Podcasts about justice amy coney barrett

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley on Tuesday revealed that former Special Counsel Jack Smith spied on 44 members of Congress and actually read their text messages. It was previously reported that Jack Smith obtained “toll records” or ‘call logs' of members of Congress. In fact, Jack Smith said under oath that he did not read any text messages – but this is not true. “I received records from DOJ confirming Jack Smith's investigative team reviewed the contents of text msgs sent by 44 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Im 1 of the 44,” Grassley said on Tuesday. And Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan on Tuesday testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. Justice Amy Coney Barrett detailed the chilling threats her family has faced following the Roe v. Wade draft opinion leak.Sponsor:My PillowWww.MyPillow.com/johnSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Top headlines for Friday, July 17, 2026Focus on the Family's leadership transition as Jim Daly prepares to step down, the Education Department clapping back at podcasters who mocked homeschoolers, Justice Amy Coney Barrett revealing she received a bulletproof vest after the Dobbs leak, and Pew's finding that nearly 60% of Gen Z women get health info from influencers.0:11 Sight & Sound, Wonder Project partner to stream productions1:14 Dept. of Ed. hits back at podcasters who mocked homeschoolers2:04 Jim Daly begins Focus on the Family leadership transition2:54 Amy Coney Barrett given bulletproof vest after Dobbs leak3:50 Nearly 60% of Gen Z women get health info from influencers4:51 Marine Corps condemns remarks by House candidate about Trump5:48 Christians push back against Kairos II at Church of England SynodSubscribe to this PodcastApple PodcastsSpotifyGoogle PodcastsOvercastFollow Us on Social Media@ChristianPost on TwitterChristian Post on Facebook@ChristianPostIntl on InstagramSubscribe on YouTubeGet the Edifi AppDownload for iPhoneDownload for AndroidSubscribe to Our NewsletterSubscribe to the Freedom Post, delivered every Monday and ThursdayClick here to get the top headlines delivered to your inbox every morning!Links to the NewsSight & Sound, Wonder Project partner to stream productions | EntertainmentDept. of Ed. hits back at podcasters who mocked homeschoolers | PodcastJim Daly begins Focus on the Family leadership transition | Church & MinistriesAmy Coney Barrett given bulletproof vest after Dobbs leak | PoliticsNearly 60% of Gen Z women get health info from influencers: Pew | Living Marine Corps condemns remarks by House candidate about Trump | U.S.Christians push back against Kairos II at Church of England Synod | Church & Ministries

Why are conservatives so upset with Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett? John puts his lawyer hat on and says she's not as bad as you may think. Fresno Unified is under the microscope after two students die on campus.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Elena Kagan's testimony in front of Congress, an Alaska Airlines forum argument about religious issues, and President Donald Trump's various legal battles—from the War Powers Resolution to sanctioned lawyers to law firm subpoenas. The Agenda: –Supreme Court Justices testify before Congress –Canceling the Shadow Docket –Alaska Airlines and its employee forum –Recession of Wokeness –Trump Bait: War powers, slush fund, and law firm deals collapsing Show Notes: –Trump notifies Congress of new war against Iran Order Sarah's book here. 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 access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Erick strings together breaking audio into a single alarm about rising left-wing political violence: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent revealing he survived an assassination attempt by a left-wing activist two hours after being sworn in, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's harrowing House Judiciary testimony about the bulletproof vest her 12-year-old son found after Dobbs, and Secretary of […]

It's Thursday, July 16th, A.D. 2026. 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 Jonathan Clark and Adam McManus U.S. to Iran: Stop persecuting Christians The United States is calling for Iran to end its persecution of Christians. According to Open Doors, it's the tenth worst country in the world. In one case, authorities in the country sentenced a Christian convert to nearly 10 years in prison back in May. Forty-two-year-old Ghazal Marzban is now on a hunger strike. A State Department spokesman told Fox News Digital, “We are aware of these reports. It is reprehensible that the Iranian regime continues to persecute religious minorities, including Iranian Christians.”  Dr. Hormoz Shariat with Iran Alive Ministries told Fox News that Christians in Iran are courageous in the face of persecution. Listen. SHARIAT: “Believers in Iran are full of [the] Holy Spirit. They are courageous. They're out there. Many of them are living, and some of them are dying for Jesus. I see such a courage among the Iranian Muslim background believers.” Revelation 12:11 says, “And they overcame [the Devil] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.”  America restarted naval blockade against Iranian ports On Tuesday, the United States restarted its naval blockade against Iranian ports. This comes after the Islamic Republic continued to attack commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. Yesterday, the U.S. military carried out more strikes on Iran. President Donald Trump threatened strikes on Iran's infrastructure next week unless the country reopens negotiations.  Pro-life British Member of Parliament was killed A pro-life British politician was found dead at her home on July 9th. Seventy-eight-year-old Ann Widdecombe had served as a conservative member of Parliament from 1987 to 2010. The Catholic politician was an outspoken opponent of abortion. Counter-terrorism police report that she was clearly the victim of a targeted attack and are still investigating a motive. Supreme Court Justices ask for additional security Here in America, U.S. Supreme Court Justices testified before Congress about threats to their lives. The Supreme Court is requesting nearly $15 million in additional funds from Congress for the personal security of the justices. Justice Amy Coney Barrett talked about one incident when she was the victim of an erroneous call to her residence. BARRETT: “Roughly six weeks ago, I was the victim of a swatting incident. At that point, my teenage son, one of my teenage sons, opened the door to go out with friends and saw in our street it was full of police cars who had responded to a false report of gunshots and raised voices in my home. “I was very, very grateful that I had Supreme Court Police outside my home because they were able to stop and meet with, and explain to the county police, that it had been a false alarm. And so, the police did not actually attempt to enter our home.” Conservative justices faced intense threats surrounding the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. For example, Justice Amy Coney Barrett had to be sent home with a bullet proof vest when threats were high. In Proverbs 8:35-36, Wisdom says, “For whoever finds me finds life, and obtains favor from the LORD; but he who sins against me wrongs his own soul; all those who hate me love death.” Christian student required to attend a perversion assembly A Christian middle schooler in Washington State is suing her school district for violating her faith. Highline Public School District in Burien, Washington held a mandatory so-called “Inclusion Assembly” back in May. The event covered topics that conflicted with the girl's Christian faith. So, she asked to be excused, but the school forced her to participate.  The American Center for Law and Justice filed a lawsuit against the school last week on behalf of the Christian student. The ACLJ stated, “Our client is a little girl who has done nothing but live out her faith with kindness and respect for others.” Only 33% of Americans trust churches, down from 60% in 2001 A new Gallup survey found that Americans don't trust institutions in the United States. Only 27% of U.S. adults expressed confidence in major institutions. That's down from 43% in 2001. These institutions include banks, churches, Congress, the military, public schools, and the medical system.  Thirty-three percent of Americans express confidence in churches and organized religion. That's down from 60 percent in 2001. Tyrannosaurus Rex fossil sold for $50 million A Tyrannosaurus Rex fossil sold for a record-breaking $50.1 million in New York on Tuesday. A paleontologist discovered the skeleton on a ranch in South Dakota in 2021. Known as “Gus”, it's one of the largest and most complete dinosaurs ever discovered.  Paleontologists claim that Gus lived about 67 million years ago. However, scientists discovered a T. Rex fossil in 2005 that contained unfossilized soft tissue.  Answers in Genesis noted, “Soft tissue is not compatible with an old Earth, and yes, it is indeed a powerful confirmation of the Biblical timeline.”  Worldview listeners from Manitoba, Indiana and Kentucky weigh in Azalia Marten in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada wrote me and said, “I want to thank The Worldview team for writing the newscast every weekday.  I greatly appreciate your views. Thank you for putting your lives into this!” John Martini in Moores Hill, Indiana wrote me and said, “I appreciate three things about your news program: First, important topics are covered. Second, the reporting is concise and includes primary sources. And third, there is a direct Biblical connection made in many of the news stories. We often pray about the topics presented.” And Megan Severe in Elizabeth Town, Kentucky, said, “I am a history teacher and it's very important to me to teach my students to be aware of current events in the world. What happens today is going to shape our history. I was delighted to find your podcast and have been listening to it every morning as I get ready for work over the past year. “The podcast helps prepare me to know what important world events I should tie into my lesson. I even played it for my classes to listen to so they could hear the news from a Christian perspective. I love how you tie in Bible verses. Thanks for what you do!” 13 Worldview listeners gave $2,817 And finally, by 9:00pm Central on Wednesday night, 13 Worldview listeners had stepped up to the plate and invested their treasure to fund the six-member team behind The Worldview for another year Our thanks to Marcia in Cairo, New York who gave $25, Augustine in Auburn, California who gave $30 as well as Tim in Newton, Kansas and Kevin and Lisa in Scottdale, Pennsylvania – both of whom gave $100. We were touched by the generosity of Chuck in Penticton, British Columbia, Canada and Josh in Davenport, Iowa – both of whom gave $150, as well as Leticia in Blum, Texas who pledged $15/month for 12 months for a gift of $180, and Gena in Huntsville, Alabama who gave $182. And we're grateful to God for Richard in Camden, Wyoming who emailed me to say he is continuing with his $25/month pledge for a gift of $300, Keith in Longview, Texas who gave $300, Pat in Park Ridge, Illinois who pledged $25/month for 12 months for a total gift of $300, Daniel in Raleigh, North Carolina who gave $400, and Dennis in Fort Worth, Texas who emailed me to say he is continuing with his $50/month pledge for a total gift of $600. Those 13 gifts add up to $2,817. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please. (drum roll sound effect) $26,620 (sound effect of people cheering) That means we need to raise $29,945 to hit our $56,565 goal in just two days by this Friday, July 17th.   Remember, if you want to continue your monthly pledge to The Worldview that you started in a previous year, please let me know so we can count your generous ongoing gift toward our total -- like Richard and Dennis did. We need to find 8 Worldview listeners, who will pledge $100/month for 12 months, or give a one-time gift of $1,200, 16 folks who will pledge $50/month or give a one-time gift of $600 and 32 listeners who will pledge $25/month or give a one-time gift of $300. Go to TheWorldview.com, click on Give, select the dollar amount, and make sure to click on the “recurring” button if that's your wish. To be honest, the race to the finish line of funding the six-member Worldview team for another year is almost half way over and we are significantly behind! Can you help? Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, July 16th, in the year of our Lord 2026. 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.

Hour 3 for 7/16/26 Kathryn Jean Lopez joins Ed to discuss calls for Justice Amy Coney Barrett to resign (1:00) and the growing de-humanization in politics (16:39). Then, Kristi Hamrick from Students for Life covers the importance of defunding Planned Parenthood and changing the FDA's abortion pill policy (40:53). Link: https://studentsforlife.org/people/kristi-hamrick/ https://www.nationalreview.com/author/kathryn-jean-lopez/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/no-justice-amy-coney-barrett-most-definitely-should-not-resign-from-the-u-s-supreme-court/ https://x.com/kathrynlopez

   We may debate what degree the Supreme Court is compromised because the justices are under threats of violence from the left but it's very clear this court is affected.  Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared in front of Congress and is clearly terrified to do her job.  This is unacceptable in America.  We'll play the sound clip and you can hear her pain.    President Trump is just toying with the left wing media as he teases an address to the nation Thursday night that he says is a really, really big deal concerning election integrity.  I hope the tease isn't better than the speech.    Congress passes the Sunshine Protection Act by a wide margin and now sends it off to the Senate where it will probably die thanks to John Thune.    If you missed the All Star Game on Fox, well, it wasn't about the game.  This broadcast was a fantastic TV show and celebration of American greatness.  It was truly special and we are so, so back baby.    I'm over the disaster that was Jerome Tang coaching KSU basketball so it's time for me to apologize to KSU AD Gene Taylor who is just a terrific guy and completely respected and admired by his peers.  Taylor has been named to another high profile national position as selected by other AD's.  Yes, I had TDS.  Tang Derangement Syndrome.  I'm sorry.     Spain advances to the final of the World Cup and now I"m rooting for England to knock off Argentina.  The final is Sunday and then we get a very nice four year break.   Our Final Final is a cruise filled with Americans that was turned away by Turkey and Egypt....  because it was a gay cruise.

Erick unloads on the online right for attacking Justice Amy Coney Barrett after her House testimony about death threats, a bulletproof vest, and a swatting incident, reminding listeners the Supreme Court's security request is unanimous and backed by Clarence Thomas. Then he takes apart New York Governor Kathy Hochul's AI data center moratorium with hard […]

Chuck Goodrich appointed as new Indiana. Trump: We're going to hit Iran hard. Justice Amy Coney Barrett reveals she was told to wear bulletproof vest after Dobbs leak. United's newest premium upgrade guarantees an empty middle seat in economy. House passes the SAVE Act and Daylight-Saving TimeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hour 1 Segment 1 Tony starts the first hour of the show talking about the U.S. strikes in Iran for multiple days in a row, if they’re going to increase the strength, and what the targets are. Hour 1 Segment 2 Tony talks about the Save Act added to appropriations and passing the House. Hour 1 Segment 3 Tony is joined with Major Mike Lyons to talk about what the next steps are in dealing with Iran. Hour 1 Segment 4 Tony wraps up the first hour of the show talking about Todd Blanche testifying at his confirmation hearing. Hour 2 Segment 1 Tony starts the second hour of the show talking about the latest ICE related shootings and deaths in Houston, Texas and Biddeford, Maine. Hour 2 Segment 2 Tony talks about Taco Bell removing lettuce from their ingredients amid a cyclosporiasis parasite outbreak. Hour 2 Segment 3 Tony gets into three more things: New York seeing a dramatic exodus of millionaires causing nearly an $11B loss in tax dollars, a Canadian woman slapping a teenager over wearing Trump/ICE sweatpants, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s conservative voting record before and after Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health. Hour 2 Segment 4 Tony wraps up the second hour of the show talking about Chuck Schumer advocating violence towards Supreme Court Justices back in 2020. Tony also talks about President Donald Trump’s primetime address tomorrow night potentially regarding the 2020 election. Hour 3 Segment 1 Tony starts the final hour of the show joined with Dr. Matt Will, economist from the University of Indianapolis, to talk about the decline in the producer price index. Hour 3 Segment 2 Tony talks about taxes being too high in New York City. Hour 3 Segment 3 Tony talks more about Todd Blanche testifying at his confirmation hearing. Hour 3 Segment 4 Tony wraps up another edition of the show talking more about the U.S. strikes in Iran for multiple days in a row, if they’re going to increase the strength, and what the targets are. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hour 2 Segment 1 Tony starts the second hour of the show talking about the latest ICE related shootings and deaths in Houston, Texas and Biddeford, Maine. Hour 2 Segment 2 Tony talks about Taco Bell removing lettuce from their ingredients amid a cyclosporiasis parasite outbreak. Hour 2 Segment 3 Tony gets into three more things: New York seeing a dramatic exodus of millionaires causing nearly an $11B loss in tax dollars, a Canadian woman slapping a teenager over wearing Trump/ICE sweatpants, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s conservative voting record before and after Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health. Hour 2 Segment 4 Tony wraps up the second hour of the show talking about Chuck Schumer advocating violence towards Supreme Court Justices back in 2020. Tony also talks about President Donald Trump’s primetime address tomorrow night potentially regarding the 2020 election. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

During this hour of The Charlie James Show, host Charlie James focuses closely on the procedural mechanics and looming national headlines surrounding South Carolina's newly scheduled special primary. Joining the program is South Carolina GOP Chairman Drew McKissick, who thoroughly explains the state's primary eligibility rules to clarify exactly which voters are permitted to cast a ballot in the abbreviated election cycle. Additionally, the show shifts to the national stage to examine the Supreme Court, analyzing Justice Amy Coney Barrett's judicial position and public perceptions of the court's direction. James wraps up the hour by exploring leaked details from a highly anticipated address by Donald Trump, warning listeners about the speech's focus on Chinese election meddling and structural vulnerabilities within American voting systems.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley on Tuesday revealed that former Special Counsel Jack Smith spied on 44 members of Congress and actually read their text messages. It was previously reported that Jack Smith obtained “toll records” or ‘call logs' of members of Congress. In fact, Jack Smith said under oath that he did not read any text messages – but this is not true. “I received records from DOJ confirming Jack Smith's investigative team reviewed the contents of text msgs sent by 44 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Im 1 of the 44,” Grassley said on Tuesday. And Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan on Tuesday testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. Justice Amy Coney Barrett detailed the chilling threats her family has faced following the Roe v. Wade draft opinion leak.Sponsor:My PillowWww.MyPillow.com/johnSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week, we're looking at how the lower courts have handled AR-15 ban challenges in light of the Supreme Court's latest Second Amendment case. To explain the consensus that's developed across the appellate courts and provide a different perspective, we have Georgia State University Law Professor Andrew Willinger on the show. Willinger is the former executive director of the Duke University Firearms Law Center, and he teaches a class on the Second Amendment. He's also been critical of the Court's Second Amendment standard and its application at times. He noted that every appellate court to decide an "assault weapons" or "high-capacity" magazine case has upheld restrictions on the devices. He said they've largely coalesced around similar reasoning. While the Supreme Court has gone out of its way to emphasize that step one of the Bruen test is meant to be a pretty simple filter, Willinger said most lower courts have actually upheld AR bans at step two. Willinger said they've identified things like 19th-century Bowie knife bans as the core historical analogue for modern AR bans. He said courts have padded those laws with much earlier and much later weapons restrictions, such as the National Firearms Act of the 1930s. He noted some courts have also used the similarity between AR-15s and military weapons, like the M-16, to uphold the modern bans. He rejected the idea that the consensus surrounding assault weapons bans in the lower courts is primarily a product of geography. Gun-rights activists have long claimed the fact that only a handful of deep blue states have these sorts of bans means only left-leaning circuits have the opportunity to review them. But Willinger argued that the judges involved in the decisions come from a fairly diverse background, with a number of them being Republican appointees. Still, Willinger said he doubts the Supreme Court will find the same way the lower courts have. He argued we already know that four of the Republican appointees would strike down the law based on their public statements. He said Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett are the only Republican appointees who haven't directly opined on the laws, but he also said he doesn't think they'll both split from the other conservatives.Special Guest: Andrew Willinger.

Your favourite Aunties, Ak, Farrah and Nana are back with another packed episode, joined by Kelechi Okafor!AUNTYVENTION

The Supreme Court closed out the term handing down two high profile decisions on birthright citizenship and Trans athletes. The former decision went in favor of maintaining it but nevertheless caused some partisan reaction especially toward Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Professor Boso also discusses the historic use of emergency actions from the Trump Administration to the Court, and the Court's willingness to agree to them.

The Daily Mail article centers less on the legal details of the birthright citizenship case and more on the political fallout: Trump's supporters directing criticism at Justice Amy Coney Barrett after she joined the Supreme Court majority in preserving birthright citizenship and rejecting Trump's executive order. Please Like, Comment and Follow 'Philip Teresi on KMJ' on all platforms: --- Philip Teresi on KMJ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever else you listen to podcasts. -- Philip Teresi on KMJ Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 FM KMJ | Website | Facebook | Instagram | X | Podcast | Amazon | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Daily Mail article centers less on the legal details of the birthright citizenship case and more on the political fallout: Trump's supporters directing criticism at Justice Amy Coney Barrett after she joined the Supreme Court majority in preserving birthright citizenship and rejecting Trump's executive order. Please Like, Comment and Follow 'Philip Teresi on KMJ' on all platforms: --- Philip Teresi on KMJ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever else you listen to podcasts. -- Philip Teresi on KMJ Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 FM KMJ | Website | Facebook | Instagram | X | Podcast | Amazon | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pramila Jayapal desperately begs for cash with a recipe you can Google free. The viral German soccer fan Freddy deactivated his X account. Rep. Adam Smith is issuing a warning to his party about letting in socialists. // LongForm: GUEST: Let's Go Washington's Brian Heywood on SCOTUS upholding transgender athlete bans as well as their decision to hear a parental rights case out of Washington. // Quick Hit: A House Republican explains why he has been absent for months. Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley pushes back on criticism of Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

During the opening segment of Hour 2 on The Tara Show on Wednesday, July 1, 2026, host Tara Servatius detailed Donald Trump's reaction to the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling, highlighting a satirical Truth Social post where he "congratulated" Chinese President Xi Jinping on the massive win for Chinese birth tourism. Tara explained that this loophole—which she claims allows roughly 100,000 Chinese babies to be born on American soil each year—was quietly exacerbated during the Obama administration when visa requirements were loosened for the Northern Mariana Islands. She and co-host Lee discussed immediate remedies the Trump administration could deploy, such as imposing a 500% tariff on companies operating birth tourism businesses or using executive authority to exclude fertile foreign nationals from entering the country without a visa. Tara then systematically dismantled Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion, arguing it was intellectually lazy because it completely ignored the second clause of the 14th Amendment requiring individuals to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Citing historical records from the amendment's framers, like Senator Lyman Trumbull and Representative John Bingham, Tara proved that the original legal intent explicitly excluded American Indians, diplomats, and invading armies because they maintained allegiances to foreign powers or sovereign tribes. Ultimately, she slammed corporate and globalist open-border remnants of the Bush era, like Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, for activist legal reasoning while celebrating that the executive branch still retains fast-tracked expedited removal powers to bypass backlogged immigration courts and deport illegal aliens.

In part one of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, President Trump on Monday blasted a Supreme Court opinion upholding a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots received up to five days after Election Day to be counted. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump nominee, rebuked Republicans' arguments in the case, writing that as long as Election Day is the statutorily required date on which a vote is submitted and that "election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt." Trump fired back hours later on Truth Social, calling the case a "tremendous loss" for voters' rights and saying the ruling means Congress must moot it immediately by passing the SAVE America Act. Also President Trump says he will 'continue the fight' after Supreme Court declines to review Carroll abuse verdict / the strategy of World Cup soccer players / Democrat's disdain for living in the U.S. / and foreign nationals fascinated with the abundance of American goods. For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Mark Walters welcomes Andy Hooser, The Voice of Reason, to break down the latest Second Amendment news, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's role in a key Supreme Court election case, and why constitutional precedent could affect every right protected by the Bill of Rights.

On the June 30, 2026 broadcast of The Tara Show, host Tara analyzed a dramatic series of political and local developments. She kicked off the hour celebrating a monumental 6–3 Supreme Court victory that dismantled decades of bureaucratic immunity, allowing the president to fire independent agency heads at will. However, she paired that praise with harsh criticism for SCOTUS's concurrent mail-in ballot decision, slamming Justice Amy Coney Barrett and urging the immediate passage of the federal SAVE Act to counter potential voter fraud. Shifting to local news, Tara detailed a recent shooting at Greenville's Haywood Mall, using the suspect's violation of his house arrest to argue that "gun-free zones" are inherently flawed. Finally, she closed the segment by bashing South Carolina GOP leaders, accusing them of selling out to Democrats to kill an over-the-counter Ivermectin bill.

On the June 30, 2026 broadcast of The Tara Show, the hosts detailed Donald Trump's immediate response to the Supreme Court's decision allowing states to legally accept mail-in ballots after Election Day. Expressing deep frustration with the ruling—and casting blame on Justice Amy Coney Barrett for backing it—Trump renewed his aggressive push for federal election reforms. He urged the immediate passage of the SAVE Act, a piece of legislation requiring strict photo ID and proof of citizenship, while banning mail-in ballots for anyone who isn't ill, disabled, militarily deployed, or traveling. The show emphasized that without a secure chain of custody, lax mail-in voting rules remain a massive vulnerability that could reshape American elections for decades to come.

Megyn Kelly is joined by Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, and Stu Burguiere, host of "Predictable with Stu," to talk about the shocking Supreme Court decision on mail-in ballots going against conservatives, why Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal justices on this issue, concerns about its impact on future elections, why Chief Justice John Roberts is siding with the Supreme Court's liberal majority on multiple key cases, the implications of the Lisa Cook firing case, why the Trump administration's DHS chief Markwayne Mullin is quickly backtracking over his comments about Haitians and TPS, the growing conservative backlash over the potential Haitians aren't immediately deported, the truth about crimes committed by some of the Haitian immigrants in America, why supporting legal immigration and assimilation does not require supporting Temporary Protected Status for Haitians, the ultra woke politician Scott Wiener getting screamed at by anti-Israel protesters during a trans rally, why even progressive politicians are no longer woke enough for parts of the activist left, "Supergirl" bombing at the box office, how the film's star alienated potential audiences with her public comments, why Hollywood's fake feminism is failing, and more.   Davis- https://article3project.org/ Burguiere- https://predictableshow.com/   Supersure Insurance: Upgrade your business insurance to a year-round SuperAgency at https://Supersure.com/Megyn Herald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com The Wellness Company: Don't let a sudden illness derail your summer—secure your peace of mind and save $45 on a Medical Emergency Kit today by visiting https://UrgentCareKit.com/MK and using promo code MK. Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get a free America 250 silver round with qualifying purchase     Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In part one of our Supreme Court decisions coverage, Charles C. W. Cooke, Richard Epstein, and John Yoo break down the decisions handed down today, beginning with the Court's treatment of presidential removal power in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook (no relation) —the first apparently overruling Humphrey's Executor for ordinary agencies, the second preserving a major carveout for the Federal Reserve. They also debate Chatrie v. United States, a Fourth Amendment case involving law enforcement's use of geofencing warrants and cellphone location data, and close with Watson v. Republican National Committee, in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that states may count mail-in ballots received after Election Day unless Congress clearly says otherwise. Along the way, the hosts argue over the administrative state, judicial independence, election integrity, and whether the Roberts Court is as predictable—or as partisan—as its critics claim. Part two will be on Thursday, with a decision expected on (cue dramatic music)...birthright citizenship!

In part one of our Supreme Court decisions coverage, Charles C. W. Cooke, Richard Epstein, and John Yoo break down the decisions handed down today, beginning with the Court's treatment of presidential removal power in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook (no relation) —the first apparently overruling Humphrey's Executor for ordinary agencies, the second preserving a major carveout for the Federal Reserve. They also debate Chatrie v. United States, a Fourth Amendment case involving law enforcement's use of geofencing warrants and cellphone location data, and close with Watson v. Republican National Committee, in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that states may count mail-in ballots received after Election Day unless Congress clearly says otherwise. Along the way, the hosts argue over the administrative state, judicial independence, election integrity, and whether the Roberts Court is as predictable—or as partisan—as its critics claim. Part two will be on Thursday, with a decision expected on (cue dramatic music)...birthright citizenship!

United States Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Shilo Brooks, President and CEO of the Bush Center, to discuss her book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution for a special Engage at the Bush Center, presented by NexPoint. During their discussion, she reflected on her journey to the Supreme Court, offering insights into her daily life and the Court's deliberation process. Related:  Watch the Engage program Celebrate America 250 at the Bush Center    

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia DecidedOn this day in 1967, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia striking down Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and, with it, the anti-miscegenation statutes that sixteen states still had on the books. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the Court. The case had come up from a county courthouse in Caroline County, Virginia, where Richard Loving, a white bricklayer, and Mildred Jeter, a Black and Native American woman, had been arrested in their bedroom in the middle of the night in 1958 by a sheriff acting on an anonymous tip — they had been married in the District of Columbia and returned home to Virginia, where their marriage was a felony. The Lovings pleaded guilty, accepted suspended sentences on the condition that they leave the state for twenty-five years, and lived in exile in Washington until Mildred wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy that landed eventually with the ACLU, which took the case.The Supreme Court's opinion did two things at once. It held that Virginia's statute violated the Equal Protection Clause because it drew an explicit racial classification with no legitimate state purpose beyond preserving “White Supremacy” — the Court used the phrase the Virginia statute itself had used — and it held that the statute violated the Due Process Clause because the freedom to marry is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” That second holding, the marriage-as-fundamental-right strand, is the through-line that runs from Loving to Zablocki v. Redhail in 1978, to Turner v. Safley in 1987, to Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 — every one of those decisions cites Loving and treats it as the foundational case. Whether the Court's substantive due process marriage doctrine survives the next decade is, as we discussed earlier this week, one of the open questions in American constitutional law. But Loving itself remains intact, and on June 12, 1967, the Court said something it had not said cleanly before: that the right to marry is the kind of liberty interest the Constitution actually protects.The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the Second Circuit in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd., holding 6-3 that the Investment Company Act of 1940 does not give private parties a cause of action to seek rescission of fund bylaws or other contractual terms. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority. The dispute came out of a campaign by Boaz Weinstein's Saba Capital against eleven closed-end funds — funds that, under Maryland's Control Share Acquisition Act, had adopted bylaws limiting the voting power of any shareholder who accumulated a disproportionate stake without the consent of other shareholders. Saba sued under Section 47(b) of the ICA, which makes contracts that violate the Act unenforceable, and the Second Circuit held that Section 47(b) implied a private right to rescind the bylaws.The Court told the Second Circuit to look harder at the modern implied-cause-of-action doctrine, which since Alexander v. Sandoval in 2001 has been hostile to inferring private rights of action that Congress did not write into the statute. The opinion reads as a continuation of that line: the ICA's enforcement structure is committed to the SEC, not to private plaintiffs, and Section 47(b) is a defense against contracts the SEC has already determined to be unlawful, not an offensive cause of action. The dissent, by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that this is a misreading of Section 47(b)'s text and that the majority is gratuitously narrowing the enforcement of the federal securities laws. The practical impact is significant. Activist investors who had been pushing closed-end funds to convert to open-end form, or to alter investment strategies, lose a federal-court tool they had been using; the funds themselves and their independent directors gain a meaningful structural defense. Expect the next round of activist campaigns to move to state-court fiduciary-duty theories instead.US Supreme Court rules against private suits brought under key securities law | US NewsThe Court on Thursday also decided Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., vacating the Fifth Circuit 9-0 in an opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The case is small in its facts and large in its doctrine. Thomas Keathley filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2019 and failed to disclose, on his schedule of assets, a personal-injury claim he later brought against a construction company over a truck accident. The Fifth Circuit barred the personal-injury suit on judicial-estoppel grounds — the longstanding equitable doctrine that prevents a party from taking one position in one proceeding and a contradictory position in another — using a three-factor test under which a debtor's mere knowledge of the facts plus a motive to conceal was enough to bar the later claim.The Supreme Court said no.To determine whether the omission was inadvertent or mistaken for judicial-estoppel purposes, the Court held, the lower courts must look to the totality of the circumstances, not just to whether the debtor knew of the facts and had a motive. The doctrinal interest of the case lies in two concurrences. Justice Sotomayor, concurring, wrote that judicial estoppel should likely never apply in an open bankruptcy case at all — the trustee can simply amend the schedule and pursue the claim for the estate, which solves the problem judicial estoppel was invented to address. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, went further and questioned whether federal courts have any inherent authority to apply judicial estoppel as a freestanding doctrine, period — a position that, if it ever gets five votes, would unwind a doctrine that has been part of American practice since the 1850s. None of that is the holding. But the votes to revisit one of the duller corners of equitable estoppel are now visibly on the table.Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. | SCOTUSblogThe third unanimous decision of the day was Abouammo v. United States, in which the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and vacated the obstruction-of-an-FBI-investigation conviction of Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee whose underlying case was one of the more striking Saudi-Arabia infiltration prosecutions of the last decade. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion. The facts are simple and the constitutional point cleaner than the facts. Abouammo, while working at Twitter's San Francisco office in 2014 and 2015, accessed and passed on confidential user information about Saudi dissidents to a Saudi official, in exchange for a $42,000 watch and $200,000 in wire transfers. The FBI eventually came to interview him at his home in Seattle, where he had moved by 2018, and during those interviews he created and emailed agents a fake invoice intended to make the wire transfers look like a legitimate consulting fee. The Justice Department charged the obstruction count along with foreign-agent and wire-fraud counts in the Northern District of California, and a San Francisco jury convicted him on all of them.The Supreme Court held that the obstruction count belonged in the Western District of Washington, not California, because the act of creating and sending the false invoice — the only act that supported the obstruction charge — happened entirely in Seattle. Article III's venue clause and the Sixth Amendment's vicinage requirement together do not let the government try a defendant in a state where no element of the charged offense occurred, no matter how convenient the prosecution. The obstruction conviction is vacated. The foreign-agent and wire-fraud convictions, which had different venue facts and were not before the Court, stand. Abouammo will not walk free. But the prosecution will need to decide whether to retry the obstruction count in Seattle, and the case is now a clean precedent that the venue clause has real teeth in a multi-district federal investigation.US Supreme Court overturns ex-Twitter employee's obstruction conviction in Saudi spy case | US News 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

Andrew Walworth, Tom Bevan and Carl Cannon discuss today's Maine Democratic senate primary, and what it may mean for the Democratic Party nationally in the 2026 midterms. And, they take a look at the GOP gubernatorial and senate primary being held today in South Carolina. Next, RCP National Political Correspondent Susan Crabtree joins the guys to discuss the counting of votes in California's primaries. Then, the guys discuss threats to Supreme Court justices, including the recent “swatting” of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And finally, they chat about President Trump attending Game 3 of the NBA playoffs at Madison Square Garden last night where the New York Knicks lost to the San Antonio Spurs. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Sarah Isgur and David French (he returns!) discuss the major Trump losses—Kennedy Center name change, motion on Trump v. IRS, and injunction on the slush fund—before reviewing scrutiny of the court and the swatting incident at Justice Amy Coney Barrett's residence.  The Agenda: –Sarah returns to the greatest state in the U-S-of-A –Kicking Trump's name from the Kennedy Center –The Flight 93 problem –Trump v. IRS –Justice Barrett swatted –A Justice's son having a job is a scandal, I guess.  Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Last Call, a look at the biggest stories Jim and Greg covered over the past week on the 3 Martini Lunch.This week they discuss former First Lady Jill Biden lying to us yet again about Joe Biden's condition in 2024, the attempted swatting of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass facing allegations of flouting election laws, and Virginia Democrats postponing their congressional campaigns.First, Jim and Greg hammer Jill Biden after her CBS News interview in which she claimed she thought President Joe Biden was having a stroke during his 2024 debate against President Trump. She also insisted she had never seen Biden in that condition before or after that night. Jim and Greg call out her lies as Mrs. Biden pushes her new book.Next, they condemn the latest threat targeting a U.S. Supreme Court justice after Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the target of an attempted swatting - sending police to a home under false pretenses. Thankfully, police quickly recognized the hoax before it escalated. Jim and Greg also reflect on how political violence and intimidation have continued to worsen since the attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh four years ago.Then, they react to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass holding a campaign event next to a ballot drop box while supporters submitted ballots during the event. Challenger Spencer Pratt has filed a complaint alleging Bass violated election laws. Jim and Greg explain why ballot drop boxes are a horrible idea and how candidates just don't seem to care if they are breaking election laws.Finally, they have fun noting several Virginia Democrats are quietly ending their congressional campaigns now that this year's elections will be held under the existing congressional map and not the egregiously gerrymandered map struck down earlier this month by the Virginia Supreme Court.Please visit our great sponsors:Fast Growing TreesBetter plants, better growing, and an extra 20% off with code MARTINI at https://FastGrowingTrees.com/Martini for a limited time; terms and conditions may apply.New episodes every weekday. 

Tim, Ian, and Tate are joined by Will Chamberlain to discuss an Alien website going live, Justice Amy Coney Barrett swatted, a man arrested after allegedly threatening Erika Kirk, and the Pentagon puts military assets in place around Cuba.  SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ Join - https://timcast.com/discord Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) | https://www.shoutout.fans/timpool Ian  ⁨@IanCrossland⁩  (everywhere) | https://graphene.movie/ Tate @realTateBrown (everywhere) |  ⁨@TimcastTateBrown⁩  (YT) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest:  Will Chamberlain @willchamberlain (X)   Podcast available on all podcast platforms! White House Drops ALIENS.GOV, Saying THEY WALK AMONG US | Timcast IRL For advertising inquiries please email sponsorships@rumble.com

Join Jim and Greg for the Friday 3 Martini Lunch as they react to Sen. Susan Collins clashing with Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner over the Iraq War, the attempted swatting of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham claiming Democrats don't need men's votes to win elections, and the unraveling of the Freedom 250 concert series on the National Mall.First, Jim and Greg break down the comments of Sen. Susan Collins and Democrat challenger Graham Platner after Platner accused Collins of voting to send him to die in Iraq. They applaud Collins for clearly correcting the record and welcome a Wall Street Journal column from the Purple Heart recipient whom Platner said he wished had died during the war.Next, they condemn the latest threat targeting a U.S. Supreme Court justice after Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the target of an attempted swatting - sending police to a home under false pretenses. Thankfully, police quickly recognized the hoax before it escalated. Jim and Greg also reflect on how political violence and intimidation have continued to worsen since the attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh four years ago.Then, they react to comments from New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who told Democrats that if enough Democrat women vote, they won't need support from men to win elections. Jim and Greg consider what Lujan Grisham is really saying here and the massive media double standard that comes with it.Finally, they cringe as the majority of artists withdraw from an already lackluster lineup of Freedom 250 concerts on the National Mall starting next month. Jim and Greg have some fun discussing some of the names that were on the schedule but note how this news is also a reflection of how divisive our nation is right now.Please visit out great sponsors:OneSkinFor a limited time, try OneSkin with 15% off using code 3ML at https://oneskin.co/3MLPocket HoseFor a limited time, get two free gifts—a 360° rotating pocket pivot and a thumb drive nozzle—when you buy the Pocket Hose Ballistic; just text MARTINI to 64000, message and data rates may apply.New episodes every weekday. 

Join Jim and Greg for the Friday 3 Martini Lunch as they react to Sen. Susan Collins clashing with Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner over the Iraq War, the attempted swatting of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham claiming Democrats don't need men's votes to win elections, and the […]

This Day in Legal History: The Indian Removal Act of 1830On this day May 28, 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, authorizing the federal government to “negotiate” the relocation of Native American tribes east of the Mississippi to lands in what is now Oklahoma. On its face the statute framed displacement as voluntary, treaty-based, and compensated; in practice it became the legal scaffolding for the forced expulsion of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole nations, culminating in the Trail of Tears.The bill passed the House by just five votes, with Davy Crockett among its most prominent dissenters. The years that immediately followed produced the Marshall Court's foundational Indian law trilogy — Johnson v. M'Intosh, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, and Worcester v. Georgia — the last of which Jackson famously (and probably apocryphally) refused to enforce. The doctrinal residue of the Removal era is still in force today: tribes remain “domestic dependent nations,” Congress still claims a “plenary power” over them, and the Supreme Court is still relitigating what reservation boundaries actually mean — most recently in McGirt v. Oklahoma in 2020 and Haaland v. Brackeen in 2023. The 1830 Act was not the beginning of dispossession in North America, but it was the moment Congress took ownership of the policy and dressed it in the language of statute. Whatever else May 28 marks on the calendar, in legal history it marks the day removal became American law.Dutch coatings giant AkzoNobel, the maker of Dulux paint, told Sherwin-Williams and Nippon Paint Wednesday that their €12.5 billion ($14.6 billion) joint takeover proposal is not a “superior proposal” and that the board would stay the course on its already-agreed merger with Axalta Coating Systems. The rejected offer, made at €73 per share, would have carved AkzoNobel up — Nippon taking the decorative paints business, Sherwin-Williams taking industrial coatings — and was the second pass after an earlier bid that the board had swatted away in April.AkzoNobel's reasons read like a Dutch corporate-law primer: the offer “did not come close to adequately reflecting” long-term value, the deal-certainty risk around regulatory clearances was too high, and the “interests of AkzoNobel stakeholders” were not adequately safeguarded. That last word is the legal tell. Under Dutch law, a listed company's board is not bound by anything resembling Delaware's Revlon duty to maximize shareholder value in a sale; it answers to a stakeholder model that explicitly weighs employees, creditors, suppliers, and the long-term interests of the enterprise alongside the shareholders. That gives a Dutch board far more room to reject a premium cash bid than a comparable U.S. target would have, especially with a friendly all-stock merger of equals (the Axalta deal) already on the table.The combined AkzoNobel-Axalta entity, announced last November and worth roughly $25 billion, plans to list on the NYSE with dual HQs in Amsterdam and Philadelphia and Dutch tax residency — a structure that itself preserves the Dutch governance model post-close. The CMA in the U.K. has already opened a public comment period on the Axalta deal, and antitrust review is likely the live front to watch from here.AkzoNobel Snubs €12.5B Sherwin-Williams, Nippon Paint Bid | Law360The Trump administration is preparing to halt federal immigration and customs processing at airports located in jurisdictions it deems “sanctuary cities” or “sanctuary states,”, according to a report Reuters published. The mechanism, if implemented, would have Customs and Border Protection officers stop staffing inbound international arrival processing — meaning international passengers landing at, say, San Francisco, Boston, or Seattle would be unable to clear customs at those airports and would have to be diverted. The legal architecture here is unusual because CBP staffing decisions sit at the discretionary end of federal administrative law: the agency has wide latitude to deploy officers where it wants, and there is no statutory entitlement for any particular city to host a federal port of entry.That said, a decision to use that discretion as punishment for a state or municipality's refusal to honor ICE detainers would invite a familiar set of challenges — South Dakota v. Dole-style coercion arguments dressed up as preemption, anti-commandeering claims under Murphy v. NCAA and Printz v. United States, and APA challenges under State Farm to whatever administrative record the agency assembles. Several of the targeted jurisdictions have already won injunctions in earlier rounds of sanctuary-city funding fights, including against the prior conditioning of Byrne JAG grants on detainer compliance. The political move is obvious; the legal move is less so, and the administration will need to articulate a non-pretextual reason for the staffing change if it wants to survive arbitrary-and-capricious review. Whether airlines, airport authorities, or the states themselves will have standing to sue — and what kind of irreparable harm a redirected flight inflicts — is going to be the first set of questions a court has to answer.US draws up plans to halt immigration, customs processing at ‘sanctuary city' airports | ReutersThe Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Fourth Circuit's decision reviving the National Association of Immigration Judges' First Amendment challenge to a federal rule restricting what sitting immigration judges may say publicly about the agency that employs them. The per curiam opinion's holding is narrow but striking: the Fourth Circuit, the justices said, committed an abuse of discretion by reviving the suit on a theory neither party briefed, a “drastic departure from the principle of party presentation” laid out in cases like United States v. Sineneng-Smith. The party-presentation principle is one of those background structural rules that doesn't get a lot of airtime — the basic idea is that federal courts are passive instruments that decide the cases the parties bring them, not the cases judges wish the parties had brought — but here it became outcome-determinative.Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote separately to say the Fourth Circuit was also wrong on the merits because it ignored Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, the 2012 decision holding that the Civil Service Reform Act's administrative-channeling regime is the exclusive route for covered federal employees to challenge adverse employment actions, even constitutional ones. The practical effect is that the immigration judges' union now has to litigate its First Amendment claim through the Merit Systems Protection Board and then the Federal Circuit rather than in district court, and the case bounces back to the Fourth Circuit to redo the analysis on whatever ground the parties did actually raise. The Court also denied a cross-petition from the union. The case is Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges, No. 25-767; the merits cross-petition was No. 25-1009.Justices Order Redo In Immigration Judges' Free Speech Suit | Law360A Sixth Circuit panel on Tuesday affirmed the dismissal of an attempt by Right to Life of Michigan and a group of parents to block enforcement of Proposal 3, the 2022 Michigan ballot initiative that wrote a fundamental right to reproductive freedom into Article I, Section 28 of the state constitution. The panel did not reach the merits — the case stopped at standing — and the opinion, written by Judge John K. Bush, is a clean illustration of how high the Article III standing bar is for pre-enforcement challenges of this kind. Standing requires the plaintiff to show an injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, and the parents here couldn't make the traceability link work: their theory was that the amendment might allow schools or other actors to help minors obtain contraception or abortion care without parental consent, but the complaint identified no specific enforcement action by Governor Whitmer, Attorney General Nessel, or Secretary of State Benson that was causing or threatening any such injury.The panel reiterated the Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife framework and quoted approvingly the rule that a “general allegation” that an executive officer is “generally responsible for executing” state law does not, by itself, establish standing to sue that officer. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' attempt to bootstrap standing off the AG's and governor's authority to enforce Michigan's consumer protection and civil rights statutes, calling those allegations too speculative. This is going to be the template for the next several rounds of post-Dobbs challenges to state constitutional reproductive-rights amendments: the merits questions about scope and federal preemption will keep coming, but plaintiffs are going to need a concrete enforcement target to even get a hearing.6th Circ. Rejects Mich. Reproductive Rights Challenge | Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says: “all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” But on his first day back in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that changed that understanding. According to the President's executive order, going forward, the only people who will be U.S. citizens at birth are people who are born in the United States to parents who are citizens, at least one of whom is a citizen, or at least one of the parents is a legal permanent resident of the United States. And what does all of this mean for Native Americans?  In this episode, Greg Ablavsky, a Stanford Law professor and scholar of federal Indian law, joins Pam Karlan to discuss President Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship--a case now at the Supreme Court. The discussion centers on the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and, in particular, the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Ablavsky explains why federal Indian law has become part of that debate. He traces the distinctive legal status of Native nations within the United States, the historical exception for members of tribal nations, and the way that history appears in seminal cases such as Elk v. Wilkins.  The conversation also looks at the relationship between Elk and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case that recognized birthright citizenship for a child born in the United States to Chinese parents. Along the way, Karlan and Ablavsky break down why history matters to the government's current effort to argue for new limits on birthright citizenship--and more. Links: Gregory Ablavsky >>> Stanford Law page Federal Ground: Governing Property and Violence in the First U.S. Territories >>> Stanford Law page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) Who qualifies as a U.S. citizen at birth? (00:03:54) The Origins of the 14th Amendment  (00:05:58) "Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof" (00:11:42) Citizenship at the Supreme Court (00:17:03) Native Americans, the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, and the Presidency (00:18:49) The Supreme Court Oral Argument in Trump v. CASA (Barbara) — Analogies, Originalism, and the Native American (00:28:31) Practical Chaos, Hard Cases and What the Court Should Do Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

I never thought I'd be covering court battles like this, but here I am, glued to the latest twists in the legal wars swirling around President Donald Trump. Just yesterday, on March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court heard arguments in United States v. Hemani, where the Trump administration is defending a federal law banning illegal drug users from owning guns. Justice Elena Kagan grilled lawyers with hypotheticals about ayahuasca ceremonies, and even Justice Amy Coney Barrett admitted she'd never heard of the drug, asking if it was real. The justices seemed skeptical of challenges to the law's constitutionality, drawing parallels to everyday drug use to test the limits of Second Amendment rights, as reported in SCOTUSblog's live coverage.But that's just one front. Trump's unilateral military strike on Iran has sparked a firestorm over war powers. The New York Times' Charlie Savage detailed how accusations are flying that Trump violated the Constitution by launching the operation without congressional approval. It's reignited the age-old debate on who controls America's war machine—presidents have done it before, but critics say this crosses a line, paving the way for broader Supreme Court scrutiny.Over in the D.C. Circuit, things got wild with those executive orders targeting law firms like Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey. Trump hit them hard—terminating government contracts, yanking security clearances, barring access to federal buildings—because they represented his opponents, worked on voting rights, or challenged his 2020 election efforts. District judges, including Beryl Howell, called it chilling, a First Amendment nightmare that could scare lawyers from tough cases. The Justice Department stunned everyone by moving to dismiss the appeals on Monday, a huge win for the firms and the rule of law. But Tuesday, they flipped, filing to revive the fights without explanation. Democracy Docket reports the firms fired back, urging the court to reject the about-face. Pro-democracy watchers are alarmed—this isn't just about contracts; it's whether a president can weaponize government against his legal foes.Meanwhile, the Federal Circuit shot down the Trump team's plea to delay a tariff refund case by up to four months. After the Supreme Court's February 20 ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't let presidents slap on tariffs willy-nilly, Trump vented on social media about rehearing it. Bloomberg's Zoe Tillman notes the administration argued complexity demands caution, but companies are pushing back, saying delays hurt. Trump responded by imposing 10 percent tariffs on all countries starting February 24 using other laws, per Holland & Knight analysis.Down in New York, a federal court in the Southern District smacked down Trump's bid to kill the city's Congestion Pricing program. Earthjustice, representing Riders Alliance and Sierra Club alongside the MTA, won summary judgment. U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman ruled Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy couldn't override the democratic process that approved the tolls, which have cleaned the air, sped up streets, boosted transit, and added millions to the economy despite Trump's "disaster" label.And that's not all—Lawfare's tracker logs 298 active cases challenging Trump actions, from national security to the Alien Enemies Act deportations. State courts are buzzing too, with oral arguments on ghost guns and DOJ voter data grabs. Whew, listeners, these past few days have been a legal whirlwind, testing the courts like never before.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

This week, we're taking a deep dive into the Supreme Court oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez. To do that, we have one of the people who was directly involved: Wolford's lawyer, Alan Beck. He joined the show to give us a preview of the case before oral arguments. Now, he's back to give us a rundown of how everything went from his perspective. Beck said being in the room was an entirely different experience from listening to arguments online or reading a transcript. He said the justices were more expressive than many of the other federal judges he's argued in front of before, and it gave him extra insight into how arguments were going. He noted that at different points some of them even became visibly exasperated with some of what his opponent was saying, especially during the portion where they discussed a Black Code as evidence for Hawaii's modern gun-carry restriction. Beck said he believes a majority of the justices favored his position. He said Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared skeptical of his view about Second Amendment rights on private property, but he believes she came to understand his position after a long back-and-forth. Meanwhile, he said he thought his argument about the incompatibility of Hawaii's restrictions with American history won over a lot of the justices, perhaps even Justice Elana Kagan.Special Guest: Alan Beck.

Leah, Melissa, and Kate dive into the raging legal battles over redistricting ahead of next year's midterms, Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan's massive oopsies in her prosecution of James Comey, developments with L'Affaire Epstein, and other assorted legal quagmires and outrages from the Trump administration. Then, Kate chats with University of Minnesota Law Professor Jill Hasday about her book We the Men: How Forgetting Women's Struggles for Equality Perpetuates Inequality. Check out Leah's review of Justice Amy Coney Barrett's book, Listening to the Law, for the Los Angeles Review of Books here.Favorite things:Kate: Lux, Rosalía; The Unraveling of the Justice Department, Emily Bazelon and Rachel Poser (NYT); Wild Dark Shore, Charlotte McConaghy; The Gods of New York: Egotists, Idealists, Opportunists, and the Birth of the Modern City: 1986-1990, Jonathan MahlerLeah: Mature, Hilary Duff; The Pop-Tarts Bowl; Cupcakin' Bake Shop in BerkeleyMelissa: Judith Browne Dianis & Alexei Navalny win the inaugural Kettering Democracy Prize; Meghan's Moment, Kaitlyn Greenidge (Harper's Bazaar); Meet the Veteran Who Chases ICE on a Scooter, Isabela Dias (Mother Jones) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In part two of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, Justice Amy Coney Barrett had pointed questions Wednesday about the law Donald Trump invoked to impose global tariffs, joining several other justices on the right and left in voicing skepticism about the president's ability to use a tool he has deemed critical to carrying out his economic agenda. Solicitor General John Sauer repeatedly argued during the lengthy 2½-hour oral arguments that the emergency law Trump used to enact the tariffs for nearly every U.S. trading partner contained language about regulating imports, which Sauer said included using tariffs. The relevant statute permits the president to "regulate … nullify [and] void … importation," but it does not use the word "tariff." Also Bernie Sanders crashes Schumer's news conference yesterday criticizing Democrats for not supporting Zohran Mamdani in New York and Graham Platner in Maine For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How does the Supreme Court really work—and how does one of its youngest justices balance life, law, and seven children? In this in-depth conversation, Justice Amy Coney Barrett discusses her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution. Barrett explains the principles behind originalism, the Court's reasoning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, and how the Court reached a decision in landmark cases like Casa de Maryland v. United States and handled a debate over the major questions doctrine. Barrett also opens up about her clerkship with Justice Antonin Scalia, how the Court builds consensus, why stare decisis matters, and how her faith and family life shape her character—but not her judicial reasoning. With the discussion ranging from the Warren Court to the Roberts Court, from Roe v. Wade to Dobbs, this is a very candid and illuminating conversation with a sitting Supreme Court justice. Subscribe to Uncommon Knowledge at hoover.org/uk

Thursday, October 19th, 2023Jim Jordan loses AGAIN and by a LARGER MARGIN as some in the caucus complain about them and their spouses receiving threats; Senator Bob Menendez has been prohibited from receiving a classified briefing on Israel; Justice Amy Coney Barrett thinks ethics rules for SCOTUS sounds like a good idea; third party candidate Cornel West draws the maximum campaign donation from Harlan Crow; Twitter troll Douglass Mackey has been sentenced to seven months in prison; Trump lawyer John Lauro tried to lawyer in DC without being a member of the bar or having local counsel; Judge McAfee denies Ken Chesebro and Sidney Powells motion to dismiss and Chesebro's motion to exclude his memos from evidence. Dana is out and about. Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett is playing the long game. In this week's “Interesting Times,” she walks us through the current court's most controversial rulings, why she believes that her originalist interpretations are resistant to ideological pressures and why she's not comfortable thinking of herself as a cultural icon.02:19 - Balancing the personal and the professional11:45 - The theory and practice of originalism18:00 - Why was Roe. v. Wade overruled?27:19 - Stare Decisis and Overruling Decisions35:29 - “Judges are human and judges are fallible.”42:49 - The Supreme Court is taking the long view53:20 - The Court's relationship with the executive branch(A full transcript of this episode is available on the Times website.)Thoughts? Email us at interestingtimes@nytimes.com. Please subscribe to our YouTube Channel, Interesting Times with Ross Douthat. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Judge Patrick Bumatay at SCOTUSblog's inaugural On the Merits summit at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg Center to discuss public scrutiny, swing votes, and recusals.This conversation was recorded on September 25, 2025. Show Notes:—Subscribe to SCOTUStoday 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 access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Legal Docket, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's courage and convictions; on Moneybeat, jihadists and U.S. capital markets; and on History Book the legacy of America's Founding Father. Plus, the Monday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donateAdditional support comes from iWitness. Powerful audio dramas bringing faith, courage, and history to life in unforgettable ways. iwitnesspod.comFrom Planted Gap Year, where young adults combine Bible classes, hands-on farming, and outdoor adventure. More at plantedgapyear.orgAnd from .PrayMore, a new app for churches to share prayer requests with members and send reminders to pray. Free trial available at praymore.com/world

Supreme Court Ruling on DEI Grants The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of the Trump administration, allowing it to terminate $783 million in NIH diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) related grants. The decision centered on jurisdiction — the Court found that lawsuits over federal contracts must be filed in the Court of Federal Claims, not in district court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett cast the swing vote: siding with conservatives to block the payouts but with liberals on preventing reinstatement of the DEI guidance policy. Conservatives framed this as a victory against what they see as “ideological” grants, while critics warned of reduced research support. Corporate “Woke” Backlash — Cracker Barrel Example Discussion shifted to Cracker Barrel’s rebranding effort that downplayed its nostalgic Americana imagery. The company faced backlash, similar to Bud Light and Target controversies, leading to stock declines. After pressure from customers, investors, and even Donald Trump’s public comments, Cracker Barrel reversed course and reinstated its traditional branding. This was framed as an example of market-driven resistance to corporate progressivism. Senator’s Latin America Trip (El Salvador & Panama) The speaker described travels to El Salvador, highlighting improved safety under President Nayib Bukele. This led to “reverse migration,” with Salvadorans abroad expressing interest in returning. In Panama, focus was on the Panama Canal’s strategic importance and concerns about Chinese control over ports, infrastructure projects, and canal-adjacent facilities. The senator warned that in the event of a U.S.–China conflict, Chinese influence in Panama could threaten U.S. economic and military logistics. He urged Panamanian officials to push out Chinese companies and secure the canal with U.S.-aligned interests. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

1. Dunking on Gavin Newsom Ted Cruz responds to a tweet by Newsom blaming Trump for rising electricity prices. Cruz uses AI (Grok) to highlight that the states with the highest electricity rates are Democrat-led with strong renewable energy mandates. He argues that liberal policies, not Trump, are responsible for high energy costs. The discussion includes a critique of renewable energy mandates and infrastructure challenges in blue states. 2. Democrats’ “Forbidden Words” The think tank Third Way released a memo listing 45 words/phrases Democrats should avoid, claiming they alienate everyday Americans. Examples include: “privilege,” “birthing person,” “microaggression,” “cisgender,” “food insecurity,” and “environmental violence.” Cruz and Ferguson mock the list, comparing it to George Carlin’s “seven dirty words” and argue that the problem isn’t just language but ideology. 3. SCOTUS Victory for Trump on DEI Grants The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of the Trump administration, allowing it to cancel $783 million in NIH grants tied to DEI and gender ideology. The ruling was based on jurisdictional grounds—plaintiffs filed in the wrong court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the swing vote, siding with conservatives on the funding issue but not on reversing DEI guidance. Cruz and Ferguson discuss the implications for future lawfare and judicial activism. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshow #DEI #ThirdWay #Democrats #George Carlin #Grok #Trumpadministration #Newsom #CaliforniaYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.