Podcasts about justice amy coney barrett

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

Another huge scandal that has emerged from the Biden Regime amid the largest downward revision to employment in US history. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) far fewer jobs were created between April 2024 and March 2025 in the latest jobs revision -- by almost a million jobs! Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were cooking the books the whole time and lying to the American people. Justice Amy Coney Barrett weighs in on the wins from SCOTUS for the Trump Admin. And why are the RINOs and Marxist Dems going so hard on RFK Jr? What are they so worried about?Guest: Roger Stone - Host, The Stone ZoneSponsor:My PillowWww.MyPillow.com/johnSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

0:30 You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. In today's episode we tackle Stephen Miller's claim that Democrats are terrorizing America. We discuss soft-on-crime prosecutors, Biden's open-border policy, and the revolving door of catch-and-release justice. Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things You Need to Know: Israel attacked leaders of Hamas with a bombing inside Qatar. A Judge in Michigan has thrown out criminal charges against 16 people stemming from the 2020 election. One of the key figures in the IRS - TEA Party targeting scandal has been fired. 12:30 Stay hydrated throughout the day with Performlyte from Victory International. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promocod AGR20 to get 20% off. 13:30 A judge in Maryland has issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's policy requiring a person's biological sex be listed on their passport. How will this move affect security? We ask the American Mamas, Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson, about their childhood memories of moments when adulters were unkind. From classroom embarrassments to painful daycare incidents, Terri and Kimberly reflect on how those early experiences shaped their empathy, parenting, and commitment to uplifting others. If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, americangroundradio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button! 23:00 We dive into one President Trump’s campaign promises—a proposed 10% cap on credit card interest rates. We explore whether government-imposed price controls could save Americans billions or create unintended consequences in the financial market. Plus, Jack Phillips from Masterpiece Cakeshop joins us on the phone to discuss his decade-long legal journey to the U.S. Supreme Court. Jack shares how his Christian faith guided his decision not to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple, why he believes cakes are messages of art, and how he’s stood firm through multiple lawsuits, hate calls, and national scrutiny. You can order cookies and brownies at masterpiececakeshop.store and check out Jack's book, The Cost of My Faith: How a Decision in My Cake Shop Took Me to the Supreme Court. 32:30 Protovite from Victory International is a a multivitamin designed to absorb quickly. Go to vni.life/AGR and use the code AGR20 to get 20% off. 33:30 We break down a major Social Security change coming at the end of September. The Social Security Administration will stop issuing most paper checks to beneficiaries. Plus, Kentucky's 2018 law that made 50/50 child custody the default in most divorce case has led to fewer divorces in the state, and that's a Bright Spot! 40:30 We react to Fox News host Bret Baier’s surprising question to Justice Amy Coney Barrett about the 22nd Amendment and presidential term limits. And we finish off with some words of wisdom about parenting that will make you say, "Whoa!" americangroundradio.com Facebook: facebook.com / AmericanGroundRadio Instagram: instagram.com/americangroundradio Links: IRS issues termination notice to top aide linked to Obama-era Tea Party targeting scandal Divorce Plunged in Kentucky. Equal Custody for Fathers Is a Big Reason Why. Kentucky’s Common Sense Solution Sends Divorce Rates PlummetingSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett joins Sarah Isgur and David French from the Lawyer's Room at the Supreme Court. They begin with a lightning round of questions (Emergency docket? Certiorari pronunciation?) before diving into ACB's thoughts on originalism and discussing her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution. The Agenda:—Lightning round!—Give up, “equity docket,” David—Do oral arguments even matter anymore?—All about originalism—Life as a Justice Antonin Scalia clerk—Law school: to go or not to go? Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a battle of flagship podcasts, Steve Hayes invites Sarah Isgur to share her biggest takeaways from her interview with Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Then, listen in as the Advisory Opinions crew speaks with ACB about the strengths and limitations of originalism, insights from her new book, and her writing style. The Agenda:—Sarah's takeaways—Lightning round!—Give up, “equity docket,” David—Do oral arguments even matter anymore?—All about originalism—Life as a Justice Antonin Scalia clerk—Law school: to go or not to go?—Click HERE to subscribe to Advisory Opinions Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Another huge scandal that has emerged from the Biden Regime amid the largest downward revision to employment in US history. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) far fewer jobs were created between April 2024 and March 2025 in the latest jobs revision -- by almost a million jobs! Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were cooking the books the whole time and lying to the American people. Justice Amy Coney Barrett weighs in on the wins from SCOTUS for the Trump Admin. And why are the RINOs and Marxist Dems going so hard on RFK Jr? What are they so worried about?Guest: Roger Stone - Host, The Stone ZoneSponsor:My PillowWww.MyPillow.com/johnSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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

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

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

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

Last night's MTV Video Music Awards were all about bringing the people together. There were big star performances for every generation from Steven Tyler to Sabrina Carpenter to "songbird supreme", Mariah Carey. Buffalo opens the NFL season with a monster comeback, wiping out Baltimore's 15-point lead in the last four minutes to shock the ravens, 41-40. Host of "The NFL today" on CBS, James Brown breaks down the biggest moments of a fantastic opening weekend. The growing fallout from Florida's plan to become the first state to phase out all childhood vaccine requirements. Parents across the country are watching developments. Yesterday, Florida's Surgeon General told CNN he did not study the potential impact of this decision. During her five years on the Supreme Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett has become one of the most closely watched voices on the bench. Ahead of the release of her book tomorrow, she spoke with CBS News Senior Correspondent Norah O'Donnell, in a rare interview. Two-time doubles grand slam champion, Taylor Townsend, achieved her best singles performance, reaching the 4th round for the first time since the 2019 US Open. Townsend became the fans' star of the US Open for her powerful play, bold outfits and being authentically herself. Only on CBS Mornings, we're excited to welcome her to the studio! For Beg-Knows America, singer and musician Roger Blevins spent three decades touring the country and the world with his band Mingo Fishtrap, But in 2022, a life-changing diagnosis brought everything to a halt, until he found a way to come back even stronger. Michelle "Mace" curran is a former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot. She is only the second woman in history to serve as the lead solo pilot for the elite show team "The Thunderbirds." Her new book is called "The Flipside: How to Invert Your Perspective and Turn Fear into Your Superpower." It shares lessons learned in the cockpit and beyond. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

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

Logan and Jordan Sekulow are joined by Will Haynes and Ric Grenell to discuss Justice Amy Coney Barrett's recent interviews regarding the constitution. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/663/29

Logan and Jordan Sekulow are joined by Will Haynes and Ric Grenell to discuss Justice Amy Coney Barrett's recent interviews regarding the constitution. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/663/29

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

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

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

It's August 13th, 2025, and once again, the spotlight is trained on former President Donald Trump—this time not for a campaign rally or a press conference, but for a series of high-stakes courtroom dramas that have played out across the country over the last several days. The legal turbulence circling Trump feels relentless, but the energy in and around courthouses from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. is unmistakable—these aren't just headline-grabbing disputes, they're shaping the future boundaries of presidential power, military deployment, and civil liberties.Right now, all eyes are on San Francisco where a landmark civil trial is underway, scrutinizing Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles during massive protests earlier this summer. The State of California, led by Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong, is making its case that Trump's administration illegally used the military for domestic law enforcement—essentially, arguing that the lines between troop and police vanished somewhere on the streets of LA. Yesterday's courtroom scene was tense, with a senior military officer—testifying just after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted about plans to “flood” D.C. with National Guard—insisting that every move was above board. But Judge Charles R. Breyer suggested to all present that Hegseth's words may very well sway the decision, especially as the state warns this was only “the beginning,” with cities like Baltimore and Oakland on Trump's own shortlist for future troop deployments, and California demanding immediate, enforceable boundaries on the use of federal force in civilian cities.Meanwhile, these California proceedings are just the latest in an avalanche of legal challenges enveloping Trump. In fact, the Lawfare Litigation Tracker reports nearly 300 active cases challenging Trump administration executive actions—many dealing with national security or broad assertions of federal authority. Several judges over the summer ruled both for and against the federal government, and 14 Supreme Court orders have granted stays or vacated lower court decisions, underscoring that the legal battles are playing out at every judicial level.Speaking of the Supreme Court, just days ago, in Trump v. CASA, Inc., the justices weighed in on Trump's controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, granted a partial stay on nationwide injunctions, sharply limiting lower courts' reach and only preventing enforcement in cases where plaintiffs had standing. While the government won an important tactical victory, three justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan—vocally dissented, warning that narrowing such injunctions left many at risk.Through it all, Trump and his officials mostly shrug off the court orders, pressing ahead with their agenda across the country. For the next two weeks, with more hearings set—like the August 26th showdown in the Thakur et al v. Trump case—Americans remain riveted, waiting to see not just how the courts will judge Trump's actions, but how those judgments might redefine the balance between executive authority and states' rights.Thanks for tuning in. Come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease.AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

This week's Miranda Warnings podcast features U.S. Supreme Court rulings ranging from the reach of executive power to the influence parents hold in determining school curriculum. The podcast brings together Albany Law School professor Vin Bonventre and political strategist Liz Benjamin. NYSBA past president and general counsel David Miranda moderates it.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can a district court issue a nationwide (universal) injunction that blocks enforcement of a federal executive order beyond the specific parties involved in the lawsuit?The case was decided on June 27, 2025.The Supreme Court held that Federal courts likely lack equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal injunctions that prohibit enforcement of executive actions beyond the parties before the court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts possess only those equitable remedies “traditionally accorded by courts of equity” at the time of the founding. The Court finds no historical precedent for universal injunctions in English equity courts or early American practice. English equity courts operated through party-specific proceedings, where relief was limited to those actually before the court. While bills of peace allowed courts to adjudicate rights of dispersed groups, these involved small, cohesive groups and bound all members—unlike universal injunctions that protect non-parties without binding them. The historical absence of universal injunctions until the mid-20th century confirms they fall outside traditional equitable authority.The complete relief principle permits courts to fashion remedies that fully redress plaintiffs' injuries, but complete relief does not equal universal relief. Courts may award relief that incidentally benefits non-parties when necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiffs, such as in nuisance cases where divisible relief is impossible. However, prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against individual plaintiffs' children provides them complete relief without requiring nationwide application. For state plaintiffs claiming administrative and financial harms, the Court remands for lower courts to determine whether narrower injunctions could provide complete relief, such as prohibiting enforcement within plaintiff states or treating affected children as eligible for federally funded benefits.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, emphasizing that courts must not expand the complete relief principle to recreate universal injunctions under a different name and that relief should be tailored to redress only plaintiffs' particular injuries.Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, warning that lax enforcement of third-party standing requirements and class certification procedures could create loopholes that undermine the Court's holding against universal injunctions.Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion explaining that while universal injunctions are improper, plaintiffs may still seek classwide preliminary relief under Rule 23(b)(2) or ask courts to set aside agency rules under the Administrative Procedure Act, and emphasizing that the Court will continue to serve as the ultimate arbiter of the interim legal status of major federal actions.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that universal injunctions have deep roots in equity's history through bills of peace and taxpayer suits, that the Executive Order is patently unconstitutional under the Citizenship Clause, and that limiting injunctive relief will leave constitutional rights meaningful in name only for those unable to sue.Justice Jackson authored a separate dissenting opinion arguing that the majority's decision creates an existential threat to the rule of law by allowing the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not sued, effectively creating zones where executive compliance with law becomes optional rather than mandatory.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Sarah Longwell is joined by Leah Litman, professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School and co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, to discuss the Supreme Court's troubling shift toward partisanship, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's ideological battles, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's decision to openly criticize the Court's Trump-friendly rulings. Can anything fix the Supreme Court? Litman shares solutions—and why she thinks it's past time to get angry. Get 15% off OneSkin with the code ASKGEORGE at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod #sponsored Upgrade your wardrobe and save on @trueclassic at https://trueclassic.com/ASKGEORGE! #trueclassicpod #sponsored

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.

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

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.

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

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