Podcast appearances and mentions of Neil Gorsuch

35:39- Hogan Gidley, Former National Press Secretary for the Trump campaign, former White House Deputy Press Secretary, and a Newsmax contributor Topic: Executive order to end funding of gain-of-function research in countries of concern, Trump's upcoming meeting with Mark Carney, other news of the day 47:09- Vincent J. Vallelong, President of the Sergeants Benevolent Association 50:15- Joseph diGenova, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Topic: Legalities of reopening Alcatraz 1:11:07- K.T. McFarland, Former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor and the author of "Revolution: Trump, Washington and 'We The People'” Topic: Trump and his negotiations with China, latest with Putin 1:33:43- Laine Schoneberger, Chief Investment Officer, Managing Partner, and Founder of Yrefy Topic: Latest from Yrefy 1:43:59- 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: Trump-aligned group's lawsuit against Chief Justice John Roberts, latest from SCOTUS 1:59:32- Arthur Lih, Inventor & CEO of LifeVac and the author of "Sorry, Can't is a Lie" Topic: Latest from Life Vac 2:09:43- Dr. Douglas Howard is the founder of Balance of Nature and Dr. Phytos and Dr. Jake Van Dyke, DVM Topic: Balance of Nature, Dr. PhytosSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

Howdy. A.I. did what to John Cena now? Neil Gorsuch is mad at gay cartoon dogs. Chuck Schumer is mad at an imaginary past. Then we get into the Deep State's effort to take down Pete Hegseth by tattling.Support the show

Kate and Leah recap oral arguments in two big cases the Supreme Court heard this week. The first is about LGBTQ+ inclusive reading materials in public schools, and the second is about the Affordable Care Act's mechanism for ensuring preventative care. There are also developments in the Alien Enemies Act litigation, and a devastating, if predictable, executive order targeting the Civil Rights Act. Plus, Emily Amick, of Emily In Your Phone, joins to discuss the rise of the creepy conservative push to get women to have more babies. Hosts' Favorite Things:Leah:SCOTUS conservatives seem eager to increase parents' religious rights in public schools by Chris GeidnerHow Sam Alito Inadvertently Revealed His Own Homophobia From the Bench by Mark Joseph SternDeportation to CECOT: The Constitutional Prohibition on Punishment Without Charge or Trial by Ahilan ArulananthamREVEALED: Elon and Trump's Plans to Mint More Mothers by Emily AmickThese Summer Storms by Sarah MacLeanKate:The Trump Victim I Can't Stop Thinking About by Michelle GoldbergWe Visited Rumeysa Ozturk in Detention. What We Saw Was a Warning to Us All by Sen. Edward J. Markey, Rep. Jim McGovern, and Rep. Ayanna PressleyEmily: Now comes the ‘womanosphere': the anti-feminist media telling women to be thin, fertile and Republican by Anna SilmanEveryone is Lying to You by Jo PiazzaThe Testaments by Margaret AtwoodThe Witch Elm by Tana French 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

This Day in Legal History: Mutiny on the BountyOn April 28, 1789, one of the most famous acts of rebellion at sea occurred aboard the HMS Bounty. Captain William Bligh and 18 loyal crew members were forcibly set adrift in the Pacific Ocean by mutineers led by Fletcher Christian. The incident exposed deep tensions over leadership, working conditions, and authority in the Royal Navy. British law at the time treated mutiny as a capital offense, reflecting the critical importance of discipline aboard ships. After the mutiny, an intense search for the culprits began, with some mutineers eventually captured and returned to England to stand trial.The ensuing court-martial proceedings offered early insight into naval justice and the balancing act between maintaining strict command and recognizing crew grievances. Defendants argued that Bligh's harsh leadership provoked the uprising, but the Admiralty was unwavering in its stance against insubordination. Of those captured, three were found guilty and hanged, while others were acquitted or pardoned. The legal handling of the mutiny reinforced the severe consequences for undermining maritime authority. It also prompted discussions about humane treatment of sailors, subtly influencing later reforms in naval discipline.The Mutiny on the Bounty became a lasting symbol in both legal and cultural history, illustrating how law functions as both a tool of control and a response to the realities of human endurance and dissent at sea.Seven Democratic senators on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee have requested information from the Justice Department regarding recent changes within its civil rights division under President Donald Trump's administration. In a letter sent Friday, they expressed concern over the reassignment of several career officials, suggesting these moves could be an attempt to pressure staff into leaving and shift the division's enforcement priorities. Since Trump's return to office and the appointment of Pam Bondi as Attorney General, the department has paused investigations into police misconduct, launched a gun rights investigation in Los Angeles, and altered its approach to transgender rights cases. It has also opened investigations into antisemitism related to pro-Palestinian protests at colleges. The senators emphasized the importance of nonpartisan career staff in maintaining the integrity of civil rights enforcement. About a dozen senior attorneys specializing in voting, police, and disability rights were among those reassigned. The Justice Department has not yet commented on the senators' letter.Democratic senators question US Justice Department on civil rights changes | ReutersThe U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration announced that federal law enforcement agencies raided a nightclub in Colorado Springs, arresting over 100 individuals who were in the U.S. illegally. The operation resulted in 114 arrests out of more than 200 people present at the venue, making it one of the largest immigration-related raids since President Donald Trump's second term began. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that the raid also led to the seizure of cocaine, methamphetamine, and "pink cocaine," and two individuals were arrested on outstanding warrants. Bondi mentioned links to gangs like Tren de Aragua and MS-13, although she did not directly confirm whether those arrested were affiliated with them. The DEA noted that occupants were given multiple warnings before the raid was executed. This action is part of an intensifying crackdown on illegal immigration under Trump's renewed immigration policies. Separately, ICE recently reported nearly 800 immigration-related arrests in Florida during a multi-agency operation.Over 100 migrants in the US illegally arrested in Colorado nightclub | ReutersThe Supreme Court has requested additional briefing in a case challenging the Affordable Care Act's mandate that insurers cover preventive services, like cancer screenings, at no cost. The justices specifically want the parties to address whether the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the legal authority to appoint members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which advises on covered treatments. During arguments on April 21, Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether the power to remove officials necessarily implies the power to appoint them, an issue the lower court had not considered. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the task force's structure violated the Constitution's appointments clause, arguing its members must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Trump administration contends the task force members are merely "inferior officers" under the HHS Secretary's control. The case also involves objections by Texas businesses and residents to mandatory coverage of HIV prevention drugs, claiming unconstitutional imposition by unelected officials. Supplemental briefs are due by May 5, and while rare, this is not the first time the Court has asked for more information after oral arguments, as seen in past cases like Zubik v. Burwell and Citizens United v. FEC.Supreme Court Orders New Briefs After Obamacare Case Argued (1) 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

OA1153 - It's good news Friday! Here are some stories about American fascists losing or otherwise showing their asses in court, including (among others): The Supreme Court comes through strong for immigrant justice at 1 AM on a Saturday morning Samuel Alito fails to properly interpret a book written at a fourth grade level after having his Easter ruined by immigrant justice DOJ accidentally files an embarrassing internal memo into the record Sarah Palin's tries and fails to sue the New York Times for libel for the second time  one federal judge stops Trump's attempt to do the SAVE Act through an executive order, while another reverses an ICE kidnapping Neil Gorsuch does a genuinely good thing for non-citizens through a simple act of textualism DOJ pulls out one of the most ridiculous excuses for violating a court order in US legal history Finally, a meta-footnote on why Matt is ready to join the calls to impeach national hero James Boasberg for his radical views on the utility of (what else) footnotes. Samuel Alito's dissent in A.A.R.P. v. Trump (4/19/25) SCOTUS's decision in Monsalvo-Velasquez v. Bondi  (4/22/25) Vermont federal district court order returning Rumeysa Ozturk to Vermont Courtlistener docket for D.V.D. v. DHS Courtlistener docket for American Oversight v. Hegseth Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.

WA Supreme Court proposed rule lets judges arbitrarily dismiss charges against criminals. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch had a bizarre exchange with a Maryland school district lawyer over lewd content in school curriculum. Police are looking for a man that flashed gang signs and shot at a bus in Lynnwood. // LongForm: GUEST: State Senator Phil Fortunato (R-Auburn) wants to stop your tax dollars from being used for sanctuary immigration policies. // Quick Hit: Trump is not happy with Vladimir Putin after Russia’s airstrikes on Kyiv. A Democrat mayor wants to arrest homeless people who refuse housing.  

Hour two of Larry Conners USA: RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/c-1568182 WEBSITE: https://www.larryconnersusa.com/ FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/larryconnersusa NEWSTALK STL: https://newstalkstl.com/larry/ The post Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch Questions Elementary Book Teaching Kids About Bondage / 7P LC-USA 4-24-25 appeared first on Larry Conners USA.

Back after a year on hiatus! Noah Smith & Brad DeLong Record the Podcast They, at Least, Would Like to Listen to!; Aspirationally Bi-Weekly (Meaning Every Other Week); Aspirationally an hour...Sokrates: The people find some protector, whom they nurse into greatness… but then changes, as indicated in the old fable of the Temple of Zeus of the Wolf, of how he who tastes human flesh mixed up with the flesh of other sacrificial victims will turn into a wolf. Even so, the protector, once metaphorically tasting human blood, slaying some and exiling others, within or without the law, hinting at the cancellation of debts and the fair redistribution of lands, must then either perish or become a werewolf—that is, a tyrant…Key Insights:* We are back! After a year-long hiatus.* Hexapodia is a metaphor: a small, strange insight (like alien shrubs riding on six-wheeled carts as involuntary agents of the Great Evil) can provide key insight into useful and valuable Truth.* The Democratic Party is run by 27-year-old staffers, not geriatric figurehead politicians–this shapes messaging and internal dynamics.* The American progressive movement did not possess enough assibayah to keep from fracturing over Gaza War, especially among younger Democratic staffers influenced by social media discourse.* The left's adoption of “indigeneity” rhetoric undermined its ability to be a coalition in the face of tensions generated by the Hamas-Israel terrorism campaigns.* Trump's election with more popular votes than Harris destroyed Democratic belief that they had a right to oppose root-and-branch.* The belief that Democrats are the “natural majority” of the U.S. electorate is now false: nonvoters lean Trump, not so much Republican, and definitely not Democratic.* Trump's populism is not economic redistribution, but a claim to provide a redistribution of status and respect to those who feel culturally disrespected.* The Supreme Court's response to Trumpian overreach is likely to be very cautious—Barrett and Roberts are desperately eager to avoid any confrontation with Trump they might wind up losing, and Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Thomas will go the extra mile—they are Republicans who are judges, not judges who are Republicans, except in some extremis that may not even exist.* Trump's administration pursues selective repression through the state, rather than stochastic terrorism.* The economic consequence of the second Trump presidency look akin to another Brexit costing the U.S. ~10% of its prosperity, or more.* Social media, especially Twitter a status warfare machine–amplifying trolls and extremists, suppressing nuance.* People addicted to toxic media diets but lack the tools or education to curate better information environments.* SubStack and newsletters may become part of a healthier information ecosystem, a partial antidote to the toxic amplification of the Shouting Class on social media.* Human history is marked by information revolutions (e.g., printing press), each producing destructive upheaval before stabilization: destruction, that may or may not be creative.* As in the 1930s, we are entering a period where institutions–not mobs–become the threat, even as social unrest diminishes.* The dangers are real,and recognizing and adapting to new communication realities is key to preserving democracy.* Plato's Republic warned of democracy decaying into tyranny, especially when mob-like populism finds a strongman champion who then, having (metaphorically) fed on human flesh, becomes a (metaphorical) werewolf.* Enlightenment values relied more than we knew on print-based gatekeeping and slow communication; digital communication bypasses these safeguards.* The cycle of crisis and recovery is consistent through history: societies fall into holes they later dig out of, usually at great cost—or they don't.* &, as always, HEXAPODIA!References:* Brown, Chad P. 2025. “Trump's trade war timeline 2.0: An up-to-date guide”. PIIE. .* Center for Humane Technology. 2020. “The Social Dilemma”. .* Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, & John Jay. 1788. The Federalist Papers. .* Nowinski, Wally. 2024. “Democrats benefit from low turnout now”. Noahpinion. July 20. .* Platon of the Athenai. -375 [1871]. Politeia. .* Rorty, Richard. 1998. Achieving Our Country. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. * Rothpletz, Peter. 2024. “Economics 101 tells us there's no going back from Trumpism”. The Hill. September 24. .* Smith, Noah. 2021. “Wokeness as Respect Redistribution”. Noahpinion..* Smith, Noah. 2016. “How to actually redistribute respect”. Noahpinion. March 23. .* Smith, Noah. 2013. “Redistribute wealth? No, redistribute respect”. Noahpinion. December 27. .* SubStack. 2025. “Building a New Economic Engine for Culture”. .&* Vinge, Vernor. 1999. A Deepness in the Sky. New York: Tor Books. .If reading this gets you Value Above Replacement, then become a free subscriber to this newsletter. And forward it! And if your VAR from this newsletter is in the three digits or more each year, please become a paid subscriber! I am trying to make you readers—and myself—smarter. Please tell me if I succeed, or how I fail… Get full access to Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality at braddelong.substack.com/subscribe

Headlines: Pope Francis has died; what next? Whan presidents preach; China imposes new bans on missionary work; Gorsuch, Robets side with left leaning justices on immigration ruling; Alito releases dissent in SCOTUS court decision; US confirms third round of nuclear talks with Iran.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

21:59- Col. Patrick Callahan, New Jersey State Police Superintendent and State Director of Emergency Management Topic: Wildfires in New Jersey 52:02- Daniel Hoffman, Ret. CIA Senior Clandestine Services Officer and a Fox News Contributor Topic: Trump envoy heading to Moscow for peace talks with Putin, Iran nuclear deal 1:00:50- Dr. Nicole Saphier, board-certified radiologist, medical contributor for Fox News, and author of “Love, Mom: Inspiring Stories Celebrating Motherhood” Topic: RFK Jr's plan to phase out 8 artificial food dyes, Health concerns surrounding New Jersey wildfires 1:26:13- Liz Peek, Fox News contributor, columnist for Fox News and The Hill, and former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company Topic: "Democrats have a Joe Biden problem. And there's no way to fix it" (Fox News op ed) 1:36:31- Stephen Moore, "Joe Piscopo Show" Resident Scholar of Economics, Chairman of FreedomWorks Task Force on Economic Revival, former Trump economic adviser and the author of "The Trump Economic Miracle: And the Plan to Unleash Prosperity Again" Topic: "Fannie Mae, Which Got a Nearly $200 Billion Taxpayer Bailout, Eyes an Expansion of Its Role" (NY Sun op ed) 1:58:56- 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: SCOTUS showing support for parents objecting LGBTQ books 2:08:24- Michael Goodwin, Chief Political Columnist for the New York Post Topic: "Trump hit the ground running – but needs to tighten the ship after a series of missteps" (New York Post op ed)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There has been no shortage of news from all three branches of government in Washington, D.C., but one thing hasn't changed: the U.S. Supreme Court continues to be interested in religious liberty cases. On today's show, Amanda and Holly review the recent oral arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin, which focuses on a religious exemption in the state's unemployment compensation laws. There are big questions being asked in this case, such as where one draws the lines, how can “religion” be defined, and what is meant – exactly – by the term “proselytization.” Plus, Holly and Amanda take a moment to step back and talk about the current attacks we are seeing on the rule of law in our country.    SHOW NOTESSegment 1 (starting at 00:38): Current state of the courts and various attacks on the rule of law There are three church-state cases that the Supreme Court will hear this term: Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (Oral arguments were March 31) Mahmoud v. Taylor (oral arguments will be April 22) Oklahoma Virtual Charter School Board v. Drummond (oral arguments will be April 30)   Segment 2 (starting at 08:00): Oral arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Visit the website of the U.S. Supreme Court for a transcript and an audio recording of the oral arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin.  We played a clip from the oral arguments between Justice Neil Gorsuch and Colin Roth, who argued the case as the assistant attorney general for the state of Wisconsin. You can read the exchange beginning on page 81 of the oral argument transcript. Holly and Amanda mentioned the 2021 case of Fulton v. Philadelphia. Read more about that case on BJC's website.  Read Amy Howe's coverage of the Catholic Charities case for SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court likely to embrace expanded tax exemption for religious charities Read Adam Liptak's coverage for the New York Times: Supreme Court Leans Toward Catholic Charity in Tax Case   Segment 3 (starting 26:48): Decision thoughts and what's ahead Amanda mentioned the upcoming Oklahoma v. Drummond case. BJC filed a brief in that case, and you can read it on our website. Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

[03:15] Power Showers: The Debate Over Water Flow & Conservation[06:15] Art vs. Probation: Can Creativity Survive Supervision?[13:40] Navigating Confusing PFR Reporting Rules in Michigan[21:21] Challenging Missouri’s SORA: What Went Wrong?[44:48] Gorsuch and Alito: A Threat to Defendants’ Rights? https://www.registrymatters.co/podcast/rm337-missouri-jane-doe-v-michael-turner-et-al/Email us: registrymatterscast@gmail.comSupport us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/registrymattersJoin the Discord server: https://discord.gg/6FnxwAQm57Want to support Registry Matters with some...

(WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE) **CONTENT WARNING: GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS OF TORTURE** On March 15, 2025, President Trump announced the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua was conducting "irregular warfare" against the United States and that members would be deported under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The Trump Administration quickly began deporting people allegedly affiliated with the gang—without any semblance of due process—via direct flights to a notoriously deadly El Salvadoran prison. A few days later, the Trump Administration told a federal judge it was invoking the "state secrets privilege" to refuse to provide any information to the Courts about these flights, the people they've put on them, or what (if any) evidence they had to support doing so. As attorneys in this still-ongoing court battle [J.G.G. v. Trump (2025)] fight to stop Trump's unsanctioned deportations under the AEA, new legal questions abound: Is the Executive Branch blatantly violating Judicial orders? Are we in a Constitutional crisis yet? What is the Alien Enemies Act? What is the state secrets privilege? Were Administrations already abusing it before Trump? Can the Trump administration invoke the privilege to "disappear" whoever they choose? What happens now? Reb gives you everything she knows on all of those topics and more. This is J.G.G. v. Trump (2025), United States v. Reynolds (1953), FBI v. Fazaga (2022), and United States v. Zubaydah (2022). **IMPORTANT NOTE**: This episode is expected to go live on April 3, 2025, the same day the parties in J.G.G. v. Trump (2025) are set to appear in a hearing before Judge Boasberg on his Order to Defendants to show cause why they did not violate the Court's Temporary Restraining Orders. Judge Boasberg is expected to rule on the DOJ's invocation of the state secrets privilege sometime thereafter. The case is ongoing and any further updates beyond April 2 will not be covered in this episode because Reb cannot time travel. Yet. *** Follow @RebuttalPod on Instagram and Twitter! Follow @Rebmasel on TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter! *** 0:00 - Content Warning 0:32 - Intro / Necessary Context 6:40 - Background on J.G.G. v. Trump (2025) 8:25 - Secrets secrets are no fun 9:45 - A photo op isn't a secret y'all 13:30 - The Alien Enemies Act of 1798?? Really??? 24:18 - Everyone is probably just stupid 27:06 - DRAMA (WITH TIMESTAMPS) OF (LIKELY) COURT ORDER VIOLATIONS 41:15 - Constitutional crisis incoming 42:20 - Trump admin loves to tweet (themselves to hell) 47:52 - The Hail Mary 53:20 - THE STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE 53:45 - United States v. Reynolds (1953) 58:10 - The state secrets privilege is...messy 1:05:14 - ABUSE OF THE PRIVILEGE POST-9/11 1:11:30 - CIA "black sites" (TORTURE IN POLAND) 1:14:50 - FBI v. Fazaga (2022) 1:15:05 - TORTURE IN POLAND 1:16:50 - United States v. Zubaydah (2022) 1:20:43 - GORSUCH DISSENT IS...FIRE? 1:24:09 - CONTENT WARNING (TORTURE) 1:26:07 - Zubaydah wants to depose his torturers 1:30:00 - His torturers don't STFU about being torturers 1:39:02 - Gorsuch concludes with a BANG 1:42:10 - The wrong administration 1:43:05 - CAN THE TRUMP ADMIN SUCCESSFULLY USE THE PRIVILEGE? 1:46:18 - SIDEBAR: Another Judge CHEWED THEM UP 1:51:14 - REB'S REBUTTAL  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Federal Minimum Wage IncreaseOn this day in legal history, April 1, 1991, the federal minimum wage in the United States increased to $4.25 per hour. This followed an earlier increase on April 1, 1990, when the wage rose from $3.35 to $3.80 per hour. These back-to-back adjustments marked the first changes to the federal minimum wage since 1981, when it had been set at $3.35 under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The 1990 and 1991 hikes were part of a broader legislative effort to address inflation and stagnating wages for low-income workers, especially in service industries.The wage increase was included in the Minimum Wage Increase Act of 1989, signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. The law aimed to gradually raise wages while minimizing economic disruption for employers. Despite concerns from some business groups, the phased approach allowed companies time to adjust. Labor advocates, meanwhile, argued the increase was still insufficient for workers to meet basic living expenses, particularly in urban areas with high costs of living.The minimum wage has long been a point of contention in U.S. labor policy, seen alternately as a lifeline for workers or a constraint on small businesses. While federal adjustments have been relatively infrequent, many states and municipalities have set higher local minimum wages. As of this writing, the last federal minimum wage increase occurred on July 24, 2009, when it rose to $7.25 per hour—where it remains today. This stagnation has reignited debates over the role of the federal government in ensuring a living wage. The April 1, 1991 increase remains a reminder of the complex balancing act between economic policy, labor rights, and legislative compromise.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by the Catholic Charities Bureau, a nonprofit affiliated with the Diocese of Superior in Wisconsin, seeking an exemption from the state's unemployment insurance tax. The group, along with four of its subsidiaries, argued that being denied the exemption violates their First Amendment rights to religious freedom and church autonomy. While federal and state laws do allow religious organizations to opt out of unemployment insurance if they are “operated primarily for religious purposes,” Wisconsin determined the group's services were primarily secular and charitable. The organizations involved provide support such as job training and care services for people with disabilities but do not require staff or clients to be religious.During arguments, both conservative and liberal justices questioned whether Wisconsin's approach unfairly favored some religious organizations over others. Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch expressed concerns about the state seemingly picking winners among religious groups. Catholic Charities contends their mission is rooted in faith, even if their services don't explicitly promote religious doctrine. Wisconsin previously granted a similar exemption to one of their subsidiaries, prompting the current challenge.Critics, including me, warn that granting the exemption could allow large religiously affiliated organizations, including major hospital systems, to bypass various regulations and potentially strip employees of benefits like unemployment insurance. A ruling is expected by the end of June. The Court is also set to hear another major case involving Catholic interests on April 30, regarding the proposed creation of a taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma.US Supreme Court leans toward Catholic group's bid for Wisconsin unemployment tax exemption | ReutersYesterday, Nokia and Amazon announced they had resolved an international legal battle over alleged patent infringement related to video streaming and cloud computing technologies. The dispute centered on Nokia's claims that Amazon improperly used its patented technology to power high-quality video on platforms like Prime Video and Twitch. Nokia had filed lawsuits in several jurisdictions, including the U.S., Germany, the UK, India, and the European Unified Patent Court.Amazon, in turn, countersued in Delaware, accusing Nokia of infringing its cloud computing patents related to Amazon Web Services (AWS), including infrastructure and security technologies. A German court had previously ruled in Nokia's favor, finding that Amazon had used its technology without proper licensing, though Amazon stated the decision wouldn't affect its Prime Video users in Germany.The companies have now signed a multi-year patent agreement, resolving all pending litigation under confidential terms. The agreement brings an end to multiple lawsuits and suggests ongoing cooperation between the two tech giants moving forward.Amazon, Nokia settle international patent dispute | ReutersThe National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), representing 150,000 federal employees, filed a lawsuit aiming to stop President Donald Trump from eliminating collective bargaining rights for a large segment of the federal workforce. The suit, filed in Washington, D.C. federal court, challenges an executive order Trump issued the previous week that exempted over a dozen federal agencies from having to negotiate with employee unions. The NTEU argues that the order violates federal labor laws and the U.S. Constitution.Trump's order was followed by legal action from eight federal agencies against multiple union affiliates, attempting to invalidate existing contracts. The administration claims the move is necessary for national security and to streamline agency operations, including the ability to discipline or terminate employees more easily, particularly amid budget cuts.The NTEU counters that the national security rationale is a pretext, accusing Trump of using the order to pursue political goals and retaliate against unions that have opposed his policies. The union seeks a court ruling to block the order and prevent agencies from enforcing it, warning that the action would severely undermine federal workers' rights and job protections.Union sues to block Trump from ending collective bargaining for many federal workers | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at a well-meaning but flawed proposal in New York: a so-called “noise tax” aimed at reducing helicopter sound pollution. The bill would charge $50 per seat or $200 per flight for aircraft that exceed a fixed noise threshold, but it doesn't actually tax sound. Instead, it taxes occupancy—a fundamental mismatch if the goal is to reduce the auditory burden on residents.If noise is the harm, we should tax noise directly. A static decibel cutoff misses how sound actually impacts people—context matters. A helicopter flying over the harbor at noon is not the same as one hovering over a quiet park at 6 a.m., but under this bill, both would be taxed identically if they're equally loud. Worse, there's no incentive to alter flight paths or schedules to reduce disruption, nor any reward for operators who try to minimize their noise without hitting the “quiet” threshold.A well-designed externality tax should reflect actual social harm and promote behavior that reduces it. Congestion pricing in New York does this well by varying fees based on time and place. France's noise tax on planes is another good example—it charges more for louder aircraft flying at more sensitive times. New York's bill, by contrast, is more of a symbolic luxury tax that may make air travel slightly pricier but won't make the skies meaningfully quieter.If the goal is truly to reduce noise, the city needs to tax decibels—not passengers.New York's helicopter noise tax misses the target 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: Did the ATF exceed its statutory authority in promulgating its Final Rule purporting to regulate so-called “ghost guns”?The case was decided on March 26, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Gun Control Act of 1968 authorizes the ATF to regulate weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers that can be readily converted into functional firearms. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.  Weapon parts kits qualify as “weapons” under the statute when they contain all necessary components to build a gun and their intended function is clear. Everyday language permits describing incomplete objects by their intended use, just as a disassembled rifle remains a “weapon.” The statute reinforces this understanding by treating starter guns as firearms even though they require modification. A kit like Polymer80's “Buy Build Shoot,” which can be assembled in about 20 minutes using common tools, meets the law's definition because it can be “readily converted” into a functioning firearm, just as a blocked-barrel starter gun qualifies when easily modified for live fire. While not all kits may fall under this definition, the statute clearly covers at least some, making a facial challenge to the rule invalid.  The definition of “frame or receiver” also includes partially complete versions that can be finished quickly with standard tools. Ordinary language and the statute's serialization requirements support this reading, as identification numbers are required on unfinished frames and receivers. Law enforcement has long treated such components as regulated firearms, and even the challengers conceded that some unfinished frames fall within the law's scope. While some objects may be too incomplete to qualify, the statute reaches at least those requiring only minimal work, making ATF's rule facially consistent with the law. Concerns about unintended consequences under the National Firearms Act are misplaced, as the government disavowed any authority to classify AR-15 receivers as machine guns, and the doctrines of lenity and constitutional avoidance do not apply where the statute's meaning is clear.Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson each joined the majority opinion and also wrote separate concurring opinions.Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito each authored dissenting opinions.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

The federal government appeared likely to win a high-stakes appeal over a multibillion-dollar telecommunications fund while securing a win on Biden-era regulations on build-at-home "ghost guns." Several justices during arguments March 26 in FCC v. Consumers' Research, appeared hesitant to reinvigorate the so-called nondelegation doctrine to strike down the Universal Service Fund. The fund is intended to increase broadband access to rural and low income areas. Hosts Greg Stohr and Kimberly Robinson also discuss the court's 7-2 'ghost gun' ruling where liberal justices were joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and conservatives Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The hosts also highlight the upcoming argument in Medina v. Planned Parenthood, a case about South Carolina's decision to remove Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. - Produced by David Schultz

For the last quarter century, an Italian macher from New Jersey has been one of the most powerful people in the United States. If you're a certain type of nerdy, obsessive, legally inclined conservative, he's basically Taylor Swift. But most people don't know who he is because he doesn't want them to know. He has never held or sought political office. He does not hail from Silicon Valley or Wall Street. He is not a writer, pundit, or political aide. He rarely does interviews. And yet his influence is hard to understate. People in power—particularly presidents—trust and listen to him. I'm talking about Leonard Leo, the animating force behind the Federalist Society and the key node of a growing network of conservative groups aiming to reshape the culture and the country. Whether you've heard of him or not, he has no doubt directly affected your life in some way. Leo is the person who counseled George W. Bush to appoint Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He had an arguably even greater influence on President Trump. Trump was new to Washington when he first became president. Leo, on the other hand, knew everyone in town. Leo counseled Trump and helped pick and prepare Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett for confirmation. And that's just the Supreme Court. Leo has cultivated talent across every level of the judicial system. Leo understands the levers of Washington. He understands how Congress works, how the press works, and most importantly, how the courts work. He is, in a sense, the architect of the Supreme Court's conservative majority — the one that overturned Roe v. Wade. Which means he has changed American history—for better or worse, depending on your worldview. Today on Honestly, Bari asks Leo about all of it: his relationship with Trump, their falling out (though he disputes this characterization), how he understands the divide on the right between the old guard like himself and the new characters like Elon Musk and RFK Jr. Bari asks about his so-called dark money groups, the $1.6 billion-dollar gift he was given, and the criticism he gets for wielding power and influence of this magnitude. She asks about Trump's willingness to defy the courts, and if Leonard sees it that way. They discuss Trump's controversial moves like sending accused gang members to El Salvador and reinstituting TikTok. She asks why MAGA has recently rejected Amy Coney Barrett, and if gay marriage is a settled matter. And most importantly, in a moment of institutional crisis in American life, Bari asks whether the Supreme Court can remain above the fray. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Go to fastgrowingtrees.com/Honestly and use the code HONESTLY at checkout to get 15% off your first order. Spring starts here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At least 2 right-wing Supreme Court justices (Alito and Thomas) support having unregulated ghost guns used in tens of thousands of crimes and killings each year, but fortunately, 7 others led by Justice Gorsuch have just supported a Biden-era regulation making ghost gun kit manufacturers for DIY home gun makers subject to registration and background checks. Michael Popok takes a look at the new bombshell ruling and what it means for guns in America. Head to https://qualialife.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF at checkout for 15% off your purchase! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

51:28- Col. Kurt Schlichter, Attorney, Retired Army Infantry Colonel with a Masters in Strategic Studies from the United States Army War College, Senior Columnist at Town Hall, and the author of "We'll Be Back: The Fall & Rise of America" Topic: Signal leak 1:34:52- Assemblyman Jake Blumencranz, Republican representing the 15th District of the New York State Assembly Topic: Congestion pricing, subway safety initiative 2:00:37- 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: Judge rules Columbia protester cannot be detained by feds, other legal news 2:10:22- Michael Goodwin, Chief Political Columnist for the New York Post Topic: "The left’s favorite yet deranged go-to insult is to label any opposition a Nazi" (New York Post op ed)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Scottsboro Boys ArrestedOn this day in legal history, March 25, 1931, nine Black teenagers were arrested in Paint Rock, Alabama, accused of raping two white women aboard a freight train. The arrests set off one of the most infamous legal sagas of the 20th century, exposing the deep racial injustices of the Jim Crow South. The teens, later known as the Scottsboro Boys, were quickly indicted and tried in Scottsboro, Alabama. Just twelve days after their arrest, an all-white jury sentenced most of them to death in a series of rushed, chaotic trials marked by inadequate legal representation.Public outrage and national attention, particularly from Black communities and civil rights organizations, led to multiple appeals. In Powell v. Alabama (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the defendants' right to counsel had been violated, setting a precedent that effective legal representation is essential in capital cases. Later, in Norris v. Alabama(1935), the Court found that the systematic exclusion of Black jurors violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Despite these victories, the road to justice was long and uneven. Several of the Scottsboro Boys remained imprisoned for years, and none received a full measure of legal vindication during their lifetimes. Their ordeal became a powerful symbol of the racial bias embedded in the American legal system and spurred greater attention to the rights of defendants in criminal trials. The legacy of the case continues to influence debates over due process, racial discrimination, and criminal justice reform.At a U.S. appeals court hearing on March 24, 2025, Circuit Judge Patricia Millett sharply criticized the Trump administration's deportation of Venezuelan migrants, suggesting they were given fewer rights than Nazis who were removed under the same legal authority during World War II. The administration invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act—a rarely used law last applied to intern Axis nationals during WWII—to justify deporting alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua without immigration court rulings. The court is reviewing whether a temporary ban issued by Judge James Boasberg on such deportations should remain in place. Government attorneys argued that national security and executive authority over foreign affairs justify bypassing normal legal procedures.Family members and lawyers for deportees contest the gang allegations, saying they are based on flimsy evidence like tattoos. One deported man was a professional soccer coach whose tattoo referred to Real Madrid. Judge Millett questioned whether the deported migrants had any opportunity to dispute the gang labels before removal, calling the process rushed and opaque.The deportations, carried out on March 15, sent over 200 people to El Salvador, where they are being held in a high-security prison under a U.S.-funded deal. The ACLU claims the administration defied Boasberg's court order by speeding up removals to preempt judicial intervention. The government has since invoked the state secrets privilege to avoid disclosing further flight details. The case is now a flashpoint over presidential power, immigration enforcement, and judicial oversight, with the Supreme Court Chief Justice issuing a rare rebuke after Trump called for Boasberg's impeachment.Nazis were treated better than Venezuelans deported by Trump, judge says at hearing | ReutersOn March 24, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over Louisiana's congressional map, which increased the number of Black-majority districts from one to two. The case pits efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act against claims that the new map violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by relying too heavily on race. Louisiana officials defended the map, saying it was drawn to protect Republican incumbents rather than based on racial motives. They argued the redistricting was politically, not racially, driven—particularly to preserve the districts of House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise.Civil rights groups and Black voters countered that the map was a necessary remedy after a 2022 ruling found the prior version likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting strength. A 2024 lower court ruling blocked the updated map, saying race predominated in its design. The Supreme Court justices appeared divided, with liberal Justice Sotomayor skeptical that race had dominated the redistricting process, and conservative Chief Justice Roberts pointing to the odd shape of the second Black-majority district as potential evidence of racial gerrymandering.Justice Gorsuch challenged whether any consideration of race in map-drawing runs afoul of constitutional protections. The Court had previously allowed the new map to be used for the 2024 elections, but a final ruling is expected by June. The outcome could have broad implications for how states navigate the tension between addressing historic racial discrimination in voting and avoiding unconstitutional race-based districting.US Supreme Court wrestles with Louisiana electoral map with more Black-majority districts | ReutersThe Justice Department, under President Trump's direction, has launched an “immediate review” of law firms that have challenged his administration in court, wielding Rule 11 as a tool to pursue sanctions for allegedly frivolous litigation. The memo, issued March 21, empowers Attorney General Pam Bondi to target lawyers not just for recent cases, but for conduct going back eight years—reviving a rarely enforced mechanism that requires legal filings to be non-frivolous and not made for improper purposes. While legal experts note that courts are typically cautious about imposing Rule 11 sanctions, the administration's move is seen as a political shot across the bow of the legal profession.Trump has already threatened prominent firms with revoked security clearances and canceled federal contracts, but one firm, Paul Weiss, avoided penalties by agreeing to a $40 million pro bono commitment to Trump-aligned causes and an audit of its diversity programs. That deal, far from resolving the issue, may have signaled that capitulation invites more pressure. As anyone who's dealt with a bully could have predicted: surrender doesn't end the harassment—it encourages it. The only way to improve your position is to raise the cost of targeting you, yet many law firm leaders (and institutions of higher education, if we're being fair) seem to have missed that lesson the first time they encountered it.Now, those same leaders face the possibility of serious professional consequences for doing exactly what lawyers are supposed to do: advocate for clients and challenge government overreach. Trump's order also singles out individuals like Democratic elections attorney Marc Elias, whom the memo connects to the long-disputed Steele dossier, despite no formal wrongdoing. Critics warn that the DOJ's probe could evolve into a tool to intimidate or sideline legal opposition to Trump, reshaping the legal landscape by discouraging firms from representing those who stand against the administration.Legal scholars have labeled the move a dangerous politicization of Rule 11, pointing out that it essentially makes Bondi the judge and Trump the executioner. In weaponizing a procedural rule with ambiguous standards and rare enforcement, the administration isn't just threatening lawsuits—it's undermining the adversarial system that keeps government power in check.DOJ Launches 'Immediate Review' of Law Firms After Trump MemoCalifornia's new disclosure law on municipal corporate tax-sharing agreements is a welcome move toward transparency, but it's not enough to stop the ongoing drain of public revenue. For years, corporations have exploited the split in California's sales tax—where 1.25% goes to local jurisdictions—by striking deals with cities that offer kickbacks in exchange for routing sales through their borders. This has created a race to the bottom, with municipalities, especially smaller ones, effectively subsidizing some of the world's richest companies in hopes of boosting their own budgets. These deals don't create new economic activity; they just reshuffle where sales are counted and where tax dollars land.While the new law will finally shine a light on these practices starting in April, disclosure without action won't solve the problem. Cities will still have incentives to offer generous tax rebates, and many will rush to lock in long-term deals before limits are imposed. What we need is immediate legislative action to cap how much of their tax base cities can give away. A ceiling tied to a city's budget or economic profile would prevent reckless giveaways while preserving flexibility for true economic development.We should also require that any shared tax revenue be reinvested in local infrastructure or services, not handed over as corporate windfalls. Waiting for more data only gives cover to continue harmful deals that are already draining school, safety, and infrastructure funding. Policymakers don't need years of reports—they need the courage to stop the bleeding now.Transparency Alone Won't Fix California's Corporate Tax Drain This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but which can be committed by failing to take action, have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force?The case was decided on March 21, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the knowing or intentional causation of injury or death, whether by act or omission, necessarily involves the “use” of “physical force” against another person within the meaning of 18 U-S-C §924(c)(3)(A). Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.In United States v Castleman, the Court held that “knowing or intentional causation of bodily injury necessarily involves the use of physical force.” This principle applies equally to §924(c) cases where injury is caused by omission rather than affirmative action. There is no meaningful distinction between acts and omissions, as deliberately causing harm through inaction still qualifies as "using" force, just as a person can "use" rain to wash their car by leaving it outside. Moreover, murder—the prototypical “crime of violence”—has long been understood to include liability for omissions, such as when a parent refuses to feed their child, resulting in death.Interpreting the elements clause to exclude crimes of omission would exclude traditional violent crimes from its reach, contradicting the ordinary meaning of “crime of violence” that Congress intended to capture. Additionally, the word “use” does not necessarily require affirmative action; when someone deliberately causes harm through inaction, they are employing force as their instrument to accomplish their purpose.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Col. Kurt Schlichter, Attorney, Retired Army Infantry Colonel with a Masters in Strategic Studies from the United States Army War College, Senior Columnist at Town Hall, and the author of "We'll Be Back: The Fall & Rise of America"Topic: End of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire Jonathan Hoenig, portfolio manager at Capitalist Pig Hedge Fund LLC and a Fox News ContributorTopic: The current state of retail sales, the impact of the end of the ceasefire on our global economy K.T. McFarland, Former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor and the author of "Revolution: Trump, Washington and 'We The People'”Topic: End of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire Rebekah Koffler, Russian-born U.S. intelligence expert who served as a Russian Doctrine & Strategy specialist in the Defense Intelligence Agency, host of the "Censored But Not Silenced" podcast and the author of the upcoming book "Trump's Playbook"Topic: "What to expect from the Trump-Putin call on Ukraine war" (Fox News op ed) Hogan Gidley, Former National Press Secretary for the Trump campaign, former White House Deputy Press Secretary, and a Newsmax contributorTopic: Release of the JFK files, the latest from the Trump administration 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 JudiciaryTopic: Trump claiming Biden's pardons are void because of Autopen, legalities of deportationsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Must the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U-S-C § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U-S-C § 7261(b)(1)?The case was decided on March 5, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Department of Veterans Affairs' determination that evidence regarding a disability claim is in “approximate balance” is a factual determination subject to clear-error review by the Veterans Court. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The statute at issue, 38 U-S-C §7261(b)(1), requires the Veterans Court to “take due account” of the VA's application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. This provision does not establish a new standard of review but instead directs the Veterans Court to review such determinations under the standards in §7261(a), which provides for de novo review of legal questions and clear-error review of factual findings. Determining whether evidence is in approximate balance involves both legal and factual components, as the VA must marshal and weigh evidence while also applying the legal “approximate balance” standard. Because this determination is primarily factual, clear-error review is appropriate.Petitioners argued that the Veterans Court should review the "approximate balance" determination de novo, comparing it to judicial review of probable-cause determinations, but this analogy is flawed. The probable-cause inquiry involves substantial legal reasoning and constitutional concerns, whereas the VA's assessment of evidence balance is specific to each case and lacks broader legal implications. The statute's language does not support imposing de novo review, nor does the canon against surplusage justify a different reading. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

The New York Times' David Enrich is one of America's most tenacious investigative journalists. So when he comes out with a book entitled Murder the Truth, we should take note. There's a campaign, Enrich warns, sometimes secret, sometimes open, to undermine the First Amendment and press freedom, thereby protecting the rich and powerful. Led by Clarence Thomas, Enrich explains, it's an attempt to call into question the 1964 Supreme Court's 1964 New York Times vs Sullivan decision on libel. Undermine this critical judgement on press freedom, Enrich warns, and the truth could, indeed, by murdered in the United States.Here are the five key take-aways in our conversation with David Enrich:* New York Times v. Sullivan is a crucial legal precedent for press freedom - This 1964 Supreme Court case established the "actual malice" standard that gives journalists protection when reporting on public figures, allowing them to make good-faith mistakes without facing ruinous litigation.* There's a coordinated effort to weaken press protections - Enrich describes a network of conservative lawyers, activists, judges, and wealthy individuals working to undermine New York Times v. Sullivan, with Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch already expressing interest in reconsidering the precedent.* Legal harassment is already silencing journalism - Even with current protections in place, powerful individuals and organizations are weaponizing defamation lawsuits to intimidate journalists, particularly affecting smaller, independent outlets that lack the resources to fight prolonged legal battles.* Media ownership is responding to political pressure - The conversation touches on how even billionaire media owners like Jeff Bezos (Washington Post) appear to be making editorial decisions based on fears of government retaliation under the Trump administration.* The threat to press freedom is incremental, not sudden - Enrich argues we may be at a pivotal moment where the campaign against press freedoms is moving from rhetoric to tangible action, comparing it to the "frog in boiling water" - a gradual process that may only be recognized in retrospect.David Enrich is the Finance Editor at The New York Times. He previously was an editor and reporter at The Wall Street Journal in New York and London. He has won numerous journalism awards, including the 2016 Gerald Loeb Award for feature writing. David grew up in Lexington, Mass., and graduated from Claremont McKenna College in California. He lives in New York with his wife and two sons.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this case, the court considered this issue: May Oklahoma carry out the execution of Richard Glossip in light of the prosecutorial misconduct and other errors that affected his conviction and sentencing?The case was decided on February 25, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's failure to correct false testimony violated the Due Process Clause under Napue v Illinois. A conviction that relies on false evidence, knowingly allowed by the prosecution, requires reversal if there is a reasonable likelihood the falsehood affected the jury's judgment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 6-2 majority opinion of the Court.The prosecution allowed its key witness, Justin Sneed, to provide false testimony about his mental health and medical treatment. The new evidence showed that Sneed was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prescribed lithium, facts that were withheld from the defense. At trial, Sneed falsely claimed he was never treated by a psychiatrist and received lithium mistakenly. This falsehood was material because Sneed's testimony was the only direct evidence implicating Glossip, and impeachment of his credibility could have influenced the jury's decision. The prosecution had prior knowledge of Sneed's mental health treatment and still failed to correct the misstatement when it was made to the jury.Correcting this false testimony would likely have changed the jury's assessment of Sneed's reliability. Additionally, the prosecution's violations extended beyond Napue: it suppressed exculpatory evidence, interfered with witness testimony, and allowed destruction of key physical evidence. Given these cumulative errors and their impact on the fairness of the trial, Glossip is entitled to a new trial. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' rejection of the attorney general's confession of error was based on a misapplication of federal law.Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In the latest episode of Madison's Notes, I spoke with Janie Nitze, co-author of Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law (Harper, 2004), a book written alongside Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Janie, a Harvard-educated attorney and former clerk for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch, discussed the growing complexity of laws in America and their […]

In the latest episode of Madison's Notes, I spoke with Janie Nitze, co-author of Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law (Harper, 2004), a book written alongside Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Janie, a Harvard-educated attorney and former clerk for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch, discussed the growing complexity of laws in America and their impact on everyday citizens. The book shares stories of ordinary Americans—fishermen in Florida, families in Montana, monks in Louisiana, and more—who find themselves caught in legal mazes created by an overwhelming and often opaque system of regulations. Janie explained that while laws are necessary to maintain order and freedom, the sheer volume and complexity of modern regulations can undermine those principles. She highlighted how excessive laws, many of which are created by unelected agency officials, disproportionately affect those without wealth or power. Through these stories, Over Ruled shows how overregulation can erode trust in the legal system and create unintended consequences for individuals navigating their lives. Janie's perspective, shaped by her work at the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, provided a clear look at the challenges of balancing regulation and individual liberty. Over Ruled is a timely exploration of these issues, and this episode offers a deeper understanding of the human cost of too much law. Tune in to hear Janie's insights and learn more about the stories behind the book. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In the latest episode of Madison's Notes, I spoke with Janie Nitze, co-author of Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law (Harper, 2004), a book written alongside Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Janie, a Harvard-educated attorney and former clerk for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch, discussed the growing complexity of laws in America and their impact on everyday citizens. The book shares stories of ordinary Americans—fishermen in Florida, families in Montana, monks in Louisiana, and more—who find themselves caught in legal mazes created by an overwhelming and often opaque system of regulations. Janie explained that while laws are necessary to maintain order and freedom, the sheer volume and complexity of modern regulations can undermine those principles. She highlighted how excessive laws, many of which are created by unelected agency officials, disproportionately affect those without wealth or power. Through these stories, Over Ruled shows how overregulation can erode trust in the legal system and create unintended consequences for individuals navigating their lives. Janie's perspective, shaped by her work at the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, provided a clear look at the challenges of balancing regulation and individual liberty. Over Ruled is a timely exploration of these issues, and this episode offers a deeper understanding of the human cost of too much law. Tune in to hear Janie's insights and learn more about the stories behind the book. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In the latest episode of Madison's Notes, I spoke with Janie Nitze, co-author of Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law (Harper, 2004), a book written alongside Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Janie, a Harvard-educated attorney and former clerk for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch, discussed the growing complexity of laws in America and their impact on everyday citizens. The book shares stories of ordinary Americans—fishermen in Florida, families in Montana, monks in Louisiana, and more—who find themselves caught in legal mazes created by an overwhelming and often opaque system of regulations. Janie explained that while laws are necessary to maintain order and freedom, the sheer volume and complexity of modern regulations can undermine those principles. She highlighted how excessive laws, many of which are created by unelected agency officials, disproportionately affect those without wealth or power. Through these stories, Over Ruled shows how overregulation can erode trust in the legal system and create unintended consequences for individuals navigating their lives. Janie's perspective, shaped by her work at the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, provided a clear look at the challenges of balancing regulation and individual liberty. Over Ruled is a timely exploration of these issues, and this episode offers a deeper understanding of the human cost of too much law. Tune in to hear Janie's insights and learn more about the stories behind the book. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

In the latest episode of Madison's Notes, I spoke with Janie Nitze, co-author of Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law (Harper, 2004), a book written alongside Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Janie, a Harvard-educated attorney and former clerk for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch, discussed the growing complexity of laws in America and their impact on everyday citizens. The book shares stories of ordinary Americans—fishermen in Florida, families in Montana, monks in Louisiana, and more—who find themselves caught in legal mazes created by an overwhelming and often opaque system of regulations. Janie explained that while laws are necessary to maintain order and freedom, the sheer volume and complexity of modern regulations can undermine those principles. She highlighted how excessive laws, many of which are created by unelected agency officials, disproportionately affect those without wealth or power. Through these stories, Over Ruled shows how overregulation can erode trust in the legal system and create unintended consequences for individuals navigating their lives. Janie's perspective, shaped by her work at the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, provided a clear look at the challenges of balancing regulation and individual liberty. Over Ruled is a timely exploration of these issues, and this episode offers a deeper understanding of the human cost of too much law. Tune in to hear Janie's insights and learn more about the stories behind the book. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

In the latest episode of Madison's Notes, I spoke with Janie Nitze, co-author of Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law (Harper, 2004), a book written alongside Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Janie, a Harvard-educated attorney and former clerk for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch, discussed the growing complexity of laws in America and their impact on everyday citizens. The book shares stories of ordinary Americans—fishermen in Florida, families in Montana, monks in Louisiana, and more—who find themselves caught in legal mazes created by an overwhelming and often opaque system of regulations. Janie explained that while laws are necessary to maintain order and freedom, the sheer volume and complexity of modern regulations can undermine those principles. She highlighted how excessive laws, many of which are created by unelected agency officials, disproportionately affect those without wealth or power. Through these stories, Over Ruled shows how overregulation can erode trust in the legal system and create unintended consequences for individuals navigating their lives. Janie's perspective, shaped by her work at the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, provided a clear look at the challenges of balancing regulation and individual liberty. Over Ruled is a timely exploration of these issues, and this episode offers a deeper understanding of the human cost of too much law. Tune in to hear Janie's insights and learn more about the stories behind the book. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the latest episode of Madison's Notes, I spoke with Janie Nitze, co-author of Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law (Harper, 2004), a book written alongside Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Janie, a Harvard-educated attorney and former clerk for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch, discussed the growing complexity of laws in America and their impact on everyday citizens. The book shares stories of ordinary Americans—fishermen in Florida, families in Montana, monks in Louisiana, and more—who find themselves caught in legal mazes created by an overwhelming and often opaque system of regulations. Janie explained that while laws are necessary to maintain order and freedom, the sheer volume and complexity of modern regulations can undermine those principles. She highlighted how excessive laws, many of which are created by unelected agency officials, disproportionately affect those without wealth or power. Through these stories, Over Ruled shows how overregulation can erode trust in the legal system and create unintended consequences for individuals navigating their lives. Janie's perspective, shaped by her work at the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, provided a clear look at the challenges of balancing regulation and individual liberty. Over Ruled is a timely exploration of these issues, and this episode offers a deeper understanding of the human cost of too much law. Tune in to hear Janie's insights and learn more about the stories behind the book. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

00:38- Zelensky Trump Oval Office meeting 15:47- The Oscars, Andrew Cuomo 52:05- Gen. Jack Keane, a retired 4-star general, the chairman of the Institute for the Study of War and Fox News Senior Strategic Analyst Topic: Trump and Zelensky meeting 1:04:10- Councilman Robert Holden, Democratic City Councilman from Queens Topic: Andrew Cuomo announces his mayoral bid 1:28:23- Daniel Hoffman, Ret. CIA Senior Clandestine Services Officer and a Fox News Contributor Topic: Trump and Zelensky meeting 1:38:17- Congressman Michael Rulli, Republican representing Ohio's 6th District Topic: Pushing for Trump to use executive power to block hospitals from denying organ transplants for those unvaccinated against COVID 2:04:43- 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: Judge rules against Trump's firing of head of special counsel 2:14:01- Larry Elder, host of "The Larry Elder Show" on the Salem Radio Network, author of "As Goes California: My Mission to Rescue the Golden State and Save the Nation" and the host of the "We’ve Got A Country to Save" podcast Topic: Alaska cruise, other news of the daySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Section 1983 claim brought in state court require the plaintiffs to first exhaust state administrative remedies?The case was decided on February 21, 2025.The Supreme Court held that where a state court's application of a state exhaustion requirement in effect immunizes state officials from 42 U-S-C §1983 claims challenging delays in the administrative process, state courts may not deny those claims on failure-to-exhaust grounds. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the opinion of the Court on behalf of the 5-4 majority holding that Alabama may not enforce an administrative-exhaustion rule.When a state law or rule functionally immunizes government officials from suits under § 1983, that law is preempted and unenforceable. Section 1983 ensures that individuals can seek a federal remedy for violations of their constitutional rights. Alabama's exhaustion requirement, applied to delays in benefits processing, creates a procedural barrier that prevents claimants from ever challenging those delays under §1983. This precedent follows decisions in Haywood v Drown and Howlett v Rose, which held that states cannot erect procedural obstacles that effectively nullify federally guaranteed rights. The Alabama Supreme Court's ruling in this case violated that principle by conditioning § 1983 suits on completing the very process claimants sought to challenge for unreasonable delay.Characterizing Alabama's rule as “jurisdictional” does not change this result. A state cannot use jurisdictional labels to avoid compliance with federal law, especially when the rule in question operates as an immunity provision. Nor does the potential availability of mandamus relief in Alabama courts justify the exhaustion rule, as requiring claimants to complete state-mandated processes before suing simply reinstates the same barrier. Because Alabama's exhaustion rule functionally immunizes officials from § 1983 suits regarding administrative delays, it is preempted, and the judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court is reversed.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett joined in part.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 Passing Judgment, we explore the Supreme Court's decision to abstain from ruling on a Trump emergency appeal about firing Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel. Jessica Levinson and Katie Buehler, Law360's Supreme Court reporter, analyze the nuances of presidential power and the debate over the constitutionality of restricting executive authority. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Supreme Court Decision on Trump Emergency Appeal: The episode discusses the Supreme Court's recent decision not to review an emergency appeal concerning the firing of Hampton Dellinger from his position as the head of the Office of Special Counsel. The court allowed the temporary restraining order, which pauses the firing, to run its course and expire. Legal Arguments and Statute Constitutionality: The legal argument centers on whether President Trump had to provide a reason for Dellinger's firing, as required by federal law. Trump's administration argues that the statute requiring a reason is unconstitutional and that the president should have the power to fire at will. This theme explores the larger question of presidential authority and statutory constraints.Significant Supreme Court Cases: Katie Buehler highlights other significant Supreme Court cases beyond the Trump-related decision, including a case involving the Federal Communications Commission's authority and executive power, as well as cases on religious rights such as opting-out of LGBTQ-related education and funding for religious charter schools. Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica@bykatiebuehler

The first case about Trump's abuse of power has reached the Supreme Court and it's a loss for Trump, for now. michael popok explains why the Supreme Court kept the head of the office of special counsel in his chair until next week's trial court hearing, and what the strong dissents by Gorsuch and Alito mean for future cases to limit Trump's corrupt abuse of power. Dose: Save 30% on your first month of subscription by going to https://dosedaily.co/LEGALAF or entering LEGALAF at checkout. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Inez Stepman of the Independent Women's Forum fills in for Jim on the 3 Martini Lunch podcast. Join Inez and Greg as they discuss Sen. Mitch McConnell announcing he won't run again, the latest unspeakable atrocities committed by Hamas, and how federal agencies are making DOGE-related budget cuts painful for the public.First, they analyze Mitch McConnell's decision to retire after 42 years in the Senate and 18 years as GOP leader, and they assess his performance. They credit McConnell for defending free speech, blocking left-wing policies, and confirming conservative judicial nominees. However, they criticize his failure to address federal spending and his lack of progress on conservative priorities during Republican control of the Senate.Next, Inez and Greg express their outrage over the latest atrocities perpetrated by Hamas, including a gruesome ceremony involving the return of hostages' remains and reports detailing how the two young brothers who were brutally murdered. In addition,  the remains of their mother, Shiri Bibas, were excluded from the return to Israel. With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowing reprisals, Inez and Greg reflect on the critical details of the Bibas family's abduction and the role of the Red Cross in facilitating the spectacle we saw this week.Inez and Greg discuss government-run sites making DOGE-related budget cuts as painful as possible for visitors. They highlight three instances of "malicious compliance" and recall past government shutdown tactics used by Democrats to needlessly inconvenience the public. 

00:43- SNL50 53:45- John Solomon, award-winning investigative journalist, founder of "Just The News," and the host of “Just the News, No Noise” on the Real America’s Voice network Topic: Social Security Commissioner's resignation over DOGE requests to access recipient data, IRS audit of Pete Hegseth, other news of the day 1:02:09- Daniel Elwell, Former FAA Deputy Administrator who served as Acting Administrator from 2018 to 2019 Topic: Delta flight crash in Canada 1:11:33- K.T. McFarland, Former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor and the author of "Revolution: Trump, Washington and 'We The People'” Topic: Russia-Ukraine peace talks 1:21:55- Simon Hankinson, senior research fellow in the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation Topic: "DOGE discovers the Biden-Mayorkas illegal migration funding machine" (Fox News op ed) 1:29:23- Councilman Robert Holden, Democratic City Councilman from Queens Topic: Resignation of four NYC Deputy Mayors 1:43:46- Gordon Chang, Asia expert, columnist and author of "Plan Red: China's Project to Destroy America" Topic: Protecting America's data from China 1:57:23- 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: "Trump DOJ brings down 'Sovereign' District of New York" (Fox News op ed)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What hath Individual Liberty to do with proper and correct, univocal definitions of terms ? For Part 4 of this deep dive where we will go through the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984) Roman Numerals III through V. Recall, this decision reversed the Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. This in turn sets us up for Part 3, where we'll look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. This could be called Gorsuch v. Gorsuch, like Kramer v. Kramer but son v. Mother instead of spouses. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Truth Be Told with Booker Scott – A federal investigation is underway into Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer over threatening remarks directed at Supreme Court Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch after the Dobbs decision. US Attorney Ed Martin demands clarification. Plus, Lt. Col. Darin Gaub provides expert analysis on the tragic 5432 plane crash. Fox News Contributor Matt Palumbo joins for exclusive insights.

It's been a whirlwind few days for Donald Trump, the first criminal president in U.S. history. On January 20, Trump returned to office despite being convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in a New York trial court. The case stems from his efforts to illegally influence the 2016 presidential election by hiding reimbursements made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.The trial court granted Trump an "unconditional discharge," meaning he won't face imprisonment, probation, or a fine. However, the conviction remains on his record, making him the first and only criminal elected to the presidency. Trump's legal team has been working to overturn the conviction, pointing to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States, which could potentially lead to the reversal of his New York conviction.In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court established a new constitutional rule that evidence related to a president's "official acts" cannot be admitted in subsequent criminal cases unless prosecutors clear a high legal threshold. Trump's team argues that the trial court failed to follow this new framework, which could render the conviction invalid.Before his sentencing, Trump asked the Supreme Court to intervene and block the proceedings, claiming that the charges were politically motivated and that he was entitled to presidential immunity. However, New York prosecutors urged the justices to allow the sentencing to go ahead as scheduled, emphasizing that Trump's conviction rests on conduct for which he is not entitled to immunity.The prosecutors argued that Trump can attend the sentencing hearing by video to minimize any burden and that he can appeal after being sentenced. They also dismissed Trump's suggestion that he cannot be sentenced because he is the president-elect, stating that no judicial decision or guidance from the Department of Justice has ever recognized that the unique temporary immunity of the sitting president extends to the president-elect.Despite Trump's efforts to have the Supreme Court intervene, the justices declined his request. However, four conservative justices – Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas – publicly noted their disagreement with this decision, signaling that they may be ready to take up the issue of Trump's conviction sooner rather than later.As the case heads to the New York Court of Appeals, Trump's legal team is likely to continue arguing that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States requires the conviction to be erased. The Supreme Court's eventual involvement seems inevitable, and the outcome could have significant implications for Trump's presidency and the institution of the presidency as a whole.

Originally aired on January 28, 2018. Jason Riley, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of Please Stop Helping Us, joins us to discuss how liberals make it harder for blacks to succeed. In CrossPolitic news we also discuss Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing and why Christians might be more political cowards than shrewd cultural warriors.

Originally aired on January 28, 2018. Jason Riley, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of Please Stop Helping Us, joins us to discuss how liberals make it harder for blacks to succeed. In CrossPolitic news we also discuss Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing and why Christians might be more political cowards than shrewd cultural warriors.

Are you ready to get your Separation of Powers on ? For Part 3 of this deep dive where we will go through the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984) Roman Numerals III through V. Recall, this decision reversed the Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. This in turn sets us up for Part 3, where we'll look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. This could be called Gorsuch v. Gorsuch, like Kramer v. Kramer but son v. Mother instead of spouses. Epiphany 2025 Luke, for TRP Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor

Full episode transcript HERE.  The first awful week ends with March for Madness – IT'S HEAVY ON THE MADNESS! Your Feminist Buzzkils are out here using facts and belly laughs to break down the early returns of how the anti-abobo gorgons will fuck with our rights. Let's snap you out of your facism fatigue, stat! Every one of you is an abobo warrior, and we salute you (in a very normal human way). Trump's first week ended with the anti-abortion mayhem known as the March for Life, AKA Unbornaroo. For 52 years they have taken over the Capital for their annual patriarchal parade of fetus worship and ovarian oppression. BUT, as always, we've got the play by play! We're bringing y'all: their lies and their plans on where they will prioritize creating policy to further destroy access to abortion care. AND, joining us is Constitutional law scholar Dr. Michele Goodwin to explain the devastating blows we can expect from their shenanigans. From plans to reinstate the Global Gag rule to how Christian legal firms have spent DECADES turning the courts into dogma distribution centers, one judge at a time.  All this, PLUS, the latest on the anti-abortion “terrorists” Trump pardoned this week and all of the abobo-related news you need to know. Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu.  OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to our OpSave pod series and Mifepristone Panel by clicking  HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead IG: @LizzWinstead Bluesky: @LizzWinstead.bsky.socialMoji Alawode-El IG: @Mojilocks Bluesky: @Mojilocks.bsky.social SPECIAL GUEST:Dr. Michele Goodwin IG/X: @MicheleBGoodwin Bluesky: @MicheleBGoodwin.bsky.social GUEST LINKS:Dr. Michele Goodwin Website“On the Issues with Michele Goodwin” Podcast “Policing the Womb” by Michele Goodwin NEWS DUMP:Lawsuit Alleges Vermont Tracks Pregnant Women Deemed Unsuitable for ParenthoodMississippi Politician Files ‘Contraception Begins at Erection Act'Instagram Censors and Blurs Aid Access PostsGovernment Website Offering Reproductive Health Information Goes OfflineWhat Is the Global Gag Rule?What Leaving the Who Means for the US And the WorldDefending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal GovernmentSenate Dems Block ‘Deliberately Misleading' GOP Bill Attacking Reproductive Care EPISODE LINKS:Hypocrites Unmasked WebsiteExpose Fake Clinics1/27 WEBINAR: Gender Liberation Movement Mass CallADOPT-A-CLINIC WISHLIST: Joan G Lovering Health CenterSTREAM: No One Asked You on JoltOperation Save AbortionSIGN: Repeal the Comstock ActEMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK PodcastInstagram ~ @AbortionFrontBluesky ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFrontTALK TO THE CHARLEY BOT FOR ABOBO OPTIONS & RESOURCES HERE!PATREON HERE! Support our work, get exclusive merch and more! DONATE TO AAF HERE!ACTIVIST CALENDAR HERE!VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE!ADOPT-A-CLINIC HERE!EXPOSE FAKE CLINICS HERE!GET ABOBO PILLS FROM PLAN C PILLS HERE!When BS is poppin', we pop off!

Are you ready to get your Separation of Powers on ? For Part 2 of this deep dive where we will go through the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984), which reversed the Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. This in turn sets us up for Part 3, where we'll look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. This could be called Gorsuch v. Gorsuch, like Kramer v. Kramer but son v. Mother instead of spouses. Epiphany 2025 Luke, for TRP Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor

48:44- Daniel Hoffman, Ret. CIA Senior Clandestine Services Officer and a Fox News ContributorTopic: Israel hostages, support for John Ratcliffe57:51- Chistopher Macchio, international classical-crossover vocalistTopic: His performance at the inauguration1:06:57- Stephen Moore, "Joe Piscopo Show" Resident Scholar of Economics, Chairman of FreedomWorks Task Force on Economic Revival, former Trump economic adviser and the author of "The Trump Economic Miracle: And the Plan to Unleash Prosperity Again"Topic: Stargate project1:21:22- Mike Gallagher, radio talk show host heard weekday mornings at 10 a.m. on AM 970 The AnswerTopic: Trump's first days in office1:55:29- 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 JudiciaryTopic: DOGE lawsuits, Biden and Trump pardons 2:05:12- Michael Goodwin, Chief Political Columnist for the New York PostTopic: "Joe Biden’s corrupt last act as president proved his family hustle always superseded the truth, the law and the country" (New York Post op ed)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

50:43- Lt. Col. Chuck DeVore (Ret.), Chief National Initiatives Officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation who served as a Republican member of the California State Assembly from 2004 to 2010Topic: "Government mismanagement, not climate change, is to blame for California's destructive wildfires" (Fox News op ed) 1:00:57- Hans von Spakovsky, Manager of the Heritage Foundation's Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies Topic: SCOTUS denies Trump's request to stop his sentencing taking place today 1:08:44- Liz Peek, Fox News contributor, columnist for Fox News and The Hill, and former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company Topic: "Biden keeps insulting Americans with last minute moves. Republicans can stop it" (Fox News op ed)1:25:34- Councilman Joe Borelli, Minority Leader of the New York City Council & the author of "Staten Island in the Nineteenth Century: From Boomtown to Forgotten Borough"Topic: Mayor Adams' State of the City address, congestion tax1:35:52- Dr. Steve Turley, internationally recognized scholar, speaker, and author of "Fight!: How Trump and the MAGA Movement are Changing the World"Topic: How Jimmy Carter's Presidency led to MAGA, how the fires in California will turn it into a red state1:46:29- Larry Elder, host of "The Larry Elder Show" on the Salem Radio Network, author of "As Goes California: My Mission to Rescue the Golden State and Save the Nation" and the host of the "We’ve Got A Country to Save" podcastTopic: California wildfires2:00:52- 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 JudiciaryTopic: SCOTUS denies request to stop Trump sentencing today2:10:43- Scott LoBaido, Patriot artist and activistTopic: Arrest over congestion pricing protestSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.