Podcasts about justice amy coney barrett

Chief Justice John Roberts contorted logic to find a path for Tennessee to enforce its anti-trans law, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett left breadcrumbs for conservatives to lodge future attacks on trans rights. In this week's episode, Imani and Jess break down this devastating decision and more.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here. 

Chief Justice John Roberts contorted logic to find a path for Tennessee to enforce its anti-trans law, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett left breadcrumbs for conservatives to lodge future attacks on trans rights. In this week's episode, Imani and Jess break down this devastating decision and more.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here. 

On Thursday, the Supreme Court blocked a religious online charter school from obtaining public funding from the state of Oklahoma. In a 4–4 decision that Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from, the court affirmed the Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling that prevented St. Isidore of Seville — a Catholic online-only charter school in Oklahoma City — from receiving public funds. The court did not disclose how the justices voted in the case, only releasing a one-sentence opinion: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: What do you think of the Supreme Court's ruling? Let us know!Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's Wednesday, May 28th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Somalian Muslim man trusts Christ and is kicked out of home A young Muslim man in Somalia was kicked out of his home recently after converting to Christianity.  The 20-year-old struggled with substance abuse and had not been home to see his Muslim parents for months. That's when an underground pastor shared the Gospel with him. The young man came to Christ and gained freedom from drug use. After going home, however, his parents drove him away because of his new faith. The young convert told Morning Star News, “Now that I have loved [Jesus], I do not have a family standing with me. I do no not know what to do. I need prayers.” Please pray for this brother in Christ in Somalia, Africa. The country is ranked second on the Open Doors' World Watch List of most difficult places to be a Christian.  In Matthew 19:29, Jesus said, “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.” French Muslim youth vandalizing Catholic churches and assaulting Catholics The European Conservative reports there have been a string of attacks on churches in France recently which have received little attention from the mainstream media. In one case, Islamic youths insulted a Catholic priest and threatened to set the church building on fire earlier this month. Days earlier, another group disrupted a parish meeting in the same area. Muslim attacks on Catholics have included vandalism, physical assault, and kidnapping. Supremes split decision result: OK religious charter school unfunded In the United States, the Supreme Court delivered a split decision last Thursday in a case involving religious education. Previously, Oklahoma's charter school board had approved funding for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. It would have been the country's first publicly-funded religious charter school.  However, Oklahoma's Supreme Court blocked the school. And the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 4-4 in the case, leaving the lower court ruling in place.  For some reason, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case.  Defense Secretary Hegseth: "“King Jesus, we come humbly before You." U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth led a prayer meeting at the Pentagon last Wednesday. Listen to his opening prayer. HEGSETH: “If you would bow your head in prayer. “King Jesus, we come humbly before You, seeking Your face, seeking Your grace, in humble obedience to your law and to Your Word. We come as sinners, saved only by that grace, seeking Your providence in our lives and in our nation. “Lord God, we ask for the wisdom to see what is right, and in each and every day, in each and every circumstance, the courage to do what is right in obedience to Your will. “It is in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that we pray. And all God's people said, Amen. Thank you.” The voluntary 30-minute prayer meeting was called “Secretary of Defense Christian Prayer & Worship Service.” Hegseth said it may become a monthly event.  Colossians 4:2 says, “Continue earnestly in prayer, being vigilant in it with thanksgiving.” Planned Parenthood to close 8 abortion mills in Iowa and Minnesota Last Friday, Planned Parenthood North Central States announced it will close eight locations across Iowa and Minnesota over the next year. Planned Parenthood blamed the closures on states passing anti-abortion laws as well as a freeze on federal funding for abortion. The closures will also involve laying off 66 staff members. CDC no longer recommends COVID-19 shot for pregnant women & kids The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will no longer recommend COVID-19 shots for pregnant women and healthy children. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made the announcement yesterday. KENNEDY: “Hi everybody. I'm Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, your HHS Secretary.  And I'm here with NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty MaKary. “I couldn't be more pleased to announce that, as of today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC-recommended immunization schedule. Last year, the Biden administration urged healthy children to get yet another COVID shot, despite the lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children! BHATTACHARYA: “That ends today. It's common sense and it's good science.” MAKARY: “There's no evidence healthy kids need it today. And most countries have stopped recommending it for children.” KENNEDY: “We're now one step closer to realizing President Trump's promise to make America healthy again.” Lawmakers want to launch “Natural Family Month” Republican lawmakers in Ohio are considering a bill to celebrate families. The measure would designate the weeks from Mother's Day to Father's Day as “Natural Family Month.” The timeframe goes from the second Sunday in May to the third Sunday in June. This contrasts with Homosexual/Transgender Pride Month when many celebrate sexually perverted lifestyles in June. 1,500-year-old Christian graves in Israel discovered And finally, archaeologists recently uncovered 1,500-year-old Christian graves in Israel's Negev Desert. The graves reflect Christian burial practices. Inside, archaeologists found rare ebony figurines depicting individuals with African features. Researchers wrote, “It is possible that the deceased were of ‘Ethiopian' origin, and that they, or their ancestors, converted to Christianity and moved to the Negev.” The figurines were made out of ebony wood sourced from India or Sri Lanka and likely carved in Africa before being brought to the Negev.  Researchers believe it is the first time they have discovered such artifacts in the region of Israel and Jordan.  Close And that's The Worldview on this Wednesday, May 28th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

The Advisory Opinions extended universe kicks off as SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe and David Lat join Sarah Isgur to discuss the St. Isidore of Seville religious charter school case and the debate over school choice. The Agenda:—A ‘public' public school or a ‘private' public school?—Justice Amy Coney Barrett's recusal—Will Chief Justice John Roberts be the swing vote?—Will birthright citizenship end?—May 15: Mark it on your calendar Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: “Law Day” is BornOn this day in 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued a proclamation that did more than just slap a new label on the calendar—it attempted to reframe the ideological narrative of the Cold War itself. With Presidential Proclamation 3221, Eisenhower officially designated May 1 as Law Day, a symbolic counterweight to May Day, the international workers' holiday long associated with labor movements, socialist solidarity, and, in the American imagination, the creeping specter of communism.What better way to combat revolutionary fervor than with a celebration of legal order?Pushed by the American Bar Association, Law Day wasn't just a feel-good civics moment; it was a strategic act of Cold War messaging. While the Soviet bloc paraded tanks through Red Square, the U.S. would parade its Constitution and wax poetic about the rule of law. In short, May Day was about the workers; Law Day was about the lawyers—and the system they claimed safeguarded liberty.But this wasn't just symbolic posturing. In 1961, Congress gave Law Day teeth by writing it into the U.S. Code (36 U.S.C. § 113), mandating that May 1 be observed with educational programs, bar association events, and a national reaffirmation of the “ideal of equality and justice under law.”Cynics might call it Constitution cosplay. Advocates call it civic literacy.Either way, Law Day has endured. Each year, the President issues a formal proclamation with a new theme—ranging from the judiciary's independence to access to justice. The ABA leads events, schools hold mock trials, and the legal community gets a rare day in the spotlight.In the grand tradition of American holidays, Law Day may not come with a day off or department store sales. But it's a reminder that the U.S. doesn't just celebrate its laws when it's convenient—it does so deliberately, and sometimes, geopolitically.A federal judge ruled that Apple violated a 2021 injunction meant to promote competition in its App Store by improperly restricting developers' payment options. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple defied her prior order in an antitrust case brought by Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite. The judge referred Apple and its vice president of finance, Alex Roman, to federal prosecutors for a possible criminal contempt investigation, citing misleading testimony and willful noncompliance. She emphasized that Apple had treated the injunction as a negotiation rather than a binding mandate.Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney praised the ruling as a win for developers and said Fortnite could return to the App Store soon. Apple had previously removed Epic's account after it allowed users to bypass Apple's in-app payment system. Despite the ruling, Apple maintains it made extensive efforts to comply while protecting its business model and plans to appeal. Epic argued that Apple continued to stifle competition by imposing a new 27% fee on external purchases and deterring users through warning messages. The judge rejected Apple's request to delay enforcement of her ruling and barred the company from interfering with developers' ability to communicate with users or imposing the new fee.US judge rules Apple violated order to reform App Store | ReutersPalestinian student Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University graduate student and longtime Vermont resident, was released from U.S. immigration custody after a judge ruled he could remain free while contesting his deportation. The case stems from the Trump administration's efforts to remove non-citizen students who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests, arguing such activism threatens U.S. foreign policy. Mahdawi, who was arrested during a citizenship interview, has not been charged with any crime. Judge Geoffrey Crawford found he posed no danger or flight risk and compared the political environment to McCarthy-era crackdowns on dissent.Crawford emphasized that Mahdawi's peaceful activism was protected by the First Amendment, even as a non-citizen. Mahdawi was greeted by supporters waving Palestinian flags as he denounced his detention and vowed not to be intimidated. The Department of Homeland Security criticized the decision, accusing Mahdawi of glorifying violence and supporting terrorism, although no evidence or charges of such conduct were presented in court.Members of Vermont's congressional delegation condemned the administration's actions as a violation of due process and free speech. Mahdawi's release was seen as a symbolic blow to broader efforts targeting pro-Palestinian foreign students, while others in similar situations remain jailed. Columbia University reaffirmed that legal protections apply to all residents, regardless of citizenship status.The relevant takeaway here revolves around the First Amendment rights of non-citizens – Judge Crawford's ruling affirmed that lawful non-citizens enjoy constitutional protections, including freedom of speech. This principle was central to Mahdawi's release, reinforcing the legal standard that political expression—even controversial or unpopular—is not grounds for detention or deportation.Palestinian student released on bail as he challenges deportation from US | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco is set to consider a critical legal question in ongoing copyright disputes involving artificial intelligence: whether Meta Platforms made "fair use" of copyrighted books when training its Llama language model. The case, brought by authors including Junot Díaz and Sarah Silverman, accuses Meta of using pirated copies of their work without permission or payment. Meta argues that its use was transformative, enabling Llama to perform diverse tasks like tutoring, translation, coding, and creative writing—without replicating or replacing the original works.The outcome could significantly impact similar lawsuits filed against other AI developers like OpenAI and Anthropic, all hinging on how courts interpret fair use in the context of AI training. Meta contends that its LLM's use of copyrighted material is covered under fair use because it generates new and transformative outputs, rather than duplicating the authors' content. Plaintiffs argue that this type of use violates copyright protections by extracting and repurposing the expressive value of their works for commercial AI systems.Technology firms warn that requiring licenses for such training could impede AI innovation and economic growth. Authors and content creators, on the other hand, view the unlicensed use as a threat to their financial and creative interests.Judge in Meta case weighs key question for AI copyright lawsuits | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court appears sharply divided over whether states can prohibit religious charter schools from receiving public funding, in a case that could significantly alter the legal landscape for church-state separation in education. The case centers on Oklahoma's rejection of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School's bid to become the first publicly funded religious charter school in the country. Conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, expressed concerns that excluding religious schools constitutes unconstitutional discrimination, while liberal justices emphasized the importance of maintaining a secular public education system.Chief Justice John Roberts is seen as a crucial swing vote. He questioned both sides, at times referencing prior rulings favoring religious institutions, but also signaling discomfort with the broader implications of authorizing religious charter schools. Justice Sotomayor raised hypothetical concerns about curriculum control, such as schools refusing to teach evolution or U.S. history topics like slavery.The case could affect charter school laws in up to 46 states and has implications for federal charter school funding, which mandates nonsectarian instruction. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself, increasing the possibility of a 4-4 split, which would leave Oklahoma's decision to block St. Isidore intact without setting a national precedent.This case hinges on the constitutional balance between prohibiting government endorsement of religion (Establishment Clause) and ensuring equal treatment of religious institutions (Free Exercise Clause). The justices' interpretations of these principles will guide whether public funds can support explicitly religious charter schools.Supreme Court Signals Divide on Religious Charter Schools - Bloomberg 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

Hosts: Erin Rider and Rusty Cannon  Ardent supporters of President Trump have set their sights on a Supreme Court justice you might not expect: Justice Amy Coney Barrett. While she's considered to be one of the more conservative justices -- and was nominated by President Trump in his first term -- many ultra conservatives throughout the country say that by ruling against President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, she is secretly some kind of liberal in disguise. Erin and Rusty share their thoughts on these claims. 

Hosts: Erin Rider and Rusty Cannon  Budget blueprint for Trump’s agenda passes U.S. House  Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that will allow for Republicans to move forward on President Trump’s agenda. Basically, it sets the stage for the “big, beautiful bill.” The vote came a day after Speaker Johnson had punted the original vote due to not having enough support; that changed overnight. The Inside Sources hosts go through the latest inclusions in the bill and chat with Representative Celeste Maloy (UT-2) about it too.    U.S. House passes bills dealing with voter ID, federal district judges, and bank overdraft fees  Shortly after passing the budget bill this morning, the House also voted on the SAVE Act. Formally titled the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, the bill requires proof of citizenship in federal elections. It also sets standard for voter roll purges. Two other major pieces of legislation passed the House yesterday: a bill limiting the power of federal district judges to make rulings affecting national things and another overturning bank overdraft fee limits put in place by the Biden administration.    Ultra conservatives attacking SCOTUS Justice Amy Coney Barrett  Ardent supporters of President Trump have set their sights on a Supreme Court justice you might not expect: Justice Amy Coney Barrett. While she's considered to be one of the more conservative justices -- and was nominated by President Trump in his first term -- many ultra conservatives throughout the country say that by ruling against President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, she is secretly some kind of liberal in disguise. Erin and Rusty share their thoughts on these claims.    The latest on Pres. Trump’s tariffs  Round and round and round -- it may feel a little disorienting to follow all the news of the tariffs. Markets rebounded quite a bit yesterday after the President announced a 90-day pause on most tariffs. This morning however, stocks fell again. So why did the President push pause on the plans... again? And how might the tariffs on China affect a potential TikTok sale? Inside Sources dig into both angles.    Final push to repeal Utah’ ‘anti-union’ bill  Labor unions are working round the clock to gather enough signatures to repeal House Bill 267: Public Sector Labor Union Amendments. The bill -- you'll recall -- bans public labor unions from collective bargaining with public employers. Utah has pretty strict rules to repeal a measure on the ballot. So, will these groups be able to get it done... with just 5 days left?    Utah consumers to soon have more protections  Utah consumers will soon have more protection from deceptive companies and businesses. Senate Bill 42, sponsored by State Senator Evan Vickers, goes into effect in less than a month. KSL-TV Investigator Matt Gephardt took a deeper look at what the law will do and how it gives you -- the consumer -- more power against companies doing illegal or unethical things.   

We examine the Supreme Court's deportation ruling and how Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett's voting record reveals a commitment to interpreting law rather than following party lines, a principle even Trump acknowledges is proper judicial conduct.• Trump's tariff strategy has prompted 75+ countries to seek negotiations with the US• Market fluctuations from tariffs are temporary if people don't panic and sell• The ultimate goal may be replacing income tax with tariff revenue, as the founders intended• Nationwide "Hands Off" protests ironically embrace libertarian values of limited government• Media manipulation is evident in coverage of tragic events and political discourse• The View has hosted 63 guests this year with zero conservative voices• Critical thinking requires seeking multiple perspectives beyond mainstream narrativesFollow Clay's social media for a big announcement about his book "Keep Moving, Keep Shooting" coming this Saturday!Support the showDON'T WAIT FOR THE NEXT EMERGENCY, PLUS, SAVE 15%: https://www.twc.health/elsa#ifounditonamazon https://a.co/ekT4dNOTRY AUDIBLE PLUS: https://amzn.to/3vb6Rw3Elsa's Books: https://www.amazon.com/~/e/B01E1VFRFQDesign Like A Pro: https://canva.7eqqol.net/xg6Nv...

Tim, Phil, & Mary are joined by Cam Higby to discuss Trump hitting China with 104% total tariffs, leftists posting memes mocking the American working class, Justice Amy Coney Barrett betraying Trump and siding with liberals over Trump deportations, and NYC residents throwing garbage at Pro Palestine protesters. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Plug in, metal maniacs! Neeley and Chris tear into the Democrat freakout over Justice Amy Coney Barrett's “sexual preference” comment in her nomination hearings. Chris doubles down – it's a choice, plain and simple. This is The Classic Metal Show, loud and unapologetic as hell. Follow us to stay in the pit! NOTE: Everything said here, and on every episode of all of our shows, are 100% the opinions of the hosts. Nothing is stated as fact. Do your own research to see if their opinions are true or not. Hit play and thrash on!Get a free Rumble Account so you can comment! https://rumble.com/register/classicmetalshow/Get commercial free versions of our episodes, advance releases and exclusive content by subscribing to Rumble Premium! https://rumble.com/premium#MetalPodcast #AmyConeyBarrettNews #SexualPreferenceDebate #ClassicMetalVibes #PoliticalTalk

In this case, the court considered this issue: Are economic harms resulting from personal injuries properly considered injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant's acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act?The case was decided on April 2, 2025.The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, upheld the Second Circuit's ruling that Horn's loss of employment and associated economic damages qualified as injuries to "business or property" under RICO. The majority concluded that the statute permits recovery for economic harms directly resulting from racketeering activities, even if those harms stem from personal injuries. Justice Barrett emphasized that "injured" in the context of RICO simply means "harmed," and thus, economic losses like lost wages are recoverable. citeturn0news12Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred, highlighting that RICO should be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes. In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, expressed concern that this interpretation could broaden RICO's scope to include traditional personal injury claims, potentially federalizing state tort law. Justice Clarence Thomas also dissented separately, suggesting the case should have been dismissed as improvidently granted. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

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

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Clean Water Act allow the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform?The case was decided on March 4, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Clean Water Act does not authorize the EPA to include “end-result” provisions in wastewater discharge permits. Justice Samuel Alito authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.First, while rejecting San Francisco's broader argument that all limitations must be “effluent limitations,” the Court focused on §1311(b)(1)(C)'s authorization of “any more stringent limitation” necessary to meet water quality standards. The terms “limitation,” “implement,” and “meet” in this provision require the EPA to specify concrete actions permittees must follow, not merely mandate end results without guidance. A proper “limitation” is a “restriction imposed from without,” not a directive that forces permittees to determine compliance measures themselves.Second, Congress deliberately abandoned the pre-1972 backward-looking approach that had directly penalized polluters for water quality violations. The CWA's “permit shield” provision, which protects compliant permittees from penalties, would be undermined if end-result requirements could expose permittees to massive penalties despite following all specified steps. Additionally, the EPA's interpretation offered no solution for fairly allocating responsibility among multiple dischargers affecting the same body of water. Determining necessary compliance steps is the EPA's responsibility, and Congress has provided the agency with sufficient tools to make these determinations without resorting to end-result requirements.Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

This week on the Mark Levin Show, Sen. Chris Murphy and other Democrats met with Ukrainian President Zelensky before his meeting with Trump, urging him not to sign the minerals deal. The Democrats advised Zelensky to prioritize security arrangements. The Democrats' actions undermined Trump's deal, and Zelensky was foolish enough to go along with it. President Zelensky is playing into Putin's hands! He needs to suck it up, apologize to President Trump and do what's right for his country and sign that minerals deal. It benefits the Ukrainian people with U.S. capital investment, the presence of untold numbers of American businesses and citizens, the gradual re-building of the Ukrainian infrastructure, and the American national security interests that flow from it, etc. Russia and China would be furious with such a deal as the United States will acquire much-needed rare earth minerals. China's out there trying to grab Taiwan, islands from the Philippines and Japan, and claiming the South China Sea like it's their backyard—teaming up with Russia and cozying up to Iran and Saudi Arabia with the world's biggest navy. President Trump delivered an exceptional, historic speech that was intriguing, motivating, exciting, and funny, outshining many other speeches. The Democrats' disgraceful behavior—like not applauding a 13-year-old boy with brain cancer honored by the Secret Service—shows they're disgraceful and unfit to run anything. Also, the Supreme Court's dismissal of Trump's attempt to freeze foreign aid is a disgraceful ruling, exposing Justice Amy Coney Barrett's clear contempt for him. The Democrats and the DC ruling class want us to hate those who are cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, and they want us to hate the cutting of waste, fraud, and abuse. But we don't hate them, and we don't hate the cutting. The Democrats and the ruling class need to go on a diet and try to live $6.5 trillion in federal spending. It's only half-a-trillion more than it was two years ago, when we seemed to get by ok. But believe the Democrats and the DC ruling class. They've never lied to us before. So what if the GAO says $250 - $500 billion is blown every single year. We, the people, exist to fund this government, to serve this government, and keep our mouths shut. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The whole gang is finally back together behind the bar this week, with John Yoo in the host chair skillfully leading our unruly gang in a round-robin three-subject format that we're alternating this year.Steve leads off wondering if Gavin Newsom, and Senate Democrats, are at last having their "Sister Souljah" moment about the transgender millstone around their neck, though Steve points out that Democrats will have great difficulty pulling this off, and lays down two additional markers to judge whether Democrats will really make a serious move to the center. The underlying thesis is that the success of a political realignment is not merely changing your own party and assembling a new majority coalition, as Trump has largely accomplished, but the extent to which it compels the opposition party to change some of its core positions, as Democrats had to do after three landslide losses to Reagan and Bush in the 1980s, and the Labour Party had to do after Thatcher kept crushing them in England at the same time.Lucretia then flags for us James Piereson's New Criterion article out Friday, "Too Many Democrats," and discuss whether faithfulness to the original intent of the Pendleton Act that set up a supposedly "neutral" civil service requires mass firings of Democrats in the bureaucracy, as well as voters waking up to the destructive incompetence of Democrat-run cities. And this leads to John's closing segment, drawing on his Fox News article up this morning, "Supreme Court's USAID move has a surprise benefit for Trump," in which ahe argues the Supreme Court's ruling mid-week on disbursement of AID funds was not the defeat people first thought. And we also debate just how to think about Justice Amy Coney Barrett's concurrence in this decision, about which our gang is divided. 

Trey's Table Episode 263:MAGA Turns on Justice Coney Barrett Racism, the MAGA Movement, and the Attacks on Justice Amy Coney Barrett In the latest episode of Trey's Table, we dive into a disturbing trend: the racist attacks on Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett by some of Donald Trump's most vocal supporters. Why? Because she dared to rule against the Trump administration in a recent Supreme Court case. These attacks reveal a deeper issue within the MAGA movement—its inability to root out racism among its ranks and the unwillingness of its leaders to hold these individuals accountable. What does this say about the movement's values? And how does this reflect on the broader political landscape? Join me as we explore the intersection of race, politics, and power in this critical moment. Tune in to Episode 263 of *Trey's Table* to unpack the implications of these attacks and what they mean for the future of American democracy.

Were the majority of former President Biden's laws and executive orders signed using the autopen without Biden's knowledge or approval? If this is true, who was actually running the country during the last four years? During the vote to censure Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) for his interruption during Trump's address to Congress, Democrats broke out in song to protest. Newsweek senior editor at large Josh Hammer joins to discuss the major blow SCOTUS gave to President Trump's foreign aid funding pause and gives his opinion on why Justice Amy Coney Barrett became such a disappointment. Glenn discusses the Climate United Fund scandal, which involved billions of your taxpayer dollars being given to leftist causes and politicians, like failed gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. Glenn lays out precisely what needs to be done to hold people accountable. A few good bills awaiting approval in states like North Carolina and Texas will limit banks from using ESG standards. Glenn lays out why AI services are a tool that can better your life, but you must learn how to wield it appropriately. If you want to keep your job, you have to be able to use AI ethically.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Josh Hammer unpacks the tremendous disappointment that is Justice Amy Coney Barrett—and argues for a better path forward on Republican judicial nominations.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

EASY LISTENING DEP'T.

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, President Trump delivered an exceptional, historic speech that was intriguing, motivating, exciting, and funny, outshining many other speeches. The Democrats' disgraceful behavior—like not applauding a 13-year-old boy with brain cancer honored by the Secret Service—shows they're disgraceful and unfit to run anything. Also, the Supreme Court's dismissal of Trump's attempt to freeze foreign aid is a disgraceful ruling, exposing Justice Amy Coney Barrett's clear contempt for him. It's unthinkable that a lone federal district judge could force the President to send money to foreign nations. If that kind of power existed, the Constitution would never have gained approval from the states.  Later, Trump pledged to provide Israel with all necessary support to eliminate Hamas, issuing a final warning to release the hostages or face annihilation. This is happening while China is preparing for war. China's economy is experiencing significant difficulties. Typically, what dictators do is allow the people to suffer while ensuring that military spending remains unaffected. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt one of its first blows to President Donald Trump's aggressive agenda to reshape how the federal government works. It was a minor decision: The justices rejected an emergency request from the administration to keep frozen some $2 billion in foreign aid payments. Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberals, raising questions about how the court will handle the waves of litigation crashing against the White House with Trump back in office. Jessica Levinson, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, helps us read the SCOTUS tea leaves.Later in the show, Missouri Farmers Union Vice President Richard Oswald joins us to talk about how Trump's tariffs will hurt farmers.And in headlines: The Trump administration puts a one-month pause on auto tariffs for Canada and Mexico, some fired federal workers go back to work, and climate change might be making allergy season longer.Show Notes:Check out Jessica's podcast – passingjudgementpod.com/Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8Support victims of the fire – votesaveamerica.com/reliefWhat A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

