Podcasts about justice amy coney barrett

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

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

The courtroom drama surrounding Donald Trump has barely let up these past few days, and it seems every headline and courthouse step is brimming with new developments. The most impactful moment came as the Supreme Court wrapped up its 2023-24 term by handing Trump a pivotal legal victory. The justices ruled that former presidents enjoy at least presumptive immunity for their official acts, a decision that's reverberated through every courthouse where Trump is a defendant. This not only helped shape the legal landscape but arguably smoothed his return to power in January 2025, making Trump an even larger presence, not just in politics, but in the judiciary's crosshairs, according to analysis from SCOTUSblog.Against this backdrop, New York has continued to be a legal battleground for Trump. In People v. Donald J. Trump, the case files show a flurry of motions and decisions, including on immunity and sentencing. Just last week, on July 2, both sides filed new letters on the immunity issue. The prosecution and defense are locked in arguments about whether Trump can claim protections as a former president from actions that led to his conviction. The docket is thick with filings: motions to recuse, to terminate gag orders, and responses over discovery disputes. It's relentless, with Judge Merchan overseeing the proceedings and each new motion drawing national scrutiny, as shown in the court's public records.Meanwhile, Trump's legal maneuvering isn't limited to New York. His legal team continues to pursue removal of the Manhattan criminal case to federal court, though their efforts there hit a wall when the Southern District of New York rejected his late notice. The subsequent appeal is still pending, meaning the case remains mired in jurisdictional chess. At the same time, on the appellate front, Trump's appeal of the New York civil fraud judgment is progressing, now consolidated after Attorney General Letitia James's successful request. The stakes in these appeals are high, touching everything from Trump's business operations to his political eligibility.On the federal side, Trump's January 2025 executive orders, like the one ending birthright citizenship, have sparked emergency litigation. One judge, John Coughenour, described the order as “blatantly unconstitutional,” leading to swift filings that have made their way to the Supreme Court. The high court's ruling last week made clear that federal district judges can't issue national injunctions blocking administration policies, a significant win for Trump's agenda. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, with dissent from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan. The legal community is closely watching what these rulings mean for presidential power now and in the future.All of this means Donald Trump's legal saga is moving at full tilt, with historic constitutional questions and the exercise of presidential power on open display. Thanks for tuning in to this courtroom chronicle. Be sure to come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Trump's comprehensive legislation package is advancing through Congress with a focus on tax cuts, border security funding, and military readiness, while including controversial Medicaid cuts as legislators make difficult trade-offs to achieve progress.• The "One Big Beautiful Bill" represents the first major legislative advancement in nearly four years• Chuck Schumer removed the bill's name in what many consider a petty political move• The Supreme Court ruled that lower court judges can no longer issue nationwide injunctions against federal policies• Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered a rare public rebuke to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her majority opinion• A $14.6 billion healthcare fraud operation was uncovered spanning multiple countries with 324 defendants including 96 medical professionals• Two Idaho firefighters were killed in a premeditated ambush while responding to a brush fire• Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez faces criticism after evidence emerged she grew up in wealthy Westchester County rather than the Bronx as she claims• Jeff Bezos's $50 million three-day wedding celebration highlighted the contradiction of climate-conscious celebrities arriving on private jets• The University of Pennsylvania has complied with presidential mandates on transgender athletes in sports, stripping Lia Thomas of titles and reinstating Riley Gaines's proper rankingsSupport 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...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can retailers who would sell a new tobacco product seek judicial review of the FDA's denial of a manufacturer's marketing application under the Tobacco Control Act?The case was decided on June 20, 2025. The Supreme Court held that the Tobacco Control Act's provision that “any person adversely affected” by the FDA's denial of a marketing application may seek judicial review extends to retailers who would sell the new tobacco product, not just the manufacturers who applied for approval. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The phrase “adversely affected” is a term of art in administrative law that the Court has consistently interpreted broadly. When Congress uses variations of this phrase across different statutes, the Court presumes it carries the same meaning as in the Administrative Procedure Act—covering anyone “arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute.” Congress reinforced this broad interpretation by using “any person” rather than limiting review to “the applicant.” The Court's precedents from other contexts, including employment discrimination and fair housing cases, confirm that “adversely affected” encompasses more than just the direct recipient of agency action. Retailers face a direct, significant impact from denial orders because they lose the opportunity to profit from selling the product and face criminal penalties if they sell it without authorization.The statutory structure confirms Congress intended different scopes for different provisions. While the Act limits challenges to withdrawal of existing approvals to only “the holder of the application,” it uses the broader “any person adversely affected” language for initial denials. This deliberate use of materially different terms creates a presumption that Congress intended different meanings. The FDA's arguments focusing on the application process and confidentiality provisions cannot override the plain language Congress chose for the judicial review provision.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, arguing that retailers fall outside the statute's zone of interests because the premarket approval scheme involves only manufacturers and the FDA, with no mechanism for retailer participation.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.   The Supreme Court held that Tennessee's law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.First, the Equal Protection Clause does not require heightened scrutiny because Tennessee's law does not classify on any bases that warrant such review. The law contains only two classifications: one based on age (allowing treatments for adults but not minors) and another based on medical use (permitting puberty blockers and hormones for certain conditions but not for treating gender dysphoria). Classifications based on age or medical use receive only rational basis review—the most deferential standard of constitutional review. The law does not classify based on sex because it prohibits healthcare providers from administering these treatments to any minor for the excluded diagnoses, regardless of the minor's biological sex. When properly understood as regulating specific combinations of drugs and medical indications, the law treats all minors equally: none may receive these treatments for gender dysphoria, but minors of any sex may receive them for other qualifying conditions like precocious puberty or congenital defects.The law satisfies rational basis review because Tennessee's legislature had reasonable grounds for its restrictions. The state found that these treatments for gender dysphoria carry risks including irreversible sterility, increased disease risk, and adverse psychological consequences, while minors lack the maturity to understand these consequences and many express later regret. Tennessee also determined that the treatments are experimental with unknown long-term effects, and that gender dysphoria can often be resolved through less invasive approaches. Under rational basis review, courts must uphold laws if there are any reasonably conceivable facts supporting the classification. States have wide discretion in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty, noting that recent reports from health authorities in England and other countries have raised similar concerns about the evidence supporting these treatments for minors.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, arguing that Bostock v Clayton County (in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination because of sex includes discrimination based on transgender identity or sexual orientation) should not apply to Equal Protection Clause analysis and criticizing deference to medical experts who lack consensus and have allowed political ideology to influence their guidance on transgender treatments for minors.Justice Barrett authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, arguing that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause because they lack the “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics” of a “discrete group” and because suspect class analysis should focus on a history of de jure (legal) discrimination rather than private discrimination.

On this episode of *Conservative Conversations*, Frank and Reid break down major new Supreme Court rulings and a historic peace deal signed by President Trump. They unpack the 6-3 decision in *Trump v. CASA*, the limits on circuit court injunctions, and the surprising moment Justice Amy Coney Barrett calls out Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson by name.The conversation also touches on recent rulings upholding Tennessee's ban on transgender procedures for minors, affirming parental rights to opt their children out of certain school curricula, and allowing South Carolina to block federal funds from reaching Planned Parenthood.Plus, Trump brokers a new peace deal with Rwanda—signed in the Oval Office, despite media denial. The guys reflect on the failure of the UN, and why Trump is earning the title “President of Peace.”If you're tuning in before July 4th, enjoy the holiday—and don't forget to subscribe to *Contemporary Conservative* on YouTube and all major podcast platforms.subscribe for exclusive content or donateContact Us:Frank: contempconserv@gmail.comReid: contempconserv2@gmail.comFollow Us on Twitter/ X @contempconservFollow Us on Truth Social @contempconservOur Links:ContemporaryConservative.netContemporary Conservative Podcast ChannelContemporary Conservative Youtube ChannelSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/contemporary-conservative-audio/exclusive-content

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down the Supreme Court's two most significant cases of the term. First, she examines the Court's ruling that sharply limits federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, especially in the context of challenges to executive orders like those affecting birthright citizenship. The episode then moves to the Supreme Court's decision upholding Tennessee's ban on certain gender-affirming care for minors. Jessica explains how the Court sided with state power, applying a deferential standard of review, and contrasts this with the dissent's focus on equal protection for transgender youth.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Limits on Judicial Power: The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal judges generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions unless Congress clearly authorizes it. This shifts significant power dynamic back to individual cases and underscores the role of Congress in expanding judicial remedies.Nuanced Exceptions Remain: Despite the new limits, broad relief is still possible through class actions, certain state-led cases, and challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act. These pathways ensure there are still tools to address sweeping executive actions, though access is more restricted.Transgender Rights Under Scrutiny: In the Skrmetti case, the Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, framing the law as a neutral regulation based on age and medical use—not sex or transgender status. Dissenting justices warn this approach threatens protections for vulnerable groups and diminishes the judiciary's role as a check on legislative overreach.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

This Day in Legal History: Abraham Lincoln Passes First Income TaxOn July 1, 1862, amid the mounting costs of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the nation's first true federal income tax under the Tax Act of 1862. This legislation imposed a 3% tax on annual incomes over $600 and a 5% tax on incomes exceeding $10,000—significant thresholds at the time. The tax was part of a broader revenue strategy that included an expansion of excise taxes and the creation of the Internal Revenue Office, the predecessor to today's IRS. It marked a pivotal moment in U.S. legal history, as the federal government, for the first time, claimed broad authority to directly tax personal income.Though innovative, compliance with the law was inconsistent, reflecting both limited administrative capacity and public resistance. The tax was designed to be progressive and temporary, aimed solely at funding the Union war effort. After the Civil War, political pressure mounted against its continuation, and public sentiment shifted toward limiting federal power in peacetime.The law remained controversial until it was effectively struck down decades later. In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. that a similar federal income tax law was unconstitutional, declaring it a "direct tax" not properly apportioned among the states. This decision undermined the legal foundation of the 1862 tax, though it had long since lapsed. It wasn't until the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 that a permanent federal income tax regime was constitutionally authorized.The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued several rulings that significantly reduced federal environmental protections, continuing a broader judicial trend. In one of the most consequential decisions, the Court curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This 8-0 ruling allows federal agencies to narrow the scope of environmental reviews, excluding indirect and future project impacts, which could expedite infrastructure projects like a proposed crude oil railway in Utah. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that courts must defer to agency discretion in such matters, reinforcing agency authority but limiting public scrutiny.The Court also restricted EPA powers under the Clean Water Act in a 5-4 decision concerning a wastewater permit for San Francisco. The majority found the EPA's water quality requirements too vague, weakening enforcement capabilities and potentially harming water quality in affected areas. This decision strips the agency of a key tool used to maintain federally regulated waters' safety.Additionally, the justices allowed fuel producers to challenge California's stringent vehicle emissions standards in a 7-2 ruling, broadening legal standing for businesses in environmental litigation. These moves collectively signal a judicial shift favoring regulatory leniency and business interests over expansive environmental oversight.US Supreme Court dealt blows to EPA and environmental protections | ReutersFollowing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits nationwide injunctions, two federal judges are expediting legal challenges to President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship. The order, which takes effect July 27, denies automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. During hearings in Maryland and New Hampshire, a Department of Justice lawyer confirmed that no deportations of affected children will occur before the order becomes active.Judges Deborah Boardman and Joseph LaPlante demanded written assurances from the government, and plaintiffs in both cases—immigrant rights advocates and pregnant non-citizens—pushed for immediate class-wide relief due to fears surrounding their children's legal status. The Supreme Court's ruling last Friday did not validate Trump's policy but did restrict judges from issuing broad injunctions that halt federal policies for the entire country, unless done through class action lawsuits. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion suggested that class actions remain a viable path to broader judicial relief.Trump's administration argues that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee birthright citizenship, a position rejected by many lower courts. The Maryland judge scheduled a ruling after July 9, while a hearing in the New Hampshire case is set for July 10.Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges | ReutersThe Trump administration has appealed a federal judge's decision that struck down an executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, known for its past representation of Hillary Clinton and Democratic interests. The appeal, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, follows a May ruling by Judge Beryl Howell that permanently blocked the order, which aimed to bar Perkins Coie's clients from federal contracts and restrict the firm's attorneys from accessing federal buildings.Judge Howell condemned the order as an abuse of presidential power meant to punish political adversaries, stating that using government authority to settle personal scores is not a lawful use of executive power. Similar executive orders against three other law firms—WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—were also struck down by different judges in Washington. The Justice Department has not yet appealed those rulings.Perkins Coie, along with the other firms, argued that the orders violated constitutional rights, including free speech, and were designed to intimidate attorneys from representing clients disfavored by Trump. The firm expressed confidence in presenting its case to the appeals court. Meanwhile, nine other firms have reportedly settled with the administration, offering nearly $1 billion in pro bono work and other terms to avoid being targeted.Trump administration appeals blocking of executive order against law firm Perkins Coie | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the explosive growth of tax breaks for data centers—driven by the demands of artificial intelligence—is creating unsustainable losses for state budgets. While these facilities are essential for powering AI models, states are racing to hand out subsidies with little oversight or accountability. I point out that what began as modest tech incentives have ballooned into open-ended giveaways, with Texas' projected tax losses surpassing $1 billion and Virginia now dedicating nearly half of its economic development incentives to data centers.I argue that states should not abandon data center investment but must start demanding more in return. That means linking tax breaks to responsible energy use, such as locating facilities near stranded renewable power or requiring dry cooling and on-site energy storage. These measures would mitigate the strain on local water and power systems, especially since AI data centers use far more energy than traditional ones and often during peak demand hours.The current model rewards scale rather than innovation or job creation, essentially turning data center exemptions into bottomless credits for big tech firms. Many states don't even track the actual cost of these subsidies, creating a feedback loop of growing losses and minimal scrutiny. I call for stronger transparency and for aligning data center growth with public interests—especially as AI infrastructure becomes embedded in state economies. Without intervention, we risk reinforcing outdated, inefficient policy frameworks just as computing becomes more powerful and energy-intensive.AI Boom Should Prompt States to Rein in Data Center Tax Losses 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

AOC is under fire once again—this time for fabricating details of her so-called “Bronx upbringing.” Meanwhile, BOTH Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Hillary Clinton are raising eyebrows with calls that could cripple the First Amendment. Plus: Donald Trump pushes back—calling for CNN and The New York Times to reveal their sources. Justice Amy Coney Barrett humbles Ketanji Brown Jackson in a scathing rebuke. And, Michelle Obama stirs controversy with shocking comments about women and childbirth in her new podcast. Join Trish Regan LIVE as she breaks it all down!

[00:30] The Kingdom's Court (26 minutes)The Supreme Court's conservative majority infuriated the radical left this week with several excellent rulings. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a majority opinion for one case that eviscerated leftist Justice Ketanji Jackson's unconstitutional argument. [26:40] A Big, Beautiful Load of Debt (18 minutes)President Trump's “big, beautiful bill” will add an ugly load of debt to our already debt-laden economy. Meanwhile, Iranian officials are claiming that the U.S. attack on its nuclear facilities was not as destructive as originally reported—but the president is doubling down on his claim that the Iranian nuclear program is finished. [44:30] Celtic Throne Brings Joy to the UK (11 minutes) Performer Bob Vylan spewed anti-Semitic hatred at the Glastonbury music festival, streamed to the entire nation on BBC. In contrast, Celtic Throne continued its joyful tour of the UK this week.

This Day in Legal History: 26th AmendmentOn June 30, 1971, the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. This change was largely driven by the political and social pressures of the Vietnam War era, when young Americans were being drafted to fight at 18 but could not vote. The rallying cry “old enough to fight, old enough to vote” captured the public's attention and galvanized a national movement. Though proposals to lower the voting age had circulated for decades, the urgency escalated in the 1960s and early 1970s as anti-war sentiment intensified.Congress passed the amendment with overwhelming support, and it achieved ratification at an unprecedented pace—taking just over three months, the fastest in U.S. history. This amendment added a new section to the Constitution, explicitly prohibiting federal and state governments from denying the right to vote to citizens aged 18 or older based on age. The swift ratification reflected broad bipartisan consensus and mounting public pressure to align civic duties and rights.The legal shift represented a significant expansion of suffrage in the United States, enfranchising millions of young people. It was also a notable example of constitutional change in response to contemporary social conditions and activism. States were subsequently required to amend their laws and election systems to accommodate the younger electorate, which has since played a key role in shaping political outcomes.Global mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in the first half of 2025 grew in value, despite fewer overall deals, thanks to a surge in megadeals—particularly in Asia. Market uncertainties tied to President Trump's tariff initiatives, high interest rates, and geopolitical tension initially dampened expectations. However, confidence among bankers is rising, with many believing that the worst of the turbulence has passed. The U.S. equity markets, bolstered by record highs in the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, have helped restore optimism for stronger M&A activity in the second half of the year.Preliminary data show $2.14 trillion in global deals from January through June 27, a 26% increase year-over-year, driven in part by Asia's doubling in activity to nearly $584 billion. North America saw a 17% rise in deal value to over $1 trillion. Large deals, such as Toyota's $33 billion supplier buyout and ADNOC's $18.7 billion acquisition of Santos, helped drive Asia-Pacific's share of global M&A to over 27%. Meanwhile, fewer total deals—down to 17,528 from over 20,000 last year—were offset by a 62% rise in transactions worth over $10 billion.Eased antitrust policies in the U.S. and a drop in market volatility contributed to a more favorable environment. Investment bankers are now more optimistic, citing a strong pipeline for the second half and renewed IPO activity. Institutional investors are re-engaging, further fueling expectations of continued M&A momentum.Global M&A powered by larger deals in first half, bankers show appetite for megadeals | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled to curtail the use of “universal” injunctions—orders that block government policies nationwide—marking a major legal victory for President Donald Trump. This decision limits the ability of individual judges to halt federal actions across the entire country, reinforcing that relief should generally only apply to the plaintiffs involved. The ruling, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, aimed to rein in what some conservatives see as judicial overreach.However, this legal win may not help Trump implement one of his most controversial policies: an executive order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents. Three lower court judges had already blocked the order, citing likely violations of the 14th Amendment. Although the Supreme Court narrowed the injunctions, it left room for opponents to pursue class-action suits or broader relief through state challenges.Legal scholars expect a wave of class-action cases and continued efforts by states and advocacy groups to block the order's implementation before the 30-day delay expires. States argue they need nationwide protection due to the administrative chaos such a policy would bring. Yet the Court declined to resolve whether states are entitled to broader injunctions, leaving that question to lower courts. If challengers fail to secure class-wide or state-level blocks, the executive order could go into effect unevenly across the country, creating legal confusion for families affected by it.Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship | ReutersSenate Majority Leader John Thune is racing to meet President Donald Trump's July 4 deadline to pass a massive tax and spending bill, navigating deep divisions within the Republican Party. The $3.3 trillion legislation, which includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, is facing resistance from at least eight GOP senators. Key disagreements center around healthcare funding, renewable energy subsidies, and the bill's fiscal impact, including a proposed $5 trillion debt ceiling increase.Senators like Thom Tillis and Rand Paul are opposing the bill, citing concerns over Medicaid cuts and fiscal irresponsibility. Tillis, recently freed from political pressure after announcing he won't seek reelection, is expected to vote no. With a slim margin for passage, Thune can afford to lose only three Republican votes, counting on Vice President JD Vance to break a tie.Market reactions have been mixed; renewable energy stocks dropped due to proposed cuts to wind and solar tax incentives. Meanwhile, moderates are pushing to preserve Medicaid benefits and clean energy credits, warning of political fallout if millions lose health coverage. Senators like Ron Johnson are pushing for deeper Medicaid cuts to reduce the bill's overall cost.Trump has not engaged in policy details but is pressuring lawmakers to deliver the bill on time, using social media to criticize dissenters. The Senate is set for a long amendment session, with the House potentially voting on the final version by Wednesday. Whether Thune can secure the needed votes remains uncertain as the July 4 deadline approaches.Trump Tax Bill Hits Senate With GOP Torn by Competing DemandsIn the aftermath of devastating wildfires in Los Angeles earlier this year, Wall Street firms are rushing to capitalize on a wave of lawsuits targeting utilities like Edison International and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. These fires, among the worst in U.S. history, destroyed over 12,000 structures and have spurred litigation that could result in tens of billions of dollars in damages. With law firms often operating on contingency fees and facing steep costs, many are turning to third-party litigation financing—a lightly regulated, fast-growing industry now valued at $16 billion in the U.S.Major financial players including Jefferies and Oppenheimer are brokering deals to provide multimillion-dollar loans to lawyers handling these complex cases. These loans, often subject to non-disclosure agreements, carry interest rates above 20% and are repaid only when the law firms recover damages. In addition to funding legal efforts, some investors are purchasing subrogation claims from insurers, betting on favorable court outcomes.California's legal doctrine of inverse condemnation makes it easier for plaintiffs to hold utilities liable without proving negligence, further enticing investors. While some attorneys refuse outside funding to preserve client interests, others argue that financing is essential for firms lacking deep capital reserves. Critics, including regulators and advocacy groups, are raising concerns about the opacity of the funding industry and the potential for conflicts of interest.Wall Street Backs Los Angeles Wildfire Lawsuits, Chasing Billions 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: In cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, do prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that falls under the Seventh Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.PLRA exhaustion operates as a standard affirmative defense subject to the usual practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The usual practice requires factual disputes regarding legal claims to go to a jury, even when a judge could ordinarily resolve such questions independently. Because Congress legislates against the backdrop of established common-law adjudicatory principles, and because the PLRA remains silent on whether judges or juries should resolve exhaustion disputes, this silence constitutes strong evidence that courts should follow the usual practice of sending factual disputes to juries when they are intertwined with the merits.At the time Congress enacted the PLRA in 1996, well-established precedent required that factual disputes intertwined with Seventh Amendment claims go to juries. Two lines of cases support this principle. First, in cases involving both legal and equitable claims, Beacon Theatres established that judges may not resolve equitable claims first if doing so could prevent legal claims from reaching a jury, because judicial discretion must preserve jury trial rights wherever possible. Second, in subject matter jurisdiction cases like Smithers v Smith and Land v Dollar, courts may not resolve factual disputes when those disputes are intertwined with the merits, as this would risk deciding the controversy's substance without ordinary trial procedures, including the right to a jury. When the PLRA was enacted, the usual federal court practice across various contexts involved resolving factual disputes intertwined with the merits at the merits stage itself.Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh, arguing that the majority's statutory interpretation contravenes basic principles because the PLRA's silence cannot confer a jury trial right, and that the jury trial right under the Seventh Amendment does not depend on factual overlap between threshold issues and the merits.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

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

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court released its decision in Trump v. CASA. This case was nominally about the legal question of so-called birthright citizenship, in light of a Trump Executive Order “ending” this practice. (In fact, America did not have birthright citizenship even prior to Trump's EO, and never has, but that's a different show.)In fact, the legal question here was not the issue of birth-right citizenship on the legal merits, but rather whether an unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior federal district court judge had the authority to issue a NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION against Trump's Executive Order, as opposed to any such injunction being limited to the actual parties before the court. FAIR WARNING: The majority DOES leave a YUGE vulnerability in this check on nationwide injunction, which I expect the insurrectionist judiciary to take full advantage of—more on that in a moment. Scores of unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior federal district court judge have been issuing nationwide, even international-wide, injunctions against a broad spectrum of Trump policies, even (or especially) when those courts lacked even the basic jurisdiction to hear the dispute before it.Today, that mostly ends, with the SCOTUS decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett laying out exactly why these nationwide injunctions are an outrageous overreach of the federal judiciary, contrary to hundreds of years of well-established American law. Even better, in the process of explaining why this is so, Barrett absolutely NUKES the dissent from Justice Ketanji “DEI” Jackson on both legal and intellectual grounds. It's a degree of in your face I don't think I've ever before seen delivered by one justice to another—and rightly so. (By the way, I expect the deserved heat of this check of Ketanji goes a long way to explaining why Barrett, also a woman, was chosen to author the decision.)Get Your FREE Copy of Our Best-Selling Book: "The Law of Self Defense: Principles"Visit Here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook"You are wise to buy this material. I hope you watch it, internalize it, and keep it to the forefront whenever you even think of reaching for a gun"-Massad Ayoob (President of the Second Amendment Foundation) The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

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

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

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

In a 6-3 ruling from the Supreme Court President Trump scored a huge victory regarding democrat lawfare. Justice Amy Coney Barrett ripped into Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for her dissent, exposing her for who she really is.This comes as President Trump has faced a record amount of Nation Wide Injunctions to kill his America First agenda. The lawfare is over! And some new records on wall street today! The dems told us just months ago that Trump was going to destroy the markets -- so what happen!?Guest: Professor William Jacobson - Cornell University and Founder of Equal Protection ProjectSponsor:My PillowWww.MyPillow.com/johnSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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

Justice Amy Coney Barrett absolutely SHREDS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion in the ruling about universal injunctions used by rogue district court judges. An MSNBC Host says there will be no more farm workers or someone to clear your plate at a restaurant without illegal aliens. Zohran Mamdani continues to propose city-run grocery stores and taxing White neighborhoods in New York City. The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in its requests to partially enforce its birthright citizenship order. A cruise from Texas to Mexico spiraled into chaos after an engine room fire triggered a massive electrical failure, leaving over 4,000 passengers and crew wading through urine and feces, and camping on deck. The Senate continues to debate Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill to pass before July 4th. An unelected Parliamentarian is blocking some key cuts in the bill. Dana doesn't like how the Bezos wedding has turned into a climate change function.Thank you for supporting our sponsors that make The Dana Show possible…Relief Factorhttps://ReliefFactor.com OR CALL 1-800-4-RELIEFTurn the clock back on pain with Relief Factor. Get their 3-week Relief Factor Quick Start for only $19.95 today! Goldcohttps://DanaLikesGold.com Protect your financial future with my trusted gold company—get your GoldCo 2025 Gold & Silver Kit today, and you could qualify for up to 10% in bonus silverByrnahttps://byrna.com/danaGet your hands on the new compact Byrna CL. Visit Byrna.com/Dana receive 10% off Patriot Mobilehttps://PatriotMobile.com/DanaVeterans, Active Duty Military & First Responders get 15% OFF monthly. PLUS get a FREE MONTH of service code DANAHumanNhttps://humann.comFind both the new SuperBerine and the #1 bestselling SuperBeets Heart Chews at Sam's Club!KelTechttps://KelTecWeapons.comSee the third generation of the iconic SUB2000 and the NEW PS57 - KelTec Innovation & Performance at its bestAll Family Pharmacyhttps://AllFamilyPharmacy.com/DanaCode Dana20 for 20% off your entire orderPreBornhttps://Preborn.com/DanaWith your help, we can hit the goal of 1,000 ultrasounds by the end of June! Just dial #250 and say “Baby”

This Day in Legal History: Federal Housing AdministrationOn June 27, 1934, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was created through the National Housing Act, marking a major shift in the federal government's role in the housing market. The FHA was designed to address the housing crisis of the Great Depression, when foreclosures were rampant and private lenders were reluctant to issue long-term mortgages. By insuring loans made by private lenders, the FHA significantly reduced the risk of default, making it easier and more affordable for Americans to buy homes.The FHA introduced standardized, amortized 20- and 30-year mortgages—innovations that quickly became industry norms. These reforms expanded access to home financing for middle-class families and jump-started suburban development. However, the agency's early policies also entrenched racial segregation through redlining, where predominantly Black neighborhoods were systematically denied FHA-backed loans.While the FHA has since evolved and is now part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), its legacy is a mix of increased homeownership and the deepening of racial disparities in wealth and housing. The legal framework it helped establish continues to shape U.S. housing policy today, making it a pivotal moment in both real estate law and civil rights history. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy voiced alarm over the state of American political discourse during a recent international judicial forum, warning that the tone of current debates poses a threat to democracy and freedom. Speaking without directly referencing President Trump, Kennedy criticized the rise of identity politics and emphasized that civil discourse should be about issues, not partisan affiliations. He argued that judges are essential to a functioning democracy and must be protected—both physically and in terms of public respect.Other speakers, including South African jurist Richard Goldstone and U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, echoed Kennedy's concerns. Goldstone condemned personal attacks on judges who ruled against the current administration, while Salas highlighted the growing danger judges face, referencing her own experience with targeted violence and the record-high levels of threats now being reported in the U.S.The event underscored a growing consensus among jurists worldwide: that political attacks on the judiciary undermine democratic institutions and risk eroding the rule of law.Retired US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy warns 'freedom is at risk' | ReutersA federal judge has rejected a joint attempt by Ripple Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to finalize a reduced settlement in their long-running legal battle over unregistered XRP token sales. U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres criticized both parties for proposing a $50 million fine in lieu of a previously imposed $125 million penalty and for attempting to nullify a permanent injunction she had ordered.Judge Torres ruled in 2023 that Ripple's public XRP sales weren't securities, but $728 million in sales to institutional investors violated federal securities laws. While both sides appealed, they later proposed to settle—if the court would cancel the injunction and approve the reduced fine. Torres refused, stating they lacked authority to override a court's final judgment involving a violation of congressional statute.She emphasized that exceptional circumstances justifying the request were not present and that vacating a permanent injunction would undermine the public interest and the administration of justice. The SEC and Ripple still have the option to continue their appeals or drop them entirely.The case is notable amid a broader shift under President Trump's second term, during which the SEC has dropped several high-profile crypto enforcement actions. XRP remains one of the top cryptocurrencies by market value.SEC, Ripple wants to settle crypto lawsuit, but US judge rebuffs them | ReutersThe Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with its plan to end automatic birthright citizenship by narrowing the scope of judicial injunctions. Previously, lower courts had issued nationwide injunctions blocking the policy, but the Court ruled these injunctions should apply only to the parties involved in the lawsuits. This means that the policy can now proceed in most states, except those like New Hampshire where separate legal challenges remain in effect. The Court's decision followed ideological lines, with the conservative majority backing the administration and liberal justices dissenting. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized that courts must not overreach their authority even when they find executive actions unlawful. In contrast, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned the ruling could erode the rule of law by allowing inconsistent application of federal policy across states.The ruling does not address the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship, leaving that question open for future litigation. The Trump administration's executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, reinterprets the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause to exclude children born in the U.S. to non-citizen or non-resident parents. This reinterpretation challenges the longstanding understanding established by the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed that nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil are citizens. The administration has argued that judges lack the authority to impose broad injunctions and that states challenging the policy lack standing. While the policy remains blocked in certain jurisdictions, the administration can now continue planning for its implementation and potentially face a patchwork of future legal challenges.Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship planIn a piece I wrote for Forbes yesterday, the Trump administration briefly floated Section 899, a provision dubbed the “revenge tax,” as a retaliatory measure against countries imposing taxes deemed discriminatory toward U.S. companies—particularly tech giants. This measure, hidden within the broader One Big Beautiful Bill Act, proposed punitive tax increases on income earned in the U.S. by individuals and entities linked to “discriminatory foreign countries.” The policy was a response to international developments like the OECD's Pillar 2 framework and digital services taxes (DSTs), which the U.S. perceived as disproportionately targeting American firms.Section 899 would have enabled the Treasury to impose annual 5% tax hikes on everything from dividends to real estate gains, even overriding exemptions for sovereign wealth funds. What made the provision particularly aggressive was its vague triggering criteria—any foreign tax Treasury considered “unfair” could activate the penalties, without congressional oversight.Despite its bold intent, Section 899 was ultimately abandoned. It generated concern among investors and foreign governments alike, with critics warning it would destabilize capital markets and act as an unofficial sanctions regime. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent eventually signaled its withdrawal, citing improved diplomatic relations. Though shelved for now, the idea may resurface if international tax disputes escalate.Section 899—The ‘Revenge Tax' That Didn't SurviveA double dose of me this week, another piece I wrote for Forbes:The Pro Codes Act, currently before Congress as H.R.4072, poses a serious threat to public access to the law by allowing private organizations to retain copyright over technical standards—even after those standards are incorporated by reference into statutes and regulations. Although pitched as a transparency measure, the bill effectively transforms enforceable legal obligations into intellectual property governed by restrictive licenses and online viewer limitations.The Act would require standards to be “publicly accessible,” but this access might mean only being able to view documents behind login walls, with no ability to download, search, or integrate them into legal or compliance tools. This is particularly troubling in areas like tax law, where these standards often form the basis for determining eligibility for deductions or credits.By commodifying access to legal standards, the Pro Codes Act would introduce a two-tiered system: well-resourced firms could pay for commercial access, while small legal clinics, nonprofits, and individuals could find themselves effectively barred from the rules they're legally obligated to follow. The result is an unequal legal landscape where justice becomes contingent on financial capacity.The bill directly undermines a key legal principle reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2020: laws and materials carrying the force of law cannot be copyrighted. Permitting private entities to control access to mandatory standards shifts power away from the public and toward entities seeking to monetize compliance.Pro Codes Act—Or, What If The Law Came Behind A Paywall?This week's closing theme is Variations sérieuses, Op. 54 by Felix Mendelssohn—a composer whose elegance, intellect, and structural precision made him one of the early Romantic era's brightest voices. Born into a wealthy, culturally vibrant German-Jewish family in 1809, Mendelssohn was a child prodigy whose musical maturity arrived astonishingly early. He played a pivotal role in reviving J.S. Bach's legacy and was admired for his orchestral works, choral music, and virtuosic piano writing.Composed in 1841, the Variations sérieuses reflect a side of Mendelssohn that is often overshadowed by his lighter, more lyrical pieces. Written as a contribution to a fundraising album for a monument to Beethoven, the work pays tribute to that master's weight and depth. In this set of 17 variations on a solemn original theme, Mendelssohn channels both Classical form and Romantic intensity. The variations begin introspectively but grow in technical difficulty and emotional force, culminating in a stormy, almost defiant finale.Unlike many variation sets of the time, which favored decorative flourishes, Mendelssohn's sérieuses live up to their name: they are dense, architecturally rigorous, and deeply expressive. The piece showcases his command of counterpoint, his sensitivity to dynamic contrasts, and his ability to build drama without sacrificing formal clarity. It's music that demands both interpretive depth and virtuosity—qualities that have kept it central to the serious piano repertoire for over 180 years. Mendelssohn once described music as a language too precise for words, and this piece speaks volumes in that tongue. It is a fitting and focused way to close the week.Without further ado, Variations sérieuses, Op. 54 by Felix Mendelssohn – enjoy! 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 show began today, just as the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion (written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett) that made clear the old policy of "birthright citizenship" is not constitutional. That will stop millions of illegals who come here only to have a baby. That would give each of those babies full American citizenship, thereby not requiring them to go through the immigration process.Two prominent actors came out blasting Tom Homan and President Trump in very harsh terms for their political stances.As Trump anticipates the passage of his historic piece of legislation, there's a new hiccup that's throwing a wrench into the mix. The Senate Parliamentarian is grading parts of the bill, determining they do NOT pass muster and must therefore be stripped from the law.Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivers a powerful message to the media and Democrats who have tried to denigrate the results of the massive bombing of Iran. In reality, it's impossible at this point for anyone to say emphatically that the massive bombing of those three Iranian nuclear facilities did or did not destroy the enriched uranium slated to be used to make nuclear warheads.

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. 

When Trump appointed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in 2020, he thought she was an easy right-wing vote. An analysis shows she's “showing signs of leftward drift.” For the first time, LA restaurants have earned three Michelin stars. Somni, in West Hollywood, and Providence, on Melrose, both now have the highest honor a restaurant can receive. Three spicy condiments that are easy to make, easy to eat, and don't require canning are candied jalpeños, shatta, and Korean soy sauce pickles. Critics review the latest film releases: “F1,” “M3GAN 2.0,” “Sorry, Baby,” and “Familiar Touch.”

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