it was not legally required to disclose the prior breach and that reasonable investors would interpret risk disclosures as forward-looking. A federal judge initially dismissed the case, but the Ninth Circuit Court revived it, noting that Facebook's statements misrepresented an already-realized risk. The Supreme Court's decision, expected by June, could influence the standards for securities fraud cases, making it harder for private parties to pursue claims. This case, along with a similar appeal by Nvidia, could further limit the liability of companies for nondisclosure of past risks. Past Cambridge Analytica fallout has led Facebook to settle related SEC and FTC actions, paying $100 million and $5 billion, respectively.US Supreme Court to hear Facebook bid to escape securities fraud suit | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Civil Rights: Are findings contained in a post-conviction ruling binding in a later civil rights suit brought for a wrongful conviction? - Argued: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 9:54:37 EDT

Abortion: Is West Virginia's prohibition on prescribing abortion medications preempted by federal law? - Argued: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 9:26:32 EDT

Jonathan Byrne and Andrew Grindrod the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Public Defender Office discuss recent Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court news.

There are plenty of myths that revolve around the Second Amendment. It's only meant for the militia, or for hunting, or some weapons are just too dangerous are just of few. When we read the Constitution, along with just a tiny bit of research into the Bill of Rights, these myths should evaporate like the morning mist. However, in the case Bianchi v. Brown, it appears the Fourth Circuit believes the myths. However, some unorthodox procedures may show the court manipulated the process to get the outcome they desired.

In this podcast episode, Dr. Jonathan H. Westover talks with Jessica Childress about how to report workplace misconduct, including discrimination, harassment, and bullying. Award-winning attorney Jessica Childress (https://www.linkedin.com/in/childressjessica/) is the author of Peace: Leaving a Toxic Workplace on Your Own Terms. Ms. Childress has practiced employment law for over eleven years, representing organizations of all sizes and individuals in employment law matters. She is the Managing Attorney of the Childress Firm PLLC, a boutique employment law firm, based in Washington, D.C. Ms. Childress holds a Bachelor of Arts in Government and African American Studies from the University of Virginia and a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law. Ms. Childress graduated Phi Beta Kappa and with High Distinction from the University of Virginia in 2007. Prior to launching the Childress Firm PLLC, Ms. Childress served as an associate at two global law firms and as an attorney at the United States Department of Justice. Ms. Childress has litigated retaliation, discrimination, sexual harassment, non-competition, trade secret, unfair labor practice, and whistleblower cases before various tribunals. She serves clients in general business transactions with employees and independent contractors. Ms. Childress drafts agreements such as employment agreements, consulting agreements, severance agreements, and confidentiality agreements. Ms. Childress is admitted to practice in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. She is also admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Ms. Childress has held leadership roles in the National Bar Association's Young Lawyers Division and the Washington Bar Association's Young Lawyers Division. Ms. Childress is a member of the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association and the National Employment Lawyers Association. She has been the recipient of several honors, including the National Bar Association's 2018 Young Lawyer of the Year Award, the Washington Bar Association's 2017-2018 Young Lawyer of the Year Award, the National Bar Association's 40 under 40 Best Advocates Award, the Kim Keenan Leadership & Advocacy Award, the Greater Washington Area Chapter of the National Bar Association's Rising Star Award, and recognition by the National Black Lawyers as one of the top 100 black attorneys. In 2022, Ms. Childress received the Women Owned Law organization's Woman Legal Entrepreneur of the Year Award. Ms. Childress has been named to the 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers Rising Stars lists. Only 2.5% of practicing attorneys in Washington, D.C. are selected to receive this honor. Ms. Childress is a 2022 graduate of the Aspen Institute's Justice and Society program. Ms. Childress serves as a contributor for Arianna Huffington's international media outlet, Thrive Global. She has been featured in numerous publications, including Forbes, Essence, the Huffington Post, Success, and Entrepreneur. Check out all of the podcasts in the HCI Podcast Network! Check out the ⁠HCI Academy⁠: Courses, Micro-Credentials, and Certificates to Upskill and Reskill for the Future of Work! Check out the LinkedIn ⁠Alchemizing Human Capital⁠ Newsletter. Check out Dr. Westover's book, ⁠The Future Leader⁠. Check out Dr. Westover's book, ⁠'Bluer than Indigo' Leadership⁠. Check out Dr. Westover's book, ⁠The Alchemy of Truly Remarkable Leadership⁠. Check out the latest issue of the ⁠Human Capital Leadership magazine⁠. Each HCI Podcast episode (Program, ID No. 655967) has been approved for 0.50 HR (General) recertification credit hours toward aPHR™, aPHRi™, PHR®, PHRca®, SPHR®, GPHR®, PHRi™ and SPHRi™ recertification through HR Certification Institute® (HRCI®). Each HCI Podcast episode (Program ID: 24-DP529) has been approved for 0.50 HR (General) SHRM Professional Development Credits (PDCs) for SHRM-CP and SHRM-SCPHR recertification through SHRM, as part of the knowledge and competency programs related to the SHRM Body of Applied Skills and Knowledge™ (the SHRM BASK™). Human Capital Innovations has been pre-approved by the ATD Certification Institute to offer educational programs that can be used towards initial eligibility and recertification of the Certified Professional in Talent Development (CPTD) and Associate Professional in Talent Development (APTD) credentials. Each HCI Podcast episode qualifies for a maximum of 0.50 points.

Send us a textCannabis Legalization News: The Legal Status of Intoxicating Hemp DerivativesIn this episode, we dive deep into the legality of intoxicating hemp derivatives such as THCO, Delta8 THC, THCP, and HHC. We explore the implications of a federal case, Tanya Anderson vs. Diamondback Investment Group, LLC, and the recent Fourth Circuit ruling. The episode discusses how current regulations under the USDA and FDA classify these products and why they may be considered illegal adulterated food products. We also cover the regulatory developments in Illinois and other states, shedding light on the convoluted legal landscape surrounding hemp and marijuana legalization.00:00 Introduction and Overview00:16 Legal Status of Intoxicating Hemp Derivatives00:30 Case Study: Tanya Anderson vs. Diamondback Investment Group00:53 Federal Regulations and Definitions01:18 Twitter Wars and Viewer Engagement02:12 Deep Dive into the Fourth Circuit Case02:26 FDA Regulations and Adulterated Products05:14 Comparing Definitions: Corn vs. Hemp09:56 Illinois' New Regulatory Scheme12:49 12:49 Conclusion and Final ThoughtsSupport the show

In the 6 AM Hour: Larry O'Connor and Julie Gunlock discussed: WMAL GUEST: 6:05 AM - INTERVIEW - MARK PENNAK - president of Maryland Shall Issue and counsel on the case SOCIAL MEDIA: https://x.com/MD_Shall_Issue/status/1827044525237248212 Maryland Shall Issue is an all-volunteer, non-partisan organization dedicated to the preservation and advancement of gun owners' rights in MD Federal appeals court upholds Maryland's handgun license requirements In a 14-2 decision, the court in Maryland Shall Issue v. Wes Moore rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a state law requiring a Handgun Qualification License to purchase a handgun.  ON FRIDAY: Attorney General Brown's Statement on Fourth Circuit's Decision Today in Maryland Shall Issue v. Wes Moore Upholding Maryland's Handgun Licensing Law Biden just left his week-long vacation in Santa Ynez, California for Dover, Delaware, where he'll head to Rehoboth Beach for a 9 day vacation. Since stating he dropped out of the race, 34 days ago, he's spent just 6 days at the White House. WHO IS RUNNING OUR COUNTRY? James Rosen on X: "It is growing increasingly common for the @WhiteHouse to publish blank schedules for @POTUS.  WMAL GUEST: 6:35 AM - INTERVIEW - CHRIS PILKERTON - former Acting Administrator of the United States Small Business Administration and author of "Plandemic: Covid, PPP & A Small Business Prescription for the Next Global Economic Crisis" SOCIAL MEDIA: https://x.com/cpilkerton Fed Chair Powell Signals ‘Time Has Come' for September Rate Cut. Jerome H. Powell made it clear that the Federal Reserve will cut rates on Sept. 18, as the central bank turns the corner in its fight against inflation. ON FRIDAY: Fed Chair Powell indicates interest rate cuts ahead: ‘The time has come for policy to adjust' ON THURSDAY: At least 5 Secret Service officials involved in planning Trump's Butler rally put on administrative duty ON FRIDAY: Judicial Watch: Secret Service Records Reveal DEI Is Prioritized for All Agency Employees in ‘Every Action, Every Day'  HAWLEY: NEW WHISTLEBLOWER ALLEGATION: Secret Service Prevented Extra Security Assets for Trump Rally Where to find more about WMAL's morning show:  Follow the Show Podcasts on Apple podcasts, Audible and Spotify. Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor,  @Jgunlock, @patricepinkfile, and @heatherhunterdc.  Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Show Website: https://www.wmal.com/oconnor-company/ How to listen live weekdays from 5 to 9 AM: https://www.wmal.com/listenlive/ Episode: Monday, August 26, 2024 / 6 AM Hour  O'Connor and Company is proudly presented by Veritas AcademySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

WMAL GUEST: 6:05 AM - INTERVIEW - MARK PENNAK - president of Maryland Shall Issue and counsel on the case SOCIAL MEDIA: https://x.com/MD_Shall_Issue/status/1827044525237248212 Maryland Shall Issue is an all-volunteer, non-partisan organization dedicated to the preservation and advancement of gun owners' rights in MD Federal appeals court upholds Maryland's handgun license requirements In a 14-2 decision, the court in Maryland Shall Issue v. Wes Moore rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a state law requiring a Handgun Qualification License to purchase a handgun.  ON FRIDAY: Attorney General Brown's Statement on Fourth Circuit's Decision Today in Maryland Shall Issue v. Wes Moore Upholding Maryland's Handgun Licensing Law Where to find more about WMAL's morning show:  Follow the Show Podcasts on Apple podcasts, Audible and Spotify. Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor,  @Jgunlock, @patricepinkfile, and @heatherhunterdc.  Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Show Website: https://www.wmal.com/oconnor-company/ How to listen live weekdays from 5 to 9 AM: https://www.wmal.com/listenlive/ Episode: Monday, August 26, 2024 / 6 AM Hour  O'Connor and Company is proudly presented by Veritas AcademySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Josh Hammer takes us "around the horn" to multiple Trump trial updates before today's "deep dive" then unpacks a horrible ruling in the liberal-leaning U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which has ruled that so-called "assault weapons" are not constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I cover Kamala Harris' VP pick and what it says about the ticket's gun policy strategy. We then turn to Donald Trump's latest attack on Harris for her gun control stances and why it stands out after months of silence on the issue. We also explain why the Fourth Circuit's latest "assault weapon" ban ruling is the strongest candidate yet for Supreme Court review. Finally, we wrap up with a quick discussion of appeals courts continuing to struggle with the question of gun rights for felons, Mexico's latest legal headwinds in its quest to sue US gun companies, and even break a little news about an upcoming NRA meeting. Click this link for your free trial from our sponsor The Dispatch: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utmsource=newsletter&utmmedium=email&utm_campaign=reload0624

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Dupree v Younger. In this case, the court considered this issue: To preserve the issue for appellate review, must a party reassert in a post-trial motion a purely legal issue rejected at summary judgment? The case was decided on May 25, 2023. The Supreme Court held that a post-trial motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 is not required to preserve for appellate review a purely legal issue resolved at summary judgment. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. In Ortiz v Jordan, the Court held that a party whose sufficiency-of-the evidence challenge was rejected at the summary judgment stage must reassert the claim in a post-trial motion to preserve it for appeal. That decision was based on the reasoning that the factual record developed at trial supersedes the record existing at the time of summary judgment. When the motion for summary judgment is based on a purely legal question—rather than on the factual record—no subsequent proceedings in the trial court supersede conclusions of law. Thus, when a pure question of law is resolved in an order denying summary judgment, the party need not reassert the claim in a post-trial motion to preserve it on appeal. The Court did not decide whether the issue Dupree raised on appeal is purely legal, so it remanded the case for the Fourth Circuit to answer that question. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this episode Trevor Cox discusses his career path, which began as an interest in trusts and estates law, and developed to the Virginia AG's office, where he served as Deputy Solicitor General & Counsel to the Executive Division, Senior Appellate Counsel, and Acting Solicitor General. As chief appellate counsel for the Commonwealth of Virginia Trevor Cox discusses his experience arguing appeals in various courts, including the Fourth Circuit. Trevor shares insights about the challenges and excitement of working in the Solicitor General's office, and his thoughts on the Fourth Circuit. Trevor also discuss the challenges of arguing cases in court, including the importance of answering questions directly and the differences between arguing before a three judge panel and an en banc court.

Jonathan Byrne and Jackie Tarlton of the Eastern District of North Carolina Federal Public Defender Office discuss recent Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court news.

The Fourth Circuit of Appeals ruled against Maryland parents who objected to the inclusion of LGBTQ plus texts in their school's curriculum without an opt-out option. The books Montgomery County Public School parents opposed were reportedly Pride Puppy, an illustrated children's book about a dog who gets lost while attending a pride parade with a family, and Born Ready, the true story of a boy named Penelope Chronicling the so-called transition of the author's son. Dr. Kathy has some hope-filled encouragement for us as we consider how alternative lifestyles are being foisted on others to accept that they're normal.

Jonathan Byrne and Alicia Penn of the District of South Carolina Federal Public Defender Office discuss recent Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court news.

Jonathan Byrne and Josh Carpenter of the Western District of North Carolina Federal Public Defender Office discuss recent Fourth Circuit news.

Civil Rights: When is a school liable for the acts of one student against another? - Argued: Tue, 07 May 2024 17:35:0 EDT

Ali Velshi is joined by Judge J. Michael Luttig, Fmr. Federal Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Barbara McQuade, Fmr. U.S. Attorney for Michigan, State Rep. Gloria Johnson, (D) Tennessee, State Rep. Justin Jones, (D) Tennessee, Doug Jones, (D) Fmr. U.S. Senator for Alabama, Nicholas Kristof, Pulitzer Prize-winning Columnist at the New York Times, Maulik Pancholy, Author of “The Best At It”, and Nate Hegyi, Host of ‘Outside in Radio' podcast.

Second Amendment: May Congress criminalize the possession of a firearm without a serial number? - Argued: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 8:59:18 EDT

FPC Action Foundation vice president and general counsel Cody J. Wisniewski joins the show to talk about the Fourth Circuit's premature "en banc-inization" of the Bianchi case, while Cam has details on a big FPC/SAF win in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ali Velshi is joined by Secretary Shenna Bellows, (D) Maine Secretary of State, Rep. Stacey E. Plaskett, (D) U.S. VI, Steven Levitsky, Professor of Government at Harvard University, Joanne Freeman, Professor of American History & American Studies at Yale University, Secretary Jena Griswold, (D) Colorado Secretary of State, Judge J. Michael Luttig, Fmr. Federal Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Zack Beauchamp, Senior Correspondent at Vox, and Jason Stanley, Professor of Philosophy at Yale University

On November 2, 1984, fifty-two-year-old Velma Barfield was executed by lethal injection at North Carolina's Central Prison, bringing an end to years of legal appeals and emotional debates over the death penalty and how, when, and to whom it gets applied. For six years, Barfield had sat on death row following her conviction for the poisoning murder of her boyfriend Stewart Taylor in 1976; however, during her trial she confessed to killing at least four other people.Velma Barfield's trial came at a time in the United States when Americans were just beginning to grapple with the concept of a serial killer, and the idea that a woman could commit such heinous acts seemed entirely inconceivable. Although woman had been sentenced to death for murder before in the US, none had confessed to methodically killing multiple people in such a callous way and for such a trivial reason. The debate only became more complicated following her death sentence, an already complicated subject among Americans that became exponentially so in 1984, when Barfield's case and personal story became a major talking point for politicians running for office around the state.Thank you to the Incredible Dave White of Bring Me the Axe Podcast for Research!ReferencesAssociated Press. 1984. "Hunt hopes Barfield's death will be deterrent." Asheville Citizen-Times, November 3: 1.—. 1978. "Woman charged in poisoning ." Charlotte Obvserver, March 15: 1.Barfield, Velma. 1985. Woman on Death Row. Nashville, TN: Oliver-Nelson .Bledsoe, Jerry. 1998. Death Sentence: The True Story of Velma Barfield's Life, Crimes, and Punishment. Dutton: Boston, MA.Carroll, Ginny. 1978. "Confessed poisoner awaits death." News and Observer, December 10: 1.Charlotte Observer. 1984. "New Evidence: Velma Barfield's Sickness." Charlotte Observer, October 31: 12.Journal Wire. 1984. "200 gather at funeral of Velma Barfield." Winston-Salem Journal, November 4: 35.Margie Velma Barfield v. James C. Woodward, Secretary of Corrections; Nathan A. Rice,warden; Rufus Edmisten, Attorney General, Appellees. 1984. 748 F.2d 844 (US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, November 1).Maxwell, Connie. 1984. "State executes Velma Barfield." Chapel Hill Newspaper, November 2: 1.Monk, John, Sue Anne Pressley, and Gary Wright. 1984. "Velma Barfield executed by injection." Charlotte Observer, November 2: 1.Ness and Observer. 1978. "Jailed woman eyed in more deaths." News and Observer, March 15: 1.New York Times. 1984. "Relatives of murder victims urge no clemency for Carolina killer." New York Times, September 20: B15.News and Observer. 1980. "Lawyer says he coached Mrs. Barfield." News and Observer, November 18: 17.Pearsall, Chip. 1978. "Barfield jury calls for death." News and Observer, December 3: 1.Stein, George. 1978. "Arsenic trail: Lumberton asks where it will end." Charlotte News, May 27: 1.The Robesonian. 1969. "Parkton man succumbs to smoke inhalation." The Robesonian, April 22: 1.Tilley, Greta. 1980. "She doesn't want to die." News and Record, September 21: 1.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.