This Day in Legal History: Dred Scott DecidedOn March 6, 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamous ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, a decision that deepened national tensions over slavery. The Court held that Dred Scott, an enslaved man who had lived in free territories, was not a U.S. citizen and therefore had no legal standing to sue for his freedom. In a sweeping opinion by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court went further, declaring that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in federal territories. This effectively struck down the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had restricted the spread of slavery in certain parts of the country. The ruling was celebrated in the South but outraged abolitionists and many in the North, who saw it as an alarming expansion of pro-slavery power.The Dred Scott decision is widely regarded as one of the worst in Supreme Court history, as it denied citizenship and legal protections to Black Americans. It also emboldened pro-slavery forces while further alienating the growing anti-slavery movement. The backlash contributed to the intensifying sectional divide that would lead to the Civil War just four years later. During the war, President Abraham Lincoln and Congress took steps to undermine the decision, culminating in the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments. These amendments abolished slavery and established birthright citizenship, directly overturning Dred Scott. Today, the case stands as a stark reminder of how the law has been used to uphold racial injustice—and how later legal reforms can correct such profound wrongs.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against President Donald Trump's effort to withhold payments from foreign aid organizations for work already completed. The decision upheld an order by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, requiring the government to release nearly $2 billion in funds owed to contractors and grant recipients under USAID and the State Department. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court's liberal justices to form the majority, while four conservative justices dissented. The Trump administration had paused all foreign aid on January 20, citing an “America First” agenda, which disrupted humanitarian efforts worldwide. Aid organizations sued, arguing Trump exceeded his authority by defunding programs approved by Congress. The administration contended that enforcing payments without proper review amounted to judicial overreach. Despite Ali's repeated orders, the administration largely kept the funds frozen, prompting legal battles over compliance. Plaintiffs warned that continued delays would cause “extraordinary and irreversible harm” to millions relying on aid. The Supreme Court did not provide a rationale for its order but instructed Ali to clarify compliance obligations. A hearing is scheduled for March 7 to determine the next steps.US Supreme Court won't let Trump withhold payment to foreign aid groups | ReutersDozens of U.S. hospital systems and healthcare providers have filed lawsuits against Blue Cross Blue Shield, alleging the insurer underpaid them by billions. These providers chose to opt out of a $2.8 billion class-action settlement in Alabama, which is awaiting final approval. The new lawsuits, filed in federal courts in California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, argue that Blue Cross and its affiliates conspired to divide the market, reducing competition and driving down reimbursement rates in violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs, including Bon Secours Mercy Health and Temple University Health, believe they could recover more through individual lawsuits than the settlement. Blue Cross has denied wrongdoing and declined to comment. The final approval hearing for the Alabama settlement is scheduled for July 29. This litigation follows a separate $2.7 billion antitrust settlement in 2020 for commercial and individual subscribers, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld last year. Some large companies also opted out of that settlement to pursue their own claims.Hospitals line up to sue Blue Cross, opting out of $2.8 bln settlement | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the authority to license temporary nuclear waste storage sites, a case brought by Texas and oil industry interests. The dispute centers on a facility in western Texas, licensed by the NRC in 2021, which opponents argue poses environmental and security risks. Some conservative justices questioned whether "temporary" storage could last indefinitely, undermining efforts to establish a permanent waste site. Liberal justices focused on whether the plaintiffs had legal standing, as they did not initially challenge the NRC's decision through the agency's process. The case follows past failures to establish a permanent nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, despite significant federal investment. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled the NRC lacked authority under the Atomic Energy Act, prompting the Biden administration to appeal—a move continued under Trump. A decision is expected by June.US Supreme Court hears Texas nuclear waste storage dispute | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Trump administration must release nearly $2 billion in frozen foreign aid, but the timeline for when or if that money will actually reach aid organizations remains unclear. In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court's liberal justices, rejecting Trump's appeal to keep the freeze in place. Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito blasted the ruling, calling it “judicial overreach” and claiming it unfairly burdens taxpayers. The decision comes after months of delays, with Trump officials refusing to release funds that humanitarian groups say are critical for food, medical aid, and refugee support. Many organizations have already laid off staff and shut down programs, saying the damage has been done. Now, a federal judge is set to clarify how and when the administration must comply. With Trump's team avoiding direct answers on the next steps, the big question remains: Will they follow the ruling or look for another way around it? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Josh Hammer explores the latest Trump administration-related legal headlines, shines a spotlight on another deeply troubling defection by Justice Amy Coney Barrett at the high court, and, citing an important op-ed from former Mitch McConnell chief counsel Michael Fragoso, explains why the Trump administration must fully cut out the American Bar Association and other like-minded groups from the judicial nominations process. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Woodrow Wilson Signs Grand Canyon National Park ActOn February 26, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Grand Canyon National Park Act, officially designating the Grand Canyon as a national park. This landmark decision aimed to preserve the canyon's breathtaking landscapes, unique geological formations, and rich biodiversity for future generations. Prior to its national park status, the Grand Canyon had been a federally protected reserve, but conservationists pushed for stronger protections. The designation marked a significant victory for the early environmental movement, ensuring that the canyon would be safeguarded from mining, logging, and other commercial exploitation.The Grand Canyon, carved over millions of years by the Colorado River, is one of the world's most iconic natural wonders. Its layered rock formations offer a window into Earth's geological history, dating back nearly two billion years. Beyond its scientific significance, the canyon holds deep cultural importance for Indigenous tribes, including the Havasupai, Hopi, and Navajo, who have lived in and around the area for centuries. The national park designation helped protect these cultural and historical sites, though it also led to conflicts over land rights.The creation of Grand Canyon National Park was part of a broader movement in the early 20th century to protect America's natural landscapes. This movement, championed by figures like President Theodore Roosevelt, laid the foundation for the modern National Park System. Today, Grand Canyon National Park attracts millions of visitors annually, serving as a testament to the enduring importance of conservation efforts.President Donald Trump has ordered the suspension of security clearances and government contracts for the law firm Covington & Burling due to its legal assistance to special counsel Jack Smith. In a memo signed in the Oval Office, Trump accused law firms of using pro bono work to obstruct the government. The directive specifically targets Peter Koski, a Covington partner, and calls for a review of the firm's federal contracts.  Smith recently disclosed that Covington provided him with $140,000 in pro bono legal services as he faces government scrutiny. Covington stated that it represents Smith in a personal capacity and will continue to defend his interests. Legal experts note that security clearances are crucial for private attorneys handling national security matters.  Trump, who has been indicted in two cases led by Smith, referred to the order as the "Deranged Jack Smith signing" and mocked the prosecutor after signing the memo.Trump Targets Covington Security, Contracts Over Work With SmithThe U.S. Supreme Court has ordered a new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, ruling that prosecutorial misconduct violated his constitutional rights. In a rare win for a capital defendant, two conservative justices joined the court's three liberals to overturn Glossip's conviction. Oklahoma's Republican attorney general had also acknowledged errors in the case, including prosecutors withholding evidence and failing to correct false testimony.  Glossip was convicted for allegedly orchestrating the 1997 murder of his boss, Barry Van Treese, though the actual killer, Justin Sneed, was the state's key witness. Newly disclosed documents revealed that Sneed had considered recanting, was coached by prosecutors, and lied about his mental health history. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that correcting Sneed's false testimony would have significantly damaged his credibility.  Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices in the ruling, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett partially agreed but wanted the state court to decide if a new trial was warranted. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing the case should have been left to Oklahoma courts. Glossip's execution had been blocked nine times before, and his attorney emphasized the ruling as a crucial step toward justice. It remains uncertain whether Oklahoma will retry the case or pursue the death penalty again.Justices Order New Trial in Rare Win for Death Row Inmate (2)A U.S. judge has extended an order blocking President Donald Trump's administration from enforcing a sweeping freeze on federal funding, citing concerns that the policy could be reinstated. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that despite the administration's withdrawal of an initial memo pausing grants and loans, statements from White House officials suggested the freeze was still in effect.  The funding pause, announced in January, aimed to review federal financial assistance programs for compliance with Trump's executive orders, including those ending diversity initiatives and pausing climate-related projects. Nonprofits and small business groups sued, arguing the freeze would cause widespread harm.  AliKhan criticized the policy as legally baseless and impractical, saying it would either halt up to $3 trillion in spending overnight or force agencies to review all grants within a day. She called the administration's actions “irrational” and warned of a potential national crisis. The ruling prevents the government from reimposing the freeze under a different name, marking a legal setback for Trump's efforts to reshape federal spending priorities.Trump blocked from imposing sweeping federal funding freeze | ReutersIn my weekly Bloomberg Tax column, I examine Washington State's new data broker tax, a well-intended but ultimately insufficient approach to curbing exploitative data practices. The legislation treats consumer data like a natural resource, imposing a severance tax on its collection. However, this framework fails to address the real issue: long-term data retention and reuse.  A more effective solution would be a retention tax, which would discourage firms from hoarding personal data indefinitely. Under the current bill, companies pay a tiered tax based on the number of residents whose data they collect. While this sounds like a fair approach, it risks consolidating data power in the hands of large platforms that can absorb the tax and continue selling consumer information without restriction. Worse, the tax may encourage firms to store data longer, giving it an artificial market value that promotes hoarding rather than limiting collection.  Unlike oil or minerals, personal data is not depleted upon use—it can be endlessly repackaged and resold. A retention tax would align economic incentives with privacy concerns, forcing firms to justify prolonged data storage and pay accordingly. Without it, Washington's proposal does little to curb long-term privacy risks and may ultimately entrench the very data exploitation it seeks to prevent.Washington's Data Broker Tax Is a Promising but Inadequate Move This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do Florida S.B. 7072's content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment, and do the law's individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment? The case was decided on July 1, 2024. The Supreme Court held that The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded, because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to the Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion of the Court. Under precedents like Miami Herald v Tornillo, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v Public Utilities Commission, Turner Broadcasting v FCC, and Hurley v Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, when a private entity engages in expressive activity, including curating others' speech, government interference with that activity implicates the First Amendment. Specifically, the First Amendment protects entities engaged in expressive activities, including compiling and curating others' speech, from being forced to accommodate messages they prefer to exclude. This protection applies even when the compiler includes most items and excludes only a few. The government cannot justify interfering with a private speaker's editorial choices merely by claiming an interest in improving or balancing the marketplace of ideas. These principles likely apply to the content moderation practices of social media platforms like Facebook's News Feed, indicating that state laws regulating these practices may face significant First Amendment hurdles. However, this analysis may not apply to all of the laws' applications, so it is important for courts to conduct a thorough examination of the laws' full scope and their constitutional and unconstitutional applications in a proper facial challenge analysis. Texas's regulation of social media platforms' content moderation policies aims to alter the speech displayed on these platforms, reflecting the state's disapproval of the platforms' current content selection and moderation practices. However, under the First Amendment, Texas cannot impose its preferences on how private entities curate and present speech, as this would amount to government control over the expression of ideas. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority opinion in full and authored a separate concurrence. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority opinion in part and authored a separate concurrence. Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Today, January 20, 2025, marks a pivotal moment in American history as Donald Trump is set to be inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States. However, the days leading up to this event have been anything but ordinary, especially in the legal arena.Just last week, on January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court made a crucial decision regarding Trump's criminal sentencing in New York. Trump had been convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide reimbursements made to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Despite his plea to halt the sentencing proceeding, the Supreme Court rejected his request in a brief unsigned order.The trial judge in New York, Juan Merchan, had indicated that he did not intend to sentence Trump to jail time and allowed Trump to appear by video at the sentencing hearing. However, Trump argued that as the president-elect, he was entitled to immunity from criminal proceedings. He also claimed that prosecutors improperly relied on evidence of his official acts, such as his posts on the social-media platform X, then known as Twitter, to obtain his convictions.Four of the court's conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh – indicated that they would have granted Trump's request. However, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court's three liberal justices in voting to allow the sentencing to proceed.The New York prosecutors urged the justices to allow Trump's sentencing to proceed as scheduled, stating that there was no need for the justices to take "the extraordinary step of intervening" now. They called Trump's suggestion that he should not be sentenced because he is the president-elect "baseless" and added that the evidence of Trump's guilt was "overwhelming."In a related development, there was a controversy surrounding Justice Samuel Alito. Shortly before Trump's request to block his sentencing proceeding was filed, Trump spoke with Alito about one of Alito's former law clerks, William Levi, who is seeking a job in the new administration. Alito maintained that he had not discussed Trump's request or any other Supreme Court cases with Trump. However, Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland and the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, called on Alito to recuse himself, citing the need for impartial justice under the Constitution.As Trump prepares to take office, these legal battles underscore the complex and contentious nature of his presidency. Despite these challenges, Trump's inauguration is set to proceed as planned, marking a new chapter in American politics.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office, and if so, to what extent? The case was decided on July 1, 2024. The Supreme Court held that a former U-S President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court majority, concluded that a former President has some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. This immunity stems primarily from constitutional separation of powers principles and precedents recognizing similar immunities in civil contexts. The President has absolute immunity from prosecution for actions taken pursuant to his exclusive constitutional powers, such as pardoning offenses or removing executive officers. This absolute immunity exists because Congress cannot criminalize, and courts cannot review, the President's exercise of these core constitutional authorities. For official actions outside the President's exclusive constitutional powers, there is at least a presumptive immunity from prosecution. This presumptive immunity is rooted in the need to ensure the President can perform his duties without undue caution or distraction, as established in cases like Nixon v Fitzgerald. The government may attempt to rebut this presumption by demonstrating that prosecution would not unduly intrude on executive functions. However, evidence of immune official acts cannot be used to prove liability for unofficial acts, as this would undermine the purpose of the immunity. Finally, drawing on Clinton v Jones, the Court affirmed that the President has no immunity for actions taken in an unofficial or personal capacity. To apply this framework, courts must carefully analyze alleged conduct to determine whether it qualifies as official or unofficial. The Court rejected both Trump's argument for broader immunity absent impeachment and conviction, and the government's contention that the President has no immunity from criminal prosecution whatsoever. Instead, it established a nuanced approach requiring case-by-case analysis of presidential conduct to determine the applicable level of immunity, if any. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate concurrence to highlight that he believes the Special Counsel's prosecution of Trump may be unconstitutional because there are serious questions about whether the office of the Special Counsel was properly “established by Law” as required by the Constitution's Appointments Clause. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a separate opinion concurring in part to argue that rather than framing the issue as “immunity,” the Court should have adopted a two-step analysis for assessing the validity of criminal charges against a President for official acts: first determining if the relevant statute applies to the President's conduct, and then evaluating whether prosecuting the President under that statute would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented because she believes the majority's decision to grant former Presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts is unjustified by constitutional text, history, or precedent, and dangerously places the President above the law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented because she believes the majority's creation of a new “Presidential accountability model” that sometimes exempts Presidents from criminal law for official acts fundamentally alters the balance of power, undermines the rule of law, and risks incentivizing presidential abuses of power. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Here's a narrative script based on the recent court trials involving Donald Trump:As we approach the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th President of the United States, a significant legal development has unfolded. On January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Trump's criminal sentencing in New York to proceed. This decision came after Trump's plea to halt the sentencing was rejected by the justices in a brief, unsigned order.The case in question revolves around Trump's conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide reimbursements made to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Trump argued that as the president-elect, he is entitled to immunity from criminal proceedings. He also claimed that prosecutors improperly relied on evidence of his official acts, such as his posts on the social-media platform X, then known as Twitter, to obtain his convictions.However, the trial judge in New York, Juan Merchan, declined to put Trump's sentencing on hold. Merchan contended that Trump himself was responsible for the delays in sentencing and should not now be able to avoid sentencing by asserting that the hearing will take place too close to the inauguration.Trump then appealed to the Supreme Court, citing the court's July 2024 ruling in a similar case. However, the justices were not swayed by Trump's arguments. In their order, they explained that Trump's complaints regarding the use of evidence of his allegedly official acts could be addressed on appeal. They also noted that the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect's responsibilities is relatively insubstantial, given the trial court's stated intent to impose a sentence of "unconditional discharge" after a brief virtual hearing.Interestingly, four of the court's conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh – indicated that they would have granted Trump's request. However, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court's three liberal justices in voting to allow the sentencing to proceed.This development has sparked controversy, particularly after it was reported that Trump spoke with Justice Samuel Alito about one of Alito's former law clerks, William Levi, who is seeking a job in the new administration. Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland and the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, called on Alito to recuse himself, citing the need for impartial justice under the Constitution.As Trump prepares to take office, the legal landscape surrounding his presidency continues to evolve. The Supreme Court's decision to allow his sentencing to proceed sets a significant precedent, one that will likely be closely watched in the days to come.

The Supreme Court upheld the TikTok ban, affecting millions of users and businesses. The ban will take effect on January 19, 2025, after TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, sought to delay the deadline for divestment or face a ban. The Court affirmed the previous decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals. TikTok prepares for a possible shutdown, warning of financial losses for creators and businesses. Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated that the law requires ByteDance to divest, not necessarily to completely shut down the app. ByteDance currently refuses to sell. Speculation exists about discussions between ByteDance and Elon Musk regarding a sale, but TikTok denies these claims. A former Biden administration official hinted at the possibility of not enforcing the ban, while incoming President Donald Trump signaled plans to review the situation and possibly preserve the app. TikTok argues that the ban infringes on First Amendment rights and faces scrutiny over data practices. Concerns were raised about the lack of similar action against other Chinese-owned apps, and justices mentioned ByteDance does not enjoy First Amendment protections. The potential ban could result in a significant revenue loss of $1.3 billion for TikTok and diminished earnings for creators.Learn more on this news visit us at: https://greyjournal.net/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Here's the script:It's been a tumultuous few days for President-elect Donald Trump. On Thursday evening, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Trump's criminal sentencing to proceed in his New York hush money case. Trump had urged the court to halt the sentencing, arguing that as president-elect, he is entitled to immunity from criminal proceedings. However, the justices rejected his plea in a brief unsigned order.The case revolves around Trump's conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide reimbursements made to adult film star Stormy Daniels. The trial judge, Juan Merchan, has indicated that he does not intend to sentence Trump to jail time and is allowing Trump to appear by video at the sentencing hearing.Trump's request to block the sentencing was denied by a 5-4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court's three liberal justices in voting to allow the sentencing to proceed. Four conservative justices - Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh - indicated that they would have granted Trump's request.The Supreme Court's decision came after a New York appeals court judge also rejected Trump's request to block the sentencing. Trump had argued that requiring him to prepare for a criminal sentencing while preparing to take office as president imposes an intolerable and unconstitutional burden on him.However, New York prosecutors countered that Trump's suggestion that he should not be sentenced because he is the president-elect is baseless. They added that the evidence of Trump's guilt was overwhelming and that a jury would have found him guilty even without the evidence that he now claims was based on his official acts as president.The Supreme Court's order noted that Trump's complaints regarding the use of evidence of his allegedly official acts could be addressed on appeal. It also stated that the burden that sentencing will impose on the president-elect's responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court's stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge after a brief virtual hearing.The drama surrounding Trump's sentencing has also raised questions about the impartiality of Justice Samuel Alito. It was reported that Trump spoke with Alito about one of Alito's former law clerks, William Levi, who is seeking a job in the new administration. Alito maintained that he had not discussed Trump's request or any other Supreme Court cases with Trump. However, Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland, called on Alito to recuse himself, citing the need for impartial justice under the Constitution.

Trump's sympathetic Supreme Court decided not to intervene in his hush money trial sentencing hearing. At sentencng, Trump lashed out at the judicial system that was used against him. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the more liberal justices in allowing the sentencing to move forward. The justices decided that Trump could address any problems he has with the verdict through appeals, and that because the judge has indicated Trump will not face jail time, probation or fines, "the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect's responsibilities is relatively insubstantial.” Political analyst and journalist Michael Shure joins. We are covering the Southern California wildfires on The Mark Thompson Show. We will discuss the latest details as well as the arrest of a man for arson in connection with the fire near Calabasas. It wouldn't be Friday without Friday Fabulous Florida! Nor would it be Friday without The Culture Blaster, Michael Snyder. He will bring a recommended mix of movie and streaming options.

This Day in Legal History: Standard Oil RisingOn January 10, 1870, John D. Rockefeller and his partners incorporated the Standard Oil Company, marking a pivotal moment in American industrial and legal history. Standard Oil quickly became a dominant force in the oil industry, employing innovative practices such as vertical integration and aggressive pricing to outcompete rivals. By the late 19th century, the company controlled nearly 90% of the U.S. oil refining market, making Rockefeller the nation's first billionaire and one of the wealthiest individuals in history.However, Standard Oil's dominance also sparked concerns about monopolistic practices and the concentration of economic power. In 1911, following years of legal challenges, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States that the company violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. The Court applied the "rule of reason," determining that the company's practices unreasonably restrained trade and harmed competition. As a result, Standard Oil was ordered to dissolve into 34 separate entities, including Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron, many of which remain influential today.This landmark decision underscored the federal government's authority to regulate monopolies and enforce antitrust laws, shaping the legal landscape for corporate regulation in the 20th century. The case also highlighted tensions between industrial innovation and market fairness, a debate that continues to resonate in discussions of antitrust law and corporate power.The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, cleared the way for Donald Trump's sentencing in his New York hush money case, rejecting his request to delay proceedings. Trump, now president-elect, argued for immunity from prosecution, claiming the sentencing would distract from his presidential transition and harm his global standing. However, the court stated his claims could be addressed later on appeal and noted the sentencing's impact would be minimal, as no prison time would be imposed.The majority included Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and the court's three liberal justices. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented–which means there is a one-vote majority in the Supreme Court on the issue of Trump not being entirely above the law. Trump emphasized that the decision leaves room for appeals on broader immunity issues. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who prosecuted the case, supported moving forward with sentencing due to its public interest.Justice Juan Merchan ruled that a president-elect doesn't qualify for the same immunity as a sitting president but opted for an "unconditional discharge," sparing Trump any real penalties beyond the conviction. Trump remains focused on overturning the verdict, asserting the trial was flawed under new presidential immunity standards set by a prior Supreme Court ruling. The case could ultimately return to the Supreme Court for a final decision.Supreme Court Allows Trump Sentencing in NY Hush Money Case (2)Trump to be sentenced in hush money case, days before his inauguration | ReutersThe U.S. House of Representatives voted 243-140 to pass the "Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act," sanctioning the International Criminal Court (ICC) in response to its arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The act targets individuals involved in prosecuting U.S. citizens or allies, including Israel, who are not ICC members. It marks strong Republican support for Israel following their takeover of Congress. The sanctions echo Trump-era measures against the ICC, previously imposed over investigations into U.S. actions in Afghanistan and later lifted under the Biden administration. These new sanctions extend to those aiding ICC operations and could, according to ICC President Judge Tomoko Akane, threaten the court's functionality and existence. The ICC defends its actions, citing sufficient evidence and the need to prevent ongoing crimes in Gaza.Forty-five Democrats joined Republicans in backing the bill, while no Republicans opposed it. The Senate, now Republican-controlled, is expected to prioritize the measure, allowing President-elect Trump to sign it shortly after his inauguration. The ICC has yet to comment on the vote. The legislation comes amid heightened criticism of the ICC's pursuit of war crime charges against Israeli leaders, accusations Israel denies.US House votes to sanction International Criminal Court over Israel | ReutersRudy Giuliani, former lawyer for President-elect Donald Trump, faces a second contempt hearing in Washington on Friday over claims he violated a court agreement in a defamation case brought by Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss. The case stems from Giuliani's false allegations that the workers helped rig the 2020 presidential election. The workers accuse Giuliani of breaching an agreement barring him from making further defamatory statements, citing comments on his podcast suggesting ballot tampering.  Earlier this week, Giuliani was held in civil contempt by a federal judge in New York for failing to comply with information requests related to the $148 million judgment Freeman and Moss won against him in 2023. Giuliani is appealing that decision. If found in contempt again, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell could impose civil fines or jail time.This adds to Giuliani's growing legal troubles, including disbarment for spreading false election claims and criminal charges in Georgia and Arizona. Giuliani's lawyers argue his podcast remarks did not specifically reference Freeman and Moss and were part of his legal defense on appeal. However, the May 2024 agreement prohibits any public comments implying wrongdoing by the election workers.Giuliani faces second contempt bid over false claims about 2020 election workers | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Benjamin Godard.Benjamin Godard (1849–1895) was a French composer and violinist whose lyrical and melodic style earned him a place among the late Romantic composers of his time. Despite achieving considerable acclaim during his life, Godard's works have since faded into relative obscurity, overshadowed by contemporaries like Saint-Saëns and Fauré. His compositions, however, reflect a deeply expressive and refined musicality, blending the elegance of French Romanticism with a penchant for memorable themes.One of Godard's notable chamber works is his String Quartet No. 3, Op. 136, a piece that exemplifies his gift for balancing structural clarity with emotional depth. The third movement, "Minuetto molto moderato", is particularly striking. It reinterprets the classical minuet form with a delicately poised, almost dreamlike quality, showcasing Godard's skill in creating nuanced and intimate musical textures. The lilting rhythm and restrained tempo evoke a sense of grace, while the interplay between the strings lends the movement a sophisticated charm.This movement serves as a perfect closing theme for the week, offering a reflective and elegant departure from the bustling rhythms of daily life. The gentle, flowing melodies allow listeners to unwind while appreciating the timeless beauty of chamber music. Godard's Minuetto invites contemplation, serving as both a tribute to his artistic legacy and a serene conclusion to the week.Without further ado, Benjamin Godard's String Quartet No. 3, Op. 136. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a plaintiff's claim under the Administrative Procedure Act “first accrue” under 28 U-S-C § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule, or when the rule first causes harm to the plaintiff? The case was decided on July 1, 2024. The Supreme Court held that an Administrative Procedures Act claim does not accrue for purposes of 28 U-S-C §2401(a) until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The text of 28 U-S-C §2401(a) states that a civil action against the United States must be filed "within six years after the right of action first accrues." The Court interpreted this language according to its traditional meaning in the context of statutes of limitations, concluding that a right of action "accrues" when the plaintiff has a "complete and present cause of action"—that is, when the plaintiff has the right to file suit and obtain relief. For an Administrative Procedures Act claim, this requires both final agency action (as specified in 5 U-S-C § 704) and an injury to the plaintiff (as required by 5 U-S-C § 702). The Court rejected arguments that APA claims should be treated differently from other civil actions against the government, emphasizing that § 2401(a) uses standard accrual language that had a well-settled meaning when it was enacted in 1948. The Court also distinguished § 2401(a) from other statutes that explicitly start the clock at the time of final agency action, noting that Congress chose different language for §2401(a). By interpreting "accrues" consistently with its traditional meaning, the Court concluded that an APA claim does not accrue until the plaintiff has both experienced an injury and the agency action causing that injury has become final. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion in full and wrote a separate concurrence. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does 18 U-S-C § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence? The case was decided on June 28, 2024. The Supreme Court held that to prove a violation of 18 U-S-C §1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The Court focused on interpreting the scope of 18 U-S-C §1512(c)(2), particularly how it relates to §1512(c)(1). Applying the canons of statutory interpretation, particularly noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, the “otherwise” clause in (c)(2) should be read as limited by the specific conduct described in (c)(1). If (c)(2) were as broad as the government claimed, it would render (c)(1) and many other specific obstruction statutes superfluous, which goes against principles of statutory interpretation. Next, as to the historical context of the statute, it was enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to address specific issues like document shredding in the Enron scandal. An overly broad interpretation of (c)(2) would criminalize a wide range of prosaic conduct and give prosecutors too much discretion. Moreover, the Court traditionally avoids broad interpretations of obstruction statutes that would create “coverall” provisions. Finally, the Court concluded that (c)(2) should be interpreted more narrowly, in light of (c)(1), to primarily cover acts that impair the integrity or availability of evidence for use in an official proceeding, rather than all forms of obstruction. This interpretation better respects Congress's role in defining crimes and setting penalties and avoids potential constitutional issues arising from an overly broad criminal statute. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority opinion in full and wrote a separate concurrence. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempt an Idaho law that criminalizes most abortions in that state?    The case was decided on June 27, 2024.  The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted and vacated its earlier stay of the district court's preliminary injunction against Idaho's abortion law. Justice Elena Kagan authored a concurring opinion that was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Kagan opined that EMTALA requires hospitals to provide abortions in certain health emergencies that Idaho's law prohibits, creating a clear conflict where federal law preempts state law. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a concurring opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. She explained why she believes the Court should dismiss the case and vacate the stay, arguing that the dispute has narrowed significantly since the Court initially granted certiorari, making it inappropriate for immediate Supreme Court resolution. Justice Jackson concurred in part with the Court's decision to vacate the stay and lift the injunction, agreeing with Justice Kagan's analysis that EMTALA preempts Idaho's law. However, she dissented from the Court's decision to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, arguing that the conflict between state and federal law remains significant and that the Court should have resolved the preemption issue now rather than delaying a decision. Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Alito argued that the Court should have decided the statutory interpretation question and rejected the government's novel interpretation of EMTALA rather than dismissing the case and allowing the injunction against Idaho's law to take effect. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this case, the court considered this issue: should the Court stay the EPA's federal emissions reduction rule, the Good Neighbor Plan, and are the emissions controls imposed by the rule reasonable regardless of the number of states subject to the rule?    The case was decided on June 27, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the EPA's enforcement of the Federal Implementation Plan against the applicant States is stayed pending disposition of the applicants' petition for review in the D-C Circuit and any petition for writ of certiorari, timely sought. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court. There is a four-factor test for deciding whether to grant a stay: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest. The Court focused primarily on the first factor—likelihood of success on the merits—and concluded that the applicants (states and industry groups challenging the EPA's rule) were likely to succeed in arguing that the EPA's Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) was “arbitrary” or “capricious” under the Clean Air Act.  The EPA failed to adequately explain why its emissions reduction requirements would remain appropriate if fewer states were covered by the plan than originally intended. Commenters had raised concerns during the rulemaking process about what would happen if some states dropped out of the plan, but the EPA did not sufficiently address these concerns. While the EPA did add a “severability” provision saying the rule would continue to apply even if some states dropped out, this did not actually address the underlying issue of whether the emissions requirements would still be justified with fewer states. Because the EPA likely “ignored an important aspect of the problem” by not explaining why its emissions reduction requirements would remain appropriate with fewer covered states, the applicants were likely to succeed in having the rule "reversed" as arbitrary and capricious, justifying the stay pending further review. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, arguing that the applicants are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to the EPA's rule. Justice Barrett rejected the Court's theory about EPA's failure to explain as underdeveloped, plagued by significant procedural obstacles, and contradicted by evidence in the record. Justice Barrett argued that the EPA's methodology for calculating emissions limits appears to be independent of the number of states covered, and that the Clean Air Act's stringent harmless-error rule would likely prevent the applicants from prevailing even if there were a procedural error. She also criticized the majority for granting emergency relief based on a theory that was not fully briefed or argued. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this case, the court considered this issue: Did the federal government's request that private social media companies take steps to prevent the dissemination of purported misinformation transform those companies' content-moderation decisions into state action and thus violate users' First Amendment rights?    The case was decided on June 26, 2024. The Supreme Court held that Respondents—two States and five individual social-media users who sued Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that the Government pressured the platforms to censor their speech in violation of the First Amendment—lack Article III standing to seek an injunction. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The Court concluded that the petitioners lacked standing for two main reasons: First, the plaintiffs failed to establish a clear causal link between their past social media restrictions and the actions of the government defendants. Most of the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that their content was restricted due to government pressure rather than the platforms' independent moderation policies. Even for Jill Hines, who made the strongest case, the connections were tenuous and did not clearly show that her restrictions were likely traceable to government coercion rather than Facebook's own judgment. Second, the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a substantial risk of future injury traceable to the defendants' actions. By the time of the lawsuit, most of the government's communications with social media platforms about COVID-19 and election misinformation had significantly decreased. Without evidence of ongoing pressure from the government, it was speculative to assume that future content moderation decisions would be attributable to the defendants rather than the platforms' independent policies. The Court also found that an injunction against the government was unlikely to affect the platforms' content moderation decisions, creating a redressability problem. The Court emphasized that at the preliminary injunction stage, plaintiffs must make a clear showing that they are likely to establish each element of standing, which the petitioners failed to do based on the evidence presented. Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the denial of a visa to the non-citizen spouse of a U.S. citizen infringe on a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen and, if so, did the government properly justify that decision in this case?    The case was decided on June 21, 2024. The Supreme Court held that a U.S. citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion of the Court. The doctrine of consular nonreviewability holds that federal courts generally cannot review visa denial decisions made by consular officers, but there may be a narrow exception for decisions that abridge fundamental constitutional rights (the Court assumed but did not decide the possibility of such an exception). However, the right to bring a noncitizen spouse to the U.S. is not deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition, as required by the Glucksberg test. Throughout the history of U.S. immigration law, the admission of noncitizens, including spouses, has consistently been treated as a matter of sovereign discretion rather than individual right. While Congress has the ability to prioritize family unity in immigration policy, there is no constitutional requirement to do so. Thus, U.S. citizens do not have a fundamental right to have their noncitizen spouses admitted to the country, nor do they have procedural due process rights in the visa proceedings of others. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does 18 U-S-C § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violate the Second Amendment?    The case was decided on June 21, 2024. The Supreme Court held that when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 8-1 majority opinion of the Court. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fundamental but not unlimited. When examining a challenged regulation, the Court considers whether it is consistent with historical principles, not necessarily identical to historical laws. The key factors are why and how the regulation burdens the right. Section 922(g)(8) fits within this tradition. Historically, two legal regimes addressed firearms violence: surety laws and “going armed” laws. Surety laws allowed magistrates to require bonds from individuals suspected of future misbehavior, including firearm misuse. “Going armed” laws prohibited carrying weapons in a way that terrified the public. Both regimes targeted individuals who posed threats to others' safety. Section 922(g)(8) is relevantly similar to these historical laws. It applies to individuals found by a court to threaten others' physical safety, just as the historical laws did. The burden it imposes—temporary disarmament based on a judicial finding—is also consistent with historical practice. While not identical to historical laws, Section 922(g)(8) aligns with the principles underlying the Second Amendment and historical firearm regulations aimed at preventing violence. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Elena Kagan joined, opining that the Court correctly applied its decision in Bruen, but she continues to believe that Bruen was incorrectly decided. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, emphasizing that while Section 922(g)(8) can be constitutional in some applications, the Court's ruling is narrow and leaves open many questions about the law's constitutionality in other specific circumstances. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion to review the proper roles of text, history, and precedent in constitutional interpretation. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion, noting that two years' after Bruen, it is now clear that the unclear legal standard established in Bruen is difficult for lower courts to apply. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a concurring opinion, acknowledging lower courts' struggle to apply Bruen but pointing out that in this case, the Court settles on just the right level of generality Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Michael Popok explains how the current Supreme Court and its 6-3 majority right wing can either be cemented for the next 20 years if Trump wins, or will likely become a 5-4 PROGRESSIVE court if Biden wins. He also explains how important Justice Amy Coney Barrett —the new swing vote on the court—is to this equation. Laundry Sauce: For 15% off your order head to https://LaundrySauce.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Friday, July 5th, 2024Today, why the Supreme Court immunity ruling will likely have no impact on the Manhattan felonies; a House Democrat is proposing a constitutional amendment to overturn the immunity ruling; Democratic governors emerge from a meeting at the White House backing the Biden Harris ticket; Puff Daddy has gotten a target letter from the feds saying he's under criminal investigation; a Miami billionaire is slamming DeSantis for defunding the arts; Fourth of July gas prices were the lowest they've been since 2021; Clarence Thomas puts OSHA in his crosshairs; plus AG and Dana deliver your good news.John Fugelsanghttps://www.johnfugelsang.com/tmehttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-john-fugelsang-podcast/id1464094232The Sexy Liberal Save The World Comedy Tourhttps://sexyliberal.comNetroots Nation 2024:Netroots Nation is in Baltimore, July 11-13. Go to netrootsnation.org and type NN24Partner in the promo box for 10% off your ticket.Tickets and LIVE show dates https://allisongill.comSubscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com Gas Prices Rise Ahead of Independence Day, Lowest July 4 Prices Since 2021 (gas buddy.com)Opinion: Trump's immunity has a limit. Here's where he'll find that out (Norman Risen | CNN)House Democrat is proposing a constitutional amendment to reverse Supreme Court's immunity decision (AP News)Sean Combs is the subject of a federal criminal investigation (NBC News)Billionaire Perez Slams DeSantis for Eroding Miami's New Appeal (Bloomberg) Subscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote?utm_source=TwitterAG&utm_medium=creator_organic&utm_campaign=muellershewrote&utm_content=FollowMehttps://muellershewrote.substack.comhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://www.threads.net/@muellershewrotehttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsHeads up – The Seattle show is sold out. If you are in a position of having tickets to empty seats please send us a message at hello@muellershewrote.com – put “Seattle Tickets” in the subject line – and we'll see if we can connect you with people who would like to go, but were unable to get tickets.Minneapolis Wedge's 'cat tour' goes purrfectly again this year (Star Tribune)https://biggerbodiesboston.comhttps://www.instagram.com/biggerbodiesbostonThe Book Project Wish List (Amazon.com)https://www.farmhandfarm.com (Missoula, MT)Rescue (MT) https://k9arc.orghttps://www.democratsabroad.orghttps://www.votefromabroad.orghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_horse Live Show Ticket Links:https://allisongill.com (for all tickets and show dates)Wednesday July 10th – Portland OR – Polaris Hall(with Dana!) - SOLD OUTThursday July 11th – Seattle WA – The Triple Door(with Dana!) - SOLD OUTThursday July 25th Milwaukee, WI https://tinyurl.com/Beans-MKESunday July 28th Nashville, TN - with Phil Williams https://tinyurl.com/Beans-TennWednesday July 31st St. Louis, MO https://tinyurl.com/Beans-STLFriday August 16th Washington, DC - with Andy McCabe, Pete Strzok, Glenn Kirschner https://tinyurl.com/Beans-in-DCSaturday August 24 San Francisco, CA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-SF 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?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court disregards the plain language of a law by which Congress criminalized conduct that "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding." Roberts and the majority then delivers a gift to Donald Trump and several dozen of his insurrectionists. Importantly, in a dissenting opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by justices Kagan and Sotomayor, call Roberts and the majority out for their flawed analysis, saying it "is like using a hammer to pound in a screw - it looks like it might work, but using it botches the job." She further exposes the majority for "failing to respect the prerogatives" of Congress and the Executive branch. Glenn discusses why this Supreme Court opinion is an inappropriate windfall to Trump and some of his fellow insurrectionists.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today's Headlines: The Supreme Court ruled to largely immunize Donald Trump from prosecution in the 2020 election interference case, with a 6-3 majority granting former presidents broad immunity for "official acts." Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted only Trump's calls to state officials about fake electors might be unofficial. This decision likely delays Trump's trial past the November election as Judge Tanya Chutkan must now assess which acts are official, potentially leading to further appeals. In response, Trump's lawyers are seeking to dismiss his Manhattan felony convictions and delay sentencing, arguing some payments made during his presidency should be considered official acts. President Biden condemned the ruling, asserting it allows presidents to ignore legal accountability, thus undermining public trust. Meanwhile, the Trump Organization signed a deal with a Saudi real estate company for a high-rise project in Jeddah, highlighting ongoing financial ties with Saudi interests. The FDA gained new regulatory powers over cosmetics under the 2022 Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act, though compliance may be affected by the Supreme Court's recent decision. A Florida judge released transcripts from Jeffrey Epstein's 2006 prosecution, revealing prosecutorial misconduct and insufficient charges against Epstein. Lastly, Warren Buffett plans to create a charitable trust for his Berkshire Hathaway shares, worth over $127 billion, managed by his three children, raising questions about its true philanthropic intent. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: AP News: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have broad immunity, dimming chance of a pre-election Trump trial CBS News: Biden condemns Supreme Court's ruling on Trump immunity case Axios: "New era" of cosmetics' regulation: FDA wields new powers over makeup companies Miami Herald: They were secret for 16 years. Now a judge has released the Epstein grand jury records NY Times: Hurricane Beryl Flattens Grenada's Carriacou Island Axios: Warren Buffett pledges $100 billion for nothing in particular Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage alongside Bridget Schwartz and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Megyn Kelly begins the show by discussing the very real possibility President Joe Biden could drop out as the nominee by the end of the week, as corporate media outlets favorable to Biden are now calling for him to drop out. But will he listen? Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk, author of "Right Wing Revolution," joins to talk about whether Democratic politicians will start turning on Biden, the corporate media no longer willing to engage in the Biden cognitive decline cover-up anymore, whether it could be Jill Biden that takes over as the nominee, MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski pushing ridiculous pro-Biden spin this morning, one Biden surrogate assuring there's a "team of people that will help govern," who really might be running the country, whether Democrats will look to avoid a "Ruth Bader Ginsburg" situation by pushing Biden out as nominee, the initial calls for Biden to step down but then the push to blame Biden's advisers, Trump's smart debate strategy of letting Biden fail, CNN moderators' surprisingly strong performance, the massive ruling for Trump when it comes to immunity, the difference between official and unofficial acts as president, how the ruling could affect the Georgia and Florida cases too, Justice Clarence Thomas' warning to Jack Smith as part of the SCOTUS immunity ruling, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's alarming recent judicial rulings, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joining with the conservatives on January 6 ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor "treason" comment, and more. Kirk- https://45books.com/

Democrats continue to reel after the disastrous presidential debate on Thursday. Will Joe Biden drop out of the race this week? Is Pat about to sell his house and his beavers? An Army widow posts her thoughts on Joe Biden denying deaths of U.S. service members under his watch. The White House is arguing that Biden had a cold during the debate, which led to his poor performance. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the January 6 defendants on Friday. What's the deal with Justice Amy Coney Barrett? Executive branch loses power. Rep. Thomas Massie's wife passed away. Nancy Pelosi says it's Donald Trump and not Joe Biden's cognitive abilities that Americans should be concerned with. Public sex acts at a San Francisco Pride event. Are companies realizing that "going woke" fails every time? Ask Tractor Supply Company. Klaus Schwab under fire for ageism at the World Economic Forum? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In today's episode of "Sara Gonzales Unfiltered," Sara delves into the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing the Biden administration to coordinate with social media companies to censor conservative viewpoints. This decision from Murphy v. Missouri saw state attorneys general argue that officials suppressed discussions on Hunter Biden's laptop, COVID-19 origins, and vaccine efficacy. Sara critiques Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion and highlights the dissent from Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch. Sara also examines Julian Assange's plea deal, questioning the timing and disappearance of DNC leaks from WikiLeaks and discussing its suspicious conditions and implications. The episode covers President Trump's call for drug testing before presidential debates, questioning Biden's debate performance and transparency. Sara highlights New York Representative Jamaal Bowman's primary loss to George Latimer, marking the first defeat for a House Squad member. She critiques Bowman's rhetoric and the influence of groups like APAC. Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna's push to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt for not handing over Biden's counsel tapes is discussed along with its potential implications. Sara addresses revelations by the Department of Homeland Security about an ISIS-affiliated human smuggling network bringing over 400 illegal immigrants to the U.S., raising national security concerns. Lastly, Sara comments on a video of protesters failing to block a highway, suggesting that such climate change activists might inadvertently benefit big oil. Sara is joined by Jason Buttrill, head writer and researcher for Glenn Beck, and BlazeTV contributor John Doyle, host of “Heck Off, Commie!” Today's Sponsors: Relief Factor Visit https://relieffactor.com or call 1-800-4-relief.   Flying Ace Spirits Go to https://www.FlyingAceSpirits.com and use promo code UNFILTERED to get free shipping on every order. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Thursday, June 27th, 2024Today, as I predicted, still no decisions on immunity or Fischer as we head into this morning's Supreme Court decisions; the Supreme Court sided with the Biden Administration in a social media dispute with conservative states; they also overturned an ex-mayor's bribery charge, and they accidentally leaked a possible ruling in the Idaho emergency abortion case; five people have been charged in the $120,000 bribe to a juror; Arizona authorities are investigating theft of a device that allows access to vote tabulators; plus Allison delivers your Good News.Lisa GravesGRAVE INJUSTICE The right-wing takeover of America's highest court (Podcast| Courier)Grave Injustice Podcast On YouTube.comLisa Graves on TwitterTickets and LIVE show dates https://allisongill.comSubscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com Supreme Court Poised to Allow Emergency Abortions in Idaho (Bloomberg)The Supreme Court rules for Biden administration in a social media dispute with conservative states (AP News)Supreme Court overturns ex-mayor's bribery conviction, narrowing the scope of public corruption law (AP News)Arizona authorities are investigating theft of device that allows access to vote tabulators (AP News)Feds charge 5, including man acquitted at trial, with conspiring to bribe Minnesota juror with $120K (AP News) Subscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote?utm_source=TwitterAG&utm_medium=creator_organic&utm_campaign=muellershewrote&utm_content=FollowMehttps://muellershewrote.substack.comhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://www.threads.net/@muellershewrotehttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good Newshttps://www.websterchurch.orgStudent Loan Forgiveness (studentaid.gov)https://jmintz.substack.comhttps://www.instagram.com/joseph_mintPATRONS SPONSORING PATRONS (dailybeanspod.com)Custard Line Creative Design, LLCCustardLine.com Live Show Ticket Links:https://allisongill.com (for all tickets and show dates)Wednesday July 10th – Portland OR – Polaris Hall(with Dana!)Thursday July 11th – Seattle WA – The Triple Door(with Dana!)Thursday July 25th Milwaukee, WI https://tinyurl.com/Beans-MKESunday July 28th Nashville, TN - with Phil Williams https://tinyurl.com/Beans-TennWednesday July 31st St. Louis, MO https://tinyurl.com/Beans-STLFriday August 16th Washington, DC - with Andy McCabe, Pete Strzok, Glenn Kirschner https://tinyurl.com/Beans-in-DCSaturday August 24 San Francisco, CA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-SF 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?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Friday, April 26th, 2024Today, explosive testimony from David Pecker in the 2016 Trump election interference trial; the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on presidential immunity in the Trump 2020 election subversion case; Harvey Weistein's New York conviction has been overturned; Lisa Page says the FBI failed to warn her about a stalker; a judge has denied Trump's motion for a new E Jean Carroll trial; and the feds are auctioning off Avenatti's private jet; plus Allison and Dana deliver your good news. Promo Code:For a limited time, HomeChef is offering you 18 Free Meals, plus Free Shipping on your first box, and Free Dessert for Life. At https://www.HomeChef.com/DAILYBEANS.Our Guest John Fugelsang:https://www.johnfugelsang.com/tmehttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-john-fugelsang-podcast/id1464094232The Sexy Liberal Save The World Comedy Tourhttps://sexyliberal.com Supreme Court signals further delay in Trump election interference case as it weighs immunity claims (NBC News)New York appeals court overturns Harvey Weinstein's sex crimes conviction and orders a new trial (CNN)Ex-F.B.I. Lawyer Who Criticized Trump Says Bureau Failed to Warn Her About Stalker (NYT)A Private Jet Once Owned by Disgraced Lawyer Michael Avenatti Can Be Yours for $3.5 Million (Robb Report) Subscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote?utm_source=TwitterAG&utm_medium=creator_organic&utm_campaign=muellershewrote&utm_content=FollowMehttps://muellershewrote.substack.comhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://www.threads.net/@muellershewrotehttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsFalconry in the Garden (Napa, CA)https://bouchaine.com/products/falconry-in-the-gardenAlexandra Schmeling Fine Arthttps://www.alexandraschmeling.comAuthentically Katehttps://www.authenticallykate.blogNo Surprises In Medical Billing Informationhttps://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/no-surprises-understand-your-rights-against-surprise-medical-bills Live Show Ticket Links:https://allisongill.com (for all tickets and show dates)Sunday, June 2nd – Chicago IL – Schubas TavernFriday June 14th – Philadelphia PA – City WinerySaturday June 15th – New York NY – City WinerySunday June 16th – Boston MA – City WineryMonday June 17th Boston, MA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-Bos2Wednesday July 10th – Portland OR – Polaris Hall(with Dana!)Thursday July 11th – Seattle WA – The Triple Door(with Dana!)Thursday July 25th Milwaukee, WI https://tinyurl.com/Beans-MKESunday July 28th Nashville, TN - with Phil Williams https://tinyurl.com/Beans-TennWednesday July 31st St. Louis, MO https://tinyurl.com/Beans-STLFriday August 16th Washington, DC - with Andy McCabe, Pete Strzok, Glenn Kirschner https://tinyurl.com/Beans-in-DCSaturday August 24 San Francisco, CA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-SF 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?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts