Podcasts about justice amy coney barrett

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

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!

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.

Hey listeners, picture this: it's been a whirlwind few days in the courts, with President Donald Trump's legal battles dominating headlines from the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., all the way to Capitol Hill. Just two days ago, on Wednesday, January 21, I was glued to the live updates from SCOTUSblog as the nation's highest court dove into Trump v. Cook, a blockbuster case over Trump's bold move to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from the Board of Governors. The arguments kicked off at 10 a.m. sharp in the majestic Supreme Court chamber, with Trump administration lawyers defending the president's authority to remove her, claiming it's essential for executive control over the independent Fed. On the other side, Lisa Cook's powerhouse attorney, Paul Clement—the guy often called the LeBron James of the Supreme Court for his wins under President George W. Bush—argued fiercely that Fed governors serve 14-year terms protected by statute, shielding them from political whims.Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell showed up in person, drawing fire from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who blasted it on CNBC as a mistake that politicizes the Fed. Bessent said, and I quote from the report, "If you're trying not to politicize the Fed, for the Fed chair to be sitting there trying to put his thumb on the scale, that's a mistake." Bloomberg Law highlighted Clement's role, noting his recent clashes with the Trump team on everything from Big Law firm executive orders to Harvard's foreign student visa fights. The justices grilled both sides intensely—Justice Amy Coney Barrett even pressed a lawyer on disagreements with the government's brief—leaving everyone buzzing about a potential ruling that could reshape presidential power over economic watchdogs.But that's not all. Shifting to Congress, yesterday, Thursday, January 22, the House Judiciary Committee in the 2141 Rayburn House Office Building held a tense 10 a.m. hearing titled "Oversight of the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith." Lawmakers zeroed in on Smith's office, scrutinizing his past investigations and prosecutions of President Trump and his co-defendants in cases tied to the 2020 election and classified documents. Tension was thick as Republicans pushed for accountability, while Democrats defended the probes' integrity—echoes of Smith's indictments that rocked the nation before Trump's return to the White House.Meanwhile, other Trump-related fights simmer. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco scheduled a June hearing on Trump's appeal of an Oregon federal judge's injunction blocking National Guard deployment to Portland, after the Supreme Court sided against a similar Illinois push last month, per The Oregonian. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker noted a dismissal as moot on January 14 in a case over dismantling the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, one of dozens tracking the administration's court clashes. And don't forget the Supreme Court's recent denials of gun rights petitions, though they punted on one involving a woman's old check-forgery conviction—Trump's influence looms large even there.As these battles unfold, from Fed independence to prosecutorial oversight, the stakes feel sky-high for our democracy and economy. Will the justices side with Trump's firing power? What's next for Jack Smith's legacy? Listeners, thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more updates. This has been a Quiet Please production, and 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

