Podcasts about jarkesy

The Supreme Court recently ruled on a case involving forfeiture orders assessed against AT&T and Verizon for failing to safeguard customer location information. The FCC forfeiture orders totaled over $100 million in combined penalties.  In this 10-minute episode of Staying Connected, Tony Mangino is joined by LB3 partner Steve Rosen, to address a question that's been hanging over FCC enforcement proceedings for years. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in FCC v. Jarkesy, are the FCC's forfeiture orders consistent with the Seventh Amendment—can the Commission order you to pay millions of dollars without ever giving you a jury trial? If you would like to learn more about our experience in this space, please visit our Communications Regulatory Advice and Advocacy webpage. 

After puzzling over an interesting follow-up question about Pitchford v. Cain, we unpack a summary vacatur in Whitton v. Dixon. We then spend a while breaking down the latest developments in Allen v. Milligan line, in which we discuss the future of the Purcell principle and whether the Court should be unusually attentive to public appearances in election cases. We finish with Sripetch v. Jarkesy, where the Court rejects a requirement that the SEC prove victims suffered pecuniary loss before seeking disgorgement, with specific attention to the interesting Seventh Amendment question raised in Justice Thomas's concurrence.Key Topics[00:03:23] - Listener question on Pitchford v. Cain, AEDPA, and procedural default[00:08:12] - Whitten v. Dixon: summary vacatur in a capital case and harmless-error review[00:12:44] - Justice Thomas's dissent and the critique of selective error correction[00:22:46] - Allen v. Milligan / Alabama redistricting and the stay of the lower court injunction[00:27:24] - The Court's restatement of Milligan and discussion of “colorblind constitution” language[00:32:30] - Purcell, election timing, and whether the doctrine is really about federal court intervention[00:41:20] - Merits and legitimacy concerns in election-law cases[00:53:27] - SEC v. Sripetch and the disgorgement remedy[00:58:42] - Justice Thomas's concurrence on disgorgement, equity, and the Seventh Amendment[01:03:36] - Broader implications for administrative law and jury-trial rights

This Day in Legal History: Congress Repeals the Gold ClauseOn this day in 1933, Congress passed the Joint Resolution that voided the gold clauses written into nearly every long-term contract and bond obligation in the United States, both public and private. The resolution declared that any provision purporting to require payment “in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency” was “against public policy,” and that obligations could be discharged dollar for dollar in whatever legal tender currency was in force at the time of payment. It was a remarkable act of legislative power: a one-paragraph statute that rewrote the payment terms of millions of existing contracts overnight, in the middle of the Great Depression, to make Franklin Roosevelt's recent abandonment of the gold standard actually stick. The Supreme Court took up the inevitable challenge two years later in the Gold Clause Cases — Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio, Nortz v. United States, and Perry v. United States — and in February 1935 it upheld the resolution as applied to private contracts by a 5-4 vote, while telling the United States, in Perry, that it had violated its own contractual word in repudiating gold-payment promises on government bonds, but that the bondholder had suffered no compensable injury. The doctrinal residue of that compromise is still with us: Congress can use its monetary powers to alter private contract terms retroactively when monetary policy requires it, the rule that has quietly underwritten every major monetary intervention since, from Bretton Woods to the post-2008 emergency lending programs. June 5 is not a day most lawyers mark on the calendar, but the resolution Congress passed on this date is one of the cleanest examples in American law of a legislature using its enumerated powers to dissolve a contract term that had been considered, until that moment, untouchable.The Supreme Court on Thursday handed Hikma Pharmaceuticals — and the entire generic drug industry — a 9-0 win in a case that had been hanging over the so-called “skinny label” pathway for years. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for a unanimous Court in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., held that Amarin, the maker of the brand-name fish-oil drug Vascepa, had not plausibly alleged that Hikma actively induced infringement of Amarin's patents covering a still-patented cardiovascular use of the drug. The skinny label is a feature of Hatch-Waxman generic-drug law that lets a generic manufacturer copy only the unpatented uses of a brand drug by literally carving the patented uses out of its FDA-approved label, which is supposed to let cheaper generics reach the market for the unpatented indications even while patents on other indications are still in force. Brand companies have been trying for years to sue around that carve-out under the active inducement statute, 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by pointing to generic press releases, marketing language, or website descriptions and arguing that doctors could read those statements as encouragement to prescribe the generic for the still-patented use. The Federal Circuit had bought a version of that argument and revived Amarin's case. The Supreme Court rejected that approach, and the test that Justice Jackson articulated is meaningful: the question is not how doctors might interpret what a generic manufacturer said, but whether the manufacturer itself actively encouraged the infringing use. Neutral statements that could be read as instructions to infringe do not count. The practical effect is to shore up the skinny label pathway and make it harder for brand companies to weaponize induced infringement against generic competition. The decision was originally framed as a pharmaceutical-industry case, but its inducement standard will reach across patent law generally and into every industry where § 271(b) gets litigated.It's unanimous: SCOTUS agrees with Hikma in ‘skinny label' case vs. Amarin | Fierce PharmaAlso unanimous on Thursday: the Supreme Court in Sripetch v. SEC held that the Securities and Exchange Commission can obtain disgorgement of a wrongdoer's ill-gotten gains without having to prove that any individual investor lost money. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for a 9-0 Court, which is itself a small surprise given the Court's recent pattern of skepticism toward broad SEC remedial powers. The case came out of a penny-stock pump-and-dump scheme that Ongkaruck Sripetch ran across some 20 small companies — buy shares quietly, promote them aggressively, sell into the bubble — and the SEC won an order requiring him to disgorge roughly $3 million. Sripetch's argument on appeal was that disgorgement is supposed to be tied to investor harm, that the SEC had not shown specific pecuniary losses traceable to him, and that the order was therefore not the kind of equitable relief the Court approved in its 2020 Liu v. SEC decision. The Court disagreed, on traditional equity principles: disgorgement, the Court explained, is measured by the defendant's unjust gain, not the plaintiff's quantified loss, and equity has always been willing to strip a wrongdoer of profit even when the victim cannot mathematically prove harm. The practical importance for the SEC is enormous — the agency reports collecting roughly $1.4 billion in disgorgement in fiscal 2025 alone, and a contrary ruling would have forced the SEC into an evidentiary burden that pump-and-dump and insider-trading cases are notoriously bad at supplying. The opinion is also a reminder that the Court's recent administrative-state skepticism is not all in one direction: when the question is grounded in old equity doctrine, the same justices who narrowed SEC adjudication in Jarkesy are willing to leave the agency's remedial toolkit intact.US Supreme Court Backs SEC in Fight Over ‘Disgorgement' Power | US NewsThe third and most constitutionally significant of Thursday's rulings was FCC v. AT&T, in which the Supreme Court upheld 8-1 the Federal Communications Commission's longstanding practice of imposing forfeiture penalties on regulated carriers through its own in-house process, without first giving the carrier a jury trial. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority, with Justice Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter. The case grew out of the FCC's headline-making fines against AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint for selling access to real-time customer location data to third parties without consent — fines that ran nearly $200 million across the four carriers, with AT&T's portion at $57 million and Verizon's at $46.9 million. The carriers challenged the fines on Seventh Amendment grounds, arguing that the Court's 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy — which struck down the SEC's in-house adjudication of securities-fraud penalties as a violation of the jury-trial right — should reach FCC forfeitures too. The Court said no, on a structural distinction that matters: an FCC forfeiture order is not self-executing. The FCC cannot collect on its own. If a carrier refuses to pay, the matter is referred to the Justice Department, which then has to file a civil action in federal district court — a proceeding in which the carrier is entitled to a full jury trial and the government has to prove the violation de novo, with no deference to the FCC's findings. That collection-stage jury trial, Roberts wrote, is enough to satisfy the Seventh Amendment, even though the agency itself first issues the penalty. Justice Thomas's dissent argued the in-house process is no less coercive than the SEC adjudication the Court rejected in Jarkesy and would have extended Jarkesy here. The practical takeaway: agency in-house penalty proceedings survive after Jarkesy if there is a real, downstream jury-trial backstop. Expect every regulator with a similar two-step enforcement structure to point to this opinion the next time someone tries to push Jarkesy further.Court rules against cell service providers over right to jury trial in FCC proceedings | SCOTUSblog This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this video, we break down the latest SCOTUS oral arguments in FCC v. AT&T & Verizon. The Court appeared hesitant to extend Seventh Amendment jury trial protections to massive FCC penalties, following the Jarkesy decision.Big telecom companies face over $100 million in fines for alleged privacy violations — without a jury trial. Will the Supreme Court side with the FCC or strengthen constitutional safeguards? A major ruling on administrative law and due process is expected this summer. Perfect for anyone following SCOTUS, constitutional law, or telecom news.Today's video is sponsored by M&P Coax - save 10% with code HR2CABLES here - https://geni.us/uyU8Hy4Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/ham-radio-2-0--2042782/support.

I never thought I'd be glued to the Supreme Court docket like this, but here we are, listeners, in the thick of it. Just last fall, the justices heard arguments in a blockbuster case straight out of President Donald Trump's playbook: whether his Executive Order 14160 violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Rutgers Law School professors are calling it one of the most pivotal issues of 2026, as it challenges who gets U.S. citizenship by birth—potentially rewriting birthright rules that have stood for over a century. Imagine the ripple effects on families, borders, and elections if the Court sides with the challengers.But that's not all unfolding in these past few days. On April 21, Yankee Institute reported how Connecticut lawmakers are playing a risky game, pushing bills to tweak laws mid-litigation. Take Senate Bill 450—it's aimed right at an active lawsuit over the state's 2021 move to scrap religious exemptions for school vaccines. The bill declares that Connecticut's Religious Freedom Restoration Act won't apply to immunizations, even in pending cases, yanking the legal standard out from under the court's feet. Critics say it's a pattern: lawmakers repealing rules while courts decide if they were broken, raising red flags on accountability. Is it legal? Courts will say, but it smells like dodging scrutiny.Shifting to tax battles with echoes of big penalties, The National Law Review detailed IRS moves from April 6. Taxpayers in Hirsch v. US Tax Court are begging the Supreme Court to extend the 2024 SEC v. Jarkesy ruling, demanding jury trials for civil fraud penalties topping $15 million—tied to faked US Virgin Islands residency claims. A win could hobble IRS audits everywhere. Meanwhile, the IRS proposed overhauling its Voluntary Disclosure Program, swapping a one-time 75% fraud penalty for 20% accuracy-related hits spread over six years, plus a 90-day payback deadline. Practitioners cheer ditching the huge lump sum but warn cumulative costs could still sting.And labor law's buzzing too. JD Supra notes the National Labor Relations Board is back in action this April, with Crystal Stowe Carey as General Counsel since January, issuing guidance to protect workers' rights. Yet nominations like James Macy's on April 13 keep it in flux, shadowed by Supreme Court fights over agency independence.Whew, from citizenship showdowns to mid-case law tweaks, these legal fires are burning hot. What's next? Stay tuned, because the courts never sleep.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AIThis episode includes AI-generated content.

On today's episode of AD Nauseam, Amy and Daniel unpack the Fifth Circuit's Intuit decision, which vacated an FTC cease‑and‑desist order and held that the FTC's administrative process violates constitutional separation‑of‑powers principles in false advertising cases. They discuss how the ruling—building on AMG and Jarkesy—could significantly curtail the FTC's ability to pursue monetary remedies through administrative enforcement and reshape the agency's consumer protection strategy going forward.Questions & Comments: amudge@bakerlaw.com or dkaufman@bakerlaw.com

USDA issued just five Animal Welfare Act fines in the 14 months after the Supreme Court's SEC v. Jarkesy decision, down from 63 in the prior period. Federal News Network's Eric White spoke with Animal Welfare Institute attorneys Ashley Ridgway and Joanna Makowska to understand what a securities fraud case has to do with animal protection enforcement.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of our Safety Perspectives From the Dallas Region podcast series, shareholders John Surma (Houston) and Frank Davis (Dallas) discuss the recent Fifth Circuit decision that found the dual for-cause removal protections for administrative law judges (ALJs) at the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional, and its implications for the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC). The speakers break down how this ruling could halt OSHA enforcement proceedings in the Fifth Circuit, potentially render the current OSHRC structure unconstitutional, and force Congress to revisit the statutory framework for workplace safety adjudication.

In President Trump's second term, federal agencies are navigating uncharted territory. Two Supreme Court cases from June 2024 fundamentally changed how agencies can operate: Loper Bright ended Chevron deference—meaning courts no longer automatically defer to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws—and Jarkesy limited agencies' ability to impose civil penalties without jury trials.At the same time, President Trump is consolidating control over agencies that were traditionally seen as independent from the executive branch. He's fired commissioners from the FTC, NLRB, and other agencies as part of his push for a "unitary executive." Former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter is fighting her dismissal, and the Supreme Court recently allowed the firing to stand while it reviews the case.The fundamental tension? Courts are stripping power from agencies just as Trump is trying to bring those agencies under tighter presidential control. Will Loper Bright and Jarkesy make these agencies less useful tools for implementing Trump's agenda, even if he wins the fight to end their independence? And how will these cases impact the FCC's authority looks to reform its broadband subsidy programs while fighting illegal robocalls?Evan is joined by Tom Johnson, former general counsel of the FCC under Chairman Pai and now a partner at Wiley Rein. He is the author of a new paper for Digital Progress Institute on ways to reform the Universal Service Fund.

Jace Lington chats with former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly about what the Constitution says regarding who may exercise the judicial power. They discuss his new Gray Center policy brief, Jarkesy and the End of Political Adjudication, and his argument that the Supreme Court should go further and hold that the Constitution requires many trials now handled by agency adjudicators to take place in the proper forum—an Article III court. Notes:Jarkesy and the End of Political Adjudication, Daniel Kelly

In Chapter 20 of The Book of Trump, host Ghost welcomes Ashe in America for an incisive breakdown of how the true Deep State operates, not through cloak-and-dagger spy ops, but through captured bureaucracies, corrupt regulatory structures, and entrenched global audit networks. Ashe explains the Supreme Court's recent Chevron and Jarkesy rulings and what they mean for dismantling the administrative state's unchecked power. Drawing from her 16 years inside an SEC audit firm, Ashe offers a rare insider's look at the illusion of independence in the public trust system. The episode also unpacks the role of NGOs in election interference, the incestuous relationships between regulators and corporations, and the perversion of Tocqueville's vision of voluntary associations. Plus, Ashe shares a live update on Mike Lindell's MyPillow legal victory and teases his upcoming appearance on Culture of Change. This episode is a deep dive into the financial and regulatory structures that quietly sustain globalism under the guise of law and order.

Is presidential power out of control, or are we witnessing a necessary correction to decades of bureaucratic overreach? When Trump fired Wilcox from the NLRB, it sparked a constitutional showdown about who really controls the executive branch - and the implications could reshape American governance. Studio Sponsor: Cardio Miracle - "Unlock the secret to a healthier heart, increased energy levels, and transform your cardiovascular fitness like never before.": https://www.briannicholsshow.com/heart Ryan Silverstein, JD candidate at Villanova University, breaks down the explosive battle between President Trump and the administrative state. This isn't just about one firing - it's about whether unelected bureaucrats can create policy without accountability to voters. As Silverstein explains, independent agencies have operated with unprecedented autonomy for decades, making rules that affect millions of Americans without direct oversight. The conversation dives deep into constitutional principles, exploring how the "unitary executive theory" challenges a century of precedent established since Humphrey's Executor in 1935. With the conservative Supreme Court already chipping away at administrative power through recent cases like Loper Bright and SEC v. Jarkesy, this confrontation could be the tipping point that fundamentally restructures government. Brian and Ryan examine the troubling delegation of congressional authority to unelected experts - a trend dramatically accelerated during COVID when "trust the science" became a mandate rather than guidance. The discussion highlights how both parties have abdicated their responsibilities, preferring to pass accountability to faceless bureaucracies rather than face voters with difficult policy choices. The stakes couldn't be higher: will this case return policy-making to elected officials, or will the administrative state continue growing unchecked? As Silverstein concludes, the founders envisioned citizens actively involved in governance, not passively accepting expert rule. This episode offers a master class in constitutional principles and a wake-up call about the future of American democracy. ❤️ Order Cardio Miracle (https://www.briannicholsshow.com/heart) with code TBNS at checkout for 15% off and take a step towards better heart health and overall well-being!

Axon and Jarkesy have renewed scrutiny of the constitutionality and fairness of FTC’s administrative litigation. For example, the President cannot remove Administrative Law Judges nor FTC Commissioners, and FTC Commissioners both vote to issue the complaint and decide its merits in proceedings. Parties before the DOJ-Antitrust Division, on the other hand, go directly before an Article III judge, and avoid administrative litigation altogether. This panel, featuring the former FTC Acting Chairman, Commission advisors, and administrative law experts, discussed these and other constitutional challenges to FTC’s administrative litigation. If the courts ultimately uphold constitutionality, is Congressional reform warranted? Should FTC’s administrative tribunal be abolished altogether? Or are internal process reforms sufficient to afford fairer process? Keith Klovers' article, "Three Options for Reforming Part 3 Administrative Litigation at the Federal Trade Commission," as referenced in the discussion.

In this installment of our Safety Perspectives From the Dallas Region podcast series, shareholders Frank Davis (Dallas) and John Surma (Houston) discuss the implications of a recent federal court ruling that extends the Supreme Court's June 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, barring the use of administrative law judges (ALJs) in certain matters before the SEC. In November 2024, a federal district court judge in Texas expanded the bar to include ALJs at the U.S. Department of Labor—a decision that could potentially affect OSHA's adjudication procedures. John and Frank's discussion highlights the uncertainty and backlog this situation could create within the federal court system. They also examine the future of administrative law proceedings—particularly for employers facing OSHA actions.

The Supreme Court’s most recent term was one of significance with respect to the separation of powers. The Court held that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for most official acts. The Court also overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and determined that administrative agencies typically cannot impose civil penalties against individuals without a jury trial in SEC v. Jarkesy. These cases followed not long after the Supreme Court’s express recognition of the major-questions doctrine in West Virginia v. EPA. Yet the Supreme Court also upheld the CFPB’s novel funding method in the face of an Appropriation Clause challenge, issued an important opinion bearing on facial challenges in Moody v. NetChoice, and rejected a petition asking that it reconsider the nondelegation doctrine. What is driving these decisions—originalism, history, or pragmatic concerns? What issues might be ripe for further development or reexamination—nondelegation, removal restrictions on officers, the major questions doctrine, or something else? And how should advocates think about separation of powers challenges moving forward, in the context of both strategic and corporate litigation?FeaturingMr. Russell Balikian, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPMs. Zhonette Brown, General Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceMr. Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLPMr. Luke McCloud, Partner, Williams & ConnollyModerator: Hon. Daniel Bress, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Reducing the cost of prescription drugs has been a bipartisan priority for years. One recent effort is the Preserve Access to Affordadble Generics and Biosimilars Act (S. 142), sponsored by Sen. Klobuchar with the support of Sen. Grassley and others. This bill would give the FTC new authority to investigate settlements between branded and generic drug companies that delay generic/biosimilar market entry and are deemed anticompetitive. The bill proposes allowing the FTC to make factual findings and liability determinations that the district court applies when computing damages. Our expert panel will discuss whether this bifurcated administrative/judicial arrangement can be squared with SEC v. Jarkesy and more broadly discuss issues around patent settlements in the bio/pharma space. Featuring:Matthew S. Hellman, Partner, Jenner & BlockWilliam M. Jay, Partner, Appellate & Supreme Court Litigation, Goodwin Procter LLPProf. Emily Michiko Morris, David L. Brennan Endowed Chair, Associate Professor, and Associate Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law & Technology, The University of Akron School of LawMatthew D. Rowen, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLCModerator: Brian Pandya, Partner, Duane Morris LLP--To register, click the link above.

Federal regulations shape the workplace environment daily. With the Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine, the Court's ruling in the Jarkesy decision, and the anticipated return of the Trump administration in January 2025, businesses face a dynamic regulatory landscape. These developments and ongoing challenges to federal agency authority could significantly impact employers.  Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Workplace Law and Recent Supreme Court Decisions 02:04 Impact of Loper Bright on Workplace Regulations 05:50 Ongoing Legal Challenges and Agency Authority 12:03 The Jarkesy Decision and Its Implications 18:05 Future of Administrative Agencies and Regulatory Landscape

The Regulatory Transparency Project and the Federalism & Separation of Powers practice group hosted a virtual debate over the recent Supreme Court decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. The panel featured Matthew Wiener, from Penn Carey Law, and Josh Robbins, of the Pacific Legal Foundation. Michael Buschbacher, from Boyden & Gray PLLC, moderated the debate.

The impact of the Loper Bright and Jarkesy decisions could be widely felt including in increased immigration litigation and challenges. Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Workplace Law and Recent Supreme Court Decisions 02:51 Impact of Loper Brighton Immigration Compliance 05:46 Understanding the Jarkesy Decision and Its Implications 09:02 Case Studies: Walmart and SpaceX Decisions 11:45 Challenges to Administrative Authority and Future Litigation 15:09 The Future of Immigration Policies and Employer Leverage 18:01 Conclusion and Future Outlook on Workplace Law

With Kurt absent this week, Chris discusses current developments at the SEC with Sandra Hanna, who leads the securities enforcement practice at Steptoe. They discuss the short term impacts of Jarkesy, how 102(e) actions are evolving in real-time, the state of ESG enforcement after the disbanding of the Task Force, and what the SEC might look like in 2025.

White collar ass crime... You can subscribe to 5-4 Premium on Patreon, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. 5-4 is presented by Prologue Projects. This episode was produced by Benjamin Frisch. Leon Neyfakh and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. Our researcher is Jonathan DeBruin, and our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.Follow the show at @fivefourpod on most platforms. On Twitter, find Peter @The_Law_Boy and Rhiannon @AywaRhiannon. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, co-host Felicia Ellsworth and Counsel Ryan Chabot discuss United States v. Rahimi, a recent decision that concerns the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), a statute which prohibits individuals who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. Key foundational support for Rahimi was established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a 2022 Supreme Court decision which enacted a test for Second Amendment challenges. The final decision in Rahimi, along with Bruen, provides the courts with a framework for determining what gun control laws are constitutional, and stands as a significant decision for ongoing Second Amendment litigation. Ellsworth and Chabot dive into the details of both Bruen and Rahimi, with Chabot explaining the historical intricacies of interpreting and litigating Second Amendment cases. He also speaks to the amicus brief he filed with Partner Alan Schoenfeld and Associate Josh Feinzig on behalf of Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit that advocates for gun control and against gun violence. The organization was in support of the federal government's position that the statute at issue is constitutional and saw a sweeping victory in its favor in the Court's final ruling.This episode is the latest installment of our miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. Previous episodes covering this year's term looked at the decisions in cases including Cantero v. Bank of America, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, Department of State v. Muñoz and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

In this episode, co-host Michael Dawson and Partner Kelly Dunbar discuss Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the recent decision that overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. In the initial 1984 decision, the Court determined that when an agency is tasked with enforcing an ambiguous statute with more than one reasonable interpretation, a court reviewing the agency's action must defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute. This latest decision requires courts to make those interpretations instead, with potentially far-reaching effects on agencies across the country. Dawson and Dunbar share the original intent of Chevron and how it came to form a bedrock of administrative law. Dunbar also explains why the Court found it necessary to overturn the decision after 40 years and the unanswered questions left in the wake of the case. Dawson also questions the impact the case will have on both the public and private sector, and specifically if Congress will shift how it legislates in order to avoid potential ambiguity. This episode is the latest installment of our miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. Previous episodes covering this year's term looked at the decisions in cases including Cantero v. Bank of America, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy and Department of State v. Muñoz.

In this episode of In the Public Interest, co-host Felicia Ellsworth is joined by WilmerHale Partner Lee Greenfield to discuss the Supreme Court's recent decision in Department of State v. Muñoz. The case concerns the due process rights of US citizens if their non-citizen spouses are denied entrance to the country and what impact this has on the right to marriage. Ellsworth and Greenfield cover the origins of the case and how it evolved from a lawsuit pertaining to the Fifth Amendment rights of an individual plaintiff, Sandra Muñoz, into a larger conversation around the right to marriage as defined in cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges. Greenfield lends an added perspective from his direct involvement with the case, explaining how he came to file an amicus brief on behalf of 35 members of Congress in support of Muñoz.This episode is the latest installment of our miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. Previous episodes covering this year's term looked at the decisions in cases including Cantero v. Bank of America, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy.

Ralph welcomes Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, an American trauma surgeon who worked at the European Hospital in Khan Younis. They'll discuss Dr. Sidhwa's experience on the ground in Gaza, as well as his letter (co-signed by 45 other American medical practitioners) to President Biden, VP Harris, and First Lady Dr. Jill Biden. Then, Ralph is joined by University of Chicago Booth School of Business Professor Luigi Zingales to look at why business schools are setting capitalism up to fail.Dr. Feroze Sidhwa is a trauma and critical care surgeon as well as a Northern California Veterans Affairs general surgeon, and he is Associate Professor of Surgery at the California Northstate University College of Medicine. Dr. Sidhwa served at the European Hospital in Khan Younis in March and April of this year, and he has done prior humanitarian work in Haiti, the West Bank, Ukraine, and Zimbabwe. Dr. Sidhwa and 45 other American doctors and nurses who have served in Gaza recently sent a letter exhorting President Biden, VP Harris, and First Lady Dr. Jill Biden to effect an immediate ceasefire. Gaza is definitely unique compared to anywhere else that I've been—the level of violence, the level of displacement, the level of deprivation of normal things that society provides.Dr. Feroze SidhwaThere's so much in this letter, listeners, that you need to know about because it's such heartfelt and professionally documented close observation. This short interview cannot do justice to the horrors that Dr. Sidhwa and others observed—and they were just there for a few weeks. Ralph NaderOne of the things that we tried to emphasize in the letter is that we don't have anything to say about the politics of the Israel-Palestine conflict…We, as physicians, that's not what we're talking about.  We're talking about our own participation in a massive unprecedented assault on a civilian population. By a military that we fund—we supply, literally every day. We provide the training. We provide all the diplomatic cover. The economic support. Everything is coming from the United States. And in the end, the Israelis have already decided what they're going to do. They have decided to destroy Gaza. If half the people there die, oh well, if all of the people there die, oh well. But we don't have to be involved in it.Dr. Feroze SidhwaI think the situation in Gaza has reached such a level, the political moment in the U.S. with Biden not running again, has reached a certain level, and then with Netanyahu's bonker address to Congress—when Nancy Pelosi is openly criticizing the Prime Minister of Israel, he's really screwed up.Dr. Feroze SidhwaLuigi Zingales is the Robert C. McCormack Distinguished Service Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He co-developed the Financial Trust Index, which is designed to monitor the level of trust that Americans have toward their financial system. He is currently a faculty research fellow for the National Bureau of Economic Research, a research fellow for the Center for Economic Policy Research, a fellow of the European Governance Institute, and the director of Chicago Booth's Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State. Professor Zingales is the co-host (with Bethany McLean) of the podcast Capitalisn't, and co-author (with Raghuram G. Rajan) of the book Saving Capitalism from Capitalists. These days, there is a lot of attention in business school about the environment, about so-called social responsibility, about all these aspects…but business schools like to keep separate the social aspects from the business aspects. So, in many places now there are classes on social entrepreneurship—which is something very interesting where people try to use their entrepreneurial skills to promote an initiative that is good for society at large, even if it's not necessarily profitable. But then if you are not a social enterprise, then you have to be the most capital, profit-maximizing firms on the face of the earth. There is nothing in between.Professor Luigi ZingalesOne year there was a management conference, and I organized a session on corporate fraud. And I expected a lot of people to show up and listen to the panel. In fact, it was a fiasco. Almost nobody showed up, because they don't want to confront their own limitations and problems. They want to see the more glitzy and shiny aspects of success. And that's what attracts them to business school, and that's what we end up selling to them. So I think that we are in part responsible because we cater too much to their own demand. Professor Luigi ZingalesIn Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DeSantisNews 7/31/241. On Monday, nine Israeli soldiers were arrested on suspicion of raping a Palestinian prisoner at the Sde Teiman detention facility. In response, the Middle East Eye reports “Dozens of people…including members of parliament and Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, gathered outside Sde Teiman and stormed the…facility…[and] Hours later, some 1,200 rioters gathered outside the Beit Lid base, where the nine suspects were taken for questioning.” This piece quotes military chief of staff Herzi Halevi who described the riots as “bordering on anarchy” and said the rioters harmed the military. Yet, “Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich described the suspects as as ‘heroic warriors'…[and] National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, who oversees the prisons where Palestinians are detained, called [the suspects] the ‘best heroes' and described the arrests as ‘shameful'.” One of these soldiers has now been released, according to the Middle East Monitor.2. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed Congress last week amid mass protests in Washington D.C. During his speech, Axios reports six spectators were arrested for “disrupting” the address. All six of these demonstrators are family members of the Israeli hostages. Capitol Police spokesperson Brianna Burch is quoted saying “demonstrating in the Congressional Buildings is against the law.”3. In the U.K., the new Labour government is sending mixed messages on their Middle East policy. Late last week, the government announced that they would drop the United Kingdom's opposition to the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant against Netanyahu, per CNN. Yet this week, Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced that despite campaign promises, “Labour will…delay recognition [of a Palestinian state] indefinitely, making it conditional on Israel feeling ‘safe and secure,'” as reported by British blog Stats for Lefties. Labour continues to face pressure from independent MPs like Jeremy Corbyn on this issue.4. This week, President Nicolas Maduro was reelected in Venezuela. Elon Musk was caught spreading misinformation implying that Maduro engaged in election fraud – sharing a video that he claimed showed ballot boxes being stolen, when in fact the ballot boxes in question were actually air conditioning units, per Mediaite. The National Lawyer's Guild International Committee however, which sent a delegation to monitor the election, “observed a transparent, fair voting process with scrupulous attention to legitimacy, access to the polls and pluralism.” The NLG statement went on to decry “Despite the soundness of the electoral process, the U.S. backed opposition, with support from an anti-Maduro western press has refused to accept the results, undermining the stability of Venezuela's democracy.”5. Forbes reports that Disney has reached a deal with the unionized workers at Disneyland, ratifying a three-year contract that includes “a $24 hourly minimum wage…wage increases, seniority increases, more flexible attendance and sick leave policies, and other benefits.” This deal thus averts the first strike at the Anaheim park in four decades. Last week, More Perfect Union reported that the 14,000 unionized Disneyland workers “authorized a strike by 99%.”6. Jacobin reports “SpaceX [has won] a First Battle in Its Assault on the NLRB.” In this piece, People's Policy Project founder Matt Bruenig lays out how “SpaceX...[winning] a preliminary injunction in a Texas federal district court against the National Labor Relations Board… moves us closer to a potential Supreme Court decision declaring the NLRB unconstitutional.” This is the latest installment in the corporatist war on administrative law, which has already scored major victories in the SEC v. Jarkesy and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo cases. Bruenig notes that “For now, the district court's decision simply prevents the NLRB from processing a fairly run-of-the-mill unfair labor practice charge against SpaceX. The real question is going to be what the Supreme Court does once this case makes it to their docket. But in the meantime…it is likely that other companies subject to NLRB proceedings will seek similar injunctions.”7. A storm is brewing within the Kamala Harris campaign over Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan. Democracy Now! Reports “some of the Democratic Party's biggest donors, including LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, are openly pushing Harris to fire…Khan, who has led Biden's antitrust efforts.” NBC notes that Hoffman is a billionaire megadonor and that other megadonors like Barry Diller are also calling for Khan's removal, and adds that “Khan's pro-consumer, pro-worker, anti-monopoly agenda has attracted no small amount of hate from powerful and monied interests.” On the other side, Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and the Service Employees International Union – a close labor ally of Harris – have defended Khan. This battle illustrates the cross-cutting interests Harris will have to navigate as the Democratic nominee, and possibly, as president. We urge the Vice President to back Khan, not the billionaire donor class.8. The Washington Post is out with a heartbreaking new report on the increase of homelessness among “Working Americans with decent-paying jobs who simply can't afford a place to live.” This report cites data showing that homelessness, already at record highs, is only getting worse – growing by 61% in Southeast Texas over the past year, 35% in Rhode Island, and 20% in northeast Tennessee. Throughout the country, rents have risen by over 32% in four years and overall homelessness by 12%.9. In another disturbing economic trend, a new academic working paper out of UCLA and USC analyzes how the “widespread legalization of sports gambling over the past five years has impacted consumer financial health.” The most-discussed findings of this paper have to do with debt, with a “roughly 28% increase in bankruptcies and an 8% increase in debt transferred to debt collectors,” along with substantial increases in auto loan delinquencies and use of debt consolidation loans. As the researchers put it “these results indicate that the ease of access to sports gambling is harming consumer financial health by increasing their level of debt.”10. Finally, for some good news, the White House issued a statement Monday celebrating that “As of today, over 600,000 Teamster workers and retirees have pensions protected from devastating cuts,” as part of Biden's signature American Rescue Plan. This announcement came after the administration acted to protect 70,000 worker pensions in New England, building on similar actions in Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. As the Boston Globe explains “The [American Rescue Plan] set up a special financial assistance program that allows struggling multi-employer pension plans to apply for assistance from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a federal agency that protects the retirement incomes of workers in defined benefit pension plans.” The administration is paying particular attention to the protection of Teamsters, as that union's leadership has been flirting with an embrace of the GOP. Not one Republican voted for the American Rescue Plan.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

John is joined by Christopher G. Michel, Partner in Quinn Emanuel's Washington, D.C. office and John Bash, Partner in Quinn Emanuel's Austin Office, the two Co-Chairs of the firm's National Appellate Practice.  They discuss several far-reaching decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of its most recent term that significantly affect how the federal government will be able to regulate businesses.  First, John Bash explains the decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the Court over-turned the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, which required courts to defer to the interpretation of ambiguous statutes adopted by the administrative agencies that implement those statutes.  He also explains the decision in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, in which the Court ruled that the six-year statute of limitations for a plaintiff to challenge federal regulations runs from when the regulation first affects the plaintiff, not from when the regulation is promulgated.  They then discuss how Corner Post and Loper Bright together will potentially allow businesses to overturn agency interpretations of statutes that were established decades ago.  Chris explains the decision in SEC v. Jarkesy that when an agency brings a case that would typically require a jury at common law, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial in a federal court rather than a trial before one of the agency's administrative law judges.  Chris also explains the Court's decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., which held that a bankruptcy court may not grant a release of claims against non-parties to a bankruptcy unless the alleged victims consent to the release, and how the decision will affect large bankruptcy proceedings going forward.  They then discuss Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, in which the Court expressed skepticism about state laws in Texas and Florida that prohibited social media companies from engaging in certain forms of content moderation, but remanded the case for further proceedings.  Finally, they discuss Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, in which the Court ruled that “pure omissions” are not actionable under SEC Rule 10b-5 and a Rule 10b-5 claim must always be based on a statement that is either false or misleading on its own or rendered misleading by a material omission.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. The following three questions were presented in this case – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) Whether statutory provisions […]

The Supreme Court's Jarkesy decision will mean more cases brought federal agencies will end up in court instead of the court-like rooms inside the agencies themselves. Will Yeatman of the Pacific Legal Foundation and Cato's Jennifer Schulp explain the importance of the change. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In an exhausting week, the Court released a number of long-awaited cases, and we had a consequential presidential debate. We look at several cases that many believe have profound implications for the administrative state; the opinions in SEC v. Jarkesy, and Loper Bright v. Raimondo clearly have the effect of increasing the role of courts and juries, among other things. We look at the opinions, the underlying themes, and the impact.  Meanwhile, following the debate, questions of presidential succession of several types, and of the vice president, are everywhere; these happen to be areas of Prof. Amar's expertise, and so we address them. NOTE: The Presidential Immunity case, Trump v. US, came down after we taped this episode; we have some early but important resources for you on this as well.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

We break down SEC v. Jarkesy and City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.

#SCOTUS: SEC vs Jarkesy vs the Administrative State. Richard Epstein, Hoover Institution. https://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-v-jarkesy-supreme-court-trial-by-jury-john-roberts-neil-gorsuch-5b717e71?mod=editorials_article_pos5 SCOTUS 1923

We're not talking about Trump and Biden, but we are discussing something that could make double-hater voters less worried about the future of presidents and executive power: the final stake through the Chevron doctrine. The Agenda: —Chevron is overruled —Jarkesy decision —How "old think" plays out in the two above decisions —Sarah's offended by Sotomayor —The non-Trump January 6 case —Are homeless people being targeted by SCOTUS? No Show Notes: —Nick Kristof's piece for the Times —Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency —Moyle v. United States 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—including Sarah's Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What's this? A bonus Opinionpalooza episode for one and all? That's right! The hits just keep coming from SCOTUS this week, and two big decisions landed Thursday that might easily get lost in the mix: Ohio v EPA and SEC v Jarkesy. Both cases shine a light on the conservative legal movement (and their billionaire funders') long game against administrative agencies. In Ohio v EPA, the Court struck down the EPA's Good Neighbor Rule, making it harder for the agency to regulate interstate ozone pollution. This decision split along ideological lines, and is part of a stealthy dismantling of the administrative state. SEC v Jarkesy severely hinders the agency's ability to enforce actions against securities fraud without federal court involvement, and the decision will affect many other agencies. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out how this power grab by the court disrupts Congress's ability to delegate authority effectively. Project 2025 just got a jump start at SCOTUS, and we have two more big administrative cases yet to come, the so-called Chevron cases: Loper Bright v Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v Department of Commerce. This is shaping up to be a good term for billionaires and a court apparently hungry to expand its power. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate's own Mark Joseph Stern (of course) and they are saved from any regulatory confusion by environmental and administrative law all-star, Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, who served in the EPA under President Obama.  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to the Securities and Exchange Commission today when it ruled against its use of in-house judges to enforce securities fraud laws. We’ll get into why the decision will make the SEC’s job harder and what it could mean for other federal agencies. Plus, we’ll bust a common myth about Social Security and explain why homeownership is key factor in how Americans are faring in this economy. Here’s everything we talked about today: “US Supreme Court faults SEC’s use of in-house judges in latest curbs on agency powers” from Reuters “The Supreme Court's chaotic SEC v. Jarkesy decision endangers ‘hundreds of statutes'” from Vox “Social Security cuts are inevitable by 2035 unless lawmakers act” from Marketplace “How the Inflation Reduction Act could change the future of one Native American reservation” from Marketplace “Credit card delinquencies are climbing” from Marketplace “Are we living in a K-shaped economy?” from Marketplace We love to hear from you. Send your questions and comments to makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to the Securities and Exchange Commission today when it ruled against its use of in-house judges to enforce securities fraud laws. We’ll get into why the decision will make the SEC’s job harder and what it could mean for other federal agencies. Plus, we’ll bust a common myth about Social Security and explain why homeownership is key factor in how Americans are faring in this economy. Here’s everything we talked about today: “US Supreme Court faults SEC’s use of in-house judges in latest curbs on agency powers” from Reuters “The Supreme Court's chaotic SEC v. Jarkesy decision endangers ‘hundreds of statutes'” from Vox “Social Security cuts are inevitable by 2035 unless lawmakers act” from Marketplace “How the Inflation Reduction Act could change the future of one Native American reservation” from Marketplace “Credit card delinquencies are climbing” from Marketplace “Are we living in a K-shaped economy?” from Marketplace We love to hear from you. Send your questions and comments to makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

What's this? A bonus Opinionpalooza episode for one and all? That's right! The hits just keep coming from SCOTUS this week, and two big decisions landed Thursday that might easily get lost in the mix: Ohio v EPA and SEC v Jarkesy. Both cases shine a light on the conservative legal movement (and their billionaire funders') long game against administrative agencies. In Ohio v EPA, the Court struck down the EPA's Good Neighbor Rule, making it harder for the agency to regulate interstate ozone pollution. This decision split along ideological lines, and is part of a stealthy dismantling of the administrative state. SEC v Jarkesy severely hinders the agency's ability to enforce actions against securities fraud without federal court involvement, and the decision will affect many other agencies. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out how this power grab by the court disrupts Congress's ability to delegate authority effectively. Project 2025 just got a jump start at SCOTUS, and we have two more big administrative cases yet to come, the so-called Chevron cases: Loper Bright v Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v Department of Commerce. This is shaping up to be a good term for billionaires and a court apparently hungry to expand its power. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate's own Mark Joseph Stern (of course) and they are saved from any regulatory confusion by environmental and administrative law all-star, Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, who served in the EPA under President Obama.  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Justices rule 6-3 in SEC v. Jarkesy that it violates the Constitution's right to a trial by jury for the securities agency to try fraud cases in internal proceedings. Plus, as Joe Biden and Donald Trump prepare to meet on the debate stage for the first time in 2024, what does each candidate need to accomplish, and will it matter that CNN is muting the microphones to stop crosstalk? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

1. Supreme Court Releases Four New Big Decisions:Ohio vs. EPA (2:53)Harrington vs. Purdue Pharma (6:09)SEC vs. Jarkesy (12:21)Moyle vs. Idaho (13:28)2. Quick Hitters: Walgreens to Close "Significant" Number of Stores, Average 30-Year Mortgage Rates Drop Slightly, Oklahoma Carries Out Death Row Execution, Oklahoma Superintendent Says Bible Must Be Taught in Schools, and Three Presidential Candidates Gear Up for Tonight's Debates (18:33)SHOP THE LIMITED-EDITION 'UNBIASED' HAT NOW: SHOP HERE.Support ‘UNBIASED' on Patreon.Watch this episode on YouTube.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here. 

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to the Securities and Exchange Commission today when it ruled against its use of in-house judges to enforce securities fraud laws. We’ll get into why the decision will make the SEC’s job harder and what it could mean for other federal agencies. Plus, we’ll bust a common myth about Social Security and explain why homeownership is key factor in how Americans are faring in this economy. Here’s everything we talked about today: “US Supreme Court faults SEC’s use of in-house judges in latest curbs on agency powers” from Reuters “The Supreme Court's chaotic SEC v. Jarkesy decision endangers ‘hundreds of statutes'” from Vox “Social Security cuts are inevitable by 2035 unless lawmakers act” from Marketplace “How the Inflation Reduction Act could change the future of one Native American reservation” from Marketplace “Credit card delinquencies are climbing” from Marketplace “Are we living in a K-shaped economy?” from Marketplace We love to hear from you. Send your questions and comments to makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

What's this? A bonus Opinionpalooza episode for one and all? That's right! The hits just keep coming from SCOTUS this week, and two big decisions landed Thursday that might easily get lost in the mix: Ohio v EPA and SEC v Jarkesy. Both cases shine a light on the conservative legal movement (and their billionaire funders') long game against administrative agencies. In Ohio v EPA, the Court struck down the EPA's Good Neighbor Rule, making it harder for the agency to regulate interstate ozone pollution. This decision split along ideological lines, and is part of a stealthy dismantling of the administrative state. SEC v Jarkesy severely hinders the agency's ability to enforce actions against securities fraud without federal court involvement, and the decision will affect many other agencies. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out how this power grab by the court disrupts Congress's ability to delegate authority effectively. Project 2025 just got a jump start at SCOTUS, and we have two more big administrative cases yet to come, the so-called Chevron cases: Loper Bright v Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v Department of Commerce. This is shaping up to be a good term for billionaires and a court apparently hungry to expand its power. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate's own Mark Joseph Stern (of course) and they are saved from any regulatory confusion by environmental and administrative law all-star, Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, who served in the EPA under President Obama.  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In today's episode:SCOTUS sides with Jarkesy, ruling that the SEC and other government agencies' in-house courts are unconstitutionalThe House GOP tells the courts that the J6 Primetime Extravaganza was legitimately illegitimateThe coup in Bolivia is so ridiculous and confusing that even globalist think-tanks are calling it a false flagPerhaps it has something to do with Bolivia's relationship to Russia, movement toward BRICS, and an end to ties with Israel and control of the global Regime.Connect with Be Reasonable: https://linktr.ee/imyourmoderatorHear the show when it's released. Become a paid subscriber at imyourmoderator.substack.comVisit the show's sponsors:Diversify your assets into Bitcoin: https://partner.river.com/reasonableDiversify your assets into precious metals: reasonablegold.comOther ways to support the work:ko-fi.com/imyourmoderatorDonate btc via coinbase: 3MEh9J5sRvMfkWd4EWczrFr1iP3DBMcKk5Make life more comfortable: mypillow.com/reasonableMerch site: https://cancelcouture.myspreadshop.com/Follow the podcast info stream: t.me/veryreasonableOther social platforms: Truth Social, Gab, Rumble, or Gettr - @imyourmoderator Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/be-reasonable-with-your-moderator-chris-paul. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: Prior to announcing his withdraw from the 2024 presidential race, Chris Christie was caught on a hot microphone saying that Nikki Haley was going to be “smoked” in the upcoming Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes: “A regional director at the NLRB last week charged SpaceX with retaliating against employees who wrote an open letter criticizing Mr. [Elon] Musk. The complaint alleged that the company unfairly barred workers from discussing the letter and ‘created an impression of surveillance' by ‘showing employees screen shots of communications between employees.' SpaceX responded with a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the board's structure and administrative trials are unconstitutional. The suit leans in part on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals's SEC v. Jarkesy precedent. The Supreme Court heard the Securities and Exchange Commission's appeal in the case in November, and a decision is expected by June.” You can read the full editorial here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/spacex-lawsuit-national-labor-relations-board-elon-musk-5b434f10?mod=opinion_lead_pos3 The Rich Zeoli Show is preempted for college basketball—the Temple Owls take on the East Carolina Pirate on 1210 WPHT.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (01/10/2024): 3:05pm- A recently released University of New Hampshire/CNN poll indicates former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley is trailing former President Donald Trump by only seven-points in the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary—39% to 32%. Interestingly, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is garnering 12% support. Will Christie dropout in order to clear a victory path for Haley? 3:15pm- On a recent episode of The Journal podcast, New Hampshire voters revealed that they are changing their party affiliation from Democrat to Republican prior to the state's January 23rd primary. Because they can't vote for their preferred candidate—Joe Biden—as he won't appear on the ballot following a Democrat National Committee feud with the state over scheduling dates, many Democrat voters are now registering as Republicans in order to vote against Donald Trump, supporting rival candidates like Nikki Haley and Chris Christie. Democrats have seemingly destroyed their own New Hampshire primary, are they impacting the Republican primary as well? 3:35pm- On Monday, former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease Dr. Anthony Fauci testified before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. During the hearing Dr. Fauci repeatedly denied remembering details about his decision making during the pandemic when pressed by members of Congress. Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX) said Dr. Fauci is still not convinced that children suffered learning loss due pandemic school closures. 4:05pm- On Wednesday, Hunter Biden shocked Capitol Hill and attended a House Oversight Committee hearing being held to determine whether Biden should be held in contempt for defying a congressional subpoena late last year. Biden did not speak during the hearing, and ultimately stormed out when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) began to speak. Following Biden's abrupt exit, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) attempted to explain away Biden's decision to leave by accusing MTG of being disrespectful towards Biden in the past—including sharing nude photos of him during past Congressional hearings. 4:20pm- Following Hunter Biden's abrupt exit from Wednesday's House Oversight Committee hearing, his attorney Abbe Lowell held an impromptu, chaotic press conference on Capitol Hill where one member of the press repeatedly asked what “type of crack” Biden preferred. 4:30pm- Breaking News: Former New Jersey Governor Christ Christie set to announce he is withdrawing from the 2024 presidential race. Will he endorse Nikki Haley next? A recently released University of New Hampshire/CNN poll indicates Haley is trailing former President Donald Trump by only seven-points in the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary—39% to 32%. Interestingly, Christie is garnering 12% support. 4:40pm- Will Chris Christie's withdraw from the 2024 presidential election impact national polling? It's unlikely. According to Real Clear Politics polling averages, Christie is at 3.5%—so, even if all of his support goes to Nikki Haley, she still wouldn't exceed 16% nationally. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is at 62% nationally. 5:05pm- Breaking News: Former New Jersey Governor Christ Christie is set to announce he is withdrawing from the 2024 presidential race. Will he endorse Nikki Haley next? A recently released University of New Hampshire/CNN poll indicates Haley is trailing former President Donald Trump by only seven-points in the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary—39% to 32%. Interestingly, Christie is garnering 12% support. Christie is scheduled to make the announcement at a previously scheduled campaign appearance in Windham, NH. 5:10pm- During Tuesday night's town hall on Fox News, Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis accused the Biden Administration of attempting to “kneecap Israel” as they fight Hamas. At one point, the town hall was briefly interrupted by protestors chanting “no more oil.” 5:20pm- Prior to announcing his withdraw from the 2024 presidential race, Chris Christie was caught on a hot microphone saying that Nikki Haley was going to be “smoked” in the upcoming Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. 5:40pm- Chris Christie spoke endlessly from Windham, New Hampshire before officially “suspending” his campaign to be president of the United States. 6:05pm- Prior to announcing his withdraw from the 2024 presidential race, Chris Christie was caught on a hot microphone saying that Nikki Haley was going to be “smoked” in the upcoming Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. 6:10pm- The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes: “A regional director at the NLRB last week charged SpaceX with retaliating against employees who wrote an open letter criticizing Mr. [Elon] Musk. The complaint alleged that the company unfairly barred workers from discussing the letter and ‘created an impression of surveillance' by ‘showing employees screen shots of communications between employees.' SpaceX responded with a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the board's structure and administrative trials are unconstitutional. The suit leans in part on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals's SEC v. Jarkesy precedent. The Supreme Court heard the Securities and Exchange Commission's appeal in the case in November, and a decision is expected by June.” You can read the full editorial here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/spacex-lawsuit-national-labor-relations-board-elon-musk-5b434f10?mod=opinion_lead_pos3 6:25pm- The Rich Zeoli Show is preempted for college basketball—the Temple Owls take on the East Carolina Pirate on 1210 WPHT.

In this special episode of the CAFE Insider podcast, Joyce Vance interviews Rachel Barkow, while Preet is out. Barkow, who recently became a CAFE contributor, is a professor at NYU Law School and author of Prisoners of Politics: Breaking the Cycle of Mass Incarceration. She also served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission from 2013 to 2019. In this excerpt from the show, Barkow discusses the high stakes of the forthcoming oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a case that asks the Supreme Court justices to overturn the long-standing Chevron doctrine that says courts should defer to federal agencies' interpretation of ambiguous laws. In the full episode, Barkow further discusses other consequential administrative law cases before the Supreme Court:  – CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of America, which could invalidate the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and – SEC v. Jarkesy, which asks whether SEC enforcement actions are consistent with the 7th Amendment's right to a jury trial. Preet will be back next week. Stay informed. For analysis of the most important legal and political issues of our time, become a member of CAFE Insider: www.cafe.com/insider. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast, and other exclusive content. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE Studios and Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Leah, Melissa, and Kate recap the arguments in the hugely important administrative law case, SEC v. Jarkesy. Plus, they welcome Oona Hathaway and Sam Sankar-- two former clerks to the late Justice Sandra Day O'Connor-- to discuss her life and legacy.Read Kate's NYT op ed on Jarkesy: "This Quiet Blockbuster at the Supreme Court Could Affect All Americans"Read Oona Hathaway's NYT op ed on Justice O'Connor, "I Clerked for Justice O'Connor. She Was My Hero, but I Worry About Her Legacy."Read The 19th's reporting on how conservative groups are using the Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling to shut down the Abundant Birth Project: "Backlash to affirmative action hits pioneering maternal health program for Black women" Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor died Friday at the age of 93. Amicus host Dahlia Lithwick is joined by former O'Connor clerk and renowned First Amendment scholar RonNell Andersen Jones to talk about the Justice's trailblazing career, her judicial philosophy, and the combination of humility and strength that marked her time on the court, and away from it.  Later in the show, Dahlia celebrates the joyous return of Mark Joseph Stern to share some big announcements AND to discuss SEC v Jarkesy. As Mark explains, the conservative justices seemed ready, willing, and able to take another swing at the administrative state (AKA functioning government). Mark Stern stays with us for this week's Amicus Plus segment, taking us through some good ol' vote suppressing stuff from MAGA-stacked lower courts choosing to ignore last term's big voting rights decision in Allen v Milligan. Remember that time Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanagh saved voting rights? Turns out these lower courts are saying - not so much.   Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss the good U.S. economy and Americans' bad feelings about it; the Supreme Court case of SEC v. Jarkesy and its threat to the system of U.S. government; and white evangelicals and Christian nationalists with The Atlantic's Tim Alberta. Send us your Conundrums: submit them at slate.com/conundrum. And join us in-person or online with our special guest – The Late Show's Steven Colbert – for Gabfest Live: The Conundrums Edition! December 7 at The 92nd Street Y, New York City. Tickets on sale now!   Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Sam Sutton for Politico: Why a ‘soft landing' may not solve Biden's polling problem Lydia DePillis for The New York Times: Even Most Biden Voters Don't See a Thriving Economy; Paul Krugman: Bidenomics and the Guys in the Bar; Jim Tankersley: ‘Morning in America' Eludes Biden, Despite Economic Gains; and Bryce Covert: Don't Let Inflation Bury the Memory of a Government Triumph Dylan Matthews for Vox: Why the news is so negative – and what we can do about it  David Winston for Roll Call: Why Voters Are Still Wary 10 Years After the Economic Collapse  Robert Barnes for The Washington Post: Supreme Court conservatives seem dubious about SEC's in-house tribunals Ronald Mann for SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court to consider multi-pronged constitutional attack on SEC Noah Rosenblum for The Atlantic: The Case That Could Destroy the Government Ian Millhiser for Vox: A Supreme Court case about stocks could help make Trump's authoritarian dreams reality Public Citizens: The Attack on Big Government and the Remaking of American Liberalism by Paul Sabin  Tim Alberta for The Atlantic: My Father, My Faith, and Donald Trump and How Politics Poisoned The Evangelical Church The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism by Tim Alberta Thomas B. Edsall for The New York Times: ‘The Embodiment of White Christian Nationalism in a Tailored Suit' PRRI and Brookings: A Christian Nation? Understanding the Threat of Christian Nationalism to American Democracy and Culture   Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Brian Murphy for The Washington Post: Larry Fink, photographer who explored class divides, dies at 82 and Emily Bazelon and Larry Fink for The New York Times Magazine: Shadow of a Doubt John: The New Yorker: “Bob and Don: A Love Story” a short documentary by Judd Apatow; CBS News Sunday Morning; and Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning by Liz Cheney David: Matt Phillips for The New York Times: Shane MacGowan, Songwriter Who Fused Punk and Irish Rebellion, Is Dead at 65 and peyoteshaman on YouTube: Pogues 930 club mid 1980's Listener chatter from Nicola in Dublin, Ireland: Irish Archaeology: Pangur Bán and Tread Softy: Classic Irish Poems for Children edited by Nicola Reddy   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, David, John, and Emily talk about the book lover's dilemma: borrow or buy. See also A Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula K. Le Guin; Little Free Library; Adam Sockel for Perspectives on Reading: Library users are book buyers; and Pew Research Center: Libraries, patrons, and e-books. In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with James Sturm about Watership Down: The Graphic Novel. See also James Sturm and Joe Sutphin in The New York Times: In Times of Danger, There's Strength in Numbers. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth  Research by Julie Huygen   Hosts Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor died Friday at the age of 93. Amicus host Dahlia Lithwick is joined by former O'Connor clerk and renowned First Amendment scholar RonNell Andersen Jones to talk about the Justice's trailblazing career, her judicial philosophy, and the combination of humility and strength that marked her time on the court, and away from it.  Later in the show, Dahlia celebrates the joyous return of Mark Joseph Stern to share some big announcements AND to discuss SEC v Jarkesy. As Mark explains, the conservative justices seemed ready, willing, and able to take another swing at the administrative state (AKA functioning government). Mark Stern stays with us for this week's Amicus Plus segment, taking us through some good ol' vote suppressing stuff from MAGA-stacked lower courts choosing to ignore last term's big voting rights decision in Allen v Milligan. Remember that time Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanagh saved voting rights? Turns out these lower courts are saying - not so much.   Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss the good U.S. economy and Americans' bad feelings about it; the Supreme Court case of SEC v. Jarkesy and its threat to the system of U.S. government; and white evangelicals and Christian nationalists with The Atlantic's Tim Alberta. Send us your Conundrums: submit them at slate.com/conundrum. And join us in-person or online with our special guest – The Late Show's Steven Colbert – for Gabfest Live: The Conundrums Edition! December 7 at The 92nd Street Y, New York City. Tickets on sale now!   Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Sam Sutton for Politico: Why a ‘soft landing' may not solve Biden's polling problem Lydia DePillis for The New York Times: Even Most Biden Voters Don't See a Thriving Economy; Paul Krugman: Bidenomics and the Guys in the Bar; Jim Tankersley: ‘Morning in America' Eludes Biden, Despite Economic Gains; and Bryce Covert: Don't Let Inflation Bury the Memory of a Government Triumph Dylan Matthews for Vox: Why the news is so negative – and what we can do about it  David Winston for Roll Call: Why Voters Are Still Wary 10 Years After the Economic Collapse  Robert Barnes for The Washington Post: Supreme Court conservatives seem dubious about SEC's in-house tribunals Ronald Mann for SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court to consider multi-pronged constitutional attack on SEC Noah Rosenblum for The Atlantic: The Case That Could Destroy the Government Ian Millhiser for Vox: A Supreme Court case about stocks could help make Trump's authoritarian dreams reality Public Citizens: The Attack on Big Government and the Remaking of American Liberalism by Paul Sabin  Tim Alberta for The Atlantic: My Father, My Faith, and Donald Trump and How Politics Poisoned The Evangelical Church The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism by Tim Alberta Thomas B. Edsall for The New York Times: ‘The Embodiment of White Christian Nationalism in a Tailored Suit' PRRI and Brookings: A Christian Nation? Understanding the Threat of Christian Nationalism to American Democracy and Culture   Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Brian Murphy for The Washington Post: Larry Fink, photographer who explored class divides, dies at 82 and Emily Bazelon and Larry Fink for The New York Times Magazine: Shadow of a Doubt John: The New Yorker: “Bob and Don: A Love Story” a short documentary by Judd Apatow; CBS News Sunday Morning; and Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning by Liz Cheney David: Matt Phillips for The New York Times: Shane MacGowan, Songwriter Who Fused Punk and Irish Rebellion, Is Dead at 65 and peyoteshaman on YouTube: Pogues 930 club mid 1980's Listener chatter from Nicola in Dublin, Ireland: Irish Archaeology: Pangur Bán and Tread Softy: Classic Irish Poems for Children edited by Nicola Reddy   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, David, John, and Emily talk about the book lover's dilemma: borrow or buy. See also A Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula K. Le Guin; Little Free Library; Adam Sockel for Perspectives on Reading: Library users are book buyers; and Pew Research Center: Libraries, patrons, and e-books. In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with James Sturm about Watership Down: The Graphic Novel. See also James Sturm and Joe Sutphin in The New York Times: In Times of Danger, There's Strength in Numbers. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth  Research by Julie Huygen   Hosts Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For its final sitting of 2023, the Supreme Court will hear cases on the Armed Career Criminal Act, double jeopardy, and whether the government is, well, constitutional. Leah, Melissa, and Kate preview those cases, and look into a hot mess of a voting rights case in the Eighth Circuit. Plus, US Representative Ro Khanna stops by to chat about SCOTUS ethics reform.Watch the Strict Scrutiny hosts on The Problem With Jon Stewart, previewing the horrors that await in Jarkesy v. SECRead Justice Jackson's powerful dissent from denial in the case of Michael Johnson, an Illinois inmate who was held in essentially complete isolation in a tiny, windowless cell, caked with human waste, for three years. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky