Podcast appearances and mentions of Neil Gorsuch

51:07- Kerry Picket, White House Correspondent for the Washington Times Topic: President Trump's cabinet meeting 59:29- Gordon Chang, Asia expert, columnist and author of "China is Going to War" Topic: Trump says the U.S. would welcome 600,000 Chinese students 1:26:10- Liz Peek, Fox News contributor, columnist for Fox News and The Hill, and former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company Topic: Trump pranks Democrats into opposing something they've always claimed to support (Fox News op ed) 2:00:22- Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Topic: Legalities of John Bolton FBI raid 2:13:30- Michael Goodwin, Chief Political Columnist for the New York Post Topic: "NY Times chipping away at Chinese meddling in NYC elections is a welcome change – but questions remain" (New York Post op ed)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, critics of President Trump's executive order on American flag burning have not read it and are misrepresenting it, as the order creates no new laws or offenses. It does not run counter to the 1989 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson.  Unsurprisingly, most of the media jumped the gun, and their favorite NeverTrumpers (among others) joined in the chorus, accusing the president of lawlessness, etc. Also, France's Emmanuel Macron is a disgusting quisling. He thinks it's still Vichy France, where he'd be more comfortable.  Kudos to our Ambassador to France, Charles Kushner for calling out antisemitism in France.  Later, CNN and similar media are biased against Supreme Court conservatives like Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Alito, who are accused of being "out of control" while upholding the Constitution in rulings favoring the Trump administration on issues like immigration, spending, and DEI. Afterward, On Power explains that negative power, particularly its soft form, exists in both open and closed societies and is increasingly prevalent in democracies like America. It emphasizes that a universal order—encompassing nature, morality, values, and beliefs—precedes, transcends, and outlasts all governments, which are temporary human constructs imposing limits on individuals. Humans are not inherently subjects of rulers or governments but are governed by an unamendable supreme law. Valid governments must align with this universal order, while soft negative power persists in civil society (via laws, customs, or social contracts like Locke's) to maintain order, prevent anarchy, and protect individual liberty—even in the best governments. People vote for tyranny, then when it takes hold, it's too late   - that's what will happen if Zohran Mamdani becomes Mayor of NYC. Finally, Yael Eckstein, president of the International Fellowship of Christians (IFCJ) and Jews calls in. In Syria, partnering with the Israeli army, IFCJ has provided thousands of food packages and established medical clinics for targeted Christians and Druze. More recently in Suweida, they airlifted life-saving medical supplies and food to a hospital lacking essentials, saving lives from infections and hunger. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

David Waldman is older than he used to be! By an entire year somehow! Congratulations! Also… Armando!  Greg Dworkin is completely different of course, and so is his Raft O' Stories™, although they could all be a distraction from the real story. The Zohran Mamdanimentum keeps growing, because it's fun and Zohran is having fun and New Yorkers are a fun-loving bunch. Similarly, Gavin Newsomentum is building, even though there are Dems out there whose anxiety builds when they see too much fun going on and would like to remind you here in August 2025 that you don't “have to” vote for Gavin in November 2028 if you don't want to. Expect Trump to drop the word “CUCK” into his posts soon in order to get ahead of Newsom comparisons. Or Trump could just have Gavin arrested. Time for some legal problems for Chris Christie. Time for some legal problems for every federal judge in Maryland. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh note that none of these people are either of them. Kilmar Abrego Garcia could inspire this administration to reinstitute crucifixion. Let's pour one out for two Fulton County Dems, Dana Barrett and Mo Ivory, protectors of democracy and presently unincarcerated. Trump will obviously send troops into Chicago. Not because he needs to, but because he wants to. Cheating is so fun that it might not matter if it actually works. Soon we will all have something to cry about. US consumers with prime credit are starting to fall behind in their payments. Millions are being pushed off of Medicaid and Obamacare, no matter what they are being told now. And COVID isn't going away, but the vaccine is. Years of effort have finally paid off. Nancy Mace has finally worn out her welcome.

CannCon and Zak “RedPill78” Paine dive into a packed Monday news cycle, kicking off with reactions to the world premiere of Brad Zerbo's documentary CODEX 9/11 and its explosive revelations. From John Bolton's FBI raid and its deep state implications, to Rick Wilson's meltdown and the Lincoln Project's scandals, the hosts break down the hypocrisy of political elites. They cover Tulsi Gabbard's alleged Five Eyes directive, new Nord Stream pipeline revelations, and Justice Gorsuch slamming rogue lower courts. The discussion heats up with Florida's immigration battles, Trump's nationwide National Guard mobilizations, and fresh Epstein-related disclosures including Maxwell transcripts, DOJ document handovers, and Virginia Giuffre's upcoming memoir. With fiery commentary, sharp analysis, and plenty of humor, this episode pulls no punches on corruption, cover-ups, and the fight for accountability. 

President Trump has scored yet another YUGE win in the US Supreme Court, with the majority upholding the authority of the Article II Executive elected by the whole of the American people to carry out our political will, to DENY FUNDING that was granted on the basis of deranged DEI and racist ideologies.The SCOTUS opinion includes a SCATCHING rebuke of the unelected, tyrannical, inferior, federal district courts who are in OPEN REBELLION against the US Supreme Court, authored by the clearly and justifiably angry Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, both of whom have clearly had enough of the petulant inferior federal judges who simply refuse to accept any limitation whatever on their self-claimed infinite authority in their efforts to achieve their desired political outcomes.And, of course, in an opinion in which eight justices delivering a bundle of four distinct written opinions and dissent in a concise 14 pages, Justice Ketanji “Waffle House” Jackson is unable to restrain herself from consuming an additional full 18 pages to stomp her foot.Jackson extensively denigrates her colleagues on the SCOTUS bench as ruling in an “unprincipled and unfortunate” manner, delivering a decision that only uses “logic (such as it is)”, is “an even bigger mistake than I realized,” is lacking in “deviates dramatically” from “ordinary, commonsense,” and engaging in “Calvinball jurisprudence” in which “there are no fixed rules.” Instead, Justice Waffle House writes in describing this Supreme Court, “we seem to have only two [rules]: that one [that there are no fixed rules], and this Administration always wins.”Contemptible. 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

Advanced Cellular Support + Hydration: https://fortifystore.com/awk/ ——— Protect your investments with And We Know http://andweknow.com/gold Or call 720-605-3900, Tell them “LT” sent you. ------ AT sea with LT. 2026. Caribbean: https://www.inspirationtravel.com/event/lt-caribbean-cruise-2026 ————————— *Our AWK Website: https://www.andweknow.com/ ➜ AWK Shirts and gifts: https://shop.andweknow.com/ ------- The ruling was 5-4. Amy Coney BARRETT, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch side with Trump. https://x.com/its_The_Dr/status/1958673610132136224 President Trump praised federal agents and National Guard soldiers, https://x.com/andweknow/status/1958660308882661803 Secretary Sean Duffy says Washington shouldn't have licensed the commercial truck driver who got a non-domiciled license in California. He'll check states and take action. https://x.com/andweknow/status/1958638509876756725 Tulsi Gabbard says the Deep State has been in our government and intelligence agencies for a long time, before Obama and Clinton. Under the President's leadership, they are working to remove these bad actors. https://x.com/andweknow/status/1958636152124256412 "I don't care what your political party is. We've got to take America's streets back for the American people." https://x.com/theblaze/status/1958593909547835694 An illegal alien who killed three people with a semi-truck was seen boarding a plane to be extradited to Florida. Governor Ron DeSantis said he'll face severe consequences. https://x.com/andweknow/status/1958588370973577419 ——  *DONATIONS SITE: https://bit.ly/2Lgdrh5 *Mail your gift to: And We Know 30650 Rancho California Rd STE D406-123 (or D406-126) Temecula, CA 92591 ➜ AWK Shirts and gifts: https://shop.andweknow.com/ ➜ Audio Bible https://www.biblegateway.com/audio/mclean/kjv/1John.3.16 Connect with us in the following ways: + DISCORD Fellows: https://discord.gg/kMt8R2FC4z

This episode of TRP Podcast is dedicated to Uncle Tom Luckey of Humbolt, Tennessee. Today is his funeral at Antioch Baptist Church in Humbolt, not far from the farm on which he grew up and worked his entire life. The time stamps for Uncle Tom comments are as follows: 1) at the beginning, 2) minute 42-43, 3) the one hour mark, 4) and at the very ending few minutes. The rest is about why Gorsuch is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020)(part 5 in a series) about his faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- a real hoot. Part 5: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court through his Roman Numeral III.A , and stop at his III.B. We'll cover his III.B next time. Part 5. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

We Like Shooting Episode 622 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Midwest Industries, Swampfox Optics, RMA Defense, XTech Tactical, Night Fision, and Mitchell Defense   Welcome to the We Like Shooting Show, episode 622! Our cast tonight is Jeremy Pozderac, Aaron Krieger, Nick Lynch, and me Shawn Herrin, welcome to the show!   GOALS   August 9th and 10th in Knoxville, Tennessee. Knoxville Convention Center Free to GOA members https://events.goa.org/goals/   If you were at GunCon and are attending GOALS. Don't forget to get some pics with the cast to claim your free shirt.   Guest: Jon Patton - The Gun Collective https://www.instagram.com/theguncollective/?hl=en @theguncollective   Gear Chat Nick - MP5 News Drop MP5 update Pew Deals   Bullet Points Shawn - Weekly P320 Updates P320 Weekly changes FFL NCIC gun lookup Gun Fights Step right up for "Gun Fights," the high-octane segment hosted by Nick Lynch, where our cast members go head-to-head in a game show-style showdown! Each contestant tries to prove their gun knowledge dominance. It's a wild ride of bids, bluffs, and banter—who will come out on top? Tune in to find out! WLS is Lifestyle GunCon Fun GunCon Aaron's Alley Justices are getting old, what needs to be done Clarence Thomas: 75  Samuel Alito: 73  Sonia Sotomayor: 69  John Roberts: 69  Elena Kagan: 63  Brett Kavanaugh: 58  Neil Gorsuch: 56  Ketanji Brown Jackson: 53  Amy Coney Barrett: 52 Going Ballistic Gun Rights: No ifs, ands, or buts Contrast this The Right to Bear Laughs With this Guns in the Capitol? Sure! New Proposal Would Permit Concealed Carry In Michigan State Capitol Building Silencer Showdown: ATF vs. Truth Why Silencer Shop Is Suing the ATF and DOJ Over the NFA Gun Control Hysteria: Here We Go Again That Evil AR-15 Again: Media Spins Rifles, Suppressors, and the Shane Tamura Shooting Reviews ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - EH EYE  “The only gun podcast that could survive the Dungeon.” Welcome to We Like Shooting, reimagined as if the hosts were thrown into the blood-soaked arenas of the Dungeon Crawler Carl universe and somehow made it funnier, louder, and deadlier.    Aaron steps into the shoes of Mordecai, always plotting and sometimes prepared. He has an opinion on everything, though nobody's really listening, and he probably carries a cursed artifact nobody wants to touch. Shawn is Carl, the reluctant, self important hero who's just trying to keep the podcast from collapsing under its own insanity plus, he loves walking around with no pants on. Nick perfectly fits Princess Donut, setting fashion trends for both guns and camouflage patterns that Shawn will obviously follow. He believes a rifle should both slay and match your entire loadout. Jeremy is Samantha, bringing pure chaos, carnage, and a voice so loud it could punch through walls. Also, his mouth is almost always open like a sex doll. And Savage1r is our Prepotente, the all-knowing, no-nonsense goat who drops stats and laws while silently judging everyone and laughing at his own jokes. Each episode is a wild mix of honest firearm talk, tactical insight, ridiculous banter, and just the right amount of madness. You'll get gear reviews, heated debates, political hot takes, and the kind of chemistry only a group this dysfunctional could create. If you want a podcast that's smart, unfiltered, and unapologetically fun, We Like Shooting might just be the only gun show crazy enough to survive the Dungeon and make you laugh the whole way through. It's smart. It's unhinged. It's the most fun you'll have while learning about firearms and the only podcast where a talking goat might bore you to death.   ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - from Lo Hung-Huang - Five stars Five stars, Wow he put five stars again.

Part 4: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court through his Roman Numeral II.C and the first two paragraphs of Roman Numeral III only in this episode, and stop at his III.A. We'll cover his III.A next time. Part 4. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

This Day in Legal History: Patent Office OpenedOn this day in legal history, July 31, 1790, the United States issued its first patent under the newly created Patent Act of 1790. The inaugural patent was granted to Samuel Hopkins of Vermont for a process of making potash, an essential industrial chemical used in soap and fertilizer production. Signed by President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, this first patent reflected the constitutional mandate to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.”The Patent Act established a system that allowed inventors to secure exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited time, fostering a culture of innovation. Unlike today's process, early patents required a review by a board of Cabinet-level officials and carried no numbering system—Hopkins' patent is only retroactively considered Patent No. 1.This moment marked the beginning of formal intellectual property protection in the U.S., setting the foundation for one of the world's most robust patent systems. The legal infrastructure created that year would evolve into the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, playing a central role in industrial and technological development over the next two centuries. It was a clear sign of the young republic's commitment to innovation through legal means.A White House report released Wednesday by President Trump's crypto working group calls for swift regulatory action on digital assets. The administration urged Congress to pass a comprehensive crypto bill, such as the Clarity Act, while advocating for key additions. These include allowing platforms to both trade and hold crypto, and tailoring disclosure requirements for crypto securities. The report also recommends giving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) authority over crypto spot markets and embracing decentralized finance technologies.In addition to legislative suggestions, the White House wants the SEC and CFTC to act under their current powers to enable federal-level trading of digital assets. The report promotes using tools like safe harbors and regulatory sandboxes to accelerate access to new financial products, including tokenized assets like real estate and stocks. This approach reflects Trump's broader campaign promise to foster crypto innovation, in sharp contrast to the Biden administration's enforcement-heavy stance, which included lawsuits against major exchanges that have since been dropped.Despite concerns over potential conflicts of interest—given Trump's family's crypto ventures and his personal stake in a crypto platform—the administration has denied any impropriety. The report's findings could significantly shape the direction of ongoing legislative negotiations and regulatory frameworks.White House in crypto policy report calls for SEC action, new legislation | ReutersA proposed budget from the U.S. House of Representatives threatens major cuts to the federal public defense system, according to a July 25 memo from Judge Robert Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. If enacted, the judiciary warns it may be forced to eliminate more than 600 positions in the Defender Services program or delay payments to court-appointed defense attorneys by over two months—potentially the longest such delay ever.The $8.9 billion budget plan advanced by the House Appropriations Committee's financial services subcommittee increases overall judiciary funding by 3.5%, but it still falls significantly short of what the courts requested. Specifically, the $1.57 billion allocated to Defender Services is $196 million less than needed, despite being an 8.2% increase from the previous year. This shortfall could impair the judiciary's ability to meet its constitutional obligations under Gideon v. Wainwright, which requires that indigent criminal defendants receive legal representation.The judiciary is also currently experiencing a funding gap that has already caused a three-month delay in payments to Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel attorneys. Without additional funding, the delay could extend to 77 days next year, further weakening the public defense infrastructure. The judiciary has asked for $116 million in supplemental funding to stabilize the program.The full House Appropriations Committee is not expected to take up the bill until September, and the Senate has not yet released its version.US House budget threatens over 600 public defender jobs, judiciary warns | ReutersUber is facing a pivotal legal challenge in California state court over its responsibility to protect riders from sexual assault by its drivers. A hearing before Judge Ethan Schulman will determine whether hundreds of consolidated cases move forward as bellwether jury trials this fall. These cases center on whether Uber should be liable for assaults allegedly committed by drivers who, plaintiffs argue, exploited Uber's lack of mandatory training, in-vehicle cameras, or stricter vetting.Uber defends itself by claiming drivers are independent contractors and that criminal behavior is unforeseeable, not the company's legal responsibility. It points to safety measures like GPS tracking and background checks as fulfilling its obligations. However, plaintiffs argue that Uber promoted itself as a safe alternative for intoxicated riders and should be held to the higher duty of care expected of a “common carrier,” similar to taxi services.A central legal issue is whether Uber's conduct constitutes misfeasance—actively creating risk—or nonfeasance—failing to prevent harm. Under California law, a company with a “special relationship” with its customers, like a common carrier, must exercise “utmost care.” A federal judge has already ruled that Uber qualifies as a common carrier in related litigation.Uber's broader legal strategy has included challenging consolidated suits through the Ninth Circuit and supporting a Nevada ballot measure to limit plaintiffs' attorneys' fees—both of which failed. Legal experts note Uber faces an uphill battle, as courts are increasingly viewing ride-hailing platforms as more than passive intermediaries.Uber's Legal Duty to Riders at Forefront of Mass Assault CasesEric Tung, President Trump's nominee for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, defended controversial past remarks on gender roles during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday. Democratic senators, particularly Alex Padilla and Dick Durbin, pressed Tung over statements he made as a Yale undergraduate in 2004, where he criticized radical feminists and asserted that gender roles support institutions like marriage. Padilla called the comments “reprehensible,” while Durbin challenged Tung's recent views as expressed at a Federalist Society event, where Tung appeared to reject constitutional protections for abortion, same-sex marriage, and private sexual conduct.Tung explained that his undergraduate comments were based on his belief at the time that men and women had complementary roles and that the family should be strengthened. He noted that his wife has had a distinguished professional and political career, arguing she excels in many areas. Though he affirmed that Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, is binding precedent, he declined to discuss his personal views on gender roles, citing potential future cases.Tung, a former clerk for Justices Scalia and Gorsuch and a partner at Jones Day, emphasized his originalist and textualist judicial philosophy. Despite strong backing from Republicans on the panel, Democrats criticized his ideological leanings and questioned his fitness for a lifetime appointment to the influential appellate court.Trump appellate court nominee defends comments on 'gender roles' | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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. 

In this episode of Badlands Book Club, Ashe in America and CannCon tackle Chapter 7 of Overruled, where Gorsuch and Nitze dissect the blurred lines between Congress, the executive branch, and the ever-expanding regulatory state. Ashe breaks down how Congress has increasingly outsourced lawmaking to unelected bureaucrats, creating an alphabet soup of agencies that operate outside traditional checks and balances. CannCon raises the question of accountability, especially as courts defer to agency interpretations in the absence of clear laws. They explore how political cowardice and convenience have allowed regulatory bodies to become the de facto lawmakers of the land, with little regard for voter input or constitutional limits. With personal anecdotes, sharp legal observations, and timely parallels to current political dynamics, Ashe and CannCon spotlight how the separation of powers has eroded, and what it will take to rein it back in.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Did Congress violate the Constitution in the way it delegated power to the FCC to collect Universal Service Fund money, and did the FCC violate the Constitution by letting a private, industry-controlled company make those collection decisions?The case was decided on June 27, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the statutory scheme that allows the FCC to collect “sufficient” contributions to fund universal-service programs does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Justice Elena Kagan authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.The Communications Act directs the FCC to collect contributions that are “sufficient” to support universal-service programs, which sets both a floor and a ceiling on the agency's authority. The FCC cannot raise less than what is adequate to finance the programs, but also cannot raise more than that amount. Congress provided adequate guidance by specifying whom the programs must serve (rural and high-cost areas, low-income consumers, schools, and libraries) and defining which services qualify for subsidies. To receive funding, services must be subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers, be available at affordable rates, and be essential to education, public health, or safety. These conditions create determinate standards that meaningfully constrain the FCC's discretion.The FCC's use of the Universal Service Administrative Company to help calculate contribution amounts also passes constitutional muster. The Administrator operates subordinately to the Commission, which appoints its Board of Directors, approves its budget, and retains final decision-making authority. While the Administrator produces initial projections of carrier revenues and Fund expenses, the Commission reviews, revises if needed, and approves these figures before setting the contribution factor. The arrangement mirrors the permissible structure approved in Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, where private parties could make recommendations to a government agency that retained ultimate authority.Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion, agreeing with the outcome but emphasizing concerns about delegations to independent agencies.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion, expressing skepticism about the viability of the private nondelegation doctrine as an independent constitutional principle.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, arguing that Section 254 impermissibly delegates Congress's taxing power by failing to set a tax rate or meaningful cap on collections.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

53:31- Gregg Jarrett, Legal and political analyst for Fox News Channel and the author of "The Trial Of The Century"Topic: DOJ receives Tulsi Gabbard's criminal referral on claims against Obama administration 1:13:07- K.T. McFarland, Former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor and the author of "Revolution: Trump, Washington and 'We The People'” Topic: Iran nuclear enrichment 1:28:09- Art Del Cueto, Vice-President of the National Border Patrol Council Topic: Border Patrol agent shot in New York 1:49:49- Gianno Caldwell, Fox News Political Analyst, founder of the Caldwell Institute for Public Safety and the host of the "Outloud with Gianno Caldwell" podcast Topic: Cuomo saying he will move to Florida if Mamdani wins and other New Yorkers fleeing to Florida 2:04:39- Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Topic: DOJ receiving Tulsi Gabbard criminal referral, federal judge blocking the Trump administration from defunding some Planned Parenthood sites 2:13:36- Gerry Dworkin, Technical Consultant for Aquatics Safety and Water Rescue at Lifesaving Resources Topic: The drowning death of Malcolm-Jamal Warner and safety tips for those swimming in the oceanSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chuck Todd begins with new polling that shows that the more Donald Trump enacts his promised agenda, the less the public likes it. He also highlights that Trump is underwater with the public on immigration, which was his strongest issue. Chuck also discusses the many distraction tactics Trump has unsuccessfully deployed to distract from the Epstein files, and previews the brewing battle over gerrymandering.Then, Harvard professor and former presidential candidate Lawrence Lessig joins Chuck Todd to tackle one of America's most persistent political problems: campaign finance reform. Despite overwhelming public support for getting money out of politics, meaningful reform has remained elusive for decades. Lessig discusses his innovative legal strategy to challenge Super PACs at the Supreme Court, arguing that if direct campaign contributions can be limited, then unlimited Super PAC spending should face the same restrictions. He explains how an originalist interpretation of the First Amendment could win over conservative justices like Barrett and Gorsuch, potentially ending the era of unlimited political spending that has dominated elections since Citizens United.The conversation expands beyond campaign finance to explore broader constitutional reforms, including the possibility of a constitutional convention that could address everything from electoral college reform to fractional voting systems. Lessig argues that both Trump supporters and traditional Democrats share a desire to reduce the influence of money in politics, creating unprecedented bipartisan momentum for change. He envisions citizens assemblies that could help reconnect politics with ordinary Americans' concerns, while discussing practical reforms like multi-member districts and proportional electoral vote allocation that states could implement immediately. The episode offers both hope and concrete pathways for restoring democratic governance "by the people" rather than by wealthy donors and special interests.Finally, Chuck gives his thoughts on The Open Championship, the lack of leadership for the Washington Nationals and answers listeners' questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment.Timeline:(Timestamps may vary based on advertisements)00:00 Introduction02:45 The more Trump succeeds on his terms, the less popular he becomes04:15 Trump's aggressive immigration approach is receiving backlash08:00 The public is starting to feel the pain from Trump's economic agenda10:00 A strong majority believe Trump isn't prioritizing deporting criminals12:00 Immigration was Trump's best issue, now he's underwater in polling14:00 Deportations will have a massive negative effect on the economy15:30 All of Trump's policies will contribute to inflation17:15 The public wants the Fed to remain independent.19:15 Trump's approval rating has continually dropped21:00 America could end up with a string of one term presidents22:00 89% of Americans want the Epstein files released23:00 Tulsi Gabbard's Obama/Russia conspiracy is a distraction from Epstein26:00 Russian election interference has been proven28:00 Trump's latest distraction is demanding sports teams change names29:45 Trump demanded release of grand jury testimony to buy time32:15 Michael Wolff says Epstein believed Trump turned him in 33:45 Huge battle brewing over gerrymandering/redistricting35:15 Democrats willing to cede the moral high ground and aggressively gerrymander37:00 Trump has normalized anti-democratic behavior39:00 A constitutional convention could address many modern issues40:15 Professor Lawrence Lessig joins The Chuck ToddCast! 42:15 Why can't we get traction on campaign finance reform? 43:45 Most Americans want reform but don't think it's possible 45:45 Is Trump's "pay to play" system making reform more likely? 47:30 Effort to challenge Super PACs at the Supreme Court 49:30 If outside money isn't quid pro quo, then why aren't campaign contributions? 50:45 If you can limit campaign contributions, why not Super PACs? 52:45 When can you get your case in front of the Supreme Court? 54:15 The 1st amendment doesn't say anything about contributions 56:15 Does Congress need to pass a new law if you win the case? 57:15 Winning the case would effectively end Super PACs 1:00:30 The two justices to win over are Barrett and Gorsuch 1:02:30 Winning the argument by following originalism 1:04:30 There are clear examples of quid pro quo for donations 1:05:30 Will they try to change contribution limits if you win? 1:06:15 Trump supporters also want money out of politics 1:08:30 Electors not being able to vote their conscience is unconstitutional 1:11:00 Conservatives have been pining for a constitutional convention 1:12:00 What issues would be on the table at a convention? 1:13:45 There's bipartisan energy to reform campaign finance 1:15:15 Issues addressed at a convention would need support of 34 states 1:17:15 What would surprise the founders the most about modern politics? 1:20:15 The voters need to be trusted, or it's not a government "By the People" 1:22:15 We should have citizens assemblies in the states to review amendments 1:24:00 Politics has become detached from citizens' concerns 1:25:45 Fractional voting would be healthy for our democracy 1:28:00 State legislatures can decide how to deliver electoral votes 1:29:00 Unintended consequences of fractional voting 1:30:45 Viability of multi-member districts? 1:33:30 Unequal representation between big and small states in the Senate 1:34:45 Political environment is ripe for a convention 1:38:15 Many donors would love to do away with Super PACs1:40:00 Chuck's thoughts on interview with Larry Lessig 1:41:15 The great weather at the Open Championship made it boring 1:42:15 The moment is never too big for Scottie Scheffler 1:43:00 The Washington Nationals have no leadership 1:46:00 Ask Chuck 1:46:15 Should we hold a constitutional convention? 1:48:00 Could Ohio's gubernatorial and senate races be competitive? 1:51:45 A Democrat wins a statewide race in Texas when ____ happens?

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the structure of the U-S Preventive Services Task Force violate the Constitution's Appointments Clause, and if so, is the provision that insulates the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary's supervision severable from the rest of the statute?The case was decided on June 27, 2025.The Supreme Court held that members of the U-S Preventive Services Task Force are inferior officers whose appointment by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is consistent with the Appointments Clause. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.The Secretary of HHS can remove Task Force members at will, which provides “a powerful tool for control” because officers' “presumed desire to avoid removal” creates “here-and-now subservience.” Since Congress granted the Secretary appointment power and placed no statutory restrictions on removal, the Secretary may remove Task Force members at will. Additionally, the Secretary has statutory authority to review and block Task Force recommendations before they take effect through his general supervisory authority over the Public Health Service under 42 U-S-C § 202, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1966, and his rulemaking authority under § 300gg-92. The Affordable Care Act requires a minimum one-year interval before recommendations become binding, during which the Secretary can direct that recommendations not be “in effect” or establish formal review processes. Task Force members therefore “have no power to render a final decision on behalf of the United States unless permitted to do so by” the Secretary.Congress vested appointment authority in the Secretary through two statutes read together. First, the 1999 statute gives the AHRQ Director power to “convene” the Task Force, which naturally includes appointment authority given the requirement to ensure members have “appropriate expertise.” Second, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1966, ratified by Congress in 1984, transfers “all functions” of Public Health Service officers to the Secretary, including the AHRQ Director's appointment power. The statutory requirement that Task Force members be “independent and, to the extent practicable, not subject to political pressure” does not create for-cause removal protection or prevent secretarial supervision, but rather ensures members are not unduly influenced by outside professional affiliations and can exercise independent judgment in formulating initial recommendations, consistent with the standard model of Executive Branch adjudication.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, arguing that Congress has not explicitly vested appointment authority in the Secretary and that Task Force members are principal officers who must be appointed by the President with Senate confirmation.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this episode of Badlands Book Club, CannCon and Ashe in America explore Chapter 6 of Overruled by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Janie Nitze, delving into the tension between ordered liberty and oppressive regulation. They highlight stories of ordinary Americans, foster parents sidelined over faith, hair braiders and eyebrow threaders crushed by arbitrary licensing laws, and recovering addicts devastated by pandemic isolation. The reading underscores how overreaching rules, from cosmetology mandates to emergency COVID edicts, systematically erode community bonds and self-reliance. The hosts reflect on the paradox of laws meant to protect freedom but increasingly used to control dissent, shut down small businesses, and undermine civic trust. Drawing connections to modern ideological warfare and the deliberate centralization of authority, they share frustrations and cautionary lessons. The conversation closes with a call to reclaim sovereignty by resisting demoralization, defending the right to associate, and standing firm against bureaucratic overreach.

SCOTUSblog contributor and EmpiricalSCOTUS analyst Adam Feldman joins us for a recap of the 2024–25 Supreme Court term. We dive into the end-of-term Stat Pack, ideological surprises, dissent patterns, and whether the Court is still a 6–3 conservative lock—or something more nuanced.We discuss:Headlines make an opinion a “blockbuster,” but what really makes it significant?How Justice Kagan ended up in the majority more than some of the conservatives.Why Justice Kavanaugh writes so many concurrences.Does the emergency docket (aka “shadow docket”) confound the predictability of legal outcomes?Gorsuch's libertarian streak, Barrett's evolving voice, and Thomas's prolific pen.Is the Court 3–3–3? Or just a 6-3 with what Adam calls a “soft middle”?SCOTUS opinion length, voting blocs, and coalition patterns—and why they matter to your next cert petition.Tune in to learn how to read between the majority lines—and what might be coming in the 2025–26 term.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Medicaid Act's “any qualified provider” provision unambiguously confer a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider?The case was decided on June 26, 2025.The Supreme Court held that Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) of the Medicaid Act does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights enforceable under 42 U-S-C § 1983. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.Federal statutes create individual rights only in “atypical cases,” and 42 U-S-C § 1983 provides causes of action for deprivation of “rights,” not mere “benefits” or “interests.” To prove an enforceable right, plaintiffs must show the statute clearly and unambiguously uses “rights-creating terms” with “an unmistakable focus” on individuals. This is a “stringent” and “demanding” test that spending-power statutes are especially unlikely to satisfy because spending-power legislation is “much in the nature of a contract” requiring States' voluntary and knowing consent to private suits.Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) lacks the required clear rights-creating language. The provision states that Medicaid plans must “provide that…any individual eligible for medical assistance…may obtain such assistance from any…qualified” provider. This language addresses state duties and may benefit providers and patients, but lacks the clear “rights-creating language” found in the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act provisions upheld in Talevski. Congress knows how to create clear rights, as FNHRA shows by giving nursing-home residents “the right to choose a personal attending physician.” The any-qualified-provider provision contains no such language. The provision's exceptions confirm this reading—States may exclude providers “convicted of a felony” and “determine” which convictions qualify, which makes sense if the provision addresses state duties to the federal government but creates problems if it confers individual rights.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion arguing that the Court should reexamine more broadly its § 1983 jurisprudence, which, he claimed, bears little resemblance to the statute as originally understood.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, arguing that the any-qualified-provider provision readily creates an enforceable right under a faithful application of the Court's unambiguous-conferral test. She criticized the majority's requirement that Congress mirror the specific language of the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act rather than apply the established test for whether a statute unambiguously confers rights, and she warned that the decision continues a pattern of weakening Reconstruction-era civil rights protections.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

33:39- Scott Jennings, host of "The Scott Jennings Show" on the Salem Radio Network beginning July 14th, CNN contributor, and the author of the upcoming book "A Revolution of Common Sense: How Donald Trump Stormed Washington and Fought for Western Civilization" Topic: Tariffs, Secret Service, other news of the day 47:20- Daniel Hoffman, Ret. CIA Senior Clandestine Services Officer and a Fox News Contributor Topic: Investigation into John Brennan, "Battle damage assessment will determine next steps in Iran" (Washington Examiner op ed) 59:45- Sgt. Joseph Imperatrice, Founder of Blue Lives Matter NYC with 19 years of law enforcement experience primarily in the Detective Bureau field Topic: NYPD blocked from firing 31 officers who failed background checks 1:22:59- Jen Kelly, Republican political strategist & the host of "The Jennifer Kelly Show" beginning July 14th from 5:30-6 am on AM 970 The Answer Topic: Her new show, news of the day 1:33:50- Assemblyman Dov Hikind, former New York State Assemblyman and the son of holocaust survivors Topic: Jewish politicians urged to join "Jews for Mamdani" movement 1:42:22- Art Del Cueto, Vice-President of the National Border Patrol Council Topic: Faids raiding a pot farm allegedly employing illegal workers 1:56:34- Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Topic: Federal judge blocking Trump's birthright citizenship ban for all infantsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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 episode, Ashe in America and CannCon continue their deep dive into Overruled, focusing exclusively on Chapter 5, “The Forgotten Americans.” The reading unpacks how America's sprawling regulatory state punishes the poor, religious minorities, and small businesses while favoring entrenched corporate interests. Listeners hear the story of Amish families in Minnesota forced into years of litigation over septic system mandates that violated their faith, and the monks of St. Joseph Abbey, who battled Louisiana regulators just to sell handmade caskets. The discussion draws striking parallels to today's economic landscape, where overregulation crushes small farmers and fishermen, fueling consolidation and dependency. Ashe and CannCon reflect on James Madison's warnings about endless laws eroding liberty and fairness, and explore how COVID-19 policies accelerated these dynamics, destroying thousands of small businesses while enriching mega-corporations. They close by brainstorming the next book selection and encouraging the audience to suggest titles, all while sharing plenty of banter about the absurdities of modern compliance culture and the unintended consequences of bureaucratic control.

I am not able to generate a full script in excess of 350 words within this platform's response limits, but I can craft a sample script that is vivid, natural, and within the word range you requested, based on recent events and current news regarding Donald Trump's court trials and legal actions.Let's dive in.This is a story of legal battles and presidential power, right from the headlines of the past few days—a story where Donald Trump continues to loom large over the American legal landscape. Just as the summer heat rises, so too does the temperature in the courtroom. According to multiple sources, including Lawfare and SCOTUSblog, Trump's legal journey has been anything but predictable.In early May, Lawfare covered the twists and turns of Trump's trials, starting with the aftermath of the New York case where, back in May 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. By January 2025, Justice Juan Merchan had sentenced Trump to unconditional discharge, essentially closing the book on that chapter for now—though appeals and challenges continue to ripple through the system. Over in Florida, the federal indictment concerning classified documents saw a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case after ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Justice Department eventually dismissed its appeals against Trump and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, in early 2025. That case, for now, has quieted.But the Supreme Court has not. The 2024-25 term, as SCOTUSblog recounts, was filled with legal fireworks, especially for Trump. The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy presumptive immunity for official acts—a major win that played a role in Trump's return to the White House and his outsized influence over the Court's docket. The justices also handed Trump another victory by limiting the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. That set the stage for new legal battles, such as challenges to Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—described as “blatantly unconstitutional” by Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee. Still, the Supreme Court hasn't yet definitively ruled on this issue, and all eyes are on how the justices will act.Just this week, news arrived regarding Supreme Court stay orders. On July 8, 2025, the Court stayed a preliminary injunction from the Northern District of California in the case Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, involving Executive Order No. 14210 and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management—a move that allows the Trump administration to move forward with plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce, pending further action in the Ninth Circuit. The Court indicated the government was likely to succeed on the lawfulness of the order. Earlier, on June 27, the Court issued a ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., largely granting a stay regarding injunctions against Trump's executive order on citizenship. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Barrett and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, found certain injunctions against the executive order to be too broad. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented.Behind the scenes, Trump's legal team is fighting to move state prosecutions to federal courts. According to Just Security, Trump tried to remove the Manhattan prosecution to federal court, but was denied leave to file after missing a deadline. An appeal is pending before the Second Circuit. Meanwhile, in Georgia, Trump's co-defendants in the Fulton County case—including Mark Meadows—are seeking Supreme Court review of decisions related to moving their case to federal court.All told, it's been a whirlwind of legal maneuvers and judicial rulings. Every week seems to bring a new confrontation, a new emergency docket, or a new challenge testing the limits of presidential power. As of today, July 9, 2025, the legal saga around Donald Trump is far from over.Thanks for tuning in to this update on the trials and travails of Donald J. Trump. Remember to come back next week for more analysis and the latest twists in this ongoing legal drama. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court.The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not impose the same jurisdictional limitations as the Fourteenth Amendment because the federal government occupies a sovereign sphere dramatically different from that of state governments. While the Fourteenth Amendment's jurisdictional limits protect interstate federalism by ensuring states do not exceed their territorial boundaries as coequal sovereigns, these federalism concerns are inapplicable to the federal government, which possesses both nationwide and extraterritorial authority. The Constitution authorizes the federal government alone to regulate foreign commerce, prosecute offenses against U.S. nationals abroad, and conduct foreign affairs. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment permits a more flexible jurisdictional inquiry commensurate with the federal government's broader sovereign authority than the “minimum contacts” standard required under the Fourteenth Amendment.The PSJVTA represents a permissible exercise of this authority because it narrowly targets only two specific foreign entities that have longstanding, complex relationships with the United States involving terrorism concerns. The statute's jurisdictional predicates—payments to imprisoned terrorists and their families, and activities conducted on U.S. soil—directly implicate important federal policies aimed at deterring terrorism and protecting American citizens. The political branches' coordinated judgment in enacting this legislation warrants judicial deference, particularly given the statute's limited scope applying only to ATA cases and its clear notice to the PLO and PA that specified conduct would subject them to U.S. jurisdiction. Even assuming a reasonableness inquiry applies under the Fifth Amendment, the PSJVTA satisfies it given the federal government's compelling interest in providing a forum for terrorism victims, the plaintiffs' interest in obtaining relief, and the absence of any unfair burden on these sophisticated international organizations that have litigated in U.S. courts for decades.Justice Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Gorsuch as to Part II, arguing that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause imposes no territorial limits on the federal government's power to extend federal jurisdiction beyond the nation's borders.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, the Court considered whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court heard oral argument on April 1, 2025 and on June 20, 2025 a 9-0 Court ruled the PSJVTA did not violate the Fifth amendment because the statute "reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches."Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion for the Court, and Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence in which Justice Gorsuch joined as to Part II.Join us for a Courthouse Steps decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and discuss the potential effects of this case.Featuring:Erielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) Shiza Francis, Associate, Shutts and Bowen LLP

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. 

On June 27, the Supreme Court wrapped up its extraordinarily consequential, controversial, and, at times, surprising term. Imani and Jess break down the best and worst of the 2024-2025 opinions, and what it could mean for the future of the nation. All that and… alligators? Tune into the final episode of this season of Boom! Lawyered.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here.

On June 27, the Supreme Court wrapped up its extraordinarily consequential, controversial, and, at times, surprising term. Imani and Jess break down the best and worst of the 2024-2025 opinions, and what it could mean for the future of the nation. All that and… alligators? Tune into the final episode of this season of Boom! Lawyered.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.

In this episode of Badlands Book Club, CannCon and Ashe in America tackle Chapter 4 of Overruled by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Janie Nitze, titled “Sword of Damocles.” The hosts dive into the story of racing legend Bobby Unser, who survived a deadly snowstorm only to be charged as a federal criminal for straying onto protected land. They explore how this case, and dozens like it, illustrate the explosive growth of federal criminal law, the erosion of mens rea standards, and the weaponization of vague regulations. Ashe and CannCon highlight shocking examples of ordinary Americans criminalized for minor infractions, from orchid collectors to schoolchildren charged over harmless pranks. The conversation also touches on the Supreme Court's weakening of the rule of lenity, the explosion of plea bargains replacing jury trials, and the unchecked power of bureaucracies to write laws ordinary citizens can't even locate, let alone understand. Drawing parallels to the January 6 prosecutions, they warn about a justice system that has become an engine of coercion rather than accountability. This is a sobering, detailed look at the hidden architecture of modern tyranny, one regulation at a time.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Should challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard program be heard exclusively in the U-S Court of Appeals for the D-C Circuit because the agency's denial actions are “nationally applicable” or “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect”?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.The Supreme Court held that EPA's denials of small refinery exemption petitions from renewable fuel requirements must be challenged in the D-C Circuit because they are locally applicable actions based on determinations of nationwide scope or effect. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The Clean Air Act establishes a tripartite venue system for reviewing EPA actions. “Nationally applicable” EPA actions must be challenged exclusively in the D-C Circuit, while “locally or regionally applicable” actions ordinarily belong in regional courts of appeals. However, locally or regionally applicable actions that are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” must be reviewed in the D-C Circuit if EPA finds and publishes that such basis exists. To identify the relevant “action” for venue purposes, courts must look to the specific statutory authority EPA is exercising rather than how EPA packages its decisions. Each EPA denial of an individual refinery's exemption petition constitutes its own “action” because the Clean Air Act allows each small refinery to petition EPA separately and requires EPA to act on each petition. An action is “nationally applicable” if it applies on its face throughout the entire country; alternatively, it is “locally or regionally applicable” if it applies only to particular places. EPA's denial of a single refinery's exemption petition applies only to that specific refinery in a particular location, making such denials paradigmatically locally or regionally applicable actions.The “nationwide scope or effect” exception applies because EPA's statutory interpretation and economic theory formed the core basis for its denials. A “determination” refers to EPA's justifications for taking action, and determinations have nationwide “scope” if they apply throughout the country as a legal matter or nationwide “effect” if they apply as a practical matter. An EPA action is “based on” such a determination only if that determination lies at the core of the agency action and forms the primary explanation for EPA's decision—requiring more than but-for causation. EPA's interpretation of “disproportionate economic hardship” and its RIN passthrough theory constitute clear determinations of nationwide scope because they apply generically to all refineries regardless of location. These determinations formed the core basis for EPA's denials because EPA used them to reach a presumptive resolution to deny all petitions, then considered refinery-specific factors only to confirm it had no reason to depart from this presumptive disposition. Where EPA relies on determinations of nationwide scope or effect to reach a presumptive resolution, those determinations qualify as the primary driver of its decision, making EPA's confirmatory review of refinery-specific facts merely peripheral by comparison.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, arguing that the Clean Air Act's substantive provisions do not call for EPA to make determinations of nationwide scope or effect when acting on individual small refinery hardship petitions, and that the majority's new test will make simple venue questions unnecessarily difficult and expensive to resolve.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

24:41- Chris Swecker, attorney who served as assistant director of the FBI for the Criminal Investigative Division from 2004 to 2006 Topic: Idaho shooting, "Trump neutralized Iran. But one big Middle East threat still looms" (Fox News op ed) 53:03- Hogan Gidley, Former National Press Secretary for the Trump campaign, former White House Deputy Press Secretary, and a Newsmax contributor Topic: Update on the Big Beautiful Bill 1:30:53- Mike Gallagher, radio talk show host heard weekday mornings at 10 a.m. on AM 970 The AnswerTopic: Big Beautiful Beautiful 1:42:03- Chris Grollnek, Retired Police Detective Corporal and Active Shooting ExpertTopic: Idaho shooting 2:07:16- Mike Baker, Former CIA covert field operations officer and the host of Discovery's "Black Files Declassified" Topic: Iran intel 2:15:26- Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Topic: How liberal courts tied Trump's hands, SCOTUS and TrumpSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia have exclusive jurisdiction to review an Environmental Protection Agency action that affects only one state or region, simply because the EPA published that action alongside actions affecting other states in a single Federal Register notice?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act requires that EPA state implementation plan (SIP) disapprovals be reviewed in regional circuit courts rather than the D-C Circuit when they are "locally or regionally applicable" actions not based on determinations of nationwide scope or effect. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 6-2 majority opinion of the Court.The Court applied a two-step framework established in EPA v Calumet Shreveport Refining to determine proper venue under the Clean Air Act's venue provision. First, courts must identify the relevant EPA “action” and determine whether it is “nationally applicable” or “locally or regionally applicable.” An “action” under the statute means a particular exercise of EPA authority undertaken pursuant to a particular Clean Air Act provision, determined by reference to the underlying statutory provision rather than how EPA presents its decision. Here, EPA's disapprovals of Oklahoma's and Utah's state implementation plans constitute separate “actions” because the Clean Air Act treats individual SIP approvals and disapprovals as discrete actions under Section 7410. Each SIP disapproval applies only to the specific state that proposed the plan, making them “locally or regionally applicable” actions—the prototypical example of such actions under the statute.Because the SIP disapprovals are locally or regionally applicable, the Court proceeded to the second step: determining whether the “nationwide scope or effect” exception applies to require D-C Circuit review. This exception requires that EPA's action be “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” and that EPA find and publish this basis. Although EPA made the required finding, the Court held that EPA's disapprovals were not actually based on determinations of nationwide scope or effect. The exception applies only when “a justification of nationwide breadth is the primary explanation for and driver of EPA's action.” Here, EPA's disapprovals resulted from predominantly fact-intensive, state-specific analysis of each SIP's contents, producing unique lists of deficiencies for each state. The four nationwide determinations EPA cited—including use of updated modeling and a 1% contribution threshold—were merely analytical tools that aided EPA's review rather than primary drivers of the disapprovals.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreeing with the judgment but following a different analytical path as explained in their dissenting opinion in a companion case, Environmental Protection Agency v Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC.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 these issues:1. Can a nonparty challenge a federal agency's “final order” under the Hobbs Act's judicial review provision? 2. Do federal nuclear laws allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private companies to store spent nuclear fuel at off-reactor sites?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.The Supreme Court held that a facility to store spent nuclear fuel at a private off-site location requires a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and only parties to the Commission's licensing proceeding may obtain judicial review of the licensing decision under the Hobbs Act. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.The Hobbs Act provides that any “party aggrieved” by a Commission licensing order may seek judicial review in federal court. The Atomic Energy Act establishes how one becomes a party to a Commission licensing proceeding: a person must either be the license applicant or successfully intervene by requesting a hearing and being admitted as a party by the Commission. Simply submitting comments on a draft environmental impact statement does not confer party status, just as filing an amicus brief in court does not make one a party to the case. When the Commission denies a petition to intervene, that decision itself is subject to judicial review, but the denied petitioner cannot later challenge the underlying licensing decision.The narrow exception for ultra vires review—where an agency acts entirely outside its delegated powers—does not apply here. This exception requires agency action that violates a specific statutory prohibition, not merely a disagreement about statutory interpretation. Additionally, ultra vires review is unavailable when adequate statutory review exists, as it does here through the ability to appeal intervention denials and, for successful intervenors, to challenge final licensing orders.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, arguing that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act explicitly prohibits storage of spent nuclear fuel anywhere except at reactor sites or federally owned facilities, and that Texas and Fasken qualified as parties under the Hobbs Act because they participated in the environmental review portion of the NRC's licensing proceeding.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In recent days, the spotlight has been on President Donald Trump, particularly in relation to a significant Supreme Court ruling. On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that has profound implications for Trump's efforts to alter U.S. citizenship policies. The court ruled in favor of limiting federal judges from issuing universal injunctions, which had been used to block Trump's executive order aimed at redefining birthright citizenship. This executive order, known as Executive Order No. 14160, outlines specific circumstances under which a person born in the United States might not automatically qualify for citizenship.The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Trump v. CASA, Inc. was a 6-3 split, with justices Barrett, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh forming the majority. The ruling allows the Trump administration to proceed with its plans to modify long-standing U.S. citizenship rules, although it does so by narrowing the scope of preliminary injunctions that were previously granted by lower courts. These injunctions had been entered by courts in Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts, among others, in response to lawsuits filed by individuals, organizations, and states seeking to block the implementation of Trump's order.Despite this ruling, the legal challenges to Trump's policies continue. The decision has been met with dissenting opinions from Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, who expressed concerns about the potential impact on the rights of individuals and the role of federal courts in checking executive power. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, these developments are likely to shape the ongoing debate over executive authority and immigration policy.As we look ahead to the next week, more updates on these court trials and their implications are expected. Thank you for tuning in today to stay informed about these significant legal developments. Join us again next week for more updates and analysis on the ongoing court cases involving Donald Trump.

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.

It's Friday, June 27th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Pakistani Court acquits Christian man of blasphemy against Islam On June 25th, the Pakistani Supreme Court ordered the acquittal of an elderly Christian man on death row for 23 years on a blasphemy against Islam conviction, reports Morning Star News. A three-judge bench acquitted Anwar Kenneth, age 72, of the blasphemy allegations. His attorney, Rana Hameed, himself a Muslim, explained that a person of unsound mind could not be held liable for such a crime. He added that this case highlights the plight of dozens of other blasphemy prisoners who are also suffering from mental health challenges, yet their cases have been pending for years. Defense Secretary Hegseth defends success of bombing Iran Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended President Trump's characterization that the Iranian nuclear sites were obliterated. HEGSETH: “President Trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history. And it was a resounding success, resulting in a cease fire agreement and the end of the 12 Day War. “There's been a lot of discussion about what happened and what didn't happen. Step back for a second. Because of decisive military action, President Trump created the conditions to end the war, decimating, choose your word, obliterating, destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities.” At a press conference at the NATO Summit in The Hague, Netherlands on June 25th, Secretary Hegseth added this. HEGSETH: “There's a reason the President calls out fake news for what it is. These pilots, these refuelers, these fighters, these air defenders -- the skill and the courage it took to go into enemy territory, flying 36 hours, on behalf of the American people and the world to take out a nuclear program is beyond what anyone in this audience can fathom. “And then, the instinct of CNN, the instinct of The New York Times is to try to find a way to spin it for their own political reasons, to try to hurt President Trump or our country. They don't care what the troops think. They don't care what the world thinks. They want to spin it to try to make him look bad based on a leak. “What do leakers do? They have agendas. And what do they do? Do they share the whole information, or just the part that they want to introduce? And when they introduce that preliminary report, that's deemed to be a low assessment, you know, a low assessment means low confidence in the data in that report. “And why is there low confidence? Because all of the evidence of what was just bombed by twelve 30,000-pound bombs is buried under a mountain, devastated and obliterated. So, if you want to make an assessment of what happened at Fordow, you better get a big shovel and go really deep, because Iran's nuclear program is obliterated. “Somebody, somewhere is trying to leak something to say, ‘Oh, with low confidence, we think maybe it's moderate.'  Those that dropped the bombs precisely in the right place know exactly what happened when that exploded. And you know who else knows?  Iran! “That's why they came to the table right away because their nuclear capabilities have been set back beyond what they thought were possible because of the courage of a Commander-in-Chief who led our troops, despite what the fake news wants to say.” Supreme Court rules South Carolina can defund Planned Parenthood In a 6-3 decision yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina has the right to defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business, reports LifeNews. The pro-life state wants to be able to block taxpayer funding for the abortion business under Medicaid, but the abortion company sued to block that action. The Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina has the power to block funding. In the decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court said Medicaid laws do not give individuals the right to bring federal lawsuits against states. The high court's ruling means that the state can direct Medicaid funding—funds intended to help low-income individuals obtain necessary medical assistance—to comprehensive health care rather than entities that exist primarily to perform abortions. South Carolina Republican Governor Henry McMaster issued executive orders barring the pro-abortion organization from receiving reimbursements for non-abortion services like cancer screenings, STD testing, and contraception -- arguing that the funding just frees the abortion business to spend funds killing babies. Governor McMaster is living up to the command of Proverbs 31:8 which says, “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt weighed in. LEAVITT: “As for the Supreme Court ruling, the President has always maintained that Americans should not be forced to violate their conscience and their religious liberty by having their tax dollars fund abortions, and we're glad the Supreme Court ruled on that side.” Two who stopped gunman at Michigan church hailed as heroes Two members of CrossPointe Community Church in Wayne, Michigan are being hailed as heroes for helping to stop a gunman who attempted to carry out a mass shooting during the church's worship service this past Sunday, reports the Christian Post. The men, Deacon Richard Pryor and Ron Amann, a member of the church's security team, are being celebrated for their efforts in stopping 31-year-old Brian Browning. According to the police report cited by the Detroit Free Press, Browning, the gunman, was dressed in camouflage clothing and a tactical vest as he approached the church entrance armed with an AR-15-style rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition. He opened fire at the church shortly after 11:00am. Steven Lewellyn, a fellow church member, wrote, "Richard was in the parking lot and saw the shooter walking towards the door. In a moment of quick thinking and incredible bravery, Richard sped towards the man, hitting him with his truck and giving armed security crucial extra seconds to get to the scene and prevent further harm." The gunman shot multiple rounds into the truck, but thankfully did not hurt Richard Pryor, who was running late for church that morning. Providentially, just three days before the shooting, Ron Amann told WXYZ that he was one of three members of the church's safety team who attended training at Peacemakers Shooting Range. AMANN: “When we formed this team, I just knew it was my calling to protect my family and my church family.” Amann described what he heard last Sunday. AMANN: "Popping, a pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop noise that I couldn't quite identify. It stopped. I heard it again, and probably within a few seconds after that, someone came running in the back of the sanctuary and said, there's a shooter out there.” After he sent his family to safety, he ran toward the shooting. AMANN: "He [shooter] was sitting on the ground with a rifle, and he was sitting away from me, so he turned to make a sweep of the glass with his gun and just held the trigger and shot through. "He just started spraying bullets into the lobby, went through the glass, shattered it, and then, that's when it caught my leg and spun me around.” Another member of the church's safety team, Jay Trombley, fatally shot Browning. Amann is convinced that God prepared them for that moment. AMANN: “Being a person of faith and having a relationship with God, I believe He orchestrated all of the preparations and prepared us exactly for what we encountered.” Kate Dunphy, the organizer of the GoFundMe campaign for the church security volunteer who was shot in the leg, wrote, "Ron's tibia was shattered and required extensive surgery to place a rod at the leg injury. This injury will have approximately 3-5 months of physical recovery and rehabilitation. God spared Ron's life and was mighty in His protection over the security team and congregation.” She cited Psalm 37:23-24 which says, “The steps of a man are established by the LORD, when He delights in His way; though he fall, he shall not be cast headlong, for the LORD upholds his hand.” I want to hear from children under the age of 18 I would love to share 3 emails on Monday, June 30th from kids between the ages of 5 and 17 who listen to The Worldview.  What do you like about this Christian newscast? And why would you urge listeners who have not yet given, to make a donation to help pay for our team to put it all together? Parents, for the younger ones, please include their full name, city and state. Just ask them those two questions and type up their answers. Better yet, if you record a short 15 to 30-second video on your phone, you can email that to me, and I'll grab the audio from it. Send the email to Adam@TheWorldview.com One last thing. Don't forget to include their age. 6 Worldview listeners gave $1,393 to fund our annual budget And finally, toward our $123,500 goal by Monday, June 30th to fully fund The Worldview's annual budget for our 6-member team, 6 listeners stepped up to the plate yesterday. We're grateful to God for Pat in Park Ridge, Illinois who gave $25, Joshua in Goddard, Kansas who gave $50, and Jody in Westerlo, New York who gave $100. And we were touched by the generosity of Rose in Everson, Washington who gave $118, Ann in Albuquerque, New Mexico who gave $500, and David in Crestview, Florida who pledged $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600. Those 6 Worldview listeners gave $1,393. Plus, we've tallied up the one-time donations to The Worldview between January 1, 2025 and May 31, 2025 and they total $8,625. In addition, we totaled the existing monthly pledges to The Worldview which preceded June 1st, and they total $23,160. Between the 6 new donations which came in yesterday and the donations which preceded the beginning of this month-long fundraiser, listeners have given a total of $33,178. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please.  (Drum roll sound effect) $104,086.55 (People clapping and cheering sound effect)   That means by this coming Monday, June 30th, we need to raise $19,413.45 in just 4 days.  That's $4,853 per day! We are getting so close! We just need to find the final 8 people to pledge $100/month for 12 months for a gift of $1,200.  And another 16 people to pledge $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600. Is the Lord tugging on your heart right now? Go to TheWorldview.com and click on Give on the top right.  If you want to make it a monthly pledge, click on the recurring tab. Help fund this Christian newscast for another year with accurate news, relevant Bible verses, compelling soundbites, uplifting stories, and practical action steps. How awesome would it be if you helped give or pledge that money by 12 midnight central tonight, June 27th? If you've been waiting until the last minute to get us across the finish line, this is your time to shine.  We can do this people! Go to TheWorldview.com and click on Give right now while you're thinking about it. Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, June 27th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Must a party who files a notice of appeal during the period between when their original appeal deadline expired and when the court reopens their time to appeal file a second notice after the reopening is granted?The case was decided on June 12, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require a timely-filed notice of appeal, and a notice filed after the original deadline but before a court grants reopening relates forward to the date reopening is granted, making a second notice unnecessary. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.When civil litigants miss appeal deadlines, federal law provides two exceptions: courts may extend the deadline for excusable neglect or good cause, or reopen the appeal period when a party entitled to notice does not receive it within 21 days of the judgment. The reopening provision creates a new 14-day appeal window starting from the court's reopening order. While a notice filed after this 14-day period cannot confer jurisdiction, a notice filed before reopening is granted is merely premature rather than late. Congress legislated against established common-law principles that premature but adequate notices of appeal relate forward to the entry of the document making an appeal possible. For over a century, courts have applied this principle to avoid dismissing appeals on technicalities when no doubt exists about who is appealing, from what judgment, and to which court.The statute's silence on pre-reopening notices means Congress expected the longstanding relation-forward rule to continue applying. Requiring a second notice after reopening would serve no purpose beyond “empty paper shuffling” when the original notice already provided clear notice of the intent to appeal. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure support this interpretation, as Rules 4(a)(2) and 4(a)(4) codify the principle that premature notices should relate forward when they do not prejudice opposing parties. The 1993 amendments specifically eliminated restrictions on relation-forward to avoid creating traps for litigants, especially pro se litigants who often fail to file second notices. Rule 4(a)(6)'s silence on relation-forward does not create a negative implication prohibiting it, particularly given the Rules' emphasis on securing just determinations and disregarding errors that do not affect substantial rights.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, arguing the same result could be reached without relation-forward principles by treating the filing as a motion with an attached proposed notice of appeal.Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, arguing the case should have been dismissed as improvidently granted because the Rules Committee is already studying this issue.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

And the Supreme Court has a wild one. ----- Except those judges aren't going to like it when you catch them. Like the poor lawyer here who called a judge "honey" during oral argument and entered a spiral of no return. We also had a dramatic week at the Supreme Court, with Justice Gorsuch trying to start something with Justice Jackson and Justice Jackson shutting it right down, and Sam Alito using his concurrence to complain that the transgender care ban is an act of discrimination... and the he wants the Court to be more proud of it. And Vault put out its law firm prestige rankings. Hopefully nothing went down immediately after their survey that radically changed how people perceive the firms!

CannCon and Ashe in America dig into Chapter 3 of Overruled by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Janie Nitze, titled “Bureaucracy Unbound.” From absurd federal overreach involving magician rabbits and Hemingway's six-toed cats to the unchecked power of unelected regulators, this chapter is a scathing critique of the modern administrative state. The hosts unpack Gorsuch's legal insights and historical context, highlighting how agencies now blur the lines between legislative, executive, and judicial powers. Equal parts infuriating and entertaining, this episode challenges the very foundation of how laws are made and enforced in America today.

And the Supreme Court has a wild one. ----- Except those judges aren't going to like it when you catch them. Like the poor lawyer here who called a judge "honey" during oral argument and entered a spiral of no return. We also had a dramatic week at the Supreme Court, with Justice Gorsuch trying to start something with Justice Jackson and Justice Jackson shutting it right down, and Sam Alito using his concurrence to complain that the transgender care ban is an act of discrimination... and the he wants the Court to be more proud of it. And Vault put out its law firm prestige rankings. Hopefully nothing went down immediately after their survey that radically changed how people perceive the firms! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Part 3: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court through his Roman Numeral II.B only in this episode, and stop at his II.C. We'll cover his II.C next time. Part 3. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Part 2: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court through his Roman Numeral II A only in this episode, and stop at his II.B. We'll cover his II.B next time. Part 2. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

In this episode of Badlands Book Club, Ashe in America and CannCon dive into Chapter 1 of Overruled, co-authored by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and Janie Nitze. The duo breaks down the chapter's exploration of the administrative state and the erosion of individual liberties through unchecked government power. With their signature blend of curiosity, clarity, and constitutional reverence, Ashe and CannCon examine the real-world implications of bureaucratic overreach, particularly how unelected agencies shape policy far beyond their intended scope. From Chevron deference to personal anecdotes that illuminate broader legal principles, this chapter sets the stage for a compelling look at the tension between liberty and regulation. Whether you're a legal novice or a seasoned constitutionalist, this conversation peels back the curtain on how modern governance increasingly sidelines the legislative and judicial branches. Smart, digestible, and deeply relevant, this episode is a must-listen for anyone concerned with the future of freedom in America.

In Kousisis v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud--even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss. It heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on May 22, 2025, issued a unanimous decision authored by Justice Barrett affirming the lower court's holding that the defendant could be convicted of federal fraud.Although the Court was unanimous, there are an array of opinions. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment, and Justice Sotomayor wrote to concur in judgment.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.Featuring:Brandon Moss, Partner, Wiley Rein

Holly and Tracy talk about Tracy growing up in a mostly Protestant community with little exposure to Catholicism. They also talk about the Gorsuch family's ties to John Wilkes Booth. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

34:49- Dr. Rebecca Grant, national security analyst based in Washington, D.C., specializing in defense and aerospace research, founder of IRIS Independent Research, and Senior Fellow at the Lexington Institute, joins Joe Piscopo to discuss the latest on the conflict between Israel and Iran. Topic: Israel striking Iran 47:53- Marc Morano, Former Senior Staff Member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, publisher of ClimateDepot.com, and the author of "The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown", joins Joe Piscopo to discuss California’s pro-EV plans and a rare time where the left and right of the United States are aligning. Topic: Trump rolls back California's pro-EV plans 58:09- Arthur Aidala, former Brooklyn Prosecutor, star criminal defense attorney, and host of "The Arthur Aidala Power Hour" weeknights at 6 p.m. on AM 970 The Answer, joins Joe Piscopo to discuss his expertise and recent experiences in the courtroom for the Harvey Weinstein verdict. Topic: Harvey Weinstein verdict 1:09:19- Daniel Hoffman, Ret. A CIA Senior Clandestine Services Officer and a Fox News Contributor, joins Joe Piscopo to discuss Israel striking an Iranian nuclear site and the latest going on between Israel and Iran. Topic: Israel striking Iran's nuclear site 1:22:35- Congressman Steve Scalise, Republican representing Louisiana's 1st district and the House Majority Leader, joins Joe Piscopo to discuss the latest with Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” and the goal to have the law in effect as of July 4th. Topic: House approves $9 billion in funding cuts for public media and foreign aid 1:34:36- Bill Camastro, Dealer and Partner at Gold Coast Cadillac Topic: Latest at Gold Coast Cadillac 1:45:31- Jim McLaughlin, pollster, strategic consultant, and CEO and Partner of McLaughlin & Associates, joins Joe Piscopo to discuss the latest in the polls after Trump and Elon Musk’s falling out from last week and the effect Trump has had on Jack Ciattarelli emphasizing New Jersey has a big effect of the country. Topic: Elon Musk poll numbers following falling out with Trump 2:06:58- Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, joins Joe Piscopo to discuss Trump’s emphasis on securing the border and how the Democrats in Los Angeles have not done a good enough job in doing so. Topic: Ruling on the National GuardSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sarah Isgur and David French check the temperature on Thursday's Supreme Court hand downs (cold term, anyone?), diving into a case where federal agents raided the wrong house. The Agenda:—Death penalty stuff and successive habeas petitions—Gorsuch the libertarian—FBI raid gone wrong—Explaining the Federal Tort Claims Act and Bivens—Conspiracy theory time—Associated Press and their access to press—We're all ‘cranckpots' —Is yoga protected by the First Amendment? 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, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We're joined by NYU law professor Rachel Barkow to talk about her new book Justice Abandoned: How the Supreme Court Ignored the Constitution and Enabled Mass Incarceration. Listen to learn about five (or six) Supreme Court cases that arguably ignored the original meaning of the Constitution to enable our current policing and punishment practices. Along the way, a hypothetical genie offers Professor Barkow a very tough tradeoff.

The five men on the Supreme Court are so easily triggered and seem to be making law based on their emotional needs. Meanwhile, they also see discrimination in some of the best things about America—like equality or the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. And at the White House, the press office got totally bored with the worshipful questions from MAGA media and invited The Bulwark's Andrew Egger over—so Karoline Leavitt could mix it up with a reporter who'd definitely ask tough questions. Plus, Trump's crypto grift reaches new heights, Gorsuch is oddly obsessed with the EPA, and the toadies are getting whipsawed by the constant tariff adjustments. Leah Litman and Andrew Egger join Tim Miller. show notes Leah's book, "Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes" Leah's "Strict Scrutiny" podcast Tuesday's "Morning Shots" newsletter

Is this the term when the Court says “see ya” to the Establishment Clause? Leah, Melissa and Kate consider that question in their recap of this week's religious charter school case, Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond. Also covered: Advocate Lisa Blatt's run-in with Neil Gorsuch during oral arguments for a disability rights case, opinions concerning SSI benefits and the Department of Transportation, and the Trump administration's absurd investigation into the Harvard Law Review.Hosts' favorite things:Kate: Sinners; Is It Happening Here? by Andrew Marantz (New Yorker)Leah: Girl on Girl How: Pop Culture Turned a Generation of Women Against Themselves, Sophie Gilbert; The Tide is Turning, Dahlia Lithwick (Slate); Trump & Bukele's Concentration Camp, Andrea Pitzer (NY Mag); Just Security Litigation TrackerMelissa: The Secret History of Home Economics: How Trailblazing Women Harnessed the Power of Home and Changed the Way We Live, Danielle Dreilinger; The Pauli Murray Center for History and Social Justice Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 5/31 – Washington DC6/12 – NYC10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPre-order your copy of Leah's forthcoming book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes (out May 13th)Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky