Podcasts about fourth circuit

This Day in Legal History: The Watergate BurglaryOn this day in 1972, at roughly 2:30 in the morning, a security guard at the Watergate office complex on Virginia Avenue in Washington named Frank Wills noticed that the latches on a stairwell door had been taped over and called the District police. The police arrested five men inside the offices of the Democratic National Committee on the sixth floor: James McCord, Bernard Barker, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, and Frank Sturgis. McCord was the security coordinator for the Committee to Re-Elect the President. Two days later, the FBI traced a $25,000 cashier's check found in Barker's bank account to the Committee to Re-Elect's finance chairman. The burglary itself was a third-rate one — bad lockpicking, surveillance gear that did not work, men carrying address books that linked them to the White House — but the legal consequences took two years to play out and rewrote large parts of American constitutional law in the process.The Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, chaired by Sam Ervin of North Carolina, conducted public hearings in the summer of 1973 that produced the disclosure of the White House taping system. The Saturday Night Massacre in October 1973 — Nixon's firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus — produced the legal scholarship that became the modern law of presidential removal and the Ethics in Government Act of 1978's independent-counsel framework. United States v. Nixon in July 1974 produced the doctrine that executive privilege is qualified rather than absolute and must yield to a demonstrated need in a criminal proceeding, a holding that is still the foundational separation-of-powers case the Court returns to whenever an administration claims that internal deliberations cannot be subpoenaed.The articles of impeachment voted by the House Judiciary Committee in late July 1974 produced the modern template for impeachment-as-constitutional-remedy that has been deployed four times since. Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. The constitutional residue of what began with five men and a roll of tape in a Watergate stairwell is in the Federal Election Campaign Act amendments, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Inspector General Act, the Presidential Records Act, the post-Saturday-Night-Massacre statute book that defines what limits an administration faces when it tries to use the criminal-justice system politically. Fifty-four years on, the question of how much of that residue has held up is, as the saying goes, the question.U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman of the Eastern District of Wisconsin on Tuesday denied former Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan's post-trial motion to vacate her December 2025 conviction for felony obstruction of a federal proceeding. Dugan had been charged after she let Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who had appeared in her courtroom in April 2025 on a state misdemeanor, and his attorney leave through a side door of her courtroom after Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers had assembled in the public hallway to arrest him on a federal civil immigration warrant. A jury found Dugan guilty of obstruction and acquitted her of the lesser concealing-an-individual count.Her post-trial motion pressed two principal arguments. The first was that the Fourth Circuit's recent decision in United States v. Edwards — which addressed the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 obstruction as applied to interference with administrative agency proceedings — applies to ICE warrant service and so the trial court should have given a narrower jury instruction. The second was that her conduct was protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity for acts taken on the bench. Judge Adelman rejected both. On Edwards, the court held that the Fourth Circuit's reasoning addresses a different statutory provision and a different agency context, and that Dugan's case is governed by Seventh Circuit precedent on the obstruction statute she was convicted under.On judicial immunity, the court held that the doctrine is a civil shield against private damages liability and does not bar federal criminal prosecution for affirmative conduct in aid of evading federal law-enforcement officers. Dugan's team has announced that the case will go to the Seventh Circuit. Sentencing is now back on the calendar. The appellate question that will dominate the briefing is the one Judge Adelman teed up: whether a state judge taking administrative action in the courthouse — guiding a litigant to a back exit — falls inside or outside the federal obstruction statute's reach when the action is calculated to defeat federal law-enforcement service. That issue has not been squarely decided in the Seventh Circuit. The case is going to be the vehicle.Ex-Judge Loses Bid To Undo ICE Obstruction Conviction | Law360A Maryland federal judge on Tuesday denied SCOTUSblog co-founder Thomas C. Goldstein's post-trial motion for acquittal or, in the alternative, a new trial on the twelve counts on which a jury had convicted him in February — tax evasion, assisting in the preparation of false returns, willful failure to pay over employment taxes, and false statements to mortgage lenders. The case is one of the more striking falls in modern Supreme Court practice. Goldstein had argued for years before the Court and was, for two decades, one of the most visible private SCOTUS practitioners in the country, with SCOTUSblog itself becoming the standard public-facing reference for Supreme Court news.The criminal case grew out of his recreational high-stakes poker, which prosecutors used to build out a pattern of unreported gambling income, gambling debts paid out of law-firm funds, and gambling losses claimed as business expenses. The post-trial motion principally argued that the trial court's jury instructions on willfulness improperly conflated the negligence standard with the higher mens rea Cheek v. United States requires in federal tax-evasion prosecutions, and that the court had wrongly excluded evidence going to Goldstein's claimed reliance on his accountants' advice. The court rejected both. On the willfulness instruction, the court found the instruction tracked the Fourth Circuit's pattern instruction on Cheek and made clear to the jury that a good-faith misunderstanding of the law was a defense. On the accountant-reliance evidence, the court held that the offer of proof was insufficient to establish that Goldstein had actually relied on professional advice in the particular omissions the indictment turned on, as opposed to relying on his own judgment. Sentencing is now the next event.The federal sentencing guidelines on the tax counts alone, with the loss amount the jury found, point to a substantial custodial term. Watch for an appeal that focuses on the willfulness instruction; that is the cleanest reversible-error vehicle in the record.SCOTUSblog Founder Goldstein Denied Acquittal Or Retrial | Law360A Delaware federal judge on Tuesday denied Guardant Health's post-trial motion to vacate, reduce, or stay enforcement of the $83.4 million jury verdict TwinStrand Biosciences won against it in late 2023 for willful infringement of diagnostic-sequencing patents covering duplex-sequencing technology used in liquid-biopsy cancer-screening assays. The court also declined to enhance the award under 35 U.S.C. § 284, even though the jury had found willfulness, reasoning that the multi-factor Read v. Portec analysis the Federal Circuit has refined in Halo Electronics and its progeny cut both ways here: Guardant's pre-suit notice and continued use of the accused technology supported some enhancement, but its defenses on infringement and validity, while ultimately rejected, were not objectively reckless.The decision is notable for two doctrinal reasons. First, it reflects how district courts are continuing to deploy Halo's discretion-based framework in the post-pandemic-era diagnostic-patent landscape, where the gap between objectively defensible defenses and reckless infringement is being drawn case by case in a way that is making certworthy issues for the Federal Circuit and, eventually, the Supreme Court. Second, it underscores the $83.4 million is significant but not transformative: the broader competitive question in the diagnostic-sequencing space is whether Guardant can design around the asserted claims fast enough to keep its cancer-screening assays on the market without paying a recurring royalty to TwinStrand. Guardant has indicated it will appeal to the Federal Circuit. Both the underlying infringement findings and the no-enhancement ruling are likely to be appealed in parallel — Guardant on infringement and validity, TwinStrand on the refusal to enhance. The verdict stands for now.Del. Judge Upholds $83.4M Patent Verdict Against Guardant | Law360My Bloomberg Tax column this week argues that the IRS's disclosure of taxpayer address information to ICE should be understood less as a narrow immigration-enforcement controversy and more as a tax-data governance failure.I argue that Section 6103 does not make IRS data impossible to share, but it does make confidentiality the default and disclosure the exception. That distinction matters because a statutory exception should not become a bulk-transfer mechanism whenever another agency wants access to IRS records. The IRS holds unusually sensitive information because taxpayers are legally compelled to provide it, so any interagency disclosure should require necessity, precision, security, and auditability on a record-by-record basis.The TIGTA report is troubling because the IRS apparently built an automated matching process that was vulnerable to bad ICE inputs, inconsistent formatting, malformed records, and weak matching rules. ICE also had unresolved safeguard issues and missed corrective-action deadlines before the data transfer. In my view, that combination means the problem was not simply that data moved; it was that protected taxpayer information moved through a process that treated matching quality and backend security as implementation details rather than core privacy protections.The broader point is that bad data inputs are not just a programmer's inconvenience. If the IRS relies on another agency's messy file to decide whether protected tax information can be disclosed, the quality of that file becomes part of the taxpayer-confidentiality analysis. Loose input standards and crude matching rules effectively expand the statutory exception beyond what Congress authorized.My proposed fix is straightforward: before the IRS discloses taxpayer information, requesting agencies should have to provide clean, structured, validated data; legally certify the need for each record; meet defined match-confidence thresholds; submit ambiguous cases for manual review; and accept strict limits on use, retention, and auditing. The column's central line is that Section 6103 exceptions should operate like locked doors, not loading docks.IRS Sharing Taxpayer Info With ICE Is a Data Governance Issue 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

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

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

In this special episode, recorded at the Neukom Center's Rule of Law Speaker Series, Judge J. Michael Luttig, former Fourth Circuit judge and ex-General Counsel of Boeing,  discusses a looming constitutional crises facing the United States. Drawing on Lincoln, Paine, and Churchill, Judge Luttig argues that the Trump administration's actions represent not the exploitation of constitutional vulnerabilities, but unconstitutional conduct that federal courts have repeatedly struck down. He expresses particular alarm over the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket to stay lower court decisions without briefing, argument, or written reasoning — a practice he characterizes as a crisis within the Court itself. Judge Luttig also addresses the DOJ's institutional corruption, Congress's abdication of war powers and tariff authority, and the Supreme Court's sweeping immunity ruling in Trump v. United States. Throughout, he challenges law students to treat their professional oath as a solemn civic obligation in a moment of national testing. Links: Honorable J. Michael Luttig >>> Federal Judicial Center page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00) America at 250—A Nation Under Assault from Within (14:00) The Legal Profession as Guardian of the Constitution  (20:30) Unconstitutional by Design—The Trump Administration's Legal Record (28:00) The Corruption of the DOJ (36:00) Congress, the War Power, and the Collapse of Separation of Powers (42:30) The Supreme Court, the Shadow Docket, and Presidential Immunity  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Legal History: The Indian Removal Act of 1830On this day May 28, 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, authorizing the federal government to “negotiate” the relocation of Native American tribes east of the Mississippi to lands in what is now Oklahoma. On its face the statute framed displacement as voluntary, treaty-based, and compensated; in practice it became the legal scaffolding for the forced expulsion of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole nations, culminating in the Trail of Tears.The bill passed the House by just five votes, with Davy Crockett among its most prominent dissenters. The years that immediately followed produced the Marshall Court's foundational Indian law trilogy — Johnson v. M'Intosh, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, and Worcester v. Georgia — the last of which Jackson famously (and probably apocryphally) refused to enforce. The doctrinal residue of the Removal era is still in force today: tribes remain “domestic dependent nations,” Congress still claims a “plenary power” over them, and the Supreme Court is still relitigating what reservation boundaries actually mean — most recently in McGirt v. Oklahoma in 2020 and Haaland v. Brackeen in 2023. The 1830 Act was not the beginning of dispossession in North America, but it was the moment Congress took ownership of the policy and dressed it in the language of statute. Whatever else May 28 marks on the calendar, in legal history it marks the day removal became American law.Dutch coatings giant AkzoNobel, the maker of Dulux paint, told Sherwin-Williams and Nippon Paint Wednesday that their €12.5 billion ($14.6 billion) joint takeover proposal is not a “superior proposal” and that the board would stay the course on its already-agreed merger with Axalta Coating Systems. The rejected offer, made at €73 per share, would have carved AkzoNobel up — Nippon taking the decorative paints business, Sherwin-Williams taking industrial coatings — and was the second pass after an earlier bid that the board had swatted away in April.AkzoNobel's reasons read like a Dutch corporate-law primer: the offer “did not come close to adequately reflecting” long-term value, the deal-certainty risk around regulatory clearances was too high, and the “interests of AkzoNobel stakeholders” were not adequately safeguarded. That last word is the legal tell. Under Dutch law, a listed company's board is not bound by anything resembling Delaware's Revlon duty to maximize shareholder value in a sale; it answers to a stakeholder model that explicitly weighs employees, creditors, suppliers, and the long-term interests of the enterprise alongside the shareholders. That gives a Dutch board far more room to reject a premium cash bid than a comparable U.S. target would have, especially with a friendly all-stock merger of equals (the Axalta deal) already on the table.The combined AkzoNobel-Axalta entity, announced last November and worth roughly $25 billion, plans to list on the NYSE with dual HQs in Amsterdam and Philadelphia and Dutch tax residency — a structure that itself preserves the Dutch governance model post-close. The CMA in the U.K. has already opened a public comment period on the Axalta deal, and antitrust review is likely the live front to watch from here.AkzoNobel Snubs €12.5B Sherwin-Williams, Nippon Paint Bid | Law360The Trump administration is preparing to halt federal immigration and customs processing at airports located in jurisdictions it deems “sanctuary cities” or “sanctuary states,”, according to a report Reuters published. The mechanism, if implemented, would have Customs and Border Protection officers stop staffing inbound international arrival processing — meaning international passengers landing at, say, San Francisco, Boston, or Seattle would be unable to clear customs at those airports and would have to be diverted. The legal architecture here is unusual because CBP staffing decisions sit at the discretionary end of federal administrative law: the agency has wide latitude to deploy officers where it wants, and there is no statutory entitlement for any particular city to host a federal port of entry.That said, a decision to use that discretion as punishment for a state or municipality's refusal to honor ICE detainers would invite a familiar set of challenges — South Dakota v. Dole-style coercion arguments dressed up as preemption, anti-commandeering claims under Murphy v. NCAA and Printz v. United States, and APA challenges under State Farm to whatever administrative record the agency assembles. Several of the targeted jurisdictions have already won injunctions in earlier rounds of sanctuary-city funding fights, including against the prior conditioning of Byrne JAG grants on detainer compliance. The political move is obvious; the legal move is less so, and the administration will need to articulate a non-pretextual reason for the staffing change if it wants to survive arbitrary-and-capricious review. Whether airlines, airport authorities, or the states themselves will have standing to sue — and what kind of irreparable harm a redirected flight inflicts — is going to be the first set of questions a court has to answer.US draws up plans to halt immigration, customs processing at ‘sanctuary city' airports | ReutersThe Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Fourth Circuit's decision reviving the National Association of Immigration Judges' First Amendment challenge to a federal rule restricting what sitting immigration judges may say publicly about the agency that employs them. The per curiam opinion's holding is narrow but striking: the Fourth Circuit, the justices said, committed an abuse of discretion by reviving the suit on a theory neither party briefed, a “drastic departure from the principle of party presentation” laid out in cases like United States v. Sineneng-Smith. The party-presentation principle is one of those background structural rules that doesn't get a lot of airtime — the basic idea is that federal courts are passive instruments that decide the cases the parties bring them, not the cases judges wish the parties had brought — but here it became outcome-determinative.Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote separately to say the Fourth Circuit was also wrong on the merits because it ignored Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, the 2012 decision holding that the Civil Service Reform Act's administrative-channeling regime is the exclusive route for covered federal employees to challenge adverse employment actions, even constitutional ones. The practical effect is that the immigration judges' union now has to litigate its First Amendment claim through the Merit Systems Protection Board and then the Federal Circuit rather than in district court, and the case bounces back to the Fourth Circuit to redo the analysis on whatever ground the parties did actually raise. The Court also denied a cross-petition from the union. The case is Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges, No. 25-767; the merits cross-petition was No. 25-1009.Justices Order Redo In Immigration Judges' Free Speech Suit | Law360A Sixth Circuit panel on Tuesday affirmed the dismissal of an attempt by Right to Life of Michigan and a group of parents to block enforcement of Proposal 3, the 2022 Michigan ballot initiative that wrote a fundamental right to reproductive freedom into Article I, Section 28 of the state constitution. The panel did not reach the merits — the case stopped at standing — and the opinion, written by Judge John K. Bush, is a clean illustration of how high the Article III standing bar is for pre-enforcement challenges of this kind. Standing requires the plaintiff to show an injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, and the parents here couldn't make the traceability link work: their theory was that the amendment might allow schools or other actors to help minors obtain contraception or abortion care without parental consent, but the complaint identified no specific enforcement action by Governor Whitmer, Attorney General Nessel, or Secretary of State Benson that was causing or threatening any such injury.The panel reiterated the Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife framework and quoted approvingly the rule that a “general allegation” that an executive officer is “generally responsible for executing” state law does not, by itself, establish standing to sue that officer. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' attempt to bootstrap standing off the AG's and governor's authority to enforce Michigan's consumer protection and civil rights statutes, calling those allegations too speculative. This is going to be the template for the next several rounds of post-Dobbs challenges to state constitutional reproductive-rights amendments: the merits questions about scope and federal preemption will keep coming, but plaintiffs are going to need a concrete enforcement target to even get a hearing.6th Circ. Rejects Mich. Reproductive Rights Challenge | Law360 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: Black Monday and the End of the NIRAOn May 27, 1935 — a day quickly dubbed “Black Monday” by the press — the United States Supreme Court delivered three unanimous decisions that gutted central pieces of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in a single morning. The most consequential was A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, in which the Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act. The case grew out of the prosecution of a Brooklyn kosher poultry slaughterhouse for violating the “Live Poultry Code,” one of the hundreds of industry codes drafted by trade groups and given the force of federal law by the National Recovery Administration. The Court held that the NIRA's code-making scheme was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to private actors and the executive, and that the federal government's Commerce Clause authority did not reach the intrastate sale of poultry to local butchers. Justice Cardozo, concurring, famously described the statute as “delegation running riot.”The same day, in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the Court cabined the President's power to remove members of independent regulatory commissions, a holding that would shape the constitutional status of agencies like the FTC, SEC, and FCC for the next ninety years. And in Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, the Court invalidated the Frazier-Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act as an uncompensated taking from secured creditors. Roosevelt was, by all accounts, furious — and Black Monday became the proximate cause of his 1937 court-packing plan, which failed in Congress but is generally credited with prompting the “switch in time” that produced the more deferential commerce-clause and administrative-law jurisprudence of Jones & Laughlin Steel and the decades that followed. The nondelegation doctrine the Court announced in Schechter has, famously, not been used to strike down a federal statute since — though it has been the subject of growing interest from the current Court's conservative majority, which makes the ninety-first anniversary of Black Monday more than just a historical footnote.Former President Joe Biden has sued the Department of Justice to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts from his interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur, the prosecutor who investigated Biden's handling of classified documents and declined to bring charges. According to the filing, Biden argues that releasing the recordings would skirt federal law restricting disclosure of materials gathered in a special counsel probe, and would effectively turn protected investigative material into political fodder. The suit follows a 2024 Freedom of Information Act action by the conservative Heritage Foundation seeking the same recordings, and comes against the backdrop of repeated efforts by the current administration to make Hur-era material public — efforts the Biden team has argued are intended to embarrass the former president rather than to serve any legitimate investigative or oversight function. The transcripts of the Hur interviews were released back in 2024, but the audio itself has been the subject of executive privilege fights ever since. Worth watching for what the court does with the privilege claims, and for how the Special Counsel regulations are treated now that there is an ex-president on each side of these disputes.Former President Biden sues DOJ over release of interview audio | ReutersThe Trump administration is asking a California federal judge to throw out an expanded challenge to its sweeping reorganization of the federal workforce, calling the litigation a “litigation safari.” In a Friday motion to dismiss filed in AFGE v. Trump, the administration urged Judge Susan Illston to toss a supplemental complaint that broadened the case to cover, among other things, the downsizing of FEMA and a set of forward-looking workforce planning documents the administration issued last October. The original suit, filed in April 2025 by a coalition including the American Federation of Government Employees, SEIU, and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and San Francisco, challenged layoffs and reorganizations at more than twenty federal agencies. Judge Illston enjoined the workforce plans last May, but the Supreme Court stayed her injunction in July, and she has since declined to dismiss the case outright.The administration's argument is essentially jurisdictional: that the October planning documents are too tentative to constitute “final agency action,” that there is no specific DHS order behind the FEMA contract lapses the plaintiffs point to, and that individual FEMA terminations must run through the administrative civil-service process rather than land in district court. The “litigation safari” framing — that the plaintiffs are simply “roving the executive branch to explore various employment issues” — is rhetorically catchy but glosses over the more interesting underlying question: how cleanly the Administrative Procedure Act's “final agency action” requirement maps onto a coordinated, rolling, and openly cross-agency reorganization. A ruling on the dismissal motion is expected later this summer.Trump Admin Looks To Ax Expanded Suit Over Staffing Cuts - Law360Billionaire insurance magnate Greg Lindberg was sentenced in the Western District of North Carolina to twelve years in federal prison across two separate criminal cases — eighty-seven months on charges that he tried to bribe the state's insurance commissioner, and 144 months on wire-fraud charges arising from a $2 billion scheme in which prosecutors said he treated the insurance companies he controlled as a personal piggy bank. The sentences will run concurrently. Judge Max Cogburn also entered a preliminary restitution order of $1.6 billion based on a court-appointed special master's recommendation, which Lindberg's defense team described as the largest restitution award in state history.Prosecutors said the scheme harmed more than two hundred thousand victims, most of them elderly annuity holders, at least twenty thousand of whom died before any promised payouts arrived. The bribery case has its own complicated history — Lindberg was first convicted in 2020, had that conviction vacated by the Fourth Circuit in 2022 over faulty jury instructions, and was reconvicted on retrial in 2024. He pleaded guilty to the separate wire-fraud and money-laundering counts in November 2024. Judge Cogburn credited Lindberg's “extraordinary cooperation” with prosecutors and the special master, but also noted, with what reads like real exasperation in the transcript, that Lindberg has continued to file pro se civil lawsuits against the insurance companies he once owned and that the case illustrates how much of our regulatory apparatus can be “bought and sold like sacks of potatoes.” The government had sought roughly fourteen and a half years; Lindberg had asked for four.‘Regretful' Billionaire Gets 12 Years For $2B Fraud, Bribery - Law360The Colorado Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a debt buyer suing a consumer must attach to its complaint a non-affidavit writing that actually shows the buyer owns that consumer's debt — not just a generic bill of sale showing that the buyer purchased some bundle of receivables from the original creditor. The case, Wright v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, involved a $671.29 Victoria's Secret credit-card balance that Comenity Bank had sold to Portfolio Recovery in 2018. Portfolio Recovery's complaint attached a bill of sale and an affidavit identifying the last four digits of Wright's account number, and the lower courts found that sufficient under Colorado's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Colorado Supreme Court, in the first opinion authored by recently appointed Justice Susan Blanco, reversed and held the affidavit could not cure a complaint that didn't first satisfy the statute's non-affidavit-writing requirement.The practical consequence is significant: the four largest debt buyers alone filed close to forty thousand cases in Colorado county courts between 2013 and 2015, accounting for around eight percent of the state's county-court civil docket, and many of those complaints have historically relied on exactly the kind of generic bill-of-sale-plus-affidavit packaging the court just rejected. Consumer advocates argue the ruling will help consumers — most of whom never had any relationship with the debt buyer — understand and respond to the suits filed against them; the debt-buying industry will, in the near term, need to retool its pleading practices statewide.Colo. Justices Say Debt Buyer Must Show It Owns The Debt - Law360 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

https://vimeo.com/1195148268?share=copy&fl=sv&fe=ci https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/podcasts/2026/5/25/2026-05-25-irs-prepares-to-challenge-kwong-after-limited-aod-on-abdo This week we look at: Equitable Relief for Erroneous Tax Refunds: An Analysis of the Fourth Circuit's Reversal in LaRosa v. Commissioner Final Regulations Modify Information Reporting for Section 751(a) Partnership Interest Exchanges The Impermeable Reach of Section 6672: Joint and Several Trust Fund Liability and the Demise of the Delegation Defense The Taxpayer Due Process Enhancement Act (H.R. 6506): A Crucial Legislative Response to Commissioner v. Zuch Demystifying Notice 2026-33: Comprehensive Guidance on Qualified Long-Term Care Distributions under the SECURE 2.0 Act IRS Action on Decision: Decoding the Service's Limited Acquiescence on Mandatory COVID-19 Postponements and the Road Ahead in Kwong

This week we look at: Equitable Relief for Erroneous Tax Refunds: An Analysis of the Fourth Circuit's Reversal in LaRosa v. Commissioner Final Regulations Modify Information Reporting for Section 751(a) Partnership Interest Exchanges The Impermeable Reach of Section 6672: Joint and Several Trust Fund Liability and the Demise of the Delegation Defense The Taxpayer Due Process Enhancement Act (H.R. 6506): A Crucial Legislative Response to Commissioner v. Zuch Demystifying Notice 2026-33: Comprehensive Guidance on Qualified Long-Term Care Distributions under the SECURE 2.0 Act IRS Action on Decision: Decoding the Service's Limited Acquiescence on Mandatory COVID-19 Postponements and the Road Ahead in Kwong  

Former Chief Justice Jean Toal sat individual jurors down and asked them whether Becky Hill's comments changed their votes. The South Carolina Supreme Court said she had no right to do that. Rule 606(b) protects the privacy of jury deliberations — you can ask whether external contact happened, but you cannot ask jurors how they voted or why. Toal crossed that line, and the Supreme Court corrected it by overruling one of its own prior decisions that had allowed broader inquiry.Defense attorney Eric Faddis walks through the legal mechanics of the reversal with Tony Brueski. The court adopted the Fourth Circuit's Cheek test as binding law in South Carolina. Once the defense demonstrated that Hill's comments were more than innocuous — telling jurors not to be fooled by the defense, to watch Murdaugh's body language, that deliberations shouldn't take long — prejudice was presumed automatically. The burden shifted to the State to prove no reasonable possibility the verdict was influenced. The State couldn't do it. Hill pled guilty to perjury in December 2025 and the court found she was driven by a book deal.But the ruling does more than reverse. It restructures the retrial. The prosecution spent twelve and a half hours on financial crimes the first time. The court flagged specific testimony as having zero probative value on motive and ordered any retrial to limit that evidence to material directly supporting the exposure timeline — the CFO confrontation the morning of the killings, the hearing three days later. The emotional weight that helped convict Murdaugh in the first trial is now subject to exclusion.Faddis addresses which unresolved evidentiary issues — the firearm analysis, the raincoat, the gunshot residue, the iPhone demonstration — give the defense its strongest ground at retrial.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePod This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughRetrial #JeanToal #BeckyHill #SCSupremeCourt #EricFaddis #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #JuryTampering #MurdaughTrial

The South Carolina Supreme Court didn't just reverse Alex Murdaugh's conviction. It overruled one of its own prior decisions to do it. The court formally adopted the Fourth Circuit's three-step Cheek test for evaluating juror tampering claims, replacing the standard Jean Toal relied on when she denied the new trial motion. That's not a routine correction. That's the court deciding its own precedent was wrong — and the Murdaugh case was significant enough to rewrite the law.Defense attorney Eric Faddis walks through what the Cheek test actually requires. Once the defense showed that Becky Hill's comments to jurors were more than innocuous, prejudice was presumed automatically. The burden then shifted to the State to prove there was no reasonable possibility the verdict was influenced. The court found the State couldn't meet it. Hill told jurors not to be fooled by the defense, to watch Murdaugh's body language, and that deliberations shouldn't take long. She pled guilty to perjury in December 2025 for lying about her conduct under oath. The court found she was motivated by a book deal.Toal also violated Rule 606(b) by questioning individual jurors about whether the Clerk's comments changed their votes — a direct invasion of jury deliberation privacy. The Supreme Court said the proper inquiry stops at whether external contact occurred and whether it was prejudicial. You don't ask jurors how they voted or why.Faddis also addresses the retrial landscape. The court flagged specific financial crimes testimony as having zero probative value on motive and ordered prosecutors to limit that evidence significantly. The State's motive theory survives only if it stays tethered to the exposure timeline — the CFO confrontation the morning of the murders, the hearing three days later. Everything else is subject to challenge.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePod This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughRetrial #BeckyHill #SCSupremeCourt #EricFaddis #CheekTest #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #JuryTampering #MurdaughTrial

The Colleton County Clerk of Court told jurors not to be fooled by the defense. She told them to watch Alex Murdaugh's movements. She signaled that deliberations should be quick. The South Carolina Supreme Court found every one of those comments credible and ruled unanimously that they destroyed the integrity of the verdict.Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Fadds dissects the legal framework the court used to reach that conclusion. Former Chief Justice Jean Toal denied Murdaugh's motion for a new trial by placing the burden of proof on the defense — requiring Murdaugh to demonstrate he was harmed by Hill's conduct. The Supreme Court said that was backwards. Under the Remmer presumption, which the court formally adopted through the Fourth Circuit's Cheek test, prejudice is presumed automatically once the defendant shows the contact was more than innocuous. The burden then shifts entirely to the State to prove the verdict wasn't affected.Fadds explains how Toal's questioning of jurors about their deliberative mental processes violated Rule 606(b), why the court went so far as to overrule its own precedent to close that door, and what Hill's subsequent perjury conviction meant for the Supreme Court's assessment of the entire evidentiary record.LINKSJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodDISCLAIMERThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.HASHTAGS#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughNewTrial #BeckyHill #JuryTampering #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #SCSupremeCourt #EricFadds #MurdaughCase #Justice

Juror Z had doubts about guilt. She said so under oath. She said the Clerk of Court's comments made her feel like Murdaugh was already guilty before deliberations started. Former Chief Justice Toal heard that testimony and found it not credible. The Supreme Court disagreed — and reversed everything.Eric Fadds provides a detailed legal breakdown of the unanimous ruling. The court adopted the Fourth Circuit's three-step Cheek framework, making it the governing standard for jury tampering claims in South Carolina. Under that framework, once Murdaugh cleared the low bar of showing Hill's comments were more than innocuous, prejudice was presumed and the State bore the heavy burden of proving the verdict wasn't affected. The court found the State failed.Fadds explains Toal's specific errors — the reversed burden, the Rule 606(b) violation, the selective credibility findings — and addresses how the court went around Toal's evidentiary limitations by independently crediting testimony from Juror 785 and the alternate juror that Toal had either excluded or ignored.LINKSJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodDISCLAIMERThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.HASHTAGS#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughNewTrial #BeckyHill #JuryTampering #SCSupremeCourt #EricFadds #MurdaughCase #ColletonCounty #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers

Before Alex Murdaugh ever took the stand in his own defense, the woman managing his trial had already told the jury what to think. The South Carolina Supreme Court found those comments went to the heart of the case and reversed his murder convictions unanimously.Eric Fadds — a defense attorney who previously served as a prosecutor — walks through the three-step legal test the court adopted to reach its decision. The framework, drawn from the Fourth Circuit's Cheek ruling, requires the defendant to show the outside contact was more than harmless, then automatically presumes prejudice and shifts the burden to the State. Former Chief Justice Toal never applied this framework. She required Murdaugh to prove harm. She asked jurors whether Hill's comments changed their minds — a question the Supreme Court said violated evidence rules protecting the sanctity of jury deliberations.Fadds analyzes where the line falls between comments that are merely improper and those that functionally direct a verdict, how the court expanded the evidentiary record beyond what Toal allowed, and why Hill's perjury guilty plea may have sealed the outcome.LINKSJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodDISCLAIMERThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.HASHTAGS#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughCase #BeckyHill #SCSupremeCourt #JuryTampering #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #EricFadds #MurdaughRetrial #ColletonCounty

Juror Z had questions about Alex Murdaugh's guilt. She swore to that in an affidavit. But before deliberations, Becky Hill had already told the jury not to believe the defense. When it came time to vote, Juror Z felt the outcome was predetermined. She convicted. The South Carolina Supreme Court just ruled she never should have been in that position — and reversed every murder conviction.The per curiam opinion is unanimous and devastating. The court found Hill made far more improper comments than Toal's post-trial order acknowledged, including telling jurors not to be fooled or confused by the defense, instructing them to watch Murdaugh's actions and movements closely, and signaling through staff that deliberations should be quick. The alternate juror testified Hill stood in the doorway and told jurors the defense would try to confuse them. The court credited all of it, finding Hill's denials lacked credibility — a conclusion reinforced by her subsequent guilty plea to perjury.The ruling identifies three distinct legal errors by former Chief Justice Toal: wrong burden of proof, improper questioning of jurors about their mental processes, and reliance on testimony that violated Rule 606(b). The court overruled its own precedent in Ethier to make clear that juror deliberation testimony is inadmissible for this purpose. It formally adopted the Fourth Circuit's Cheek framework as binding South Carolina law.Critically for a retrial, the court found the first trial's twelve-and-a-half-hour financial crimes presentation was excessive and ordered it sharply curtailed. Some financial evidence supporting the motive theory may be admitted, but the inflammatory details that dominated the first trial cannot be repeated. The AG's office has confirmed a retrial. Murdaugh remains incarcerated on financial sentences. The murder case resets entirely.LINKSJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodDISCLAIMERThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.HASHTAGS#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughRetrial #BeckyHill #JuryTampering #SCSupremeCourt #MurdaughMurders #ColletonCounty #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #MurdaughAppeal

Federalism: Are "sport event contracts" subject to state sports betting laws? - Argued: Thu, 07 May 2026 17:48:31 EDT

We Like Shooting - Ep 661 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Midwest Industries (Code: WLSISLIFE) Die Free Co. (Code: WLSISLIFE) Bowers Group (Code: WLS) Otis Technology (Code: WELIKESHOOTING15) Flatline Fiber Co (Code: WLS15) Guests: Ken Ross – CMC Triggers – https://cmctriggers.com – @cmctriggers Text Dear WLS or Reviews +1 743 500 2171  Public   Show Titles   GOA GOALS Aug 1-2 in Iowa. https://goals.goa.org/ GunCon.net Tickets on sale now. Use code AGENCY171 GEAR CHAT [FLUX Defense] Raider X Chop Top El Camino The Raider X Chop Top “El Camino” is a P320/M17 chassis from FLUX Defense with the non-reciprocating optic mount removed, allowing retention of the optic mounted on the slide for easy swapping between pistol and chassis configurations. It features a lower optic height over bore and is engineered as a premium personal defense weapon chassis system for SIG Sauer P320, M17, and M18 pistols. Compatibility is limited to 9mm, .40 S&W, .357 SIG variants, excluding P320 XTEN, .45 ACP, and certain magazines. Note Pew Report opening the doors. [XTech Tactical] Extended Magazines and Magazine Adaptor Sleeves for Ruger RXM XTech Tactical offers extended magazines and magazine adaptor sleeves designed for the Ruger RXM. No further technical overview is provided on the page. Magpump Magpump Pew Locker Pew.locker is a service described as ‘Your Stuff. Your Data. Encrypted.' No firearms or technical gear products are detailed on the page. It appears unrelated to physical technical gear in the firearms industry. [CMMG] Pistol Suppressed DL44 Blaster Mk4 .22LR 3.2″ Limited Edition This limited-edition CMMG pistol is derived from the company's .22LR firearms line, mimicking the Solo Blaster with a unique battle-worn Cerakote finish and integrated DL44 suppressor using the same internals as the ZEROED 22K for superior sound suppression. It features a Mk4 platform with traditional blowback operation, 3.2-inch nitride-finished 4140CM barrel, ZEROED drop-in trigger (4.5 lb pull), ambi charging handle, and a three-piece DL44 pistol grip with aluminum frame and walnut wood panels. Only 100 units are produced, each including three 10-round magazines and matching serial numbers on firearm and suppressor. Kiro Morph Kiro Morph BULLET POINTS Note Does grip angle matter? Magpul M-LOK Hand Control Accessories: SVG Short Vertical Grip (MAG1567), Thumb Shelf (MAG1566), Index Stop (MAG1568) Magpul announced three new M-LOK accessories for improved support hand control and consistent indexing on octagonal aluminum handguards: the M-LOK SVG Short Vertical Grip, M-LOK Thumb Shelf, and M-LOK Index Stop. Constructed from proprietary polymer with included 4140 chromoly steel hardware, they are ambidextrous and available in Black, FDE, ODG, MCB starting May 2026.2040 Ferro Concepts Dangler AR The Ferro Concepts Dangler AR is a modular pouch designed to carry two AR-15 style magazines horizontally or reconfigure for longer items like breaching charges or multi-tools. Constructed from hydrophobic X-Pac fabric with rigidity to minimize bounce, it features a removable internal divider, customizable shock cord retention, and 2-inch hook and loop mounting for plate carriers, back panels, or belts. It is Berry Compliant and compatible with items such as Skin packs and breaching tools. GUNDERWEAR Concealed Carry Underwear GUNDERWEAR is a patented underwear product designed to improve comfort for concealed carry, particularly appendix carry, by integrating padding as a barrier between the body and gun/holster. Developed by Tyler Abadie, it prevents rubbing, stabbing, and irritation during prolonged wear in activities like security work, driving, and daily tasks. Available for men and women, it has received positive feedback from civilians and professionals in law enforcement and military. GUN FIGHTS No one stepped into the arena this week. WLS IS LIFESTYLE RXM Pillager Chassis PA6-GF The RXM Pillager Chassis is a grip module designed for the Ruger RXM FCI, featuring a complete chassis, sheet metal finger shroud, RXM charging handle (OEM slide only), and secondary magazine holder. It is FDM 3D printed from fiberglass-reinforced nylon (PA6-GF) and annealed to manufacturer specifications, available in colors like Flat Dark Earth, Light Grey, and Black. Priced at $279.99 USD, it comes assembled and ready for the RXM FCI and slide. GOING BALLISTIC DOJ Cease-and-Desist to City of Denver on AR-15 Ban The National Association for Gun Rights reports that AAG Dhillon issued a cease-and-desist letter to the City of Denver. The letter demands the removal of their AR-15 ban. Failure to comply will result in action by the DOJ. Hysteria Continues Unabated Following ATF's Announcement (Savage) The article discusses the ATF's rollback of gun regulations under the Trump administration's Justice Department, led by confirmed ATF head Robert Cekada, following an assassination attempt on President Trump. Gun control advocates like John Feinblatt of Everytown for Gun Safety criticize it as gutting ‘commonsense gun safety laws.' The author argues the hysteria is unwarranted, as the weapons used were legal nationwide and prior rules failed to prevent attacks. NAGR: Minnesota Dems Pushing Gun Ban via Omnibus Bill SF 4067 (Savage) The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) warns that Minnesota Democrats are advancing SF 4067, an omnibus firearms bill, through the state Senate and House. The bill proposes bans on certain semiautomatic rifles, magazines over 17 rounds, privately manufactured firearms, binary triggers, and expands red flag gun confiscation laws. NAGR urges Minnesotans to contact legislators to oppose the measure amid a tied House vote. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen: Impact on Baltimore, MD Homicides at 50-Year Low (Savage) Following the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, Maryland shifted from ‘may-issue' to ‘shall-issue' concealed carry permits, increasing from under 50,000 in 2020 to over 200,000 by April 2025. Baltimore City has seen homicides drop to a 50-year low, with only 33 homicides and 89 non-fatal shootings as of May 1, 2025, down 10.8% and 11.9% from the prior year. April 2025 recorded just four homicides, the fewest monthly since at least 1970. ATF Reforms on Pistol Braces (NPRM 1140-AA98) (Savage) The article discusses ATF reforms under the Trump administration that remove regulatory language from the vacated Biden-era pistol brace rule (NPRM 1140-AA98), affecting enforcement of the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA) on braced pistols classified as short-barreled rifles. While presented as a positive step, the changes do not limit ATF's statutory interpretation authority, allowing continued enforcement risks for gun owners. The author views it as meaningful progress but potentially ‘smoke and mirrors' without further congressional action.0 Navy v. Patrick Tate Adamiak: NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging U.S. Supreme Court Review (Savage) The NRA, along with other gun rights organizations, filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Navy v. Patrick Tate Adamiak, involving a Navy veteran's 20-year sentence for National Firearms Act violations over nonfunctional firearm relics. The case challenges the treatment of inert, destroyed items as regulated ‘firearms' under an expansive NFA interpretation, bypassing Second Amendment protections. The brief argues lower courts distorted precedent by avoiding Bruen's historical analysis test. DOJ/ATF 34 Final and Proposed Firearms Rules (April 29, 2026) (Savage) On April 29, 2026, the Department of Justice and ATF announced 34 notices of final and proposed rulemaking, the largest overhaul of federal firearms regulations in agency history, following Executive Order 14206 Protecting Second Amendment Rights. The package includes 8 finalized rules (e.g., rescinding bump stock machine gun definitions per Garland v. Cargill) and 26 proposed rules aimed at reducing burdens on FFLs and gun owners, modernizing forms like 4473, streamlining NFA processes, and aligning with court precedents. Rules cover repeals of Biden-era pistol brace and ‘engaged in the business' expansions, electronic recordkeeping, and interstate transport protections. Trump Pardon Call for Patrick ‘Tate' Adamiak (Fourth Circuit Federal Case) Patrick ‘Tate' Adamiak, a U.S. Navy sailor, was convicted on federal machinegun and unregistered destructive-device charges and sentenced to 20 years in prison despite no prior record or victims; the Fourth Circuit remanded on double-jeopardy grounds. The article urges gun owners to petition President Trump for a full pardon, framing it as a stand against ATF overreach and federal weaponization against Second Amendment activities. Items involved remain legally sold online, highlighting perceived injustice. REVIEWS Review: Anonymous Coward from Iowa Five Review: Anonymous Coward from Nebraska Review form coward. 5 something. Like the early gun fights can put guesses in. Since I get up at 5.47 am like to be in bed by 10. Also hasn't Aaron been fired yet to come back. Can listen to the rest next day in the truck. Enjoy the banter and I don't read much news so keeps me informed on 2a stuff. Review: Chris W Five Stars. The year is 2035. Civil unrest, political turmoil, and record high inflation has crippled America. Its citizens are divided, almost tribal. Most have lost hope of returning America to a bastion of freedom. but there are some that fight to keep the American dream alive. The agents of 171 used to be a gang of online gun nerds bonded by the love of the second amendment; now they are an underground collective of the countries most deadly assassins and fighters trying to bring America back to her former glory. Shawn: the leader of the agency,...

Jonathan Byrne and Jeremy Thompson of the District of Sourth Carolina Federal Public Defender Office discuss recent Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court news.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen tracking legal twists involving Donald Trump, but here we are in early April 2026, and the courts are buzzing with cases that feel like echoes of his influence. Just days ago, on March 25, Rutgers Law School reported a unanimous Supreme Court decision shielding internet service providers from liability for their users' piracy— a ruling that Trump supporters hailed as a win against overreaching tech regulations, reminiscent of his old battles with Big Tech in Silicon Valley. Then, on March 31, the high court struck down Colorado's ban on conversion therapy in a move that lit up social media, with Trump's name trending as allies praised it as protecting free speech and parental rights, straight out of his America First playbook.But the real firestorm hit with the Fourth Circuit's February 2026 bombshell in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, where the court dove deep into challenges against DEI policies, citing Trump's long push to dismantle what he called "woke" mandates in education. Gibson Dunn's DEI Task Force Update from March 2 detailed how a new bill is making waves, forcing courts in states like Texas to void contracts with DEI provisions and empowering taxpayers to sue public entities for violations—think injunctive relief and attorney's fees for anyone calling out government overreach. Briefing wrapped in that Third Circuit appeal on November 3, 2025, and oral arguments kicked off March 6, 2026, keeping Trump's anti-DEI legacy alive and kicking.Meanwhile, government contracts got messy too. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani's March update spotlighted Gemini Tech Services LLC v. United States, where the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled on February 5 that the Army violated an injunction in a bid protest over the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise procurement— a reminder that agencies can't dodge court orders, much like the accountability Trump demanded during his administration.Shifting to taxes, the IRS stirred the pot. Their Notice 2026-20 on March 18 extended relief for digital asset tracking, letting taxpayers use their own records instead of broker confirmations—a practical nod amid crypto chaos that Trump champions. And on March 9, the Tax Court upheld an IRS notice to Mammoth Cave Property, LLC, rejecting statute of limitations claims despite address glitches, as covered in the National Law Review's IRS roundup through March 25.Even FinCEN jumped in, launching a reporting rule on March 1 for all-cash residential real estate buys by LLCs or trusts—no mortgages allowed without disclosure—to curb money laundering, per DBL Law's alert. It's tightening the noose on anonymous deals, aligning with Trump's tough-on-crime stance.As these threads weave through the courts—from DEI takedowns to tax tech hurdles—Trump's shadow looms large, shaping debates on freedom, fairness, and federal power. Listeners, thanks for tuning in. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties | 03/30/26 | Docket #: 25-83 25-83 JULES V. ANDRE BALAZS PROPERTIES DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 1201914 CERT. GRANTED 12/5/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a party may apply to confirm or vacate an arbitration award. But federal courts have limited jurisdiction over Section 9 and 10 applications. In Badgerow v. Walters , 596 U.S. 1, 4, 9-11 (2022), this Court held that a federal court may exercise jurisdiction only if the application establishes diversity or federal-question jurisdiction on its face. A federal court may not exercise jurisdiction merely on the basis that the underlying dispute, save for the arbitration agreement, would have been justiciable in federal court. See id . But what happens when a court initially exercises jurisdiction over the underlying dispute, stays the case pending arbitration, and is later faced with an application to confirm or vacate an arbitration award in the same case? The courts of appeals have sharply divided on the appropriate jurisdictional analysis. Several courts of appeals, including the Second Circuit below, have held that the initial exercise of jurisdiction creates a "jurisdictional anchor" that confers jurisdiction over a subsequent Section 9 or 10 application to confirm or vacate, even if jurisdiction would otherwise be absent. By contrast, the Fourth Circuit has held that a court must establish an independent basis for jurisdiction over a Section 9 or 10 application to confirm or vacate. The question presented is: Whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1253, 23-1283

This week, we're taking a close look at the latest in the legal battle over "red flag" laws. To help understand the ins and outs of why gun-rights activists object to the temporary gun seizure orders, we have the director of legal operations for the group challenging Maryland's version of the law. The Second Amendment Foundation's Bill Sack joins the show to discuss the latest ruling in the case, which actually went against the group. Sack said their Maryland case centered around a dispute between a county zoning official and a resident that saw the man's guns taken from him over what he said were false claims of a threat. Sack said the incident is an example of the flaws in Maryland's system that allow for abuse of a fundamental right. He also said the case shows the difficulty of making a Second Amendment case against red flag laws in the wake of the Supreme Court's US v. Rahimi decision. Instead, Sack said the group is relying more heavily on Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims against the lower evidentiary standards the laws use. He said the judge's point about similar procedures utilized in other contexts being blessed by the Supreme Court and others wasn't persuasive, and should be reversed--even in circumstances that don't involve firearm seizures. Sack said the Second Amendment Foundation hasn't yet decided what to do in the Maryland case, but they plan to keep fighting red flag policies that don't meet their constitutional standards.Special Guest: Bill Sack.

Religious Freedom: May religious universities refuse to hire transgender applicants? - Argued: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 11:2:42 EDT

Immigration: May an individual in removal proceedings challenge their removal via habeas corpus when they alleged it based on the violation of First Amendment? - Argued: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 15:41:2 EDT

This Day in Legal History: Camp David AccordsOn March 26, 1979, Egypt and Israel formally signed the Camp David Accords, marking a historic breakthrough in international law and diplomacy. The agreement followed years of conflict between the two nations, including multiple wars that had destabilized the region. Brokered by U.S. President Jimmy Carter, the negotiations took place at the presidential retreat in Maryland. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin played central roles in reaching the accord. The resulting treaty established a framework for peace and normalized diplomatic relations between the two countries. It also included provisions for Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula, which had been occupied since the Six-Day War. In exchange, Egypt became the first Arab nation to officially recognize Israel. The agreement demonstrated the power of sustained negotiation and third-party mediation in resolving entrenched disputes. It also highlighted the role of international agreements as binding legal instruments between sovereign states. The treaty had lasting implications for Middle Eastern geopolitics and influenced future peace efforts in the region. While controversial at the time, it ultimately reduced the likelihood of further large-scale conflict between the two nations. The accords earned Sadat and Begin the Nobel Peace Prize, underscoring their global significance. The Camp David framework remains a key example of how diplomacy can achieve outcomes that military action cannot.A California jury in Los Angeles found Meta Platforms and Google liable for harming the mental health of a woman who said she became addicted to their platforms as a child. The jury awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and an additional $3 million in punitive damages, effectively doubling the total award. Responsibility was split with Instagram accounting for 70% of the harm and YouTube 30%. Jurors concluded that both companies were negligent in designing their platforms and failed to warn users about potential dangers. They also found that the companies' conduct involved malice, fraud, or oppression, justifying punitive damages.This case is the first bellwether trial among thousands of similar lawsuits, making it an important test for future litigation against social media companies. The verdict increases potential legal exposure for these companies, which could face billions in liability nationwide. During trial, the plaintiff's attorneys argued that platform features like algorithms, autoplay, and infinite scroll were intentionally designed to be addictive. The defense countered that social media addiction is not a recognized condition and pointed to other factors in the plaintiff's life that could explain her mental health struggles.Jurors were influenced by a combination of evidence, including internal company materials and testimony from executives and former employees. Some jurors expressed skepticism about testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The relatively modest punitive damages award reflected hesitation about granting a large sum to a single individual. Both companies have stated they disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal. The case could shape how courts evaluate claims about the harmful design of social media platforms.Jury Doubles Damages Against Meta, Google In LA Bellwether - Law360US jury verdicts against Meta, Google tee up fight over tech liability shield | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned a lower court ruling that had held Cox Communications liable for its customers' music piracy. The justices ruled that simply knowing customers may engage in copyright infringement is not enough to establish liability. Instead, there must be proof that the company intended to promote or encourage the illegal activity. The decision sends the case back to the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration under this clarified standard.The dispute originated from a 2019 jury verdict that ordered Cox to pay $1 billion to music companies, including Sony Music Entertainment, for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. While the appellate court had upheld part of that ruling, the Supreme Court found that the legal standard for contributory infringement had been applied too broadly. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Court, emphasized that providing a general service—even with awareness of misuse—does not automatically create liability.The ruling marks the Court's first major examination of secondary copyright liability in years and draws on earlier cases like Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios and MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.. A concurring opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed with the outcome but warned that the majority may have limited other ways to hold companies accountable, such as aiding-and-abetting theories.The decision is seen as a significant win for internet service providers, who argued that broader liability would force them to cut off users based on unproven accusations. At the same time, the music industry expressed concern that the ruling could weaken protections against widespread copyright infringement. The case highlights ongoing tension between protecting intellectual property and maintaining practical limits on intermediary liability.High Court Reverses Music Piracy Liability Ruling Against Cox - Law360Ousted Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro is facing U.S. criminal charges, including narcoterrorism, in a case that could test a rarely used federal law with a limited track record at trial. Prosecutors allege that Maduro led a conspiracy to traffic cocaine in coordination with groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which the United States has labeled a terrorist organization. Maduro has pleaded not guilty and denies the allegations, claiming they are politically motivated.The narcoterrorism statute, enacted in 2006, targets drug trafficking tied to terrorism but has produced few successful trial outcomes. Of the small number of convictions obtained, some have later been overturned due to unreliable witness testimony. This history highlights a major challenge for prosecutors: proving that a defendant knowingly connected drug activity to terrorist operations. Legal experts note that this “knowledge” requirement is the most difficult element to establish in court.Maduro also faces additional charges, including drug trafficking and money laundering, which could still result in severe penalties even if the narcoterrorism count proves difficult. The law carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years, reflecting its seriousness. Prosecutors may rely on testimony from former Venezuelan officials, though the credibility of such cooperating witnesses could be heavily scrutinized.The case underscores broader tensions in applying U.S. criminal law to international actors and complex geopolitical conduct. It also demonstrates how expansive definitions of terrorism can complicate prosecutions. Ultimately, the outcome may shape how aggressively the U.S. uses narcoterrorism charges in future cases.Maduro case to test US narcoterrorism law with limited trial success | 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

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

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.A single checkbox on day one can set a legal time bomb you never see coming. We trace how a standard 180‑day lawsuit clause in employment onboarding ran straight into the guardrails Congress built for workplace civil rights—and why the Fourth Circuit said you can't squeeze a 270‑day federal process into a 180‑day corporate box. Using Thomas v. EOTech, decided just days ago, we walk through the timeline math, the EEOC's role, and the reason conciliation is supposed to come before courtroom battle.We break down the two‑step structure at the core of Title VII and the ADEA: a 180–300 day charging window that flexes under cooperative federalism, followed by a 90‑day right‑to‑sue period. Then we show how a private countdown collides with that sequence, pressuring employees to “lawyer up” during conciliation and nudging the EEOC to chase the wrong cases just to beat a clock. Along the way, we dismantle the precedents EOTech leaned on, explaining why arbitration policy under the FAA and bargaining frameworks under the Railway Labor Act do not translate to the individual protections and nationwide uniformity of federal civil rights enforcement.There's a sharp turn on state law too. While the federal claims are revived, Maryland's Sicone standard allowed a shortened period in principle, and a briefing misstep doomed the state claim. We talk bargaining power, public policy, and how small choices in appellate strategy can decide big outcomes. If you've ever scrolled past HR legalese, this story will change how you read every clause—from limitations periods to other boilerplate that might already be on borrowed time.Listen for practical takeaways on timelines, documentation, and when to seek help, plus a candid look at what this ruling signals for contracts across the country. If the insights land, follow the show, share this episode with a colleague, and leave a quick review so more workers and managers learn what those checkboxes really mean. 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 and Spotify. 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.

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

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching court battles unfold like a high-stakes thriller, but here we are in the thick of President Donald Trump's second term, with legal fights erupting everywhere from federal appeals courts to the steps of the Supreme Court. Just last Friday, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Trump administration's immigration detention policy, mandating that people arrested in the crackdown stay detained without bond, as reported by Reuters journalist Nate Raymond. It's a win for the White House's tough stance on borders, keeping the momentum from earlier victories.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is buzzing with Trump-related pleas. On February 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, vacated a nationwide injunction blocking two of Trump's executive orders targeting what he calls illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in federal grantees and contractors. Chief Judge Albert Diaz wrote the opinion, remanding it to the District of Maryland and signaling these orders might survive scrutiny, according to Law and the Workplace analysis. Employers, especially government contractors, are on notice—DEI initiatives could face real enforcement heat now.Over in immigration again, the Trump team filed an official appeal notice in a Haitian Temporary Protected Status suit, challenging U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes' February 2 ruling that halted the cancellation of TPS for Haitian immigrants, per The Columbus Dispatch's Bethany Bruner. Government lawyers even asked Reyes to pause her order by noon that day, pushing the case toward the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court itself.Redistricting wars rage on too. The Supreme Court recently cleared new maps for Texas and California—Texas gaining five Republican-friendly House seats, California countering with five for Democrats—yet battles like Louisiana v. Callais over race and the Voting Rights Act continue, as detailed by Washington Examiner's Jack Birle. And get this: Trump's lawyers are petitioning the Supreme Court to toss the 2023 E. Jean Carroll civil verdict against him, arguing in their final brief that the president is too busy running the country to fight old allegations, according to USA Today's Maureen Groppe. The justices will conference on it February 20.Don't forget the bigger picture from the Brennan Center: while Trump was convicted in New York City state court in May 2024 for falsifying business records over hush money to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, three criminal cases linger—federal ones in Washington, D.C., for election interference, Fulton County, Georgia, for the same, and Florida over classified documents. Lawfare's litigation tracker counts 298 active challenges to Trump administration actions on national security, plus 14 Supreme Court stays favoring the feds.Even whispers of impeachment surfaced, with ET Now's February 6 livestream claiming the House of Representatives is deciding Trump's fate—though details remain murky amid the chaos. From Venezuelan TPS revocations paused by the Supreme Court despite U.S. District Judge Edward Chen's rulings in San Francisco, to National Guard deployment blocks in Illinois that Trump ultimately pulled back from Chicago and Portland, these shadow docket moves have real-world bite, as SCOTUSblog explains.It's a legal whirlwind, listeners, with Trump fighting on multiple fronts, courts picking sides, and the Supreme Court wielding quiet power that reshapes policies overnight. Stay tuned as these cases collide toward 2026 elections.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

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

West Virginia v. B. P. J. | 01/13/26 | Docket #: 24-43 24-43 WEST VIRGINIA V. B.P.J. DECISION BELOW: 98 F.4th 542 CERT. GRANTED 7/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Like everywhere else, West Virginia schools offer separate sports teams for boys and girls. The West Virginia Legislature concluded that biological boys should compete on boys' and co-ed teams but not girls' teams. This separation made sense, the Legislature found, because of the "inherent physical differences between biological males and biological females." A parent sued on behalf of her child, B.P.J., arguing that the State must allow biological boys who identify as girls to compete on girls' teams. After extensive discovery, the district court disagreed, entering summary judgment for the State on claims under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Yet a divided Fourth Circuit panel granted an injunction pending appeal. B.P.J. then beat and displaced hundreds of girls in track and field. Ultimately, the same divided panel ruled in B.P.J.'s favor on the Title IX claim and vacated the district court's judgment for the defendants on the equal-protection claim. Judge Agee dissented, criticizing the majority for "inappropriately expand[ing] the scope of the Equal Protection Clause and upend[ing] the essence of Title IX." App.44a. He hoped this Court would "take the opportunity with all deliberate speed to resolve these questions of national importance." App.74a The questions presented are: 1. Whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth. 2. Whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1078, 23-1130

Tallpaw is up the creek and he is not a RiverClan cat. He seems to be treading water for now - but everyone is dumping buckets on him. At least he gets a cool name!Book: Super Edition: Tallstar's Revenge Support us on Ko-fi! WCWITCast Ko-fiFollow us on BlueSky! WCWITCastFollow us on Instagram! WCWITCastCat Fact Sources:Boyer v. Seal | Animal Legal & Historical CenterCasemine:   BOYER v. SEAL Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. Feb 24, 1989Louisiana Laws - Louisiana State Legislature - CC2321Aunt Sues 12-year-old After Insurance Refuses Bill CoverageMusic:Happy Boy End Theme Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This transformative podcast work constitutes a fair-use of any copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US copyright law. Warrior Cats: What is That? is not endorsed or supported by Harper Collins and/or Working Partners. All views are our own.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger Picture The [CB] is losing control of the economy, they wanted a crash instead Trump has turned it around and the economy is growing very quickly. The D’s are trying to convince the people that the economy is worse than what Trump is letting on, this will fail.Watch gold, silver and Bitcoin. The [DS] tried to gain control the military by having the seditious 6 tell the military not to obey, Trump gives them a dividend check to show he cares about them. The Epstein files were released, it all points to the Clinton’s and the D’s. The entire plan backfired on the [DS], boomerang. Every step of the way they are feeling the pain. The [DS] wants war and Trump is fighting against those countries who are suppose to be our allies. He will get peace in the end. Economy (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent BODIES Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren with a Devastating Reminder After She Claims Trump is Setting the Stage for the Next Economic Crash  Senator Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren (D-MA) made a poor decision trying to school Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent earlier this week, and it spectacularly backfired. https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/2000915011154112623?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2000915011154112623%7Ctwgr%5E4c8d9bec902c32b0cd01ee05619255f6315a3493%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Ftreasury-secretary-scott-bessent-bodies-elizabeth-pocahontas-warren%2F  substantial increase in private credit which is outside of the regulated banking system — that tells me that the regulated system is too constrained.” https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/2001375798947885283?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2001375798947885283%7Ctwgr%5E4c8d9bec902c32b0cd01ee05619255f6315a3493%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Ftreasury-secretary-scott-bessent-bodies-elizabeth-pocahontas-warren%2F https://twitter.com/SecScottBessent/status/2002138930410324028?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2002138930410324028%7Ctwgr%5E4c8d9bec902c32b0cd01ee05619255f6315a3493%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Ftreasury-secretary-scott-bessent-bodies-elizabeth-pocahontas-warren%2F  Administration. Over-regulation is not the solution to what ails the American banking system. Rigorous, responsible supervision is. The initial report on the 2023 debacle by former Vice Chairman for Supervision, Michael Barr, was an exercise in obfuscation and sophistry. The American people deserve supervisors who are not asleep at the wheel, and the incoming Chairman of the Federal Reserve should undertake a thorough investigation of the systemic and oversight failures that led to that disaster. Source: thegaetwaypundit.com Trump announces that they've sold $1.3 BILLION worth of Gold Cards within Days Political/Rights https://twitter.com/RepJamesComer/status/2002011743254380602?s=20 More than a dozen politically exposed people and government officials’ names appear in the hundreds of thousands of pages of Jeffrey Epstein files made public Friday, sources said. And Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the DOJ discovered more than 1,200 victims and their families during the exhaustive review, explaining the process behind determining which files could be released in a letter to Congress exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital. https://twitter.com/Badhombre/status/2002388917618610413?s=20   home in New York to solicit money for her campaign and the DCCC. FBI was warned that Jeffrey Epstein was into child porn — but ignored it for 10 years, docs show   A former employee of late sex predator Jeffrey Epstein alerted the FBI that he was interested in “child pornography” and that he threatened to “burn her house down” decades before Epstein became an international fixation — but feds apparently did nothing. Source: nypost.com   If there was every anything about Trump, it would have been released before he reached the bottom of the escalator in 2015, the Comey FBI would have leaked it, and the Dems would have brought it up at some point while Biden was in office. But none of that happened. Why? Because Epstein leads to the Dems, and people like myself have been trying to warn the world about it for 10+ years.  https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2002408563193368834?s=20  and it worked brilliantly. Could you imagine if in Trump's first term he released all this stuff about Epstein? The public would not have believed it, and the Dems/MSM would have claimed it was all politically motivated and fabricated by Trump. The only way this Epstein disclosure was going to work, was to get the public to beg for it. So that's what Trump did. https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/2002450017647301084?s=20 https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2002530633394934144?s=20   partner with Wolfe via the TerraMar project, which is also connected to the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation. What is Nathan Wolfe known for? Searching for bat coronaviruses in Ukraine via USAID Project PREDICT, via his biolab company, Metabiota, which was funded via Rosemont Seneca, which is partially owned by Hunter Biden. Russia accused Wolfe and his biolab company of creating genome-specific biological weapons in Ukraine. This situation has been addressed by RFK Jr. and Tulsi multiple times, and has been a major topic at the UN for over 3 years now. So Epstein had an interest in eugenics and he had financial/social connections to virologists who were making genome-specific biological weapons via USAID grants in Ukraine. Nathan Wolfe even directly thanked Epstein in his 2011 book “The Viral Storm: The Dawn of the New Pandemic Age” where Wolfe predicted the COVID pandemic 8 years before it happened… So what am I getting at? I think Epstein had plans to engage in ethnic cleansing/population control/genocide via biological weapon, and I think he had something to do with Covid. Epstein is at the epicenter of the Deep State empire. He was essentially a real life James Bond villain. The timing could not be worse. He and Hillary are in the middle of trying to fight subpoenas to testify in person to the House Oversight Committee on the Epstein matter and what they might know. They want to submit sworn statements. Republican Committee Chair James Comer (KY-1) wants to be able to question and cross-examine them in person.  DOGE Geopolitical U.S. Snatches Venezuela Oil Tanker in Dark‑Hour Strike on Narco‑Terror Funding In a stealth operation carried out before dawn on Dec. 20, the U.S. Coast Guard—working alongside the Department of War—seized an oil tanker last seen in the terrorist state of Venezuela. The United States accused the ship's operators of moving sanctioned crude to fuel narco‑terror activity. Officials issued a stark warning to traffickers: “We will find you, and we will stop you. https://twitter.com/Sec_Noem/status/2002481990755627050?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2002481990755627050%7Ctwgr%5E0acb5b51ea0ddfb03f7a0e25a375c9245159ce68%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Ft%2Fassets%2Fhtml%2Ftweet-5.html2002481990755627050 https://twitter.com/PeteHegseth/status/2002504193924342003?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2002504193924342003%7Ctwgr%5E1410e2476c70f24b31810862ee2f8e034c77bc3e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Ft%2Fassets%2Fhtml%2Ftweet-5.html2002504193924342003  conduct maritime interdiction operations — through OPERATION SOUTHERN SPEAR — to dismantle illicit criminal networks. Violence, drugs, and chaos will not control the Western Hemisphere. Source: breitbart.com U.S. imposes sanctions on family and associates of Venezuela’s Maduro and his wife The United States on Friday imposed sanctions on family members and associates of Nicolás Maduro and his wife, as Washington ratchets up pressure on the Venezuelan president. The U.S. Treasury Department said in a statement that it had imposed sanctions on seven people it said were tied to Maduro and his wife. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused them of “propping up Nicolás Maduro’s rogue narcostate.” “ Source: cbc.ca War/Peace Zelenskyy Announces Eastern Ukraine Citizens Will Not Be Allowed to Vote in Elections Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has agreed to hold elections if there is a ceasefire.  However, eastern Ukraine citizens, those currently living in the Donbas region, who are supportive of Russia, will not be permitted to vote. This creates a rather bizarre official hypocrisy within the Zelenskyy regime.  The official position of Zelenskyy is that Eastern Ukraine will never be accepted as a part of the Russian federation. Zelenskyy has recently noted, with EU leadership support, that his government will never recognize Eastern Ukraine as part of the Russian federation.  However, this same region, approximately 20% of Ukraine, will not be permitted to participate in his controlled election. Essentially, any Ukraine resident who does not support Zelenskyy will not be permitted to vote in any election, if any election is ever permitted.  Additionally, Zelenskyy notes that “there is the practice of voting abroad,” however, any region not controlled by Zelenskyy cannot submit votes. Source: zerohedge.com A Lie And Propaganda’: Gabbard Fact-Checks Reuters’ Russia Scaremongering In Real Time    Reuters posted an anonymously-sourced story pushing the idea that Russia is bent on reconstituting the Soviet Union. Before the metaphorical ink had dried, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard pounced, condemning the story as “a lie and propaganda” on behalf of “warmongers” seeking to derail President Trump’s drive to end the long and bloody Ukraine war.   Reuters vaguely attributed the purported US intelligence conclusions about Russia to “six sources familiar with US intelligence.”    https://twitter.com/DNIGabbard/status/2002484806978834862?s=20  narrative to block President Trump's peace effort, and fomenting hysteria and fear among the people to get them to support the escalation of war, which is what NATO and the EU really want in order to pull the United States military directly into war with Russia. The truth is the US intelligence community has briefed policymakers, including the Democrat HPSCI member quoted by Reuters, that US Intelligence assesses that Russia seeks to avoid a larger war with NATO. It also assesses that, as the last few years have shown, Russia's battlefield performance indicates it does not currently have the capability to conquer and occupy all of Ukraine, let alone Europe. https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/2002503405156151648?s=20   invade/conquer Europe (in order to gin up support for their pro-war policies). The truth is that ‘US intelligence' assesses that Russia does not even have the capability to conquer and occupy Ukraine, what to speak of ‘invading and occupying' Europe.   Source: zerohedge.com WATCH: US CENTCOM Releases Footage from Operation Hawkeye Strikes Against 70+ ISIS Targets  US Central Command released footage from Operation Hawkeye strikes against ISIS militants and facilities on Friday night. “Tonight, U.S. and Jordanian forces struck 70+ ISIS targets in Syria with 100+ precision munitions. Peace through strength,” CENTCOM said on X. This is one of 10 operations conducted in Syria and Iraq since the December 13 ambush in Syria, which left multiple American service members injured and two soldiers and a civilian interpreter killed. Twenty-three terrorist operatives have been killed or detained, according to CENTCOM. “We will continue to relentlessly pursue terrorists who seek to harm Americans and our partners across the region,” CENTCOM Commander Admiral Brad Cooper said. TAMPA, Fla.- Following the attack on U.S. and partner forces last Saturday, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) commenced Operation Hawkeye Strike at 4 pm ET against ISIS in Syria, Dec. 19, at the Commander in Chief's direction. Source: thegatewaypundit.com   of Syria, led by a man who is working very hard to bring Greatness back to Syria, and is fully in support. All terrorists who are evil enough to attack Americans are hereby warned — YOU WILL BE HIT HARDER THAN YOU HAVE EVER BEEN HIT BEFORE IF YOU, IN ANY WAY, ATTACK OR THREATEN THE U.S.A. DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Medical/False Flags [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2002717078722052256?s=20  reclassify serious crimes as less severe “intermediate offenses” that are not publicly reported. https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/2002421989886075083?s=20 BREAKING: HUD Sec. Scott Turner CONFIRMS major investigation into Boston for anti-white public housing discrimination“They were using discriminatory housing policies in their city! We found a quote on their website that said they will integrate ‘racial equity at every level of city government.'”“They put race above reality. They put race above merit and need. Our job at HUD is to enforce and uphold the fair housing – and they were evading and encouraging landlords and property owners to evade the Fair Housing Act!”“They have been put on NOTICE. We uphold and enforce this law.” https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2002091915819253766?s=20  weaponized against Minnesota!” GOOD. IT’S CALLED ACCOUNTABILITY, TIM. “They’re threatening us with this. And this is what happens when you have a floundering presidency, and it is about those ballrooms and everything else. Now we’re back on transgender folks. And these are healthcare providers providing the best guidance to parents and children to get their care.” “It’s on every front! It’s CDLs, it’s transportation money, it’s money across the board that they have weaponized!” He should be worried. https://twitter.com/AAGDhillon/status/2002596210620969230?s=20 https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/2002531244131991931?s=20 https://twitter.com/cb_doge/status/2001646253655097726?s=20 https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2002203857955549464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2002203857955549464%7Ctwgr%5E7d1378774cdcbdfe43552d1c5b5ef213bd4f721f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Ft%2Fassets%2Fhtml%2Ftweet-5.html2002203857955549464 President Trump's Plan Democrats Have Devised a Plan to Compete With Turning Point USA for Young Voters and it's Going to be a Disaster Democrats have decided that they need to have their own version of Turning Point USA in order to appeal to young voters and what they have come up with is the most Democrat thing ever. It's going to be a total disaster. It's called the ‘DNC National Youth Coordinated Table'. It's not a grassroots group, it's completely fabricated. And you can just imagine how meetings of this group are going to go, with mini-groups within the group fighting for dominance and power. Newsweek reported on this: Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2002577300802711720?s=20 DOJ Appeals Controversial Ruling That Disqualified Trump-Appointed U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, Resulting in the Dismissal of Charges Against Letitia James and James Comey The Department of Justice has formally appealed a controversial ruling that disqualified Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, a decision that directly led to the dismissal of federal charges against James Comey and Letitia James. According to a Notice of Appeal filed on December 19, the Trump-led DOJ is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to overturn a lower-court ruling that declared Halligan's appointment unconstitutional and voided every prosecutorial action she took while in office. Source: thegatewaypundit.com JUST IN: DOJ Wins Motion to Unseal Documents on Investigation into Trump Shooter Thomas Crooks The Department of Justice announced that it successfully moved to unseal documents related to the investigation into would-be Trump assassin Thomas Crooks.  “The Department of Justice received court approval to disclose to Congress documents gathered as part of the FBI's investigation of Thomas Crooks and his attempt to assassinate President Trump,” the Western District of Pennsylvania announced on X. A copy of the motion and order can be found here. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/AAGDhillon/status/2002596363138445539?s=20 Justice Department Sues Four States Including Georgia After Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger Sides With Democrats in Failure to Produce Voter Rolls https://twitter.com/AAGDhillon/status/2001775020566286614?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2001775020566286614%7Ctwgr%5Ee92dad24c2453e3b35c6a465ec1523cafbc35499%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Fjustice-department-sues-four-states-including-georgia-after%2F Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2001992915850260516?s=20 https://twitter.com/MarkPaoletta/status/2002483634251461079?s=20   memorial to President John F. Kennedy and now additionally honors President Donald J. Trump, who has brought America back and saved the Trump-Kennedy Center. The Board's action is permissible under the statute and no legislation is necessary. The Board’s action does nothing to change the statutory title. Instead, the Board has–in line with longstanding Executive Branch practice–designated a new name. For example, The Office of the Federal Chief Information Officer, within the Office of Management & Budget, is designated by statute as the “Office of Electronic Government.” But it's long gone by the name “Office of the Federal Chief Information Officer” in official, public, and internal communications. Similarly, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is designated by statute as the “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.” But since the beginning, the agency has long gone by the name Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or CFPB in all official communications, correspondence with the Hill, titles and signage on its buildings. The “United States Institute of Peace” was established by statute but was renamed by the Department of State as the “Donald J. Trump United States Institute of Peace.” The Department of War was established as the “Department of Defense” by statute in 1947. Earlier this year, President Trump authorized the use of the name “Department of War” and the name is now etched on the Pentagon's building and in official correspondence and public communications. It is entirely fitting for the Board of Trustees to vote to add President Trump to the title so that this Center is now named The Donald J. Trump And The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. President Trump has provided superb leadership at every level to save the Kennedy Center from financial ruin and wokeness, and to bring our national treasure to new heights! Thank you, @kencen Board of Trustees for honoring President Trump. I have been going to the Kennedy Center for decades and have never seen such energy and excitement as I did at the Christmas tree lighting and Noel performance. The Golden Age is here!   AND ORDER. As your next Governor, Bruce will continue to fight hard to Grow the Economy, Cut Taxes, and Regulations, Promote MADE IN THE U.S.A., Champion American Energy DOMINANCE, Strengthen our Military/Veterans, Advance Election Integrity, and Protect our always under siege Second Amendment!   Bruce Blakeman is a FANTASTIC guy, will win the big November Election and, without hesitation, has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Governor of the ONCE GREAT STATE OF NEW YORK (IT CAN BE GREAT AGAIN!). BRUCE BLAKEMAN WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!  (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Civil Rights: May the military categorically exclude HIV-positive citizens from service? - Argued: Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:44:43 EDT

FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund | 12/10/25 | Docket #: 24-345 24-345 FS CREDIT CORP. V. SABA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD. DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 3174971 CERT. GRANTED 6/30/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: The courts of appeals have split 2-1 over whether Congress created an implied private right of action in Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act (ICA), which provides: (1) A contract that is made, or whose performance involves, a violation of this subchapter ... is unenforceable by either party .... (2) To the extent that a contract described in paragraph (1) has been performed, a court may not deny rescission at the instance of any party unless such court finds that under the circumstances the denial of rescission would produce a more equitable result than its grant and would not be inconsistent with the purposes of this subchapter. 15 U.S.C. § 80a-46(b)(1)-(2). The Third and Ninth Circuits, relying on statutory text and structure, hold that Section 47(b) does not create an implied private right of action, and a panel of the Fourth Circuit has agreed in an unpublished opinion. Only the Second Circuit-where plaintiffs may be able to sue most investment funds subject to the ICA, given New York's and the New York Stock Exchange's roles in financial operations- holds the opposite based on an "inference": parties may bring a lawsuit under Section 47(b), even though Congress never said so. The question presented is whether Section 47(b) of the ICA, 15 U.S.C. § 80a-46 (b), creates an implied private right of action. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-8104, 24-79, 24-80, 24-82, 24-83, 24-116, 24-189

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

In Goldey v. Fields, the Court considered whether an implied damages action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents can be extended to cover an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against federal prison officials.The Supreme Court of the United States held that a damages remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents does not extend to allow an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim by a federal prisoner against federal prison officials. Specifically:The Court concluded the claim “arises in a new context,” and that “special factors” counseled against creating or extending a Bivens cause of action in this situation.The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's ruling that the prisoner could proceed under Bivens and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with that determination.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

The defendant, Jeremiah Sweeney, had been convicted by a Maryland jury of second‑degree murder (among other crimes. After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and a state post‑conviction relief effort failed, Sweeney filed a federal habeas petition. He argued that his criminal trial counsel had been constitutionally ineffective. Specifically, his claim was that after one juror (Juror 4) visited the crime scene on his own initiative — and was subsequently dismissed — counsel should have asked to voir dire (i.e. question) the remaining jurors to assess whether any had been tainted by that visit. The lower federal district court denied habeas relief. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered a new trial — even though the theory they relied on (ineffective counsel for not voir‑direing the full jury) was one Sweeney never had raised. Thus, the core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Fourth Circuit acted properly in granting habeas relief — i.e., ordering a new trial — on a claim that was never presented by the defendant, in violation of the “party‑presentation principle.” In a unanimous, per curiam decision issued November 24, 2025, the Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision and remanded the case.  The Court held that the Fourth Circuit “departed dramatically from the principle of party presentation” by granting habeas relief based on a claim that the petitioner never had presented. In other words: courts should not raise new arguments or theories unprompted by the parties. By doing so, the Fourth Circuit abused its discretion. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Intellectual Property: Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that mere knowledge of another's direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)? - Argued: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 11:30:39 EDT

Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment | 12/01/25 | Docket #: 24-171 24-171 COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT DECISION BELOW: 93 F.4th 222 CERT. GRANTED 6/30/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. This Court has held that a business commits contributory copyright infringement when it "distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps to foster infringement." Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster , Ltd ., 545 U.S. 913, 919 (2005). The courts of appeals have split three ways over the scope of that ruling, developing differing standards for when it is appropriate to hold an online service provider secondarily liable for copyright infringement committed by users. Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a service provider can be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it? 2. Generally, a defendant cannot be held liable as a willful violator of the law-and subject to increased penalties-without proof that it knew or recklessly disregarded a high risk that its own conduct was illegal. In conflict with the Eighth Circuit, the Fourth Circuit upheld an instruction allowing the jury to find willfulness if Cox knew its subscribers ' conduct was illegal-without proof Cox knew its own conduct in not terminating them was illegal. Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that mere knowledge of another's direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-1168

Hencely v. Fluor Corp. | 11/03/25 | Docket #: 24-924 24-924 HENCELY V. FLUOR CORP. DECISION BELOW: 120 F.4th 412 CERT. GRANTED 6/2/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Former U.S. Army Specialist Winston T. Hencely was critically and permanently injured by a suicide bomber inside Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. The bomber, Ahmad Nayeb, worked on base for a government contractor. An Army investigation found that the attack's primary contributing factor was the contractor's actions in breach of its Army contract and in violation of the military's instructions to supervise Nayeb. Hencely sued the government contractor for negligence under South Carolina law. He did not sue the military under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Even so, the Fourth Circuit held that Hencely's state claims are preempted by unspoken "federal interests" emanating from an FTCA exception. Invoking Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. , 487 U.S. 500 (1988), the court of appeals held that the FTCA's exception immunizing the government for "[a]ny claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces ... during time of war," 28 U.S.C. §2680(j), barred Hencely's South Carolina claims against the contractor . The decision below reaffirmed a 3-1-1 split among the Second, Third, Fourth, Ninth and D.C. Circuits over Boyle 's reach when contractors defend against state tort claims by invoking §2680(j). The question presented is: Should Boyle be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the FTCA's combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-1994

In Episode 427 of the Immigration Lawyers Toolbox® Podcast, host John Q. Khosravi, Esq. welcomes back Kevin A. Gregg, Esq. for the monthly federal court and BIA decision roundup. Together, they dive into the September 2025 cases shaping U.S. immigration law — from the Fourth Circuit's major ruling redefining “material support” for terrorism, to the impact of Loper Bright on Chevron deference, and what these shifts mean for practitioners handling removal defense, asylum, and appellate work. They also explore key developments in CAT protection, vacated convictions, and the importance of Article I immigration judges in a time of judicial upheaval.

The foundation of our democracy is the Constitution, a system of checks and balances and the rule of law. But today, those cornerstones are being blatantly disrespected by a presidential administration attempting to consolidate power at all costs..In this episode, host Simone Leeper is joined by Campaign Legal Center litigators Anna Baldwin and Brent Ferguson. They examine the most pressing examples of the erosion of the rule of law, from the politicization of the Department of Justice to the stifling of free speech. Along the way, they highlight how Congress and the courts have failed as effective checks — leaving civil society and citizens to defend constitutional principles — and explore the reforms that could restore accountability, protect the rule of law and strengthen democracy against threats. Timestamps:(00:05) — Why is free speech under attack in the U.S.?(03:50) — How is political opposition being falsely linked to political violence?(05:38) — Why is deploying federal troops in U.S. cities a threat to democracy?(09:50) — How are Congress and the courts failing to check presidential abuses of power?(15:09) — How has the DOJ been transformed into a political tool?(20:17) — Why is the Voting Rights Act no longer being enforced?(21:17) — What's at stake with the DOJ's demand for voter data?(27:27) — How is CLC challenging unlawful executive orders?(32:30) — What reforms are needed to restore checks and balances?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Anna Baldwin is a member of Campaign Legal Center's voting rights team working to protect the freedom to vote, litigating cases in state and federal courts, from filing through appeal to the Supreme Court. Prior to joining CLC, Anna spent 14 years in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. In North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, Anna led briefing and appellate argument for the United States to overturn a North Carolina law that purposefully restricted voting and registration opportunities for Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Anna was also a member of the trial team that successfully challenged Texas's racially discriminatory voter ID law. Anna has argued eighteen cases before the federal courts of appeal, including four en banc cases. Previously, Anna was an associate in the Washington D.C. office of Jenner & Block LLP, and clerked for Judge James Robertson on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and for Judge M. Blane Michael on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.Brent Ferguson leads Campaign Legal Center's strategic litigation team, focusing on anti-authoritarianism and litigating in all areas of election law. Brent has worked on protecting and improving our democracy for most of his career. At CLC, he has led litigation teams challenging state and federal laws and policies that seek to unlawfully purge voters, limit voter registration activity and otherwise prevent Americans from exercising their constitutionally protected rights. He has authored academic articles on election law and other constitutional issues in the Washington Law Review, the Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, the Emory Law Journal Online and elsewhere. Before coming to CLC, Brent was senior counsel at the National Redistricting Foundation, where he helped develop strategy for federal and state redistricting litigation. For four years, he served as counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, focusing on campaign finance reform and working on a broad range of other democracy issues. He was also an assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney's office, where he litigated appeals of public corruption convictions. He clerked for Judge Michael Chagares of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Judge Jeffrey Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.Links:Taking Action Against Presidential Abuses of Power | Campaign Legal CenterAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Free Speech: May the Trump Administration condition grants on whether a school has a DEI policy? - Argued: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 16:20:10 EDT

In the Public Interest is excited to present its third annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the United States Supreme Court. In this episode, host Felicia Ellsworth is joined by WilmerHale Counsel Joey Meyer to discuss Mahmoud v. Taylor, which concerns the constitutional rights of parents who send their children to public school to opt their children out of lessons that may be at odds with their religious beliefs. WilmerHale represented the appellee in the decision.Together, Meyer and Ellsworth cover the background of the case and the implications of the Court's ruling on issues like parental rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and religious freedoms. Meyer also shares additional context from his experience as one of the WilmerHale lawyers who helped secure a victory for the public schools in the Fourth Circuit before going on to help represent them before the Supreme Court.

Trumps court wins keep piling up, just as soon as he clears the pathetically weak barriers raised by the feckless, unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior federal district court judges infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome and thrashing wildly as they continue to fail in their efforts to prevent Trump from saving our great nation.In this most recent court of appeals win for Trump, a three-judge panel out of the Fourth Circuit voted 2-1 to permanently stop a lower court oreder preventing DOGE teams from accessing government data.  If left in place this lower court order would have kneecapped the ability of DOGE to prevent billions of dollars from being stolen by the Progressive Left through waste, fraud, and abuse.Of particular interest in this decision, however, is the interesting approach the appellate court took to determining that the anti-DOGE forces had virtually zero chance of winning on the legal merits, and therefore the lower court ordering a stay was an outright abuse of discretion by that unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior district trial court judge that the appellate court was legally bound to reverse.If this analysis were applied generally, it would implode every single lower court TRO and injunction that has been brought, is being brought, or would be brought against the Trump administration. The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

Attorney Elliott Harding joins Cam to discuss the Fourth Circuit's decision upholding the federal gun law preventing his clients from purchasing a handgun at a gun store because they're adults younger than 21; a decision that Harding says will soon be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorney Elliott Harding joins Cam to discuss the Fourth Circuit's decision upholding the federal gun law preventing his clients from purchasing a handgun at a gun store because they're adults younger than 21; a decision that Harding says will soon be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Summary The conversation covers significant developments in the Second Amendment landscape, including legislative actions, judicial victories, and the role of organizations like the NRA and Women for Gun Rights. The discussion highlights the challenges faced in gun rights advocacy, the importance of political engagement, and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights in the face of opposition. In this conversation, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, the empowerment of women in the firearms community, the resilience of American-made knives, and the importance of legal representation for gun owners. The discussion also touches on the implications of recent rulings from the Fourth Circuit Court regarding gun regulations, the ongoing violence in Chicago, and the political responsibility of leaders in addressing these issues. The conversation emphasizes the need for unity and action within the gun rights community. Takeaways The Second Amendment landscape is constantly evolving with new legislative actions. The Senate parliamentarian plays a crucial role in shaping gun legislation outcomes. Judicial victories, such as the Ninth Circuit's ruling, are significant for gun rights advocates. The NRA's legislative action is vital in the fight for gun rights. Women for Gun Rights is actively engaging in political advocacy in D.C. Building relationships with lawmakers is essential for effective advocacy. The fight for gun rights is a long-term commitment that requires persistence. Engaging with both sides of the political spectrum can lead to productive conversations. Grassroots movements are crucial in influencing public policy. The importance of education and awareness in changing perceptions about gun rights. Women are making significant strides in advocating for gun rights. American-made knives are known for their durability and reliability. The legacy of historical figures like George Washington can be honored through craftsmanship. Legal representation is crucial for gun owners in self-defense situations. The Fourth Circuit ruling highlights the ongoing debate over gun regulations. Chicago's violence is a reflection of political leadership and policy failures. The importance of community support for organizations fighting for gun rights. The gun industry is thriving despite political challenges. Empowerment and education are key in the fight for gun rights. The chaos in urban areas often serves political agendas. Keywords Second Amendment, gun rights, NRA, legislation, parliamentarian, judicial wins, Women for Gun Rights, gun control, legislative action, political advocacy, gun rights, women empowerment, American knives, legal representation, Fourth Circuit ruling, Chicago violence, political responsibility, NRA, self-defense, firearms  

Summary The conversation covers significant developments in the Second Amendment landscape, including legislative actions, judicial victories, and the role of organizations like the NRA and Women for Gun Rights. The discussion highlights the challenges faced in gun rights advocacy, the importance of political engagement, and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights in the face of opposition. In this conversation, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, the empowerment of women in the firearms community, the resilience of American-made knives, and the importance of legal representation for gun owners. The discussion also touches on the implications of recent rulings from the Fourth Circuit Court regarding gun regulations, the ongoing violence in Chicago, and the political responsibility of leaders in addressing these issues. The conversation emphasizes the need for unity and action within the gun rights community. Takeaways The Second Amendment landscape is constantly evolving with new legislative actions. The Senate parliamentarian plays a crucial role in shaping gun legislation outcomes. Judicial victories, such as the Ninth Circuit's ruling, are significant for gun rights advocates. The NRA's legislative action is vital in the fight for gun rights. Women for Gun Rights is actively engaging in political advocacy in D.C. Building relationships with lawmakers is essential for effective advocacy. The fight for gun rights is a long-term commitment that requires persistence. Engaging with both sides of the political spectrum can lead to productive conversations. Grassroots movements are crucial in influencing public policy. The importance of education and awareness in changing perceptions about gun rights. Women are making significant strides in advocating for gun rights. American-made knives are known for their durability and reliability. The legacy of historical figures like George Washington can be honored through craftsmanship. Legal representation is crucial for gun owners in self-defense situations. The Fourth Circuit ruling highlights the ongoing debate over gun regulations. Chicago's violence is a reflection of political leadership and policy failures. The importance of community support for organizations fighting for gun rights. The gun industry is thriving despite political challenges. Empowerment and education are key in the fight for gun rights. The chaos in urban areas often serves political agendas. Keywords Second Amendment, gun rights, NRA, legislation, parliamentarian, judicial wins, Women for Gun Rights, gun control, legislative action, political advocacy, gun rights, women empowerment, American knives, legal representation, Fourth Circuit ruling, Chicago violence, political responsibility, NRA, self-defense, firearms  

Summary The conversation covers significant developments in the Second Amendment landscape, including legislative actions, judicial victories, and the role of organizations like the NRA and Women for Gun Rights. The discussion highlights the challenges faced in gun rights advocacy, the importance of political engagement, and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights in the face of opposition. In this conversation, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, the empowerment of women in the firearms community, the resilience of American-made knives, and the importance of legal representation for gun owners. The discussion also touches on the implications of recent rulings from the Fourth Circuit Court regarding gun regulations, the ongoing violence in Chicago, and the political responsibility of leaders in addressing these issues. The conversation emphasizes the need for unity and action within the gun rights community. Takeaways The Second Amendment landscape is constantly evolving with new legislative actions. The Senate parliamentarian plays a crucial role in shaping gun legislation outcomes. Judicial victories, such as the Ninth Circuit's ruling, are significant for gun rights advocates. The NRA's legislative action is vital in the fight for gun rights. Women for Gun Rights is actively engaging in political advocacy in D.C. Building relationships with lawmakers is essential for effective advocacy. The fight for gun rights is a long-term commitment that requires persistence. Engaging with both sides of the political spectrum can lead to productive conversations. Grassroots movements are crucial in influencing public policy. The importance of education and awareness in changing perceptions about gun rights. Women are making significant strides in advocating for gun rights. American-made knives are known for their durability and reliability. The legacy of historical figures like George Washington can be honored through craftsmanship. Legal representation is crucial for gun owners in self-defense situations. The Fourth Circuit ruling highlights the ongoing debate over gun regulations. Chicago's violence is a reflection of political leadership and policy failures. The importance of community support for organizations fighting for gun rights. The gun industry is thriving despite political challenges. Empowerment and education are key in the fight for gun rights. The chaos in urban areas often serves political agendas. Keywords Second Amendment, gun rights, NRA, legislation, parliamentarian, judicial wins, Women for Gun Rights, gun control, legislative action, political advocacy, gun rights, women empowerment, American knives, legal representation, Fourth Circuit ruling, Chicago violence, political responsibility, NRA, self-defense, firearms  

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