On today's podcast:1) President Trump said he would refrain from imposing tariffs on goods from European nations opposing his effort to take possession of Greenland, citing a “framework of a future deal” he said was reached regarding the island. The decision, which Trump announced Wednesday on social media, marks a stark reversal for a president who has repeatedly attempted to coerce Europe over Greenland. It came after a meeting with North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Mark Rutte at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Still, Trump did not detail the parameters of the so-called “framework” and it was unclear what the agreement entails, especially since Denmark earlier Wednesday ruled out negotiations over ceding the semi-autonomous island to the US.2) Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said he is ready to commit Russian assets that remain frozen in the US to rebuild Ukrainian regions damaged during the war after a peace treaty is concluded. Putin also said he could give $1 billion from the US-based assets - frozen to punish Putin for his 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine - to President Trump’s proposed Board of Peace. The offer has been discussed with the US, Putin said, and he plans to talk about it more Thursday during a meeting with Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in Moscow.3) US Supreme Court justices suggested they are wary of President Trump’s effort to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over unproven mortgage-fraud allegations, saying the move could upend the Fed’s independence and rattle markets. Hearing arguments in Washington Wednesday, conservative and liberal justices alike sharply questioned US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who urged the court to let Trump oust Cook for the time being while her lawsuit goes forward. Trump’s own appointees were among the skeptics. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the president’s position would “weaken if not shatter the independence of the Federal Reserve.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether the risk to financial markets was reason for “caution on our part,” though she also suggested she wasn’t ready to fully embrace Cook’s position.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I step into the studio knowing that, for listeners, the noise around Donald Trump's legal battles can feel endless. So let's get right to what has happened in the courts over the past few days.The biggest spotlight has been on the marble steps of the United States Supreme Court, where justices heard oral argument in a case called Trump v. Slaughter. Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog reports that this case asks whether President Donald Trump has the power to fire Federal Trade Commission commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter at will, even though federal law says FTC commissioners can only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” According to SCOTUSblog, during arguments on December 8, a solid majority of the justices signaled they are inclined to side with Trump and strike down those removal limits as unconstitutional restrictions on presidential power.In practical terms, that means the Court appears ready to say that President Trump lawfully fired Rebecca Slaughter in March by email, when he told her remaining at the FTC would be inconsistent with his administration's priorities, even though he did not claim any misconduct. Commentators at Holland and Knight, analyzing the argument, note that this could ripple well beyond the Federal Trade Commission, potentially weakening protections for members of other independent agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.Inside the courtroom, the justices wrestled with a ninety‑year‑old precedent called Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision that upheld protections for FTC commissioners. According to SCOTUSblog, Chief Justice John Roberts described Humphrey's Executor as a “dried husk,” while Justice Neil Gorsuch called it “poorly reasoned.” On the other side, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan warned that tearing it down could fundamentally alter how much control Congress has over independent regulators. Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that, in her view, the Court's more recent decisions have already eroded that old case.All of this is happening against a broader backdrop of litigation targeting actions by the Trump administration since his return to the White House. The Lawfare media team, which maintains a Trump Administration Litigation Tracker, has been following a sprawling set of challenges to Trump-era policies ranging from immigration rules to the deployment of the National Guard. Their tracker shows new filings landing in federal courts almost weekly, a sign that legal scrutiny of the administration's actions has not slowed.At the same time, local outlets like WABE in Atlanta continue to summarize where the various criminal and civil cases involving Donald Trump himself stand after earlier verdicts and appeals. WABE notes that previous jury decisions in defamation and civil fraud matters have largely been upheld on appeal, even as Trump continues to challenge them and attack prosecutors and judges in public.For listeners, the key point is this: in just a few days, the Supreme Court has given the clearest signal yet that it may expand presidential power over independent agencies in Trump v. Slaughter, while a wide network of lower courts and appellate panels continues to process the many criminal, civil, and constitutional fights that surround Donald Trump's political comeback.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease 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

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

Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett joins host David M. Rubenstein to discuss her new book, her early life and her view of the Constitution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

The Justice Department continues to be a sh*tshow, with the indictment of James Comey already hitting the skids. Whodathunk that putting Trump's personal insurance lawyer in charges of criminal prosecutions would work out badly! Justice Amy Coney Barrett heads to Fox News to flog her book and express her disappointment that we are all being so mean about the shadow docket. Please do not let up! And Trump's efforts to flood the streets of blue states with troops makes its way through the courts.   Links:   US v. Kevontae Stewart https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71380817/united-states-v-stewart/   Alex Jones SCOTUS Docket https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-268.html   Justice Barrett Fox Interview https://www.foxnews.com/video/6382650913112   Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,' Fault Supreme Court's Emergency Orders https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/us/politics/judicial-crisis-supreme-court-trump.html   Illinois v. Trump [District Court] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71559895/state-of-illinois-v-trump   Illinois v. Trump [Seventh Circuit] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71608106/state-of-illinois-v-donald-j-trump/   Oregon v. Trump https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71481149/state-of-oregon-v-trump/?order_by=desc   US v. Comey https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71459120/united-states-v-comey/?order_by=desc   Illinois v. FEMA (D. R.I.) [docket via CourtListener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.59597/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

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

In this episode, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett joins National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a special Constitution Day conversation to discuss her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution. Justice Barrett reflects on her journey to the Court and offers a glimpse into her role (and daily life) as a justice, including her deliberative process and how she approaches interpreting the Constitution. This program was recorded live in Philadelphia on September 17, 2025.  Stay Connected and Learn More  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr  Explore the⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠ or watch recordings on⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube

On September 17, 2025, the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, joined Jeffrey Rosen for an America's Town Hall program in celebration of Constitution Day 2025 and the release of her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution. Justice Barrett reflects on her journey to the Court and offers a glimpse into her role (and daily life) as a justice, including her deliberative process and approach to constitutional interpretation.     Resources  Amy Coney Barrett, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution, (2025)  National Constitution Center: America at 250 Civic Toolkit  National Constitution Center: Constitution Daily  Stay Connected and Learn More  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr  Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube

Hugh discusses the news of the week with Matt Continetti, Ben Domenech, Eli Lake, and John Ellis. Plus, Hugh’s commentary on Charlie as well as Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Charlie and much, much more.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

Another huge scandal that has emerged from the Biden Regime amid the largest downward revision to employment in US history. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) far fewer jobs were created between April 2024 and March 2025 in the latest jobs revision -- by almost a million jobs! Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were cooking the books the whole time and lying to the American people. Justice Amy Coney Barrett weighs in on the wins from SCOTUS for the Trump Admin. And why are the RINOs and Marxist Dems going so hard on RFK Jr? What are they so worried about?Guest: Roger Stone - Host, The Stone ZoneSponsor: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.

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett joins Sarah Isgur and David French from the Lawyer's Room at the Supreme Court. They begin with a lightning round of questions (Emergency docket? Certiorari pronunciation?) before diving into ACB's thoughts on originalism and discussing her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution. The Agenda:—Lightning round!—Give up, “equity docket,” David—Do oral arguments even matter anymore?—All about originalism—Life as a Justice Antonin Scalia clerk—Law school: to go or not to go? 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

In a battle of flagship podcasts, Steve Hayes invites Sarah Isgur to share her biggest takeaways from her interview with Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Then, listen in as the Advisory Opinions crew speaks with ACB about the strengths and limitations of originalism, insights from her new book, and her writing style. The Agenda:—Sarah's takeaways—Lightning round!—Give up, “equity docket,” David—Do oral arguments even matter anymore?—All about originalism—Life as a Justice Antonin Scalia clerk—Law school: to go or not to go?—Click HERE to subscribe to Advisory Opinions 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

Another huge scandal that has emerged from the Biden Regime amid the largest downward revision to employment in US history. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) far fewer jobs were created between April 2024 and March 2025 in the latest jobs revision -- by almost a million jobs! Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were cooking the books the whole time and lying to the American people. Justice Amy Coney Barrett weighs in on the wins from SCOTUS for the Trump Admin. And why are the RINOs and Marxist Dems going so hard on RFK Jr? What are they so worried about?Guest: Roger Stone - Host, The Stone ZoneSponsor: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.

In her first TV interview since joining the Supreme Court in 2020, Justice Amy Coney Barrett talks with CBS News' Norah O'Donnell about her legal philosophy; her vote in the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health case (which removed a 50-year constitutional right to an abortion); and her response to opponents who believe the court is allowing President Trump to push the boundaries of the executive branch's power. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the Supreme Court, she was in some ways an unlikely choice. She was living in South Bend, Indiana, not New York or D.C. She went to Notre Dame Law School, making her the only justice that didn't go to Harvard or Yale. She's the mother of seven kids. And, at the time of her appointment, she'd largely spent her career as a professor, with just under three years on a federal appeals court. To put it bluntly, Amy Coney Barrett was an outsider. But people close to President Donald Trump saw something: She was an originalist. A former clerk for Antonin Scalia. A devout Catholic with real intellectual bona fides. And a rising star in the conservative legal movement. In short, she was the ideal jurist to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. After her 2020 nomination, the left called her inexperienced and a religious zealot. They said her confirmation hearing was rushed, and that she would undermine trust in the Supreme Court. But with a 52–48 vote, just six weeks before the 2020 presidential election, Barrett was confirmed—without one Democratic vote. She took her seat at the highest court at just 48 years old, and became only the fifth woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court. Considering how our nation's most powerful people stick around into their 80s, she'll likely have a major impact on American law and life for decades to come. We're now five years into her time on the bench. And in a turn of events, CNN ran a piece last year titled “The Last Best Hope for Supreme Court Liberals: Amy Coney Barrett.” Newsweek ran “Amy Coney Barrett Is Liberal Justices' ‘Best Chance': SCOTUS Analyst ” and The New York Times ran “How Amy Coney Barrett Is Confounding the Right and the Left.” How did we get from “dangerous, religious zealot” to “last best hope”? On one hand, Barrett has done what one would expect of a Republican appointee: voting to overrule Roe v. Wade; voting to outlaw affirmative action; and voting against the administrative state. At the same time, she has voted with liberal justices in some of the most pivotal cases—and in Trump-related cases, she is the member of the conservative supermajority who has sided in Trump's favor the least.  In short, Barrett surprises. She just wrote a new book called Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution, where she makes the simple but salient points: Her job is not to like all of her decisions, nor is it  to please the media or a president. It's to follow the text of the Constitution, full stop.  On Thursday night Bari sat down for a rare conversation with Justice Barrett at Lincoln Center's Alice Tully Hall in New York City.  Bari also asks her about key cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the birthright citizenship case, nationwide injunctions, the shadow docket, transgender minors getting medical treatment, her willingness to dissent with liberal justices, her response to people who call her an “evil DEI hire,” and so much more. This show is proudly sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). FIRE believes free speech makes free people. Make your tax-deductible donation today at www.thefire.org/honestly New episodes of The Isabel Brown Show can be viewed on DailyWire+ here: www.dailywire.com/show/the-isabel-brown-showFollow Isabel on X: www.x.com/theisabelbFollow Isabel on Instagram: www.instagram.com/theisabelbrown Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's Headlines: The weekend brought another Trump classic: a meme threatening to send the military into Chicago, complete with an Apocalypse Now reference and the caption “Chicago about to find out why it's called the Department of War.” Thousands protested in both Chicago and DC, while the new “Department of War” is now rebranding everything from uniforms to its website to fit the new name—on the taxpayer dime. In other news, RFK Jr., still smoldering from his Senate tantrum, is reportedly preparing a report linking autism to Tylenol use during pregnancy, a claim debunked by every credible medical body. His own family called for him to resign, former Surgeon General Jerome Adams said Trump should fire him, and even Trump broke with him to say vaccines “just work.” Meanwhile, VP JD Vance sparked a GOP mini-drama after bragging about a deadly US strike in the Caribbean; when a journalist called it a war crime, his response prompted Rand Paul to comment “despicable.” The DOJ opened a criminal probe into Fed governor Lisa Cook, who's already suing the administration over Trump's attempt to oust her—setting up a major fight over Fed independence. At the same time, a dozen federal judges voiced frustration with the Supreme Court for overturning lower court rulings with little explanation.  On the economy, August jobs numbers were rough, with just 22,000 added and unemployment climbing to 4.3%. And finally, Paramount is in talks to acquire Bari Weiss's Free Press for up to $200M, possibly putting her in charge of CBS News. She just hosted Justice Amy Coney Barrett at Lincoln Center, where ACB insisted the Constitution is “alive and well” and that the US is not in a constitutional crisis… though if you have to say it, maybe that's its own answer. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: AP News: Trump threatens Chicago with apocalyptic force and Pritzker calls him a 'wannabe dictator' Wired: Defense Department Scrambles to Pretend It's Called the War Department The Times: Kennedy family: RFK Jr is ‘threat to wellbeing of every American Axios: Trump breaks from RFK on vaccines: "Pure and simple, they work" CNN: Trump's former surgeon general calls for RFK Jr. to be fired CNBC: Payrolls rose 22,000 in August, less than expected in further sign of hiring slowdown Axios: "Despicable and thoughtless": Vance's drug vessel strike praise slammed by senator WSJ: DOJ Opens Criminal Investigation Into Fed's Cook, Issues Subpoenas NBC News: In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases NBC News: Justice Amy Coney Barrett says country is not in a 'constitutional crisis' Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

USA Today Supreme Court Correspondent Maureen Groppe shares highlights from an exclusive interview with the Supreme Court justice.Hundreds of South Korean workers detained in Georgia are heading back to South Korea soon.USA TODAY Money Reporter Bailey Schulz breaks down data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing American moms are leaving the workplace.A 15-year-old is the first millennial Catholic saint.A look at the big wins at the 2025 MTV Video Music Awards. Have feedback on the show? Please send us an email at podcasts@USATODAY.com. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Mark and Gary dig into recent legal headlines and unpack why, despite rampant political division, America's judicial system is still functioning as designed. They examine Justice Amy Coney Barrett's comments on the rule of law, debate whether public fears of constitutional collapse are overblown, and dissect a federal ruling against Trump's National Guard deployment to L.A. Plus, the duo explores the broader implications of Jon Gruden's lawsuit against the NFL.Watch Beyond A Reasonable Doubt and all Reasonable Doubt video content on YouTube exclusively at YouTube.com/ReasonableDoubtPodcast and subscribe while you're thereSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hosted by Jane Pauley. Featured: Former CDC doctors speak out about changes to vaccine policies; Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her first TV interview since joining the Supreme Court; stand-up comic Nate Bargatze; “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” turns 50; the Brooklyn Public Library's summer program for aspiring fashion designers; and how “flat white” coffee's popularity began in the Australian Outback. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lawmakers across the aisle pulled no punches in the fiery hearing with RFK Jr. The new calls for his resignation. In her first interview, Justice Amy Coney Barrett talks to Norah O'Donnell about the decision to overturn Roe V. Wade. At least one third of Americans have tattoos. "Eye on America"...why is there still a stink over the ink? To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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.

In this episode, Carl Jackson discusses significant Supreme Court decisions with constitutional attorney Zach Smith. They delve into the implications of recent rulings, including a major win for the Trump administration regarding nationwide injunctions, parental rights in education, and the protection of children from harmful content. The conversation also highlights Justice Amy Coney Barrett's strong rebuke of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and the ongoing challenges posed by class action lawsuits against executive orders. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/carljacksonradio Twitter: https://twitter.com/carljacksonshow Parler: https://parler.com/carljacksonshow Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarljacksonshow http://www.TheCarlJacksonShow.com See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Megyn Kelly celebrates three major victories for the rule of law at the Supreme Court, including on nationwide injunctions, birthright citizenship, and parental rights.Then she's joined by Dave Aronberg and Will Chamberlain, legal experts, to discuss the wins for conservatives in three massive 6-3 rulings at the Supreme Court today, the legal argument between Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Ketanji Brown, and more. Then Maureen Callahan, host of "The Nerve with Maureen Callahan," joins to discuss the closing argument from prosecutors laying out the depth of Diddy's utter depravity, the overwhelming evidence against Diddy, their new "Megyn O" parody of "Misery" Obama's terrible podcast, Michelle Obama's latest complaints trashing her husband Barack and children, the secrets of morning television, the falsity of their supposed happiness, what major TV hosts are like behind-the-scenes, the ridiculous wedding of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez, the exclusive guest list packed with A-list celebrities and also the Kardashians, the truth about their bizarre relationship, Anna Wintour's decades-long politicization of Vogue, her CNN interview praising Michelle Obama's "heroism" and ignoring Melania Trump, her exit from the spotlight now, and more. Subscribe to Maureen's new show The Nerve: https://TheNerveShow.com/Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-nerve-with-maureen-callahan/id1808684702Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4kR07GQGQAJaMNtLc9Cg2oYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@thenerveshow Aronberg- https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Florida-Shuffle-Corruption-Treatment/dp/1964686482Chamberlain- https://www.article3project.org/ DailyLook: https://dailylook.com to take your style quiz and use code MEGYN for 50% off your first order.Firecracker Farm: Visit https://firecracker.FARM & enter code MK at checkout for a special discount!Grand Canyon University: https://GCU.eduHerald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com

In a 6-3 ruling from the Supreme Court President Trump scored a huge victory regarding democrat lawfare. Justice Amy Coney Barrett ripped into Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for her dissent, exposing her for who she really is.This comes as President Trump has faced a record amount of Nation Wide Injunctions to kill his America First agenda. The lawfare is over! And some new records on wall street today! The dems told us just months ago that Trump was going to destroy the markets -- so what happen!?Guest: Professor William Jacobson - Cornell University and Founder of Equal Protection ProjectSponsor: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.

On the last day of their term, the Justices issue a landmark opinion reining in "universal injunctions," with some pointed words by Justice Amy Coney Barrett toward one of the liberal dissents. Plus, rulings upholding parents' right to opt children out of transgender storybooks in elementary schools, as well as a Texas law that orders adult websites to verify user ages. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kate Shaw is a constitutional law professor at University of Pennsylvania Penn Carey Law School. Shaw joins Preet to discuss legal challenges to President Trump's executive orders and the constitutionality of Elon Musk's role in DOGE. They also discuss whether Justice Amy Coney Barrett is shifting away from the conservative majority and upcoming Supreme Court cases on birthright citizenship and transgender care.  Plus, in a special excerpt from the CAFE Insider podcast, Preet and Joyce Vance speak with First Amendment expert Erwin Chemerinksy about the constitutionality of Trump's attempt to deport Mahmoud Khalil based on his involvement in pro-Palestine protests at Columbia University. Visit cafe.com/insider to subscribe and hear the full conversation. For show notes and a transcript of the episode head to our website.  Have a question for Preet? Ask @PreetBhararaon Twitter or Bluesky with the hashtag #AskPreet. Email us at staytuned@cafe.com, or call 833-997-7338 to leave a voicemail. Stay Tuned with Preet is brought to you by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices