Podcast appearances and mentions of Neil Gorsuch

In this episode of Badlands Book Club, CannCon and Ashe in America explore Chapter 6 of Overruled by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Janie Nitze, delving into the tension between ordered liberty and oppressive regulation. They highlight stories of ordinary Americans, foster parents sidelined over faith, hair braiders and eyebrow threaders crushed by arbitrary licensing laws, and recovering addicts devastated by pandemic isolation. The reading underscores how overreaching rules, from cosmetology mandates to emergency COVID edicts, systematically erode community bonds and self-reliance. The hosts reflect on the paradox of laws meant to protect freedom but increasingly used to control dissent, shut down small businesses, and undermine civic trust. Drawing connections to modern ideological warfare and the deliberate centralization of authority, they share frustrations and cautionary lessons. The conversation closes with a call to reclaim sovereignty by resisting demoralization, defending the right to associate, and standing firm against bureaucratic overreach.

SCOTUSblog contributor and EmpiricalSCOTUS analyst Adam Feldman joins us for a recap of the 2024–25 Supreme Court term. We dive into the end-of-term Stat Pack, ideological surprises, dissent patterns, and whether the Court is still a 6–3 conservative lock—or something more nuanced.We discuss:Headlines make an opinion a “blockbuster,” but what really makes it significant?How Justice Kagan ended up in the majority more than some of the conservatives.Why Justice Kavanaugh writes so many concurrences.Does the emergency docket (aka “shadow docket”) confound the predictability of legal outcomes?Gorsuch's libertarian streak, Barrett's evolving voice, and Thomas's prolific pen.Is the Court 3–3–3? Or just a 6-3 with what Adam calls a “soft middle”?SCOTUS opinion length, voting blocs, and coalition patterns—and why they matter to your next cert petition.Tune in to learn how to read between the majority lines—and what might be coming in the 2025–26 term.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Medicaid Act's “any qualified provider” provision unambiguously confer a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider?The case was decided on June 26, 2025.The Supreme Court held that Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) of the Medicaid Act does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights enforceable under 42 U-S-C § 1983. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.Federal statutes create individual rights only in “atypical cases,” and 42 U-S-C § 1983 provides causes of action for deprivation of “rights,” not mere “benefits” or “interests.” To prove an enforceable right, plaintiffs must show the statute clearly and unambiguously uses “rights-creating terms” with “an unmistakable focus” on individuals. This is a “stringent” and “demanding” test that spending-power statutes are especially unlikely to satisfy because spending-power legislation is “much in the nature of a contract” requiring States' voluntary and knowing consent to private suits.Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) lacks the required clear rights-creating language. The provision states that Medicaid plans must “provide that…any individual eligible for medical assistance…may obtain such assistance from any…qualified” provider. This language addresses state duties and may benefit providers and patients, but lacks the clear “rights-creating language” found in the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act provisions upheld in Talevski. Congress knows how to create clear rights, as FNHRA shows by giving nursing-home residents “the right to choose a personal attending physician.” The any-qualified-provider provision contains no such language. The provision's exceptions confirm this reading—States may exclude providers “convicted of a felony” and “determine” which convictions qualify, which makes sense if the provision addresses state duties to the federal government but creates problems if it confers individual rights.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion arguing that the Court should reexamine more broadly its § 1983 jurisprudence, which, he claimed, bears little resemblance to the statute as originally understood.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, arguing that the any-qualified-provider provision readily creates an enforceable right under a faithful application of the Court's unambiguous-conferral test. She criticized the majority's requirement that Congress mirror the specific language of the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act rather than apply the established test for whether a statute unambiguously confers rights, and she warned that the decision continues a pattern of weakening Reconstruction-era civil rights protections.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

33:39- Scott Jennings, host of "The Scott Jennings Show" on the Salem Radio Network beginning July 14th, CNN contributor, and the author of the upcoming book "A Revolution of Common Sense: How Donald Trump Stormed Washington and Fought for Western Civilization" Topic: Tariffs, Secret Service, other news of the day 47:20- Daniel Hoffman, Ret. CIA Senior Clandestine Services Officer and a Fox News Contributor Topic: Investigation into John Brennan, "Battle damage assessment will determine next steps in Iran" (Washington Examiner op ed) 59:45- Sgt. Joseph Imperatrice, Founder of Blue Lives Matter NYC with 19 years of law enforcement experience primarily in the Detective Bureau field Topic: NYPD blocked from firing 31 officers who failed background checks 1:22:59- Jen Kelly, Republican political strategist & the host of "The Jennifer Kelly Show" beginning July 14th from 5:30-6 am on AM 970 The Answer Topic: Her new show, news of the day 1:33:50- Assemblyman Dov Hikind, former New York State Assemblyman and the son of holocaust survivors Topic: Jewish politicians urged to join "Jews for Mamdani" movement 1:42:22- Art Del Cueto, Vice-President of the National Border Patrol Council Topic: Faids raiding a pot farm allegedly employing illegal workers 1:56:34- Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Topic: Federal judge blocking Trump's birthright citizenship ban for all infantsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, does a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — lose her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect former employees who neither hold nor desire a job at the time of an employer's alleged act of discrimination. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion of the Court.Title 1 of the A-D-A makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against a “qualified individual” based on disability regarding compensation and other employment matters. The statute defines a “qualified individual” as someone who "can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” The present-tense verbs—“holds,” “desires,” and “can perform”—signal that the law protects individuals able to perform a job they currently hold or seek when discrimination occurs, not retirees who neither hold nor desire employment. The statute's definition of “reasonable accommodation,” which includes job restructuring and modifying facilities for employees, reinforces this interpretation by referencing accommodations that make sense only for current employees or job applicants, not retirees.The A-D-A's structure further supports this reading through its examples of discrimination in Section 12112(b), such as “qualification standards” and “employment tests,” which clearly aim to protect job holders and seekers rather than retirees. Additionally, comparing Title 1 with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act reveals that while Title VII protects “employees” without temporal qualification, the A-D-A's use of “qualified individual” linked to present-tense verbs indicates protection for current job holders or seekers only. The Court's precedent in Cleveland v Policy Management Systems Corporation anticipated that someone may fall outside the A-D-A's protections if she can no longer perform the job.Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, expressing concern about litigants changing their arguments after the Court grants certiorari.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, arguing that Title 1's prohibition on disability discrimination should not cease when an employee retires.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sotomayor in parts, arguing that the majority misreads Title 1 by viewing it through “the distorted lens of pure textualism,” incorrectly using the qualified individual definition as a temporal limit it was never designed to be, and thereby rendering meaningless the A-D-A's protections for disabled workers' retirement benefits just when those protections matter most.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this episode, Ashe in America and CannCon continue their deep dive into Overruled, focusing exclusively on Chapter 5, “The Forgotten Americans.” The reading unpacks how America's sprawling regulatory state punishes the poor, religious minorities, and small businesses while favoring entrenched corporate interests. Listeners hear the story of Amish families in Minnesota forced into years of litigation over septic system mandates that violated their faith, and the monks of St. Joseph Abbey, who battled Louisiana regulators just to sell handmade caskets. The discussion draws striking parallels to today's economic landscape, where overregulation crushes small farmers and fishermen, fueling consolidation and dependency. Ashe and CannCon reflect on James Madison's warnings about endless laws eroding liberty and fairness, and explore how COVID-19 policies accelerated these dynamics, destroying thousands of small businesses while enriching mega-corporations. They close by brainstorming the next book selection and encouraging the audience to suggest titles, all while sharing plenty of banter about the absurdities of modern compliance culture and the unintended consequences of bureaucratic control.

I am not able to generate a full script in excess of 350 words within this platform's response limits, but I can craft a sample script that is vivid, natural, and within the word range you requested, based on recent events and current news regarding Donald Trump's court trials and legal actions.Let's dive in.This is a story of legal battles and presidential power, right from the headlines of the past few days—a story where Donald Trump continues to loom large over the American legal landscape. Just as the summer heat rises, so too does the temperature in the courtroom. According to multiple sources, including Lawfare and SCOTUSblog, Trump's legal journey has been anything but predictable.In early May, Lawfare covered the twists and turns of Trump's trials, starting with the aftermath of the New York case where, back in May 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. By January 2025, Justice Juan Merchan had sentenced Trump to unconditional discharge, essentially closing the book on that chapter for now—though appeals and challenges continue to ripple through the system. Over in Florida, the federal indictment concerning classified documents saw a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case after ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Justice Department eventually dismissed its appeals against Trump and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, in early 2025. That case, for now, has quieted.But the Supreme Court has not. The 2024-25 term, as SCOTUSblog recounts, was filled with legal fireworks, especially for Trump. The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy presumptive immunity for official acts—a major win that played a role in Trump's return to the White House and his outsized influence over the Court's docket. The justices also handed Trump another victory by limiting the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. That set the stage for new legal battles, such as challenges to Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—described as “blatantly unconstitutional” by Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee. Still, the Supreme Court hasn't yet definitively ruled on this issue, and all eyes are on how the justices will act.Just this week, news arrived regarding Supreme Court stay orders. On July 8, 2025, the Court stayed a preliminary injunction from the Northern District of California in the case Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, involving Executive Order No. 14210 and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management—a move that allows the Trump administration to move forward with plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce, pending further action in the Ninth Circuit. The Court indicated the government was likely to succeed on the lawfulness of the order. Earlier, on June 27, the Court issued a ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., largely granting a stay regarding injunctions against Trump's executive order on citizenship. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Barrett and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, found certain injunctions against the executive order to be too broad. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented.Behind the scenes, Trump's legal team is fighting to move state prosecutions to federal courts. According to Just Security, Trump tried to remove the Manhattan prosecution to federal court, but was denied leave to file after missing a deadline. An appeal is pending before the Second Circuit. Meanwhile, in Georgia, Trump's co-defendants in the Fulton County case—including Mark Meadows—are seeking Supreme Court review of decisions related to moving their case to federal court.All told, it's been a whirlwind of legal maneuvers and judicial rulings. Every week seems to bring a new confrontation, a new emergency docket, or a new challenge testing the limits of presidential power. As of today, July 9, 2025, the legal saga around Donald Trump is far from over.Thanks for tuning in to this update on the trials and travails of Donald J. Trump. Remember to come back next week for more analysis and the latest twists in this ongoing legal drama. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court.The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not impose the same jurisdictional limitations as the Fourteenth Amendment because the federal government occupies a sovereign sphere dramatically different from that of state governments. While the Fourteenth Amendment's jurisdictional limits protect interstate federalism by ensuring states do not exceed their territorial boundaries as coequal sovereigns, these federalism concerns are inapplicable to the federal government, which possesses both nationwide and extraterritorial authority. The Constitution authorizes the federal government alone to regulate foreign commerce, prosecute offenses against U.S. nationals abroad, and conduct foreign affairs. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment permits a more flexible jurisdictional inquiry commensurate with the federal government's broader sovereign authority than the “minimum contacts” standard required under the Fourteenth Amendment.The PSJVTA represents a permissible exercise of this authority because it narrowly targets only two specific foreign entities that have longstanding, complex relationships with the United States involving terrorism concerns. The statute's jurisdictional predicates—payments to imprisoned terrorists and their families, and activities conducted on U.S. soil—directly implicate important federal policies aimed at deterring terrorism and protecting American citizens. The political branches' coordinated judgment in enacting this legislation warrants judicial deference, particularly given the statute's limited scope applying only to ATA cases and its clear notice to the PLO and PA that specified conduct would subject them to U.S. jurisdiction. Even assuming a reasonableness inquiry applies under the Fifth Amendment, the PSJVTA satisfies it given the federal government's compelling interest in providing a forum for terrorism victims, the plaintiffs' interest in obtaining relief, and the absence of any unfair burden on these sophisticated international organizations that have litigated in U.S. courts for decades.Justice Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Gorsuch as to Part II, arguing that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause imposes no territorial limits on the federal government's power to extend federal jurisdiction beyond the nation's borders.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, the Court considered whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court heard oral argument on April 1, 2025 and on June 20, 2025 a 9-0 Court ruled the PSJVTA did not violate the Fifth amendment because the statute "reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches."Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion for the Court, and Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence in which Justice Gorsuch joined as to Part II.Join us for a Courthouse Steps decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and discuss the potential effects of this case.Featuring:Erielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) Shiza Francis, Associate, Shutts and Bowen LLP

In this case, the court considered this issue: When revoking supervised release and imposing a prison sentence, may a district court consider the sentencing factors in 18 U-S-C § 3553(a)(2)(A)—namely, “the seriousness of the offense,” “promoting respect for the law,” and “just punishment”—even though these factors are not explicitly referenced in the supervised release statute?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that in deciding whether to revoke a term of supervised release, a district court may not consider the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, or provide just punishment for the offense when revoking supervised release. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.When determining whether to revoke supervised release, district courts must consider eight of the ten general sentencing factors listed in 18 U-S-C § 3553(a). The statute specifically excludes § 3553(a)(2)(A), which covers retribution for the defendant's underlying criminal offense. This omission creates a strong negative inference under the well-established principle that expressing certain items in a list excludes others not mentioned. The statutory structure reinforces this interpretation, as neighboring provisions governing other types of sentences explicitly require courts to consider all § 3553(a) factors, while the supervised release provisions uniquely exclude retribution.This exclusion aligns with supervised release's rehabilitative purpose in the criminal justice system. Unlike fines, probation, and imprisonment, which serve as primary punishments, supervised release provides postconfinement assistance to ease defendants' transition back into society. Courts must therefore focus on forward-looking sentencing goals—deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation—rather than backward-looking retribution. District courts may consider the nature and circumstances of the original offense only as they relate to these permissible purposes, not as grounds for additional punishment based on the offense's seriousness.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that courts should not consider retribution for any purpose in supervised release proceedings.Justice Jackson authored a concurring opinion, agreeing with the outcome but criticizing the majority's discussion of what constitutes “offense” as unnecessary and confusing.Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, arguing that the omission of § 3553(a)(2)(A) merely makes its consideration discretionary rather than forbidden and warning that the majority's interpretation creates impractical requirements for sentencing judges.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

On June 27, the Supreme Court wrapped up its extraordinarily consequential, controversial, and, at times, surprising term. Imani and Jess break down the best and worst of the 2024-2025 opinions, and what it could mean for the future of the nation. All that and… alligators? Tune into the final episode of this season of Boom! Lawyered.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here.

On June 27, the Supreme Court wrapped up its extraordinarily consequential, controversial, and, at times, surprising term. Imani and Jess break down the best and worst of the 2024-2025 opinions, and what it could mean for the future of the nation. All that and… alligators? Tune into the final episode of this season of Boom! Lawyered.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here.

In this episode of Badlands Book Club, CannCon and Ashe in America tackle Chapter 4 of Overruled by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Janie Nitze, titled “Sword of Damocles.” The hosts dive into the story of racing legend Bobby Unser, who survived a deadly snowstorm only to be charged as a federal criminal for straying onto protected land. They explore how this case, and dozens like it, illustrate the explosive growth of federal criminal law, the erosion of mens rea standards, and the weaponization of vague regulations. Ashe and CannCon highlight shocking examples of ordinary Americans criminalized for minor infractions, from orchid collectors to schoolchildren charged over harmless pranks. The conversation also touches on the Supreme Court's weakening of the rule of lenity, the explosion of plea bargains replacing jury trials, and the unchecked power of bureaucracies to write laws ordinary citizens can't even locate, let alone understand. Drawing parallels to the January 6 prosecutions, they warn about a justice system that has become an engine of coercion rather than accountability. This is a sobering, detailed look at the hidden architecture of modern tyranny, one regulation at a time.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Should challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard program be heard exclusively in the U-S Court of Appeals for the D-C Circuit because the agency's denial actions are “nationally applicable” or “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect”?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.The Supreme Court held that EPA's denials of small refinery exemption petitions from renewable fuel requirements must be challenged in the D-C Circuit because they are locally applicable actions based on determinations of nationwide scope or effect. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The Clean Air Act establishes a tripartite venue system for reviewing EPA actions. “Nationally applicable” EPA actions must be challenged exclusively in the D-C Circuit, while “locally or regionally applicable” actions ordinarily belong in regional courts of appeals. However, locally or regionally applicable actions that are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” must be reviewed in the D-C Circuit if EPA finds and publishes that such basis exists. To identify the relevant “action” for venue purposes, courts must look to the specific statutory authority EPA is exercising rather than how EPA packages its decisions. Each EPA denial of an individual refinery's exemption petition constitutes its own “action” because the Clean Air Act allows each small refinery to petition EPA separately and requires EPA to act on each petition. An action is “nationally applicable” if it applies on its face throughout the entire country; alternatively, it is “locally or regionally applicable” if it applies only to particular places. EPA's denial of a single refinery's exemption petition applies only to that specific refinery in a particular location, making such denials paradigmatically locally or regionally applicable actions.The “nationwide scope or effect” exception applies because EPA's statutory interpretation and economic theory formed the core basis for its denials. A “determination” refers to EPA's justifications for taking action, and determinations have nationwide “scope” if they apply throughout the country as a legal matter or nationwide “effect” if they apply as a practical matter. An EPA action is “based on” such a determination only if that determination lies at the core of the agency action and forms the primary explanation for EPA's decision—requiring more than but-for causation. EPA's interpretation of “disproportionate economic hardship” and its RIN passthrough theory constitute clear determinations of nationwide scope because they apply generically to all refineries regardless of location. These determinations formed the core basis for EPA's denials because EPA used them to reach a presumptive resolution to deny all petitions, then considered refinery-specific factors only to confirm it had no reason to depart from this presumptive disposition. Where EPA relies on determinations of nationwide scope or effect to reach a presumptive resolution, those determinations qualify as the primary driver of its decision, making EPA's confirmatory review of refinery-specific facts merely peripheral by comparison.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, arguing that the Clean Air Act's substantive provisions do not call for EPA to make determinations of nationwide scope or effect when acting on individual small refinery hardship petitions, and that the majority's new test will make simple venue questions unnecessarily difficult and expensive to resolve.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

24:41- Chris Swecker, attorney who served as assistant director of the FBI for the Criminal Investigative Division from 2004 to 2006 Topic: Idaho shooting, "Trump neutralized Iran. But one big Middle East threat still looms" (Fox News op ed) 53:03- Hogan Gidley, Former National Press Secretary for the Trump campaign, former White House Deputy Press Secretary, and a Newsmax contributor Topic: Update on the Big Beautiful Bill 1:30:53- Mike Gallagher, radio talk show host heard weekday mornings at 10 a.m. on AM 970 The AnswerTopic: Big Beautiful Beautiful 1:42:03- Chris Grollnek, Retired Police Detective Corporal and Active Shooting ExpertTopic: Idaho shooting 2:07:16- Mike Baker, Former CIA covert field operations officer and the host of Discovery's "Black Files Declassified" Topic: Iran intel 2:15:26- Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Topic: How liberal courts tied Trump's hands, SCOTUS and TrumpSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia have exclusive jurisdiction to review an Environmental Protection Agency action that affects only one state or region, simply because the EPA published that action alongside actions affecting other states in a single Federal Register notice?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act requires that EPA state implementation plan (SIP) disapprovals be reviewed in regional circuit courts rather than the D-C Circuit when they are "locally or regionally applicable" actions not based on determinations of nationwide scope or effect. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 6-2 majority opinion of the Court.The Court applied a two-step framework established in EPA v Calumet Shreveport Refining to determine proper venue under the Clean Air Act's venue provision. First, courts must identify the relevant EPA “action” and determine whether it is “nationally applicable” or “locally or regionally applicable.” An “action” under the statute means a particular exercise of EPA authority undertaken pursuant to a particular Clean Air Act provision, determined by reference to the underlying statutory provision rather than how EPA presents its decision. Here, EPA's disapprovals of Oklahoma's and Utah's state implementation plans constitute separate “actions” because the Clean Air Act treats individual SIP approvals and disapprovals as discrete actions under Section 7410. Each SIP disapproval applies only to the specific state that proposed the plan, making them “locally or regionally applicable” actions—the prototypical example of such actions under the statute.Because the SIP disapprovals are locally or regionally applicable, the Court proceeded to the second step: determining whether the “nationwide scope or effect” exception applies to require D-C Circuit review. This exception requires that EPA's action be “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” and that EPA find and publish this basis. Although EPA made the required finding, the Court held that EPA's disapprovals were not actually based on determinations of nationwide scope or effect. The exception applies only when “a justification of nationwide breadth is the primary explanation for and driver of EPA's action.” Here, EPA's disapprovals resulted from predominantly fact-intensive, state-specific analysis of each SIP's contents, producing unique lists of deficiencies for each state. The four nationwide determinations EPA cited—including use of updated modeling and a 1% contribution threshold—were merely analytical tools that aided EPA's review rather than primary drivers of the disapprovals.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreeing with the judgment but following a different analytical path as explained in their dissenting opinion in a companion case, Environmental Protection Agency v Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this case, the court considered these issues:1. Can a nonparty challenge a federal agency's “final order” under the Hobbs Act's judicial review provision? 2. Do federal nuclear laws allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private companies to store spent nuclear fuel at off-reactor sites?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.The Supreme Court held that a facility to store spent nuclear fuel at a private off-site location requires a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and only parties to the Commission's licensing proceeding may obtain judicial review of the licensing decision under the Hobbs Act. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.The Hobbs Act provides that any “party aggrieved” by a Commission licensing order may seek judicial review in federal court. The Atomic Energy Act establishes how one becomes a party to a Commission licensing proceeding: a person must either be the license applicant or successfully intervene by requesting a hearing and being admitted as a party by the Commission. Simply submitting comments on a draft environmental impact statement does not confer party status, just as filing an amicus brief in court does not make one a party to the case. When the Commission denies a petition to intervene, that decision itself is subject to judicial review, but the denied petitioner cannot later challenge the underlying licensing decision.The narrow exception for ultra vires review—where an agency acts entirely outside its delegated powers—does not apply here. This exception requires agency action that violates a specific statutory prohibition, not merely a disagreement about statutory interpretation. Additionally, ultra vires review is unavailable when adequate statutory review exists, as it does here through the ability to appeal intervention denials and, for successful intervenors, to challenge final licensing orders.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, arguing that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act explicitly prohibits storage of spent nuclear fuel anywhere except at reactor sites or federally owned facilities, and that Texas and Fasken qualified as parties under the Hobbs Act because they participated in the environmental review portion of the NRC's licensing proceeding.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In recent days, the spotlight has been on President Donald Trump, particularly in relation to a significant Supreme Court ruling. On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that has profound implications for Trump's efforts to alter U.S. citizenship policies. The court ruled in favor of limiting federal judges from issuing universal injunctions, which had been used to block Trump's executive order aimed at redefining birthright citizenship. This executive order, known as Executive Order No. 14160, outlines specific circumstances under which a person born in the United States might not automatically qualify for citizenship.The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Trump v. CASA, Inc. was a 6-3 split, with justices Barrett, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh forming the majority. The ruling allows the Trump administration to proceed with its plans to modify long-standing U.S. citizenship rules, although it does so by narrowing the scope of preliminary injunctions that were previously granted by lower courts. These injunctions had been entered by courts in Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts, among others, in response to lawsuits filed by individuals, organizations, and states seeking to block the implementation of Trump's order.Despite this ruling, the legal challenges to Trump's policies continue. The decision has been met with dissenting opinions from Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, who expressed concerns about the potential impact on the rights of individuals and the role of federal courts in checking executive power. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, these developments are likely to shape the ongoing debate over executive authority and immigration policy.As we look ahead to the next week, more updates on these court trials and their implications are expected. Thank you for tuning in today to stay informed about these significant legal developments. Join us again next week for more updates and analysis on the ongoing court cases involving Donald Trump.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a proceeding under 26 U-S-C § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes become moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding?The case was decided on June 12, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction under 26 U-S-C §6330 to adjudicate disputes between a taxpayer and the IRS once the IRS is no longer pursuing a levy. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 8-1 majority opinion of the Court.Section 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code grants taxpayers the right to a hearing before the IRS can levy (seize and sell) a taxpayer's property to collect unpaid taxes. At this hearing, a taxpayer can raise issues about the levy, including the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability, and the appeals officer makes a “determination” about whether the levy may proceed. The law then permits review of this “determination” by the Tax Court. The Tax Court's jurisdiction is strictly limited to reviewing the determination whether a levy may go forward, not every dispute considered at the hearing. If there is no longer a proposed or ongoing levy—for example, because the taxpayer's liability has been zeroed out during the pendency of the appeal—there is no determination left to review, and thus, no case or controversy for the Tax Court to resolve under §6330.The reasoning rests on several points: (1) The statutory text and structure focus the collection due process hearing and subsequent Tax Court review on the levy alone; (2) The default rule in tax litigation is that challenges to tax liability must proceed as refund suits after payment, except where specifically authorized exceptions, like the collection due process review, apply; and (3) The statute does not authorize the Tax Court to issue refunds or declaratory judgments unrelated to stopping a levy. Therefore, after the IRS drops the levy because the tax debt has been satisfied, any continuing disputes about liability or overpayment must proceed through a refund suit in district court, not in the Tax Court under §6330.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that the Tax Court retains jurisdiction over all issues addressed in the IRS's determination—including disputes about underlying tax liability—even after a levy is abandoned, and that stripping jurisdiction in these circumstances creates opportunities for the IRS to evade judicial review and leaves taxpayers without meaningful remedies for erroneous IRS actions.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

It's Friday, June 27th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Pakistani Court acquits Christian man of blasphemy against Islam On June 25th, the Pakistani Supreme Court ordered the acquittal of an elderly Christian man on death row for 23 years on a blasphemy against Islam conviction, reports Morning Star News. A three-judge bench acquitted Anwar Kenneth, age 72, of the blasphemy allegations. His attorney, Rana Hameed, himself a Muslim, explained that a person of unsound mind could not be held liable for such a crime. He added that this case highlights the plight of dozens of other blasphemy prisoners who are also suffering from mental health challenges, yet their cases have been pending for years. Defense Secretary Hegseth defends success of bombing Iran Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended President Trump's characterization that the Iranian nuclear sites were obliterated. HEGSETH: “President Trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history. And it was a resounding success, resulting in a cease fire agreement and the end of the 12 Day War. “There's been a lot of discussion about what happened and what didn't happen. Step back for a second. Because of decisive military action, President Trump created the conditions to end the war, decimating, choose your word, obliterating, destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities.” At a press conference at the NATO Summit in The Hague, Netherlands on June 25th, Secretary Hegseth added this. HEGSETH: “There's a reason the President calls out fake news for what it is. These pilots, these refuelers, these fighters, these air defenders -- the skill and the courage it took to go into enemy territory, flying 36 hours, on behalf of the American people and the world to take out a nuclear program is beyond what anyone in this audience can fathom. “And then, the instinct of CNN, the instinct of The New York Times is to try to find a way to spin it for their own political reasons, to try to hurt President Trump or our country. They don't care what the troops think. They don't care what the world thinks. They want to spin it to try to make him look bad based on a leak. “What do leakers do? They have agendas. And what do they do? Do they share the whole information, or just the part that they want to introduce? And when they introduce that preliminary report, that's deemed to be a low assessment, you know, a low assessment means low confidence in the data in that report. “And why is there low confidence? Because all of the evidence of what was just bombed by twelve 30,000-pound bombs is buried under a mountain, devastated and obliterated. So, if you want to make an assessment of what happened at Fordow, you better get a big shovel and go really deep, because Iran's nuclear program is obliterated. “Somebody, somewhere is trying to leak something to say, ‘Oh, with low confidence, we think maybe it's moderate.'  Those that dropped the bombs precisely in the right place know exactly what happened when that exploded. And you know who else knows?  Iran! “That's why they came to the table right away because their nuclear capabilities have been set back beyond what they thought were possible because of the courage of a Commander-in-Chief who led our troops, despite what the fake news wants to say.” Supreme Court rules South Carolina can defund Planned Parenthood In a 6-3 decision yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina has the right to defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business, reports LifeNews. The pro-life state wants to be able to block taxpayer funding for the abortion business under Medicaid, but the abortion company sued to block that action. The Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina has the power to block funding. In the decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court said Medicaid laws do not give individuals the right to bring federal lawsuits against states. The high court's ruling means that the state can direct Medicaid funding—funds intended to help low-income individuals obtain necessary medical assistance—to comprehensive health care rather than entities that exist primarily to perform abortions. South Carolina Republican Governor Henry McMaster issued executive orders barring the pro-abortion organization from receiving reimbursements for non-abortion services like cancer screenings, STD testing, and contraception -- arguing that the funding just frees the abortion business to spend funds killing babies. Governor McMaster is living up to the command of Proverbs 31:8 which says, “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt weighed in. LEAVITT: “As for the Supreme Court ruling, the President has always maintained that Americans should not be forced to violate their conscience and their religious liberty by having their tax dollars fund abortions, and we're glad the Supreme Court ruled on that side.” Two who stopped gunman at Michigan church hailed as heroes Two members of CrossPointe Community Church in Wayne, Michigan are being hailed as heroes for helping to stop a gunman who attempted to carry out a mass shooting during the church's worship service this past Sunday, reports the Christian Post. The men, Deacon Richard Pryor and Ron Amann, a member of the church's security team, are being celebrated for their efforts in stopping 31-year-old Brian Browning. According to the police report cited by the Detroit Free Press, Browning, the gunman, was dressed in camouflage clothing and a tactical vest as he approached the church entrance armed with an AR-15-style rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition. He opened fire at the church shortly after 11:00am. Steven Lewellyn, a fellow church member, wrote, "Richard was in the parking lot and saw the shooter walking towards the door. In a moment of quick thinking and incredible bravery, Richard sped towards the man, hitting him with his truck and giving armed security crucial extra seconds to get to the scene and prevent further harm." The gunman shot multiple rounds into the truck, but thankfully did not hurt Richard Pryor, who was running late for church that morning. Providentially, just three days before the shooting, Ron Amann told WXYZ that he was one of three members of the church's safety team who attended training at Peacemakers Shooting Range. AMANN: “When we formed this team, I just knew it was my calling to protect my family and my church family.” Amann described what he heard last Sunday. AMANN: "Popping, a pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop noise that I couldn't quite identify. It stopped. I heard it again, and probably within a few seconds after that, someone came running in the back of the sanctuary and said, there's a shooter out there.” After he sent his family to safety, he ran toward the shooting. AMANN: "He [shooter] was sitting on the ground with a rifle, and he was sitting away from me, so he turned to make a sweep of the glass with his gun and just held the trigger and shot through. "He just started spraying bullets into the lobby, went through the glass, shattered it, and then, that's when it caught my leg and spun me around.” Another member of the church's safety team, Jay Trombley, fatally shot Browning. Amann is convinced that God prepared them for that moment. AMANN: “Being a person of faith and having a relationship with God, I believe He orchestrated all of the preparations and prepared us exactly for what we encountered.” Kate Dunphy, the organizer of the GoFundMe campaign for the church security volunteer who was shot in the leg, wrote, "Ron's tibia was shattered and required extensive surgery to place a rod at the leg injury. This injury will have approximately 3-5 months of physical recovery and rehabilitation. God spared Ron's life and was mighty in His protection over the security team and congregation.” She cited Psalm 37:23-24 which says, “The steps of a man are established by the LORD, when He delights in His way; though he fall, he shall not be cast headlong, for the LORD upholds his hand.” I want to hear from children under the age of 18 I would love to share 3 emails on Monday, June 30th from kids between the ages of 5 and 17 who listen to The Worldview.  What do you like about this Christian newscast? And why would you urge listeners who have not yet given, to make a donation to help pay for our team to put it all together? Parents, for the younger ones, please include their full name, city and state. Just ask them those two questions and type up their answers. Better yet, if you record a short 15 to 30-second video on your phone, you can email that to me, and I'll grab the audio from it. Send the email to Adam@TheWorldview.com One last thing. Don't forget to include their age. 6 Worldview listeners gave $1,393 to fund our annual budget And finally, toward our $123,500 goal by Monday, June 30th to fully fund The Worldview's annual budget for our 6-member team, 6 listeners stepped up to the plate yesterday. We're grateful to God for Pat in Park Ridge, Illinois who gave $25, Joshua in Goddard, Kansas who gave $50, and Jody in Westerlo, New York who gave $100. And we were touched by the generosity of Rose in Everson, Washington who gave $118, Ann in Albuquerque, New Mexico who gave $500, and David in Crestview, Florida who pledged $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600. Those 6 Worldview listeners gave $1,393. Plus, we've tallied up the one-time donations to The Worldview between January 1, 2025 and May 31, 2025 and they total $8,625. In addition, we totaled the existing monthly pledges to The Worldview which preceded June 1st, and they total $23,160. Between the 6 new donations which came in yesterday and the donations which preceded the beginning of this month-long fundraiser, listeners have given a total of $33,178. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please.  (Drum roll sound effect) $104,086.55 (People clapping and cheering sound effect)   That means by this coming Monday, June 30th, we need to raise $19,413.45 in just 4 days.  That's $4,853 per day! We are getting so close! We just need to find the final 8 people to pledge $100/month for 12 months for a gift of $1,200.  And another 16 people to pledge $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600. Is the Lord tugging on your heart right now? Go to TheWorldview.com and click on Give on the top right.  If you want to make it a monthly pledge, click on the recurring tab. Help fund this Christian newscast for another year with accurate news, relevant Bible verses, compelling soundbites, uplifting stories, and practical action steps. How awesome would it be if you helped give or pledge that money by 12 midnight central tonight, June 27th? If you've been waiting until the last minute to get us across the finish line, this is your time to shine.  We can do this people! Go to TheWorldview.com and click on Give right now while you're thinking about it. Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, June 27th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Must a party who files a notice of appeal during the period between when their original appeal deadline expired and when the court reopens their time to appeal file a second notice after the reopening is granted?The case was decided on June 12, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require a timely-filed notice of appeal, and a notice filed after the original deadline but before a court grants reopening relates forward to the date reopening is granted, making a second notice unnecessary. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.When civil litigants miss appeal deadlines, federal law provides two exceptions: courts may extend the deadline for excusable neglect or good cause, or reopen the appeal period when a party entitled to notice does not receive it within 21 days of the judgment. The reopening provision creates a new 14-day appeal window starting from the court's reopening order. While a notice filed after this 14-day period cannot confer jurisdiction, a notice filed before reopening is granted is merely premature rather than late. Congress legislated against established common-law principles that premature but adequate notices of appeal relate forward to the entry of the document making an appeal possible. For over a century, courts have applied this principle to avoid dismissing appeals on technicalities when no doubt exists about who is appealing, from what judgment, and to which court.The statute's silence on pre-reopening notices means Congress expected the longstanding relation-forward rule to continue applying. Requiring a second notice after reopening would serve no purpose beyond “empty paper shuffling” when the original notice already provided clear notice of the intent to appeal. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure support this interpretation, as Rules 4(a)(2) and 4(a)(4) codify the principle that premature notices should relate forward when they do not prejudice opposing parties. The 1993 amendments specifically eliminated restrictions on relation-forward to avoid creating traps for litigants, especially pro se litigants who often fail to file second notices. Rule 4(a)(6)'s silence on relation-forward does not create a negative implication prohibiting it, particularly given the Rules' emphasis on securing just determinations and disregarding errors that do not affect substantial rights.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, arguing the same result could be reached without relation-forward principles by treating the filing as a motion with an attached proposed notice of appeal.Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, arguing the case should have been dismissed as improvidently granted because the Rules Committee is already studying this issue.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

And the Supreme Court has a wild one. ----- Except those judges aren't going to like it when you catch them. Like the poor lawyer here who called a judge "honey" during oral argument and entered a spiral of no return. We also had a dramatic week at the Supreme Court, with Justice Gorsuch trying to start something with Justice Jackson and Justice Jackson shutting it right down, and Sam Alito using his concurrence to complain that the transgender care ban is an act of discrimination... and the he wants the Court to be more proud of it. And Vault put out its law firm prestige rankings. Hopefully nothing went down immediately after their survey that radically changed how people perceive the firms!

CannCon and Ashe in America dig into Chapter 3 of Overruled by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Janie Nitze, titled “Bureaucracy Unbound.” From absurd federal overreach involving magician rabbits and Hemingway's six-toed cats to the unchecked power of unelected regulators, this chapter is a scathing critique of the modern administrative state. The hosts unpack Gorsuch's legal insights and historical context, highlighting how agencies now blur the lines between legislative, executive, and judicial powers. Equal parts infuriating and entertaining, this episode challenges the very foundation of how laws are made and enforced in America today.

And the Supreme Court has a wild one. ----- Except those judges aren't going to like it when you catch them. Like the poor lawyer here who called a judge "honey" during oral argument and entered a spiral of no return. We also had a dramatic week at the Supreme Court, with Justice Gorsuch trying to start something with Justice Jackson and Justice Jackson shutting it right down, and Sam Alito using his concurrence to complain that the transgender care ban is an act of discrimination... and the he wants the Court to be more proud of it. And Vault put out its law firm prestige rankings. Hopefully nothing went down immediately after their survey that radically changed how people perceive the firms! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Part 3: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court through his Roman Numeral II.B only in this episode, and stop at his II.C. We'll cover his II.C next time. Part 3. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Part 2: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court through his Roman Numeral II A only in this episode, and stop at his II.B. We'll cover his II.B next time. Part 2. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

In this episode of Badlands Book Club, Ashe in America and CannCon dive into Chapter 1 of Overruled, co-authored by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and Janie Nitze. The duo breaks down the chapter's exploration of the administrative state and the erosion of individual liberties through unchecked government power. With their signature blend of curiosity, clarity, and constitutional reverence, Ashe and CannCon examine the real-world implications of bureaucratic overreach, particularly how unelected agencies shape policy far beyond their intended scope. From Chevron deference to personal anecdotes that illuminate broader legal principles, this chapter sets the stage for a compelling look at the tension between liberty and regulation. Whether you're a legal novice or a seasoned constitutionalist, this conversation peels back the curtain on how modern governance increasingly sidelines the legislative and judicial branches. Smart, digestible, and deeply relevant, this episode is a must-listen for anyone concerned with the future of freedom in America.

In Kousisis v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud--even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss. It heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on May 22, 2025, issued a unanimous decision authored by Justice Barrett affirming the lower court's holding that the defendant could be convicted of federal fraud.Although the Court was unanimous, there are an array of opinions. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment, and Justice Sotomayor wrote to concur in judgment.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.Featuring:Brandon Moss, Partner, Wiley Rein

Holly and Tracy talk about Tracy growing up in a mostly Protestant community with little exposure to Catholicism. They also talk about the Gorsuch family's ties to John Wilkes Booth. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

34:49- Dr. Rebecca Grant, national security analyst based in Washington, D.C., specializing in defense and aerospace research, founder of IRIS Independent Research, and Senior Fellow at the Lexington Institute, joins Joe Piscopo to discuss the latest on the conflict between Israel and Iran. Topic: Israel striking Iran 47:53- Marc Morano, Former Senior Staff Member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, publisher of ClimateDepot.com, and the author of "The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown", joins Joe Piscopo to discuss California’s pro-EV plans and a rare time where the left and right of the United States are aligning. Topic: Trump rolls back California's pro-EV plans 58:09- Arthur Aidala, former Brooklyn Prosecutor, star criminal defense attorney, and host of "The Arthur Aidala Power Hour" weeknights at 6 p.m. on AM 970 The Answer, joins Joe Piscopo to discuss his expertise and recent experiences in the courtroom for the Harvey Weinstein verdict. Topic: Harvey Weinstein verdict 1:09:19- Daniel Hoffman, Ret. A CIA Senior Clandestine Services Officer and a Fox News Contributor, joins Joe Piscopo to discuss Israel striking an Iranian nuclear site and the latest going on between Israel and Iran. Topic: Israel striking Iran's nuclear site 1:22:35- Congressman Steve Scalise, Republican representing Louisiana's 1st district and the House Majority Leader, joins Joe Piscopo to discuss the latest with Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” and the goal to have the law in effect as of July 4th. Topic: House approves $9 billion in funding cuts for public media and foreign aid 1:34:36- Bill Camastro, Dealer and Partner at Gold Coast Cadillac Topic: Latest at Gold Coast Cadillac 1:45:31- Jim McLaughlin, pollster, strategic consultant, and CEO and Partner of McLaughlin & Associates, joins Joe Piscopo to discuss the latest in the polls after Trump and Elon Musk’s falling out from last week and the effect Trump has had on Jack Ciattarelli emphasizing New Jersey has a big effect of the country. Topic: Elon Musk poll numbers following falling out with Trump 2:06:58- Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, joins Joe Piscopo to discuss Trump’s emphasis on securing the border and how the Democrats in Los Angeles have not done a good enough job in doing so. Topic: Ruling on the National GuardSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sarah Isgur and David French check the temperature on Thursday's Supreme Court hand downs (cold term, anyone?), diving into a case where federal agents raided the wrong house. The Agenda:—Death penalty stuff and successive habeas petitions—Gorsuch the libertarian—FBI raid gone wrong—Explaining the Federal Tort Claims Act and Bivens—Conspiracy theory time—Associated Press and their access to press—We're all ‘cranckpots' —Is yoga protected by the First Amendment? Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Episode 12 of Badlands Book Club, CannCon and Ashe in America crack open their latest read: Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and Janie Nitze. They begin with the prologue, where Gorsuch and Nitze lay out a powerful indictment of America's sprawling legal code and the lives caught in its grip. Through real-world stories and grounded constitutional insight, the authors argue that excessive regulation and blind proceduralism have sidelined common sense and justice. Weaving their own commentary throughout the reading, Ashe and CannCon discuss the consequences of government overreach, the erosion of individual liberty, and the urgent need to restore balance to the legal system. Ashe also shares a timely in-person update from the Mike Lindell defamation trial, shedding light on media access restrictions and courtroom tone. It's a gripping start to a book, and a conversation, that challenges listeners to rethink the role of law in a free society.

This Day in Legal History: National Defense ActOn June 3, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the National Defense Act into law, marking a major shift in American military and legal policy. Passed amid growing tensions related to World War I, the Act dramatically expanded the U.S. Army and strengthened the National Guard, officially integrating it as the Army's primary reserve force. It increased the size of the Regular Army to over 175,000 soldiers and provided for a National Guard force of over 400,000 when fully mobilized. The law also created the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), formalizing military education at civilian colleges and universities across the country.Crucially, the Act clarified federal authority over the National Guard, requiring units to conform to federal training standards and granting the president the power to mobilize them for national emergencies. This federalization of a traditionally state-controlled force marked a significant legal development in the balance between state and federal military power. It addressed long-standing constitutional ambiguities surrounding the militia clauses and reflected evolving views of national defense in a modern industrial society.The Act emerged from broader preparedness debates within the U.S. political and legal spheres, balancing isolationist tendencies with the perceived need for greater military readiness. Though the U.S. would not enter World War I until 1917, the National Defense Act of 1916 laid essential legal groundwork for rapid mobilization. It remains a foundational statute for the structure of the modern U.S. military.The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear two significant Second Amendment challenges involving bans on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines in Maryland and Rhode Island. By refusing the appeals, the Court left in place lower court rulings upholding the restrictions. Maryland's law, enacted after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, bans certain semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, while Rhode Island's 2022 law prohibits magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Plaintiffs in both cases argued that these weapons and accessories are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens and thus protected by the Constitution.The Court's conservative bloc showed signs of division. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, indicating they would have reviewed the bans. Justice Kavanaugh did not dissent but issued a statement expressing openness to hearing similar cases in the future, suggesting that the Court would eventually need to rule on whether AR-15s are constitutionally protected.Lower courts rejected the challenges based on the weapons' military-style design and their use in mass killings, reasoning that they are not suitable for self-defense and thus fall outside Second Amendment protection. The challengers contended that these laws ignore the Court's prior rulings on weapons in “common use.” Despite recent decisions expanding gun rights, the justices allowed these bans to stand for now.US Supreme Court won't review assault weapon, high-capacity magazine bans | ReutersThree federal lawsuits filed on June 2, 2025, allege that major class action settlement administrators and two banks engaged in a kickback scheme that siphoned funds away from class members. The suits, brought in New York, Florida, and California, accuse Epiq Solutions, Angeion Group, and JND Legal Administration of securing illicit payments from Huntington National Bank and Western Alliance Bank in exchange for directing large volumes of settlement deposits to them. In return, the administrators allegedly received a share of the banks' profits.Plaintiffs claim the scheme dates back years and coincided with rising interest rates in 2021, which increased the potential value of settlement fund deposits. According to the lawsuits, administrators threatened to stop using the banks unless they shared profits. As a result, class members allegedly received lower payouts due to below-market interest rates on their settlement funds.Together, the defendant banks are said to control over 80% of the U.S. settlement fund market, while the administrators manage over 65% of class action services. The plaintiffs argue this arrangement violated U.S. antitrust law by reducing competition and fixing prices. JND and Western Alliance have denied wrongdoing, calling the claims baseless or inaccurate. Huntington declined to comment, and other parties have yet to respond.Class action administrators, banks accused of kickback scheme in new lawsuits | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Spain's proposed 100% tax on non-EU homebuyers, introduced as a bold fix for the country's deepening housing crisis. The government is responding to surging public frustration over exploding rents—up more than 60% in Barcelona in five years—and the sense that local housing is being turned into an asset class for absentee owners. But while the policy grabs attention, I argue it misses the real target. The problem isn't who owns the homes—it's how those homes are being used. A blanket nationality-based tax is a blunt instrument that's economically ineffective, legally risky under EU and international law, and symbolically inflammatory.Instead, I suggest a more focused approach: taxing speculative flipping and underutilization directly. A resale tax on homes sold within a short holding period, calibrated by how quickly they're flipped, would discourage fast-moving speculation without penalizing genuine residents or workers. Similarly, a progressive vacancy tax—getting steeper the longer a property remains empty—would address the roughly four million vacant or underused homes across Spain. These tools would pressure banks and investors to put housing back into circulation while raising revenue for public housing initiatives.Critically, these proposals are neutral as to the owner's nationality. Whether a home is owned by a Spanish bank, a Canadian retiree, or a U.S. fund manager, what matters is whether it's being used as shelter or as a sidelined asset. The column makes the case that Spain's housing crisis won't be solved by turning foreign investors into political scapegoats, but by confronting speculative behaviors that choke supply and inflate prices—regardless of the flag the buyer flies. 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

 It's Friday, May 30th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Christian burials denied in Odisha State, India In mid-May, villagers in Odisha State, India opposed the burial of a deceased Christian, reports International Christian Concern. Their claim? A Christian funeral would defile the gods and the land of the village. Sadly, authorities were unable to convince villagers to allow the burial, and the body was taken to another location. Although Christian burials have long been denied in India, these denials are increasingly occurring as a method of persecuting Christians in Odisha State. Three independent investigations conducted in Odisha between March and April pointed to an alarming rise in the number of Christians denied burial rights. The investigations concluded that the absence of state laws allocating burial land for Christians has enabled the trend. FBI investigates leaked Dobbs Supreme Court ruling FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino announced Monday that he and FBI Director Kash Patel are going to “re-open” an investigation into the consequential 2022 leak of the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, reports Life News. On May 2, 2022, Politico published a draft of a Supreme Court opinion, authored in February by Justice Samuel Alito, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The official ruling was not released until June 24, 2022. The draft opinion made it evident that the Supreme Court was all but certain to rule in favor of the Mississippi pro-life law at the center of the case. A majority of justices on the Supreme Court were prepared to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision which had extended broad federal legal protections to the practice of abortion. Politico cited a “person familiar with the court's deliberations” to confirm that Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett had already voted in favor of Alito's opinion following oral arguments in December of 2021, yielding a five-justice majority to strike down Roe and Casey, as the pro-abortion precedents are known. Pro-abortion activists made clear that they intended to target pro-life pregnancy resource centers and Catholic parishes in response to the Dobbs leak. Indeed, more than 100 pro-life centers and churches were firebombed, smashed, ransacked, or vandalized with pro-abortion graffiti and threatening messages, reported Fox News.   Then, five weeks after the Dobbs leak, but before the official ruling was announced, a man flew from California to D.C. with the intention of going on a killing spree. His target? The pro-life Supreme Court justices. Nicholas Roske went to Kavanaugh's house first located in Montgomery County, Maryland. He was armed with a pistol and equipped with gear to break into the justice's house undetected. Appeals court paused block of Trump's retaliatory tariffs A federal appeals court granted the Trump administration's request to temporarily pause the Wednesday ruling of the  U.S. Court of International Trade which struck down most of President Donald Trump's tariffs, reports CNBC. The judges of the trade court had found that the 1970s-era law Trump had invoked to enact those tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, does not “confer such unbounded authority” to presidents. The nationwide, permanent block they imposed covered all of the retaliatory tariffs that Trump issued in early April as part of his sweeping “Liberation Day” plan to reshape international trade with the rest of the world. Without a doubt, the Wednesday ruling destabilized a pillar of Trump's economic agenda. Illinois House approves physician-assisted suicide bill And finally, on Thursday, the Illinois House narrowly passed a controversial physician-assisted suicide bill (SB 1950 Amendment 2) by a vote of 63 to 42, with two members cowardly voting “present,” reports the Illinois Family Institute. Oddly enough, 11 state representatives did not cast a vote on the legislation. David Smith, the Executive Director, prayed this prayer on a video which was shared with fellow Christians. SMITH: “I pray, Lord, that many of these lawmakers who are on the fence would choose to err on the side of life and not on death. Lord, I pray that your people would rise up throughout the state of Illinois. I pray that many church leaders would speak up and let their state lawmakers know that this is unacceptable. Illinois should never accept or normalize suicide!” At its April 2025 annual meeting, the Illinois State Medical Society overwhelmingly voted to oppose legalizing physician-assisted suicide. This decision reflects the stance of most Illinois doctors against prescribing lethal medications. They took an oath to do no harm and certainly not to provide the means for their patients to end their lives. If you live in Illinois, send an email to your State Senator here. Scripture tells us that every person is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and thus each life holds immeasurable value. Moreover, Exodus 20:13 records this command: "Thou shall not murder." Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, May 30th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

This Day in Legal History:  The Killing of Maximum JohnOn May 29, 1979, U.S. District Judge John H. Wood Jr. was assassinated outside his home in San Antonio, Texas. Nicknamed “Maximum John” for his reputation of handing down the harshest possible sentences in drug-related cases, Wood had become a prominent figure in the federal judiciary's war on narcotics. His assassination marked the first killing of a sitting federal judge in the 20th century, a grim milestone that shocked the legal community and raised urgent concerns about judicial security. The investigation into Wood's murder quickly became the most extensive and expensive federal inquiry of its time.Attention soon turned to Jamiel “Jimmy” Chagra, a wealthy drug trafficker facing trial before Judge Wood. Fearing a life sentence, Chagra orchestrated the murder by hiring Charles Harrelson, a known hitman and the father of actor Woody Harrelson. Harrelson was reportedly paid $250,000 for the job. Chagra's wife, Elizabeth, played a key role in facilitating communication between her husband and Harrelson, and was later convicted in connection with the plot. Authorities used wiretaps, surveillance, and confidential informants to build their case.Charles Harrelson was eventually convicted of murder and sentenced to two life terms, though he maintained his innocence for years. Jimmy Chagra was acquitted of the murder charge but later admitted his involvement in exchange for a lighter sentence in other cases. The killing of Judge Wood underscored the dangerous intersection of the judiciary and organized drug crime in the late 1970s. It prompted significant reforms in judicial security, including increased protection for judges handling high-risk cases. The case remains one of the most chilling examples of retaliation against a federal judge in American legal history.The Trump administration announced it is rescinding a 2022 Department of Labor (DOL) directive that had discouraged the inclusion of cryptocurrency options in 401(k) retirement plans. The original Biden-era guidance had urged employers to exercise "extreme care" when considering crypto investments for employee retirement accounts. It signaled a shift away from the legally required neutral stance of the DOL's Employee Benefits Security Administration. The 2022 policy had also threatened an investigative program targeting plan sponsors who offered cryptocurrency, either directly or through self-directed brokerage windows.This earlier approach significantly dampened growing interest in crypto within retirement planning, despite companies like Fidelity exploring such offerings. With the Biden guidance now repealed, the Trump administration hopes to renew momentum in this area. However, broader market enthusiasm for alternative investments in 401(k)s has lessened in recent years, making the potential impact of this policy shift uncertain.Trump Boosts Cryptocurrency in 401(k)s by Axing Biden GuidanceThe Trump administration instructed U.S. embassies and consulates to halt the scheduling of new student and exchange visitor visa appointments. This pause comes as the State Department, under Secretary of State Marco Rubio, prepares to implement expanded social media vetting for foreign applicants. According to an internal cable, appointments already scheduled will still be honored, but unfilled slots should be withdrawn. The administration is conducting a review of the screening processes for F, M, and J visa applicants, which is expected to result in new vetting procedures.This decision aligns with the administration's broader immigration agenda, which includes increased deportations and visa revocations. Critics argue that these actions infringe on free speech, particularly in cases where student visa holders have expressed pro-Palestinian views. A Turkish student from Tufts University, for example, was detained for weeks after co-authoring an article critical of Israel.Meanwhile, protests erupted at Harvard University, where students and faculty opposed both the visa freeze and the administration's recent move to revoke Harvard's ability to host international students—who make up about 27% of the student body. The government has accused Harvard of resisting policy reforms and challenged its global academic role.Trump administration halts scheduling of new student visa appointments | ReutersIn a great piece by Mike Masnick over at Techdirt, the spotlight falls on an unusual and troubling scenario at the U.S. Supreme Court: five Justices recused themselves from a single case, Baker v. Coates, because of overlapping financial ties to the same book publisher, Penguin RandomHouse. Four of the recused Justices—Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson—have publishing deals with Penguin, which is a named plaintiff in the case. Alito also recused, though no reason was provided. While watchdogs like Fix the Court praised this as a rare display of ethical self-restraint, Masnick (to my mind, rightly) questions the broader implications.If recusals due to publishing ties become the norm, the Court may be unable to hear any case involving Penguin RandomHouse—a massive player in media litigation. The publisher is involved in major lawsuits, including ones against the Internet Archive and various state book bans, and could soon be in litigation involving AI training data. If too many Justices are conflicted out of hearing such cases, key legal battles may be effectively resolved by lower courts, potentially leading to inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions.Masnick argues this is a symptom of deeper flaws in Supreme Court ethics. Justices have long accepted book deals, speaking fees, and gifts, often without disclosing or recusing appropriately. Now that some are finally acknowledging conflicts, the Court risks becoming dysfunctional. His provocative solution? Expand the Court to around 100 Justices who rotate in panels, limiting the influence of any one Justice and allowing recusals without impairing the Court's ability to function. Until systemic reform occurs, we're left with a Supreme Court that either ignores ethics or freezes itself into inaction—neither of which bodes well for public trust.When Half The Supreme Court Has Book Deals With The Same Publisher, Who Decides Its Cases? | Techdirt 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 Episode 11 of Badlands Book Club, CannCon and Ashe in America bring Kash Patel's Government Gangsters to a close, covering Chapter 19 and the appendix with sharp insight and appreciation for Patel's behind-the-scenes exposé of America's most corrupt institutions. They highlight Patel's mission to take the fight from intelligence agencies to the courtroom, and how his call for accountability still rings loud and clear. Then, it's on to the next book: Overruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. The hosts preview Gorsuch's critique of an overreaching administrative state, a tangled legal system, and the everyday Americans caught in its grip. With a tone shift from political warfare to judicial philosophy, CannCon and Ashe tee up a thoughtful exploration of how too much law, and too little liberty, can erode the foundations of a free society. Get ready for a deep dive into precedent, principle, and the limits of government power as Book Club turns the page into the judiciary's role in the Great Awakening.

We're joined by NYU law professor Rachel Barkow to talk about her new book Justice Abandoned: How the Supreme Court Ignored the Constitution and Enabled Mass Incarceration. Listen to learn about five (or six) Supreme Court cases that arguably ignored the original meaning of the Constitution to enable our current policing and punishment practices. Along the way, a hypothetical genie offers Professor Barkow a very tough tradeoff.

[EP 25-198] SCOTUS is about to put an end to the Democrats' strategy of endless injunctions. What will these butt-clowns think of next?Since President Trump began his second term, liberal judges have weaponized nationwide injunctions against his administration an astonishing 17 times in just the first few months — and that's only counting through late March 2025. This is nothing new, of course. Even Newsweek seems to believe that the court will side with the Trump administration.In recent years, some justices have expressed criticism of universal injunctions.Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the court's conservatives, argued in a 2020 concurring opinion that injunctions are "meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit."Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-kevin-jackson-show--2896352/support.

The five men on the Supreme Court are so easily triggered and seem to be making law based on their emotional needs. Meanwhile, they also see discrimination in some of the best things about America—like equality or the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. And at the White House, the press office got totally bored with the worshipful questions from MAGA media and invited The Bulwark's Andrew Egger over—so Karoline Leavitt could mix it up with a reporter who'd definitely ask tough questions. Plus, Trump's crypto grift reaches new heights, Gorsuch is oddly obsessed with the EPA, and the toadies are getting whipsawed by the constant tariff adjustments. Leah Litman and Andrew Egger join Tim Miller. show notes Leah's book, "Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes" Leah's "Strict Scrutiny" podcast Tuesday's "Morning Shots" newsletter

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation the Court was presented with the question of whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency. The Federal Circuit had initially held that Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller with the FAA and reserve officer in the coast guard was not entitled to differential pay for parts of his time when he had been called to active duty during the early and mid-2010s. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on April 30, 2025 a 5-4 court reversed the decision below. Justice Gorsuch penned the majority opinion, and Justice Thomas wrote the dissent, which was joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we break down and analyze the decision and the opinions, and discuss the potential ramifications of this case. Featuring: Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law (Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

35:39- Hogan Gidley, Former National Press Secretary for the Trump campaign, former White House Deputy Press Secretary, and a Newsmax contributor Topic: Executive order to end funding of gain-of-function research in countries of concern, Trump's upcoming meeting with Mark Carney, other news of the day 47:09- Vincent J. Vallelong, President of the Sergeants Benevolent Association 50:15- Joseph diGenova, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Topic: Legalities of reopening Alcatraz 1:11:07- K.T. McFarland, Former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor and the author of "Revolution: Trump, Washington and 'We The People'” Topic: Trump and his negotiations with China, latest with Putin 1:33:43- Laine Schoneberger, Chief Investment Officer, Managing Partner, and Founder of Yrefy Topic: Latest from Yrefy 1:43:59- Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Topic: Trump-aligned group's lawsuit against Chief Justice John Roberts, latest from SCOTUS 1:59:32- Arthur Lih, Inventor & CEO of LifeVac and the author of "Sorry, Can't is a Lie" Topic: Latest from Life Vac 2:09:43- Dr. Douglas Howard is the founder of Balance of Nature and Dr. Phytos and Dr. Jake Van Dyke, DVM Topic: Balance of Nature, Dr. PhytosSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is this the term when the Court says “see ya” to the Establishment Clause? Leah, Melissa and Kate consider that question in their recap of this week's religious charter school case, Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond. Also covered: Advocate Lisa Blatt's run-in with Neil Gorsuch during oral arguments for a disability rights case, opinions concerning SSI benefits and the Department of Transportation, and the Trump administration's absurd investigation into the Harvard Law Review.Hosts' favorite things:Kate: Sinners; Is It Happening Here? by Andrew Marantz (New Yorker)Leah: Girl on Girl How: Pop Culture Turned a Generation of Women Against Themselves, Sophie Gilbert; The Tide is Turning, Dahlia Lithwick (Slate); Trump & Bukele's Concentration Camp, Andrea Pitzer (NY Mag); Just Security Litigation TrackerMelissa: The Secret History of Home Economics: How Trailblazing Women Harnessed the Power of Home and Changed the Way We Live, Danielle Dreilinger; The Pauli Murray Center for History and Social Justice Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 5/31 – Washington DC6/12 – NYC10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPre-order your copy of Leah's forthcoming book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes (out May 13th)Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Howdy. A.I. did what to John Cena now? Neil Gorsuch is mad at gay cartoon dogs. Chuck Schumer is mad at an imaginary past. Then we get into the Deep State's effort to take down Pete Hegseth by tattling.Support the show

Kate and Leah recap oral arguments in two big cases the Supreme Court heard this week. The first is about LGBTQ+ inclusive reading materials in public schools, and the second is about the Affordable Care Act's mechanism for ensuring preventative care. There are also developments in the Alien Enemies Act litigation, and a devastating, if predictable, executive order targeting the Civil Rights Act. Plus, Emily Amick, of Emily In Your Phone, joins to discuss the rise of the creepy conservative push to get women to have more babies. Hosts' Favorite Things:Leah:SCOTUS conservatives seem eager to increase parents' religious rights in public schools by Chris GeidnerHow Sam Alito Inadvertently Revealed His Own Homophobia From the Bench by Mark Joseph SternDeportation to CECOT: The Constitutional Prohibition on Punishment Without Charge or Trial by Ahilan ArulananthamREVEALED: Elon and Trump's Plans to Mint More Mothers by Emily AmickThese Summer Storms by Sarah MacLeanKate:The Trump Victim I Can't Stop Thinking About by Michelle GoldbergWe Visited Rumeysa Ozturk in Detention. What We Saw Was a Warning to Us All by Sen. Edward J. Markey, Rep. Jim McGovern, and Rep. Ayanna PressleyEmily: Now comes the ‘womanosphere': the anti-feminist media telling women to be thin, fertile and Republican by Anna SilmanEveryone is Lying to You by Jo PiazzaThe Testaments by Margaret AtwoodThe Witch Elm by Tana French Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 5/31 – Washington DC6/12 – NYC10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPre-order your copy of Leah's forthcoming book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes (out May 13th)Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

OA1153 - It's good news Friday! Here are some stories about American fascists losing or otherwise showing their asses in court, including (among others): The Supreme Court comes through strong for immigrant justice at 1 AM on a Saturday morning Samuel Alito fails to properly interpret a book written at a fourth grade level after having his Easter ruined by immigrant justice DOJ accidentally files an embarrassing internal memo into the record Sarah Palin's tries and fails to sue the New York Times for libel for the second time  one federal judge stops Trump's attempt to do the SAVE Act through an executive order, while another reverses an ICE kidnapping Neil Gorsuch does a genuinely good thing for non-citizens through a simple act of textualism DOJ pulls out one of the most ridiculous excuses for violating a court order in US legal history Finally, a meta-footnote on why Matt is ready to join the calls to impeach national hero James Boasberg for his radical views on the utility of (what else) footnotes. Samuel Alito's dissent in A.A.R.P. v. Trump (4/19/25) SCOTUS's decision in Monsalvo-Velasquez v. Bondi  (4/22/25) Vermont federal district court order returning Rumeysa Ozturk to Vermont Courtlistener docket for D.V.D. v. DHS Courtlistener docket for American Oversight v. Hegseth Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.

WA Supreme Court proposed rule lets judges arbitrarily dismiss charges against criminals. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch had a bizarre exchange with a Maryland school district lawyer over lewd content in school curriculum. Police are looking for a man that flashed gang signs and shot at a bus in Lynnwood. // LongForm: GUEST: State Senator Phil Fortunato (R-Auburn) wants to stop your tax dollars from being used for sanctuary immigration policies. // Quick Hit: Trump is not happy with Vladimir Putin after Russia’s airstrikes on Kyiv. A Democrat mayor wants to arrest homeless people who refuse housing.  

(WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE) **CONTENT WARNING: GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS OF TORTURE** On March 15, 2025, President Trump announced the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua was conducting "irregular warfare" against the United States and that members would be deported under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The Trump Administration quickly began deporting people allegedly affiliated with the gang—without any semblance of due process—via direct flights to a notoriously deadly El Salvadoran prison. A few days later, the Trump Administration told a federal judge it was invoking the "state secrets privilege" to refuse to provide any information to the Courts about these flights, the people they've put on them, or what (if any) evidence they had to support doing so. As attorneys in this still-ongoing court battle [J.G.G. v. Trump (2025)] fight to stop Trump's unsanctioned deportations under the AEA, new legal questions abound: Is the Executive Branch blatantly violating Judicial orders? Are we in a Constitutional crisis yet? What is the Alien Enemies Act? What is the state secrets privilege? Were Administrations already abusing it before Trump? Can the Trump administration invoke the privilege to "disappear" whoever they choose? What happens now? Reb gives you everything she knows on all of those topics and more. This is J.G.G. v. Trump (2025), United States v. Reynolds (1953), FBI v. Fazaga (2022), and United States v. Zubaydah (2022). **IMPORTANT NOTE**: This episode is expected to go live on April 3, 2025, the same day the parties in J.G.G. v. Trump (2025) are set to appear in a hearing before Judge Boasberg on his Order to Defendants to show cause why they did not violate the Court's Temporary Restraining Orders. Judge Boasberg is expected to rule on the DOJ's invocation of the state secrets privilege sometime thereafter. The case is ongoing and any further updates beyond April 2 will not be covered in this episode because Reb cannot time travel. Yet. *** Follow @RebuttalPod on Instagram and Twitter! Follow @Rebmasel on TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter! *** 0:00 - Content Warning 0:32 - Intro / Necessary Context 6:40 - Background on J.G.G. v. Trump (2025) 8:25 - Secrets secrets are no fun 9:45 - A photo op isn't a secret y'all 13:30 - The Alien Enemies Act of 1798?? Really??? 24:18 - Everyone is probably just stupid 27:06 - DRAMA (WITH TIMESTAMPS) OF (LIKELY) COURT ORDER VIOLATIONS 41:15 - Constitutional crisis incoming 42:20 - Trump admin loves to tweet (themselves to hell) 47:52 - The Hail Mary 53:20 - THE STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE 53:45 - United States v. Reynolds (1953) 58:10 - The state secrets privilege is...messy 1:05:14 - ABUSE OF THE PRIVILEGE POST-9/11 1:11:30 - CIA "black sites" (TORTURE IN POLAND) 1:14:50 - FBI v. Fazaga (2022) 1:15:05 - TORTURE IN POLAND 1:16:50 - United States v. Zubaydah (2022) 1:20:43 - GORSUCH DISSENT IS...FIRE? 1:24:09 - CONTENT WARNING (TORTURE) 1:26:07 - Zubaydah wants to depose his torturers 1:30:00 - His torturers don't STFU about being torturers 1:39:02 - Gorsuch concludes with a BANG 1:42:10 - The wrong administration 1:43:05 - CAN THE TRUMP ADMIN SUCCESSFULLY USE THE PRIVILEGE? 1:46:18 - SIDEBAR: Another Judge CHEWED THEM UP 1:51:14 - REB'S REBUTTAL  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For the last quarter century, an Italian macher from New Jersey has been one of the most powerful people in the United States. If you're a certain type of nerdy, obsessive, legally inclined conservative, he's basically Taylor Swift. But most people don't know who he is because he doesn't want them to know. He has never held or sought political office. He does not hail from Silicon Valley or Wall Street. He is not a writer, pundit, or political aide. He rarely does interviews. And yet his influence is hard to understate. People in power—particularly presidents—trust and listen to him. I'm talking about Leonard Leo, the animating force behind the Federalist Society and the key node of a growing network of conservative groups aiming to reshape the culture and the country. Whether you've heard of him or not, he has no doubt directly affected your life in some way. Leo is the person who counseled George W. Bush to appoint Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He had an arguably even greater influence on President Trump. Trump was new to Washington when he first became president. Leo, on the other hand, knew everyone in town. Leo counseled Trump and helped pick and prepare Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett for confirmation. And that's just the Supreme Court. Leo has cultivated talent across every level of the judicial system. Leo understands the levers of Washington. He understands how Congress works, how the press works, and most importantly, how the courts work. He is, in a sense, the architect of the Supreme Court's conservative majority — the one that overturned Roe v. Wade. Which means he has changed American history—for better or worse, depending on your worldview. Today on Honestly, Bari asks Leo about all of it: his relationship with Trump, their falling out (though he disputes this characterization), how he understands the divide on the right between the old guard like himself and the new characters like Elon Musk and RFK Jr. Bari asks about his so-called dark money groups, the $1.6 billion-dollar gift he was given, and the criticism he gets for wielding power and influence of this magnitude. She asks about Trump's willingness to defy the courts, and if Leonard sees it that way. They discuss Trump's controversial moves like sending accused gang members to El Salvador and reinstituting TikTok. She asks why MAGA has recently rejected Amy Coney Barrett, and if gay marriage is a settled matter. And most importantly, in a moment of institutional crisis in American life, Bari asks whether the Supreme Court can remain above the fray. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Go to fastgrowingtrees.com/Honestly and use the code HONESTLY at checkout to get 15% off your first order. Spring starts here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At least 2 right-wing Supreme Court justices (Alito and Thomas) support having unregulated ghost guns used in tens of thousands of crimes and killings each year, but fortunately, 7 others led by Justice Gorsuch have just supported a Biden-era regulation making ghost gun kit manufacturers for DIY home gun makers subject to registration and background checks. Michael Popok takes a look at the new bombshell ruling and what it means for guns in America. Head to https://qualialife.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF at checkout for 15% off your purchase! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices