Podcast appearances and mentions of Justice Thomas

Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist and Fox News Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court Trump vs. the Media Mollie Hemingway’s Federalist ArticlesThe post Supreme Court Justice Thomas Alito – Mollie Hemingway, 6/12/26 (1632) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia DecidedOn this day in 1967, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia striking down Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and, with it, the anti-miscegenation statutes that sixteen states still had on the books. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the Court. The case had come up from a county courthouse in Caroline County, Virginia, where Richard Loving, a white bricklayer, and Mildred Jeter, a Black and Native American woman, had been arrested in their bedroom in the middle of the night in 1958 by a sheriff acting on an anonymous tip — they had been married in the District of Columbia and returned home to Virginia, where their marriage was a felony. The Lovings pleaded guilty, accepted suspended sentences on the condition that they leave the state for twenty-five years, and lived in exile in Washington until Mildred wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy that landed eventually with the ACLU, which took the case.The Supreme Court's opinion did two things at once. It held that Virginia's statute violated the Equal Protection Clause because it drew an explicit racial classification with no legitimate state purpose beyond preserving “White Supremacy” — the Court used the phrase the Virginia statute itself had used — and it held that the statute violated the Due Process Clause because the freedom to marry is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” That second holding, the marriage-as-fundamental-right strand, is the through-line that runs from Loving to Zablocki v. Redhail in 1978, to Turner v. Safley in 1987, to Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 — every one of those decisions cites Loving and treats it as the foundational case. Whether the Court's substantive due process marriage doctrine survives the next decade is, as we discussed earlier this week, one of the open questions in American constitutional law. But Loving itself remains intact, and on June 12, 1967, the Court said something it had not said cleanly before: that the right to marry is the kind of liberty interest the Constitution actually protects.The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the Second Circuit in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd., holding 6-3 that the Investment Company Act of 1940 does not give private parties a cause of action to seek rescission of fund bylaws or other contractual terms. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority. The dispute came out of a campaign by Boaz Weinstein's Saba Capital against eleven closed-end funds — funds that, under Maryland's Control Share Acquisition Act, had adopted bylaws limiting the voting power of any shareholder who accumulated a disproportionate stake without the consent of other shareholders. Saba sued under Section 47(b) of the ICA, which makes contracts that violate the Act unenforceable, and the Second Circuit held that Section 47(b) implied a private right to rescind the bylaws.The Court told the Second Circuit to look harder at the modern implied-cause-of-action doctrine, which since Alexander v. Sandoval in 2001 has been hostile to inferring private rights of action that Congress did not write into the statute. The opinion reads as a continuation of that line: the ICA's enforcement structure is committed to the SEC, not to private plaintiffs, and Section 47(b) is a defense against contracts the SEC has already determined to be unlawful, not an offensive cause of action. The dissent, by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that this is a misreading of Section 47(b)'s text and that the majority is gratuitously narrowing the enforcement of the federal securities laws. The practical impact is significant. Activist investors who had been pushing closed-end funds to convert to open-end form, or to alter investment strategies, lose a federal-court tool they had been using; the funds themselves and their independent directors gain a meaningful structural defense. Expect the next round of activist campaigns to move to state-court fiduciary-duty theories instead.US Supreme Court rules against private suits brought under key securities law | US NewsThe Court on Thursday also decided Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., vacating the Fifth Circuit 9-0 in an opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The case is small in its facts and large in its doctrine. Thomas Keathley filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2019 and failed to disclose, on his schedule of assets, a personal-injury claim he later brought against a construction company over a truck accident. The Fifth Circuit barred the personal-injury suit on judicial-estoppel grounds — the longstanding equitable doctrine that prevents a party from taking one position in one proceeding and a contradictory position in another — using a three-factor test under which a debtor's mere knowledge of the facts plus a motive to conceal was enough to bar the later claim.The Supreme Court said no.To determine whether the omission was inadvertent or mistaken for judicial-estoppel purposes, the Court held, the lower courts must look to the totality of the circumstances, not just to whether the debtor knew of the facts and had a motive. The doctrinal interest of the case lies in two concurrences. Justice Sotomayor, concurring, wrote that judicial estoppel should likely never apply in an open bankruptcy case at all — the trustee can simply amend the schedule and pursue the claim for the estate, which solves the problem judicial estoppel was invented to address. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, went further and questioned whether federal courts have any inherent authority to apply judicial estoppel as a freestanding doctrine, period — a position that, if it ever gets five votes, would unwind a doctrine that has been part of American practice since the 1850s. None of that is the holding. But the votes to revisit one of the duller corners of equitable estoppel are now visibly on the table.Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. | SCOTUSblogThe third unanimous decision of the day was Abouammo v. United States, in which the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and vacated the obstruction-of-an-FBI-investigation conviction of Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee whose underlying case was one of the more striking Saudi-Arabia infiltration prosecutions of the last decade. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion. The facts are simple and the constitutional point cleaner than the facts. Abouammo, while working at Twitter's San Francisco office in 2014 and 2015, accessed and passed on confidential user information about Saudi dissidents to a Saudi official, in exchange for a $42,000 watch and $200,000 in wire transfers. The FBI eventually came to interview him at his home in Seattle, where he had moved by 2018, and during those interviews he created and emailed agents a fake invoice intended to make the wire transfers look like a legitimate consulting fee. The Justice Department charged the obstruction count along with foreign-agent and wire-fraud counts in the Northern District of California, and a San Francisco jury convicted him on all of them.The Supreme Court held that the obstruction count belonged in the Western District of Washington, not California, because the act of creating and sending the false invoice — the only act that supported the obstruction charge — happened entirely in Seattle. Article III's venue clause and the Sixth Amendment's vicinage requirement together do not let the government try a defendant in a state where no element of the charged offense occurred, no matter how convenient the prosecution. The obstruction conviction is vacated. The foreign-agent and wire-fraud convictions, which had different venue facts and were not before the Court, stand. Abouammo will not walk free. But the prosecution will need to decide whether to retry the obstruction count in Seattle, and the case is now a clean precedent that the venue clause has real teeth in a multi-district federal investigation.US Supreme Court overturns ex-Twitter employee's obstruction conviction in Saudi spy case | US News 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

After puzzling over an interesting follow-up question about Pitchford v. Cain, we unpack a summary vacatur in Whitton v. Dixon. We then spend a while breaking down the latest developments in Allen v. Milligan line, in which we discuss the future of the Purcell principle and whether the Court should be unusually attentive to public appearances in election cases. We finish with Sripetch v. Jarkesy, where the Court rejects a requirement that the SEC prove victims suffered pecuniary loss before seeking disgorgement, with specific attention to the interesting Seventh Amendment question raised in Justice Thomas's concurrence.Key Topics[00:03:23] - Listener question on Pitchford v. Cain, AEDPA, and procedural default[00:08:12] - Whitten v. Dixon: summary vacatur in a capital case and harmless-error review[00:12:44] - Justice Thomas's dissent and the critique of selective error correction[00:22:46] - Allen v. Milligan / Alabama redistricting and the stay of the lower court injunction[00:27:24] - The Court's restatement of Milligan and discussion of “colorblind constitution” language[00:32:30] - Purcell, election timing, and whether the doctrine is really about federal court intervention[00:41:20] - Merits and legitimacy concerns in election-law cases[00:53:27] - SEC v. Sripetch and the disgorgement remedy[00:58:42] - Justice Thomas's concurrence on disgorgement, equity, and the Seventh Amendment[01:03:36] - Broader implications for administrative law and jury-trial rights

This Day in Legal History: Congress Repeals the Gold ClauseOn this day in 1933, Congress passed the Joint Resolution that voided the gold clauses written into nearly every long-term contract and bond obligation in the United States, both public and private. The resolution declared that any provision purporting to require payment “in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency” was “against public policy,” and that obligations could be discharged dollar for dollar in whatever legal tender currency was in force at the time of payment. It was a remarkable act of legislative power: a one-paragraph statute that rewrote the payment terms of millions of existing contracts overnight, in the middle of the Great Depression, to make Franklin Roosevelt's recent abandonment of the gold standard actually stick. The Supreme Court took up the inevitable challenge two years later in the Gold Clause Cases — Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio, Nortz v. United States, and Perry v. United States — and in February 1935 it upheld the resolution as applied to private contracts by a 5-4 vote, while telling the United States, in Perry, that it had violated its own contractual word in repudiating gold-payment promises on government bonds, but that the bondholder had suffered no compensable injury. The doctrinal residue of that compromise is still with us: Congress can use its monetary powers to alter private contract terms retroactively when monetary policy requires it, the rule that has quietly underwritten every major monetary intervention since, from Bretton Woods to the post-2008 emergency lending programs. June 5 is not a day most lawyers mark on the calendar, but the resolution Congress passed on this date is one of the cleanest examples in American law of a legislature using its enumerated powers to dissolve a contract term that had been considered, until that moment, untouchable.The Supreme Court on Thursday handed Hikma Pharmaceuticals — and the entire generic drug industry — a 9-0 win in a case that had been hanging over the so-called “skinny label” pathway for years. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for a unanimous Court in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., held that Amarin, the maker of the brand-name fish-oil drug Vascepa, had not plausibly alleged that Hikma actively induced infringement of Amarin's patents covering a still-patented cardiovascular use of the drug. The skinny label is a feature of Hatch-Waxman generic-drug law that lets a generic manufacturer copy only the unpatented uses of a brand drug by literally carving the patented uses out of its FDA-approved label, which is supposed to let cheaper generics reach the market for the unpatented indications even while patents on other indications are still in force. Brand companies have been trying for years to sue around that carve-out under the active inducement statute, 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by pointing to generic press releases, marketing language, or website descriptions and arguing that doctors could read those statements as encouragement to prescribe the generic for the still-patented use. The Federal Circuit had bought a version of that argument and revived Amarin's case. The Supreme Court rejected that approach, and the test that Justice Jackson articulated is meaningful: the question is not how doctors might interpret what a generic manufacturer said, but whether the manufacturer itself actively encouraged the infringing use. Neutral statements that could be read as instructions to infringe do not count. The practical effect is to shore up the skinny label pathway and make it harder for brand companies to weaponize induced infringement against generic competition. The decision was originally framed as a pharmaceutical-industry case, but its inducement standard will reach across patent law generally and into every industry where § 271(b) gets litigated.It's unanimous: SCOTUS agrees with Hikma in ‘skinny label' case vs. Amarin | Fierce PharmaAlso unanimous on Thursday: the Supreme Court in Sripetch v. SEC held that the Securities and Exchange Commission can obtain disgorgement of a wrongdoer's ill-gotten gains without having to prove that any individual investor lost money. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for a 9-0 Court, which is itself a small surprise given the Court's recent pattern of skepticism toward broad SEC remedial powers. The case came out of a penny-stock pump-and-dump scheme that Ongkaruck Sripetch ran across some 20 small companies — buy shares quietly, promote them aggressively, sell into the bubble — and the SEC won an order requiring him to disgorge roughly $3 million. Sripetch's argument on appeal was that disgorgement is supposed to be tied to investor harm, that the SEC had not shown specific pecuniary losses traceable to him, and that the order was therefore not the kind of equitable relief the Court approved in its 2020 Liu v. SEC decision. The Court disagreed, on traditional equity principles: disgorgement, the Court explained, is measured by the defendant's unjust gain, not the plaintiff's quantified loss, and equity has always been willing to strip a wrongdoer of profit even when the victim cannot mathematically prove harm. The practical importance for the SEC is enormous — the agency reports collecting roughly $1.4 billion in disgorgement in fiscal 2025 alone, and a contrary ruling would have forced the SEC into an evidentiary burden that pump-and-dump and insider-trading cases are notoriously bad at supplying. The opinion is also a reminder that the Court's recent administrative-state skepticism is not all in one direction: when the question is grounded in old equity doctrine, the same justices who narrowed SEC adjudication in Jarkesy are willing to leave the agency's remedial toolkit intact.US Supreme Court Backs SEC in Fight Over ‘Disgorgement' Power | US NewsThe third and most constitutionally significant of Thursday's rulings was FCC v. AT&T, in which the Supreme Court upheld 8-1 the Federal Communications Commission's longstanding practice of imposing forfeiture penalties on regulated carriers through its own in-house process, without first giving the carrier a jury trial. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority, with Justice Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter. The case grew out of the FCC's headline-making fines against AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint for selling access to real-time customer location data to third parties without consent — fines that ran nearly $200 million across the four carriers, with AT&T's portion at $57 million and Verizon's at $46.9 million. The carriers challenged the fines on Seventh Amendment grounds, arguing that the Court's 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy — which struck down the SEC's in-house adjudication of securities-fraud penalties as a violation of the jury-trial right — should reach FCC forfeitures too. The Court said no, on a structural distinction that matters: an FCC forfeiture order is not self-executing. The FCC cannot collect on its own. If a carrier refuses to pay, the matter is referred to the Justice Department, which then has to file a civil action in federal district court — a proceeding in which the carrier is entitled to a full jury trial and the government has to prove the violation de novo, with no deference to the FCC's findings. That collection-stage jury trial, Roberts wrote, is enough to satisfy the Seventh Amendment, even though the agency itself first issues the penalty. Justice Thomas's dissent argued the in-house process is no less coercive than the SEC adjudication the Court rejected in Jarkesy and would have extended Jarkesy here. The practical takeaway: agency in-house penalty proceedings survive after Jarkesy if there is a real, downstream jury-trial backstop. Expect every regulator with a similar two-step enforcement structure to point to this opinion the next time someone tries to push Jarkesy further.Court rules against cell service providers over right to jury trial in FCC proceedings | SCOTUSblog 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

Justice Thomas stated that the Comstock Act bans using the mail to ship any “drug…for producing abortion.” Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

Episode 291-Drop Your Socks and Grab Your Glocks Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 14 Gun Lawyer — Episode 291 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun rights, Second Amendment, gerrymandering, New Jersey, federal law, AK-47, AR-15, gun laws, Supreme Court, carry permit, gun dealers, political power, racial discrimination, gun ownership, legal battles. SPEAKERS Speaker 1, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 3, Evan Nappen Speaker 1 00:11 Lawyer, Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, Teddy, what’s on your mind today? Teddy Nappen 00:27 Well, I never realized the guy that wrote the Zombie Survival Guide, Max Brooks, was related to Mel Brooks. I thought it was a common name. Evan Nappen 00:38 What? How is he related to Mel Brooks? Teddy Nappen 00:40 It’s his son, so. Evan Nappen 00:42 Oh, my G-d! Is he gonna make a movie, you know, Young Zombie or something? Teddy Nappen 00:44 Yeah, no, Young Zombie. Evan Nappen 00:46 Or a zombie movie with lots of farts? Page – 2 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 00:52 No. Evan Nappen 00:53 Blazing Zombies, Blazing Zombies. Teddy Nappen 00:55 Yeah! Blazing Zombies, that’s it, kind of like what was it, Abraham Lincoln and the Vampire Abraham Lincoln. Evan Nappen 01:02 Right. I think Blazing Zombies would probably be very popular. Teddy Nappen 01:06 Yeah, I know, right. Let’s see them try to reboot Blazing Saddles. Good luck with that. Evan Nappen 01:12 Well, they could do Blazing. Yeah, but if they did Blazing Zombies, they would never be able to say certain words that they used in Blazing Saddles. Teddy Nappen 01:23 Yeah, like calling the zombies a bunch of leg draggers. Evan Nappen 01:26 Ha, ha, ha, ha. Actually, we’re kind of dealing with a zombie apocalypse with the Democrat party lately. I think they are a bunch of, you know. They don’t have brains. They just try to eat brains. Teddy Nappen 01:48 Yeah. And unfortunately, they keep coming up with new ideas to screw us out of our rights. Evan Nappen 01:55 Right! That’s it. That’s what they do. They send the horde out to eat our rights. They do the horde, and they just try to get everybody on board to sacrifice for their pure unadulterated political power. Like trying to get college athletes to boycott their entire athletic career, over, for example, they’re flipping out over the ending of racial gerrymandering. I mean, it’s kind of unbelievable when you watch them talk about this being, you know, Jim Crow II, when all that is being done is ending racial discrimination, with setting up voting districts. Somehow ending racial discrimination is Jim Crow. Only a Democrat with zombie brains could ever make that argument with a straight face. Teddy Nappen 02:59 Well, it’s also very funny because, if you cut to all of New England, where the breakdown is roughly like 40 to 50% Republican, and there’s no representation for that. And so, they, and it’s all the states are heavily, heavily gerrymandered, like zero representation for Republicans, but oh, that’s fine. It’s only Page – 3 – of 14 when the Republicans say, you know what? You’ve established the rules of engagement, and we will oblige. That’s just how the game is played. Evan Nappen 03:29 Now, you would think that the Democrats would have expert knowledge on Jim Crow, because they’re the ones that started it. The original Jim Crow laws were done by Democrats after the Civil War. And, of course, who opposed the Civil Rights Act? The Democrats. They were the originals. And then for them to get up now and claim how much they want to oppose what they are perceiving as Jim Crow laws are kind of rich. And, of course, it isn’t. It is the actual elimination of the racial discrimination that is in place by way of their gerrymandering, and this is very important to our gun rights, Teddy. Very important to our gun rights. As voting is turned around, so that it actually reflects the voters, as opposed to these bizarre jurisdictions engineered for Democrats just to maintain power, we will see more and more advances in the fight for our gun rights. It is the other side there that constantly is trying to take away our Second Amendment rights. Teddy Nappen 04:52 What always makes me laugh, though, is they always try to say the party switched. They always make that argument. By the way, it’s a completely disproven argument. Like, okay, what time period? Was it under Senator (Robert) Byrd, who was a, what was it? The Grand Wizard? Evan Nappen 05:07 The Grand Wizard of the KKK. Teddy Nappen 05:10 Which, by the way, he was a mentor to Joe Biden throughout his political career. But no one talks about that. Or when Joe Biden, what did Joe Biden say on the stage? Evan Nappen 05:21 Oh, don’t even. Teddy Nappen 05:21 Yeah, exactly, yeah, yeah. Evan Nappen 05:25 party, Evan Nappen 05:25 The party hasn’t switched. They’re just trying to build a bigger fence with a plantation. They are the ones trying to run a plantation, and that’s what gerrymandering, prior to this Calais Supreme Court case, that’s what it was really about. How does the Democrat maintain their plantations of voter districts, to maintain their power? Page – 4 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 05:50 Yeah, exactly. They put up the creation that Johnson, what was it? We’re going to get these guys voting Democrat for the rest of their lives. They created the giant welfare state. Evan Nappen 06:01 Yeah. And by the way, he didn’t even call them “these guys”. Teddy Nappen 06:05 I know I was trying to, I was paraphrasing. Evan Nappen 06:11 Describing them. Yeah, just their hypocrisy definitely knows no bounds, and this time period now is somewhat encouraging, because a lot of everything that they’ve built on, including taking our gun rights, it’s collapsing all around them. It’s very encouraging to see that. You just saw the primaries go here. Trump with what 34 zero or whatever on his picks, and that helps get us further with the expansion of our Second Amendment rights. This is all a part. Because part of MAGA is the rebirth of the power of the Second Amendment, that is a part of MAGA, guys. You’ve got to know that, and you can see it. We are now in a completely different world than in the Biden era. I mean, Biden was essentially engaging in a clamp down, a clamp down on our rights in every way that he could abuse federal power to do so. And we’re seeing incredible changes in the other direction now. Teddy Nappen 07:29 I’ll give you the highlight of that. We dealt with this, where it was weaponization. They were going after dealers for the most minuscule things with a zero tolerance. And now that’s been eliminated, and it has been helping. Of course, New Jersey picks up the mantle from their new AG. Now they’re going after FFL dealers and demanding records detailing the sales of Glocks, which I could have sworn they already knew about the sales, because every time you purchase. Evan Nappen 08:01 Yeah, this is what is such crap about these subpoenas to all the dealers to turn over their records of the last decade for every Glock sold. New Jersey has a pistol purchase permit system, which is a form of register. So, the State Police already have the computerized registered database of every purchase of a Glock since the computerization of the pistol permit system, which completely covers the decade that they’re requesting. In other words, the only reason for this subpoena is essentially, in my opinion, to harass dealers because the information itself is already at their fingertips. Now, the bigger legal question is, is that something legally they’re allowed to access because New Jersey has Administrative Code provisions that mandate confidentiality on all gun records of purchase acquisition. All that kind of stuff is protected by that confidentiality. So, maybe they themselves thought that trying to just get dealer records, maybe could do an end run over their own Administrative Code, preventing the release of this information. Although there is a provision in the Code that says for law enforcement purposes it can be accessed. But this is a lawsuit, not law enforcement purposes. So, it really is interesting the approach they’re taking. If they’re righteous in the law, in being able to access this data, then they can access it through the database in the appropriate legal manner, if they are qualified. And if not, why are they subpoenaing dealers to turn over information that is already in the possession of the State of New Page – 5 – of 14 Jersey? And these application forms, et cetera, are protected by way of their own Administrative Code provisions, setting out confidentiality. Teddy Nappen 10:20 So, Teddy Nappen 10:21 Yeah, I will say what’s really messed up is I love the AG’s response. So, this was actually from 2A News Team. They asked these questions and the AG responded. Oh no, no. These requests are not seeking information about individual purchasers or any person’s identifying information about their purchases. However, the subpoena says that exact wording. Evan Nappen 10:50 Right. Teddy Nappen 10:51 Documents show sufficient sale or transfer of Glock handguns from you to New Jersey customers. Literally, it’s the first line in the subpoena. Evan Nappen 11:03 Right. And the thing about Glocks. Look, if you own a Glock, you know you better hold on to it. This is the new tactic of the anti-Second Amendment rights movement. To try to ban and restrict Glocks because of a claim that they can be relatively easily converted to fully automatic using what’s called a Glock switch. But mere possession of a Glock switch under federal law is considered a machine gun in and of itself, and these switches are banned in New Jersey as well. The component is already illegal. So, trying to link Glocks to them so that they can further take away one of the most popular self-defense handguns in the world. This is their gambit. This is their gambit now to try to do that. Teddy Nappen 12:10 So, it was also interesting, is pull it was from the article. Out of the 15 FFLs that they subpoenaed, they were roughly, there was 15 of those FFLs were out of the total authorized Glock dealers. So, I’m trying to think the strategy of it. If they’re trying, if these were just the 15, were kind of like where they went after those two gun dealers and forced them to basically have to essentially declare and register every purchase or gun-related material. Are they just going for the small fish to then go after the whole? Kind of like a staff? Teddy Nappen 12:46 Out of curiosity. Could there be a constitutional challenge because there’s a federal firearms license? Could you either make the Supremacy Clause argument or just going with the idea of there shouldn’t be a state license, too? Evan Nappen 12:46 Okay. At a minimum, it’s designed to harass gun dealers. I mean, New Jersey is dedicated to that principle, given the excesses that they go to regarding being a New Jersey retail firearm dealer. I mean Page – 6 – of 14 having an FFL, that’s a federal firearm license. New Jersey also requires for a dealer to have a New Jersey retail dealer firearms license, and the retail dealer firearms license is what is managed by the state of New Jersey. And that’s where you see an incredibly excessive and additional amount of requirements, far beyond what federal law requires, designed to be a legal discouragement to being a dealer. Also, it’s been used in the past as a pretext to raid individuals that had FFLs but did not have a NJ retail dealer license. I’ve had cases on this where individuals that had a federal firearms license for Curio and Relic, collector licenses, the state alleged they were federal firearm licensees and acting as dealers, which they were not. They are collectors. And because they alleged they had a federal license, they needed a New Jersey firearm retail dealer license. They proceeded to conduct raids on the individuals that held Curio and Relic licenses. So, this is one of the risks out there. They were able to purge and merge the federal list to the state list of New Jersey retailers. Evan Nappen 14:31 Well, the problem is that the federal firearm law is expressly not preemptive. It’s designed to be the absolute minimum gun control harassment that exists throughout the entire country. And then states are invited to, you know, this was the philosophy, invited to go wild. So, you have the baseline of the federal law, which has many constitutional questions about it itself, expressly not being preemptive, and the states are left to their own devices to create whatever stricter and stricter and more harassing and more discouraging gun laws that they want to pass. And as long as those laws are somehow upheld constitutionally, they can keep on going. There is no cap. There’s no cap placed on the attack on our rights. It should exist, but doesn’t, except in a few very narrow areas where there is express preemption. Evan Nappen 16:22 One of those places where there is express preemption is Title 18 926 A for interstate transport of your guns. You can transport your guns cased, unloaded, locked, not readily accessible, etc., so that you can go through bad states in your travels. There’s areas of preemption, specifically for carry, like LEOSA, Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, where retired and active law enforcement can carry, regardless of the state law that might otherwise try to prevent them from doing so. There’s actually preemption for carry. It was the original carry preemption, which a lot of people don’t know was for armored car security. Armored car personnel was actually the first federal carry preemption. And then today we’re pushing to try to get national reciprocity, which is in effect national preemption, mandating that every state recognize every other state’s carry rights to that particular resident in whatever state that resident might be in. But generally across 99% of all the federal gun laws, it is expressly not preemptive. So, this is where the problems come in, because there is no cap on the damage that states can do. Teddy Nappen 17:55 So, it would require an, it would basically either require an act of Congress to amend it to include the preemption. Evan Nappen 18:02 Yes, literally, what would be great is if we finally get a cap. Now, in theory, the cap on bad gun laws is this little thing we call the Second Amendment, and the Second Amendment’s cap was fairly broad. The Page – 7 – of 14 cap, as I recall, it said shall not be infringed. Okay? Shall not be infringed. So, any infringement is arguably a violation of the Second Amendment. Therefore no state or federal government, because we now have it incorporated to the states through the McDonald case, through the 14th Amendment, like many of our other constitutional rights. No state or federal law should infringe on our gun rights. Yet we’re knee deep in battles over various gun laws that are utterly passed with contempt of the Second Amendment, and then we have to go through these fights over it. Teddy Nappen 19:09 Yeah, and it’s definitely. I noticed that whenever it comes to New Jersey, I mean, I know people always talk about state powers, how they, you know, always leave it to the states. However, there are some things that there’s just so much abuse by the states that what they do, I mean, just right now, what they are doing right now is disgusting. Where they’re just harassing these dealers, going after them, wasting the taxpayers dollars. And it’s the level of where, all right, the federal government needs to step in, and I can see everyone’s like, “Oh, don’t allow the feds to get in, but here is the truth. They abuse it so much that there’s just no, there’s no value. Evan Nappen 19:54 Well, frankly, if we simply made the federal law, as it stands right now, as the preemptive. Just passed a law saying federal law preempts state law. Then every state gun law would become mooted out. Done. Invalid. Because only the federal law would apply. And currently under federal law there are no prohibitions on carry. There’s no addressing that in a negative way. Now, they might say, because the federal law doesn’t address it at all, then the states could still try to regulate carry. But then we still have the constitutional Second Amendment with the Bruen decision and such regarding carry. Then if we look at how the impact would be beyond that, well, everything else that these states try to pass, particularly on sale, possession, or on any of that, it would all be preemptively null and void by way of a federal law that they first engineered to just be a minimum to suddenly become the maximum. And that would concentrate our efforts only to having essentially federal fights, which would be pretty good, because instead of the pro-gun movement, those that defend our gun rights, and instead of having them fighting in every jurisdiction, everywhere, every state or county or town that passes some anti-Second Amendment gun rights law that we have to go in and challenge, we would have a preemptive federal law. So, every battle would simply be taking place, for the most part, at the federal law level of preemption, and it would basically gut that entire expenditure of the battle that we constantly have to foot the bill and pay for. It would be an interesting thing to conceptualize, to finally have a federal full preemption. I think it’s workable. Teddy Nappen 22:18 Yeah, and look, I never thought we’d ever see, like, the tax stamp removed for suppressors, and having a chance for it to be removed from the NFA, so anything is possible. We just need to get the right people in, and the right amount of votes. Evan Nappen 22:30 Yeah, it might, it might actually be, but then you’ll have even pro-Second Amendment folks, say, oh, states rights, states’ rights, you know. And they become so focused on so-called states’ rights that we still are losing our rights, because, as you say, Teddy, there’s an abuse by the states of our rights, and Page – 8 – of 14 this could end that abuse. So, when you have an abuse of state power, then the federal government really should come in to stop the abuse by the states. Teddy Nappen 22:53 I think it was in New York, and this might have been years ago. Do you remember they posted the map of who owned firearms? Evan Nappen 23:15 Yeah, it was New York, yeah, right. And then the public record, and then you could, it was searchable when you could find the gun owners. Teddy Nappen 23:25 Of course, a lot of them got robbed and harassed, and everything in that, which is just like, all right, fine. And you know what? When is it going to be enough for states’ powers? When they say everyone wears a yellow armband? It’s a picture of an AR, like states power, states rights. It’s such BS for allowing the abuse that comes down from New Jersey. Where you have the gulag that is the symbol of oppression of a totalitarian regime, and it just pisses me off so much when I hear that argument. I hear the people that make perfect the enemy of good, every time. How long did it take us to lose our rights to these people? Decades. And that’s what it’s going to take to get them back. It’s just disgusting. Evan Nappen 24:12 It is. But we’re in the fight, and we have to keep this fight on. Politically, the big picture is critical in our ability to win and get these changes. As much as all this is aggravating, if you step back, man, I can step back and look from having been practicing gun law for over 40 years. I can look and say we have come a long way. We’ve come a long way. The fact that we can finally have a carry permit in New Jersey is astounding. It’s astounding that we got to that, because that was something that seemed like an impossibility, and yet it got achieved. You can see amazing other advances. Evan Nappen 25:07 Hopefully, shortly, we will see the Supreme Court take a hardware case. We need them to take a hardware case. What I’m talking about is so-called assault firearms or assault weapons, magazines, where there is hardware that’s been banned. Where the constitutionality of the ability to ban hardware finally gets established out of the Supreme Court to end it, to stop it. That’s something that we’ve got to get to, and I think we’re going to see that soon. It is coming. There are so many cases, and they’ve been going up the chain. I think we’re going to see it. I don’t know if it’ll be, you know, this session. We’re getting close, and that’s what we saw, the prediction by even the U.S. Attorney General. The U.S. Attorney General saying they believe that ARs and others, Supreme Court will eventually pronounce they are legal. Teddy Nappen 26:16 I know there’s like, I know there’s rumors, everyone, about the different justices retiring. Imagine if Justice Thomas’s retirement, his last decision that he does, is he legalized and ends the assault firearm bans across the country. Page – 9 – of 14 Evan Nappen 26:31 Oh, that’d be just wonderful. I’d like to see St. Thomas. Teddy Nappen 26:36 Yeah. You know they did the commemorative, like Heller, like revolver, I remember that they. Evan Nappen 26:43 Which I have, I have a commemorative Heller Smith & Wesson .38. Not only was it commemorative and put out by Smith when the Heller decision came down, so it’s actually a Smith & Wesson bonafide commemorative, but I have that, I think I showed it to you, Teddy, it’s signed personally by Dick Heller, who’s a friend. So, I have a signed commemorative of the Heller decision, signed by Dick Heller himself. Teddy Nappen 27:10 Well, the next one I want it to be just, it’ll say the name of the case, and it’s just the Clarence Thomas smile that you see. The GIF area Thomas commemorative AR. Evan Nappen 27:23 And then, of course, the Left would complain that it’s racist because it’s a black rifle. No. You can’t be racist against Thomas, right? I mean, they always talk. Teddy Nappen 27:37 No, no, they say you can, because they say that he’s not black enough. If you know his entire history, the like, his, you could not, you could not live as a like a black American, like his entire thing, like inner city kid, like I think he was a single, like single mom, they like raised, like literally did the like live the entire black experience like it would be a lifetime movie. It would be amazing. Evan Nappen 28:05 He is an amazing man with actually the embodiment of the American dream, in effect. Coming from an absolutely underprivileged, you know, situation where he rose to be one of the greatest Supreme, one of the greatest, for sure, Supreme Court justices. His amazing story about an amazing man. Just great. And they don’t, because just like with gerrymandering, where there are plenty of Republican minority reps out there, it’s not racism at all. It’s the Democrat power grab, and because Judge Thomas is conservative, they refuse to acknowledge the benefit of having such a great man. Teddy Nappen 29:03 Yeah. And he is what Joe Biden would describe as articulate, bright, and clean. Evan Nappen 29:09 Oh G-d. Teddy Nappen 29:13 I love how Biden said that to Obama. I know. Page – 10 – of 14 Evan Nappen 29:16 I mean. He would constantly say these things. And yet they will extrapolate 10 times out to try to paint Trump as racist when Biden was. He bona fide said stuff that was absolutely insane with racism. Stereotypical racism. Teddy Nappen 29:44 Yeah. Evan Nappen 29:45 Yeah, really. I mean, just come on. Insulting and amazing. Well, and let me tell you, Teddy, about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range. You and I have shot there, and you love WeShoot, don’t you, Teddy? Teddy Nappen 30:04 I had a great time. Evan Nappen 30:05 We always do, every time. We got our certifications there for our carries, and you can do the same. They’ve got a great pro shop, great trainers, great facility, and it’s really conveniently right off the Parkway in Lakewood, New Jersey. Lakewood, New Jersey. You want to check out the WeShoot website at weshootusa.com. And you should make sure you get on their email list, because WeShoot sends out a lot of great stuff via email. All their great deals and specials and cool events they’re doing and all kinds of fun things. WeShoot is extremely dynamic, and they are always doing something. WeShoot is just super fun. So, if you’re looking for a great range to belong to, a great place to shoot, a great place to hone your skills, get your training, you cannot do any better than WeShoot in Lakewood. Check out weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 31:18 Let me also mention my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the bible of New Jersey gun law. It is a book used by, well, everybody. If you want to understand New Jersey gun law, you need my book, which is not surprisingly titled New Jersey Gun Law. You can get your copy at EvanNappen.com, EvanNappen.com. When you get the book, you’ll see it is very large. It is over 500 pages. It’s 120 topics, all question and answer. And the greatest thing about my book is that the book itself can be used as a weapon. It’s that big. I’m not advising you to do that, but should you need to, yes, that is a book you don’t want to get hit in the head with. So, check out New Jersey Gun Law at EvanNappen.com. Teddy, I bet you have something else up your sleeve to tell us. Teddy Nappen 32:18 Well, one of the things that did come up, and I just thought, what the heck? This is in the feed of the New York Times. Where are all the AK 47s? Like, where have all the AK 47s gone? I know. Evan Nappen 32:19 I don’t know. Where have they gone? Page – 11 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 32:21 I know. It was a very interesting article, but it was also very strange. Just reading through, I don’t know if you ever heard of Jim Fuller? Evan Nappen 32:47 The Fuller Brush Man? Teddy Nappen 32:49 Apparently, he’s a gunsmith. He makes custom AKs. I’m not too familiar on that, but he was going into details of, like, and they were talking about the collapse of the AK market. Evan Nappen 33:01 Well, there is a downturn, but prices aren’t collapsing. Teddy Nappen 33:06 Yeah, I mean, how much are you going for? Evan Nappen 33:08 One of the Russian AKs going. You know the problem is, what led to the big boom, of course, was when we were importing AKs. We could have them from China and Russia. Although we were getting really cheap ammo, and there was so much of the surplus ammo, the 762 by 39 that it became extremely popular, because you could so reasonably shoot. Then it became so overwhelmingly possible that even American-made guns, like the Ruger Mini 30, for example, were being made in 762 by 39. Then you also had the influx of very reasonable SKSs. I mean, I remember when SKSs were under $100, for an SKS, and then you know the reasonable AKs and all that coming in with cheap ammo. Man, it was great. Then they started to ban the import, the ban of Chinese, ban of Russian, and the cheap ammo dried up. The guns that were coming in, the imports like those were dried up. Teddy Nappen 33:56 Apparently, it was in 1989 under Bush, because the shooter used the Chinese AK. Evan Nappen 34:32 Please remember, it was Bush. It was Bush, the Republican, the neocon, and this is one of the things that you got to always remember. Even though they may have the “R” there, they’re not necessarily a friend of the Second Amendment. Teddy Nappen 34:47 Yeah. And then the article tries to highlight more of like 2014 where the annexation of Crimea, the U.S. put sanctions on Russia. So, there goes all the Russian AKs. Evan Nappen 34:57 Well, not just Russian AKs. I mean, we were getting a lot of great guns, really cool guns from Russia, you know. We’re getting SKSs – originals, beautiful guns. I mean, phenomenal. Russian SKSs are probably the best SKS ever made, machined, gorgeous. Mosin-Nagant rifles, right? They were very Page – 12 – of 14 reasonable, and you know, you want to do the enemy at the gates, man. You got your gun and super strong, tough rifles. You know, a lot of great stuff could come in, and now we don’t see it anymore. And prices have skyrocketed. I mean, if you look at SKS prices today, holy crap. You’d be lucky to find a Chinese SKS that you used to be able to buy for less than $100, one in great shape today for 600 bucks, you know? I mean, easily 600, some even more. I’ve seen Russian SKSs pushing $2,000 a piece at the gun show. I mean, the prices are just unbelievable, because the market has a limitation now to the quantity that’s out there. And by the way, there’s probably only a 10th of the amount of Russian SKSs compared to Chinese SKSs. Even with that, the prices are way up there, and one of the reasons is that the SKSs, for example, are excellent functioning rifles. They’re handy. They function great and are very popular. Evan Nappen 36:36 With AKs, you know, there was that whole growth of it, and we were able to have all that great, cheap ammo. Once you got into an introductory, reasonable AK, then you wanted to up your game with other AKs, and all that. But what’s happened is, with the close out of that, we’ve become more, much, much more AR focused. The AR-15 platform, and everything about it. That’s all, a lot of it is U.S. made, and kind of America’s rifle. I would have to say today that America’s rifle, without a doubt, is the AR-15. Teddy Nappen 37:17 I would also say there’s also just the customization, and I think modularity. Evan Nappen 37:23 Its modularity seems to appeal to a lot of gun folks, because you can add and change and put all kinds of whistles and bells. Teddy Nappen 37:32 That also goes to the tone of American culture versus like the Eastern Bloc of the AK 47. We’re very individualistic, where we will make it so it is something that works for us, versus, you know, the AK 47 is designed, it is designed in that shape or form. You can do some small mods, but generally speaking, you pick up an AK 47 it’s, you know, hold it up to another one, like that’s the level of it. Evan Nappen 37:58 That’s an interesting point, Teddy, about how in those countries they don’t. It’s hard to find a Bubba AK in countries where they make the AKs, isn’t it? They don’t Bubbafi much, do they? But we love to modify, change, and customize, and that’s actually a lot of the fun of it. Let’s face it, it’s fun. It’s fun to add the accessories to fit your needs, make it look cooler, make it function better, make it more appropriate for whatever your needs may be. But then again, the anti-gun rights crowd will suddenly take any given feature and demonize certain features. So, if they are intrinsically evil, that if for some reason you have a telescoping stock on your AR or any other semi-auto, because your stock moves one or two inches back and forth, somehow that is such a huge impact on crime. Teddy Nappen 39:09 Or has a barrel shroud, which they can’t define. Page – 13 – of 14 Evan Nappen 39:12 Oh yeah, well, they try to. Remember. Teddy Nappen 39:15 The shoulder thingy that goes up, you know, the seat belt. Evan Nappen 39:18 The shoulder thingy that goes up is a barrel shroud. Isn’t that interesting? These are the experts that are voting for these laws. They have no clue what they’re even voting for, nor do they care. As long as it’s going against gun owners, they’re for it. They don’t care what it is. Teddy Nappen 39:39 Yeah, and I will say, just from the article, like, they try to, of course, they try to say, oh, Trump’s tariffs is what killed the AK market. There’s like also going from Russia, Ukraine, which they tried to say, you, oh, Poland is one of the key suppliers of Ukraine. No, the United States is one of the key suppliers of military to Ukraine. We’ve, you know, what is it, 40 billion, 80 billion, like crazy amounts, like they’re just still in that. And then again, tariffs are non-inflationary. We’ve known that, we’ve proven it. And I love how they try to say, well, we could get more AKs if we removed tariffs on Poland. Evan Nappen 40:21 Well, you know, it’s pretty bad when the Left media is trying to lure removal of tariffs by saying we could get more AKs in the country. That’s a pretty interesting stretch for them. Teddy Nappen 40:34 I know why they’re doing it. They’re trying to turn gun owners. They’re trying their best to turn gun owners into the debt, which is a ridiculous concept. They’ve demonized them, called them racist, call them everything under the sun. So, good luck trying to convince a gun owner to be considered a Democrat. If they are voting Democrat, you’re voting for your own destruction. I’m sorry. Evan Nappen 40:54 And speaking of destruction of gun owners, that is what GOFUs are. GOFU is our Gun Owner Fuck Ups. Every show we like to highlight the GOFU of the week, and this week’s GOFU is something that is constantly coming my way in the practice of law. And some of you listeners may say, yeah, it’s obvious, but I still have to say it because I keep getting case after case after case. It’s real simple, folks. You need to know your state’s gun laws. Most people understand that they need to know their state’s gun laws, but it doesn’t end there. If you travel out of state, you need to know the state’s gun laws that you’re traveling to. I constantly get cases of individuals that come from other states and end up being criminally charged in New Jersey because New Jersey’s gun laws are nothing like the gun laws of the state they were traveling from. The reverse is true, my friends. The reverse is true. Evan Nappen 42:13 You may have a New Jersey carry permit, but you need to know, if you don’t know, that no other state in America is recognized by New Jersey. No other state’s gun license is recognized by New Jersey. New Jersey has no reciprocity per se. When you travel, there are states where you can carry, because Page – 14 – of 14 despite New Jersey not recognizing their carry license, they’re willing to recognize any lawfully issued state carry. Many of the states, over 70% of the land mass in America, is constitutional carry, where as long as you’re law-abiding, you can carry even without a permit. But you still have to know, because I get calls from New Jersey folks that are getting jammed up in other states, making the mistake that others frequently make coming into New Jersey. Evan Nappen 43:24 So, the GOFU is real simple. Know the gun laws. Know the gun laws of the jurisdiction that you are residing in, and know the gun laws of the jurisdiction that you may be traveling in. It’s critical! I see it every day as a classic of virtually all GOFUs. This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 3 44:05 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E291_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

This week on The Narrative, Aaron and David address the Supreme Court’s 7–2 ruling that blocked a 5th Circuit decision that had temporarily restricted mail-order abortion pills nationwide. Justice Thomas’s fierce dissent invoked the Comstock Act against mailing drugs, and the FDA Director Marty Makary’s abrupt resignation brought renewed hope to many pro-life advocates. On a related note, in Ohio, David recently testified in favor of House Bill 324, the Patient Protection Act, which mandates in-person doctor visits and bans mail delivery for high-risk drugs. The legislation effectively defeats pro-abortion objections at the Statehouse by neutrally targeting all high-risk medications rather than uniquely targeting abortion. After the news, Parker Thayer, a researcher with Capital Research Center and contributor to the Daily Wire, shares his insights on the massive Medicaid home-care fraud scheme in Ohio that proved the state’s optional GPS and signature verification systems failed to track actual patient care. Following the report's publication, Ohio implemented a total freeze on new home-care companies and restored mandatory GPS tracking. Listen now or queue up the podcast for your commute!

In this episode, Imani and Jess unpack the Supreme Court's order on mifepristone access and explain where it fits in the Trump administration's crusade to redefine motherhood nationwide. Expert Repro Journalism That Inspires. Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a member today. B*itch, Listen now has its own dedicated feed on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you get your podcasts. If you already subscribe to Boom! Lawyered, sign up for B*tch, Listen so you won't miss it.

In this episode, Imani and Jess unpack the Supreme Court's order on mifepristone access and explain where it fits in the Trump administration's crusade to redefine motherhood nationwide. Expert Repro Journalism That Inspires. Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a member today. B*itch, Listen now has its own dedicated feed on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you get your podcasts. If you already subscribe to Boom! Lawyered, sign up for B*tch, Listen so you won't miss it.

We are joined by guest co-host Professor Pam Karlan at the American Law Institute Annual Meeting for the last live show of season 6. We work through a busy stretch of the interim docket: the Alabama GVR in Allen v. Caster and what Callais has done to Section 2; the denied stay in the Virginia redistricting fight, Scott v. McDougle; and the mifepristone cases, Danco and GenBioPro v. Louisiana, where Thomas rides the Comstock Act alone and Alito takes it personally. Then a turn to executive power and the term's looming merits decisions—birthright citizenship, the Federal Reserve, Humphrey's Executor—before audience questions on state voting rights acts, fixing the single-member-district statute, and whether you can wish yourself more wishes.Key Topics[00:00:11] - Live show introduction at the American Law Institute with guest host Pam Karlan[00:02:30] - Fallout from Louisiana v. Callais and the Alabama redistricting order[00:06:26] - Purcell principle, mid-election rule changes, and discriminatory intent findings[00:17:32] - Virginia's redistricting amendment case and why the Supreme Court declined to intervene[00:32:41] - Danco Laboratories / GenBioPro and the mifepristone stay[00:39:56] - Justice Thomas, the Comstock Act, and Justice Alito's dissent[00:47:15] - Big-picture trends in executive power and the Court's posture toward the administration[01:00:54] - Audience Q&A on Congress, district design, and gerrymandering reform[01:05:47] - The President's public attacks on the Court and possible effects on future cases

05-18-2026 John O'Connor Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://thedailyblaze.com/justice-thomas-speaks-on-the-declaration-of-independence/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

Trump frantically tries to reshape opinions of his cringe-worthy visit to China. Also disgraced Justice Thomas cites the antiquated Comstock Act of 1873 to threaten people's right to birth control and porn. And what can we learn about the expected visit of El Nino in 2026. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – For more than 34 years, Justice Thomas has been an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. What have we gotten out of the second-longest serving justices in American history? Some good, some bad, and some ugly. However, I must admit, I think there is more good than bad and ugly from Justice Thomas' tenure. During that time, the SPLC...

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – For more than 34 years, Justice Thomas has been an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. What have we gotten out of the second-longest serving justices in American history? Some good, some bad, and some ugly. However, I must admit, I think there is more good than bad and ugly from Justice Thomas' tenure. During that time, the SPLC...

Our journey through the centuries of religious practice, attitudes, and constitutionalism has reached the 20th century, when several presidential elections set mileposts for the American religious debate.  The first major party Catholic candidate, Al Smith, met the worst sort of vitriol and prejudice, and was destroyed by it.  This cast a shadow over the later campaign of John F. Kennedy, and he answered it in a speech that we analyze and place in context, even as we thrill to the great man's voice one more time.  We then trace a line from that speech, through several Supreme Court memberships, to the American cultural and constitutional religious landscape as the 21st century dawns.  Fittingly, perhaps, one of the jurists who has been prominent on this issue, Justice Thomas, celebrates a milestone on the Court.  CLE is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

In this episode, we unpack a whirlwind week of legal battles, political maneuvers, and international tensions, highlighting key developments affecting democracy and global stability. Stay tuned as we break down the implications of redistricting chaos, Epstein's mysterious notes, and escalating conflicts in the Middle East. Key Topics: Virginia Supreme Court decision on district gerrymandering and its procedural challenges The political fallout from court rulings on redistricting efforts across states The controversy surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's purported suicide note and conspiracy theories The ongoing US-Iran tensions including recent naval skirmishes and diplomatic efforts The state of the US economy under Trump, including job reports and inflation concerns The integrity of the Supreme Court and its role in partisan politics The influence of race, progressivism, and historical context in current judicial and political debates Media coverage, censorship, and the transparency of military and governmental actions Timestamps: (00:00) - Introduction: News overview and importance of the week's topics (02:00) - Virginia Supreme Court decision stalling redistricting efforts (04:00) - Gerrymandering's impact on midterm elections and political landscape (06:00) - Court's procedural errors and the partisan battleground (09:00) - The potential realignment of Southern districts and racial implications (11:00) - The court's stance on partisan gerrymandering; political expert insights (13:00) - The Supreme Court's energy: politically motivated yet legally balanced? (15:00) - Justice Thomas's speech on progressivism and American governmental shifts (17:00) - The dangerous rhetoric about race, progressivism, and their historical narrative (19:00) - Epstein's suicide note: authenticity, conspiracy theories, and media response (23:00) - The bizarre and cryptic contents of Epstein's alleged note and legal questions (26:00) - The significance of Epstein's death: truth, cover-ups, and public trust (30:00) - Tensions with Iran: naval skirmishes, diplomacy, and strategic questions (37:00) - War or no war? The confusing nature of recent US-Iran military activity (40:00) - US economic reports: job growth, inflation, and political spins (43:00) - The disconnection between job numbers and everyday economic reality (44:00) - Gas prices, grocery costs, and the public's economic skepticism (48:00) - Political narratives about taxing the wealthy and social reforms (50:00) - The impact of political pandering on local and national elections (54:00) - The looming scandal: legal repercussions for Trump administration figures (61:00) - The potential prosecutions, cover-ups, and post-presidency consequences (66:00) - The importance of accountability and truth commissions in American democracy (69:00) - Closing remarks: reflections on justice, truth, and upcoming political battles Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JATQPodcast Follow us on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/jatqpodcast.bsky.social Intragram: https://www.instagram.com/jatqpodcast Youtube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCET7k2_Y9P9Fz0MZRARGqVw This Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon supporters here: https://www.patreon.com/justaskthequestionpodcast Purchase Brian's book "Free The Press"    Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Mea Culpa welcomes Frank Figliuzzi to help us figure out the legal ramification of everything going on in Washington DC. Figliuzzi is a national security contributor and regular columnist for NBC News and MSNBC. At one time, Figliuzzi was the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, where he served for 25 years as a special agent and directed all espionage investigations across the entire government. He is also the author of the national bestseller “The FBI Way: Inside the Bureau's Code of Excellence.” Michael and Frank talk about the Tennesee, the Supreme Court, and the indictment.

Today on America in the MorningIran Attacks US Navy & US Military Responds Iran appears to be stalling on responding to the peace deal offered by President Trump, and the president says there could be a deal next week, but all of this comes as Iran on Thursday attacked three Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz, and the US military retaliated with airstrikes on Iranian military facilities.  Correspondent Rich Johnson reports that Thursday's incidents, ones that the president downplayed as a “love tap,” are stoking fears the attack and counterattack could derail both the talks and the cease-fire.     Tennessee's New Redistricting Map Following this week's Supreme Court decision on Louisiana's congressional districts, several states immediately embarked on redistricting plans of their own.  Tennessee Governor Bill Lee has quickly signed into law newly redrawn congressional maps voted on Thursday in a special session of the state legislature which eliminates the state's lone majority-Black Democrat district.  Joan Jones has the story from Nashville.   Massive School Cyberattack Students and staff at hundreds of school districts, colleges and universities, including Harvard, Penn and Duke, have been the victims of a massive cyber data breach.    Rubio Visits Pope Leo Secretary of State Marco Rubio went to Italy, meeting with Pope Leo at the Vatican.  Correspondent Nicole Winfield reports the meeting comes after President Trump's criticism of the Pontiff.   Hegseth & Kelly A Federal appeals court is taking up the Trump administration's efforts to censure Arizona Senator Mark Kelly over comments he made last year.  Correspondent Clayton Neville reports.   Profiting From High Gas Prices High gas prices are becoming the norm, and oil industry analysts are saying that we can be paying $4 dollars or more per gallon well into the summer driving season as the war with Iran continues.  While Americans and others around the world pay higher gas prices, the oil companies are reaping the profits.  America in the Morning's Jeff McKay has details of who is benefitting from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.   Thomas Makes History Clarence Thomas is making Supreme Court history, becoming the second-longest serving justice on the bench.  Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports that Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, speaking on Fox News, praised Justice Thomas for both his legal knowledge and his personality.   Court Rules Against Trump Tariffs A federal court ruled Thursday against the new global tariffs that President Donald Trump imposed after losing his tariff case at the Supreme Court.  Mississippi Tornadoes Mississippi is assessing the damage and cleaning up after several tornadoes that ripped through parts of the state.  Correspondent Haya Panjwani reports. Firebomber Gets Life A man who firebombed a crowd in Boulder, Colorado will spend the rest of his life in prison.  Lisa Dwyer reports on the sentencing of a man who attacked pro-Israel demonstrators almost a year ago.   Finally   The plea was not guilty.  Correspondent Ed Donahue reports on a civil rights group that is being taken to court in a federal case, and went on the offensive against acting-Attorney General Todd Blanche. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Finally, and you could tell Justice Thomas has been waiting for this moment for 30 years, the Supreme Court ruled that gerrymandering districts just for black people is racist. Republicans could gain 12 seats from this decision, but more importantly, it leads us away from being a racist society.

Finally, and you could tell Justice Thomas has been waiting for this moment for 30 years, the Supreme Court ruled that gerrymandering districts just for black people is racist. Republicans could gain 12 seats from this decision, but more importantly, it leads us away from being a racist society.

Stay connected with us at americangroundradio.com, on Facebook, and Instagram. You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for April 29, 2026. We open with a landmark day at the United States Supreme Court — two massive decisions that will reshape elections, redistricting, and the fight for life in America for decades to come. We dig deep into the Callais decision, which effectively ends the use of race as a primary basis for drawing congressional districts, overturning decades of lower court precedent that the majority says forced states to engage in the very racial discrimination the Constitution forbids. We walk through Justice Alito's majority opinion line by line, explain what Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act actually says versus how it has been misapplied, cover Justice Thomas's concurring opinion noting that redistricting was never in the Voting Rights Act to begin with, and ask the question Barack Obama apparently hasn't considered — if racial gerrymandering is the only way black candidates can win, how did you get elected president? We also cover the Supreme Court's ruling protecting crisis pregnancy centers in New Jersey from a politically motivated fishing expedition by the state's attorney general, who demanded 10 years of donor records from a clinic that had committed no crime — simply because it doesn't perform abortions and actively counsels women on alternatives. The Court said that's not an investigation. That's political retribution designed to silence free speech through fear of association. In our Top 3 Three Things You Need to Know, North Carolina has identified 34,000 dead people still on its voter rolls through a routine data cross-check — a number state officials say was far higher than expected. We talk about why this isn't unique to North Carolina, why 17 blue states are currently refusing to cooperate with federal voter roll verification efforts, and why every illegal vote cast in the name of a dead person is an act of voter suppression against a living one. Then the Supreme Court strikes down racial gerrymandering in a ruling that could eventually reshape dozens of congressional districts across the country. And the United Arab Emirates — the target of more than 2,800 Iranian missile and drone attacks in the past month — announced it is leaving OPEC, potentially beginning the unraveling of the entire organization that Iran helped found. Our American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson tackle a question that applies to Apple, private schools, churches, and businesses of every kind — why do organizations so often decline or collapse after losing their founders? We talk about Steve Jobs and what happened to Apple in the 1990s without him, a private school in Arlington, Texas that had a waiting list and is now closing its doors after pushing out its visionary founder, and why jealousy among the people closest to the founder is almost always at the root of it. The lights of the party are gone. And it goes dark. We dig deep into the redistricting earthquake — walking through exactly what the Supreme Court's ruling means for Louisiana, which had been forced by a lower court to draw a 250-mile-long, two-mile-wide district linking black neighborhoods from Baton Rouge to Shreveport. Louisiana will have to redraw its maps for the third time since 2020. We also connect the ruling to Representative Cleo Fields' press conference response, correct the historical record about Louisiana's voting history, and point out the uncomfortable truth that it was the Democrat Party — not the Republican Party — that wrote and enforced the poll taxes, literacy tests, and property requirements that Fields invoked to condemn today's decision. We also cover the April Gallup survey showing that high cost of living remains the number one financial concern for Americans, with 55% saying their financial situation is worsening — and we put that in context against the continuing inflation baked in from Biden-era spending that is still working its way through the economy. For our Bright Spot, the U.S. Geological Survey has discovered 2.3 million metric tons of economically recoverable lithium in the Appalachian region — enough to manufacture 130 million electric vehicles, 180 billion laptops, or 500 billion cell phones, and enough to replace 328 years of lithium imports. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum calls it reclaiming America's mineral independence. We call it one of the most significant resource discoveries on American soil in a generation — even if most of it sits under blue states that have spent decades fighting mining. We also cover Rosie O'Donnell claiming the White House Correspondents' Dinner assassination attempt was staged — including apparently Butler, Pennsylvania — and respond accordingly. And we close with King Charles presenting President Trump with the bell of the HMS Trump, a British submarine that sank six Japanese ships during World War II, with the message — should you ever need to get a hold of us, just give us a ring. May your pursuit of happiness bring you joy. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts, visit AmericanGroundRadio.com, and join the conversation at 866-AGR-1776! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of CURE America, host Donald T. Eason shares his thoughts on Star Parker's nationally syndicated column praising Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's powerful speech delivered on April 15 at the University of Texas at Austin.   Star Parker calls Thomas's address one of the greatest speeches marking America's upcoming 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Donald adds his personal reflections, noting how Thomas's words carry special force because they come from his own life — growing up poor in the Jim Crow South.   Despite segregation and discrimination, Thomas and the Black community around him firmly believed that their equality and dignity came from God, not from government. Donald contrasts this with his own upbringing in Detroit and shares how he only truly embraced the Declaration of Independence after becoming a Christian in his early 20s.   Justice Thomas emphasizes that the Declaration's most important line is the final pledge: the signers mutually committed "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." Without courage and devotion, the words are just ink on paper. He warns that progressivism — a foreign idea from 19th-century Germany — rejects God-given rights in favor of government power, leading to family breakdown, massive debt, and weakened freedom.   Thomas challenges Americans: Do we still have the courage of the soldiers who stormed Normandy? He calls on all of us to stand up for our founding principles with the same devotion that built this nation.   As we approach America's 250th birthday, Donald encourages viewers to focus on faith, family, freedom, and personal responsibility — and to reject the idea that government, not God, is the source of our rights.   Let us renew our commitment to the principles that made America the greatest nation on earth.

Move over Trump Derangement Syndrome! The left is clearly afflicted now with a full-blown case of Thomas Derangement Syndrome—after Justice Clarence Thomas's speech last week about the Declaration of Independence, which, let's face it, gives leftists the heebie-jeevies with all that talk about how we are "endowed by our Creator" with certain inalienable rights. With the band back together again this week, we dissect the left's hysterical reaction which indicate to us that Thomas hit a raw nerve with "Progressives," who are actually quite regressive.We also divert briefly to John Yoo's typically idiosyncratic observations on executive power in the Declaration, and then conclude this segment with each offering our favorite quotes from Justice Thomas's speech.From there we turn to the big news of the indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center (which Steve suggests should be known more accurately as the Southern Poverty Libel Center, but also wondering why there is no Northern Poverty Law Center, or Midwestern Poverty Law Center. Is there no poverty or racism in those regions?).

Steve Hayes is joined by Jonah Goldberg, David French, and Kevin Williamson to discuss the Trump administration's ongoing negations with Iran, FBI Director Kash Patel's alleged excessive drinking, and Justice Clarence Thomas' recent speech at the University of Texas. The Agenda: —Is the end near? —Consequences of Trump's impatience —Bad negotiating strategy —⁠Kash Patel's drinking⁠ —⁠Investigating 2020 election fraud⁠ —⁠Justice Thomas' speech on progressivism⁠ —NWYT: ⁠Tucker Carlson's apology⁠ Dispatch Recommendations: —⁠Online Gambling Is Breaking Containment ⁠—⁠The Son Also Rises⁠ —⁠Overturning Religious Precedent⁠ —⁠The emergency docket's mistaken birthday⁠ Show notes: —⁠John McCormack's reporting on Tucker Carlson⁠ —⁠Steve Hayes' piece on Tucker Carlson⁠ The Dispatch Podcast is a production of ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Dispatch⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠by clicking here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

1. Purpose of the Book The book aims to: Tell Clarence Thomas’s personal life story, especially his rise from extreme poverty. Explain his judicial philosophy and jurisprudence in plain, accessible language. It is based on approximately 9.5 hours of exclusive, one‑on‑one interviews between Ted Cruz and Justice Thomas. Cruz emphasizes that the book is written for non‑lawyers, including students and general readers. 2. Clarence Thomas’s Background and Life Journey Grew up in severe poverty in Pin Point, Georgia, raised primarily by his grandfather. Initially spoke a Gullah/Geechee dialect, not English. Experienced racism, hardship, family conflict, and personal struggles, including anger and a period of heavy drinking. Attended seminary with the intention of becoming a Catholic priest, later leaving due to disillusionment. Educated at Holy Cross College and Yale Law School. Underwent a major ideological transformation, moving from left‑wing Black Power activism to conservative principles over many years. 3. Professional Rise and Historic Achievements Faced career obstacles due to perceptions surrounding affirmative action. Worked under Republican Senator John Danforth, which became a turning point. Served in: The Reagan administration The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Appointed in 1991 as the second Black Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. On track to become the longest‑serving Supreme Court justice in U.S. history (by 2028). 4. Judicial Philosophy (“Going Further”) Thomas’s jurisprudence emphasizes: Originalism and the original meaning of the Constitution The belief that rights come from God/nature, not government A color‑blind Constitution Judicial restraint: judges should interpret and apply law, not create policy His opinions are intentionally plain‑spoken and accessible, reflecting his background and respect for ordinary citizens. The title Going Further reflects his tendency to push legal reasoning to its foundational principles rather than incremental change. 5. Confirmation Hearings and Public Attacks The book examines the 1991 confirmation hearings, including: Allegations by Anita Hill Intense political and media attacks Cruz draws parallels between Thomas’s hearings and later Supreme Court confirmations (e.g., Brett Kavanaugh). Thomas is portrayed as enduring racialized hostility and vilification because of his conservative views. 6. Legacy and Moral Example Clarence Thomas is presented as: A model of personal resilience, discipline, and principle Someone who maintained convictions despite decades of criticism Cruz argues Thomas would be widely celebrated if he were liberal, but instead has been marginalized. The book frames Thomas as a role model for principled living, not just for lawyers but for all Americans. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas gave a speech at the University of Texas celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and praising its principles and values. But he went on to say that the goals of progressivism are antithetical to those of the Declaration unleashing a deluge of outrage from the left. Robert Reich called him the Worst Justice Ever. In this commentary we look at why Justice Thomas is correct and Mr. Reich is wrong.

Sarah Isgur and David French push back against the New York Times ⁠reporting⁠ on the birth of the shadow docket, discuss Justice Sotomayor's apology after criticizing him in personal terms during a speech at the University of Kansas School of Law, and interview  Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt about ⁠McGirt v. Oklahoma⁠. The Agenda:–The birth of the shadow docket–Who leaked Dobbs?–Justice Sotomayor apologizes to Justice Kavanaugh–Justice Kagan's screaming tantrum–Justice Thomas's talk on the Declaration of Independence–We are the McGirt podcast Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Chuck Todd surveys a dire geopolitical landscape where the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, fuel rationing has begun in many places around the globe, and the Trump administration is scrambling to extend a fragile ceasefire with Iran — sending JD Vance back to Pakistan for another round of talks, a move Chuck says signals genuine desperation to end a war that has become a generational foreign policy disaster. Heargues that Iran's control of the strait is now a greater deterrent than nuclear weapons ever were, that the Iranians know Trump is on the clock and that time is firmly on Tehran's side — meaning the best Trump can realistically hope for is a deal that looks remarkably like the Obama nuclear agreement he once shredded. Oil and stock markets appear divorced from reality while energy markets are in major distress, China's position has been strengthened enormously and Netanyahu has effectively suckered Trump into a mess that will define American foreign policy for a generation. He then unpacks a bombshell Atlantic report painting FBI Director Kash Patel as absent, unreliable, and allegedly drunk on the job — noting that just because it's a "hit piece" doesn't mean it's not true, that rank-and-file intelligence professionals don't trust the people leading their agencies, and that Patel himself believes he's about to be fired because Trump personally despises anecdotes about drinking. He closes with Virginia's redistricting referendum, which ends Tuesday and looks likely to pass, but he questions whether Democrats are making a smart investment — blowing enormous political capital and damaging Governor Abigail Spanberger's brand to pick up only two House seats, a tradeoff that may not be worth the cost. Then, Sarah Isgur — legal commentator, former DOJ spokesperson, and author of Last Branch Standing — joins the Chuck Toddcast for a comprehensive deep dive into the Supreme Court that challenges virtually everything the public thinks it knows about how the institution actually works. Isgur argues that the court's politics don't map neatly onto the current left-right spectrum, and that the court isn't really 6-3 but rather 3-3-3 — with a bloc of doctrinaire conservatives, a liberal minority, and a pragmatic center that includes Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts. She reveals that Elena Kagan plays a major behind-the-scenes role that the public rarely sees, and that over the past 20 years more than 90% of rulings have had a liberal justice in the majority (undermining the narrative of a runaway conservative court) The conversation turns to deeper structural concerns about the judiciary that Isgur argues are undermining the rule of law itself. She notes that today's justices all have eerily uniform résumés — a problem created by a system that essentially identifies future Supreme Court candidates by the time they're 18 and forces them to lead incredibly sheltered lives for both career and safety reasons — making them detached from the real world in ways that earlier, more varied courts were not. She is sharply critical of Congress for making the court the arbiter of fundamental rights, which has turned every confirmation into an existential battle — the refusal to take on issues like Roe legislatively forced them to the court, and now there's no real dialogue between the branches. They close by debating a provocative proposal: the confirmation threshold for justices should be raised to 60 or even 75 votes to force presidents to nominate consensus candidates, breaking the cycle of partisan warfare that has made the Federalist Society effectively a prerequisite for any aspiring conservative judge and turned the nomination process into something that is actively bad for both the court and the rule of law. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit America’s first war of choice: The Spanish American War. He also answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 04:00 We’re in a precious position. Strait of Hormuz closed & fuel rationing is coming 05:00 Expect some sort of extension of the current ceasefire agreement 05:45 JD Vance headed back to Pakistan for another round of talks 06:30 Sending Vance shows they’re serious about trying to end war 07:15 Trump is desperate to get out of the war 08:00 Control of Strait of Hormuz is a greater deterrent than nukes 09:00 Oil & stock markets seem divorced from reality 09:45 Energy markets are is major distress 10:45 Trump’s approval has slipped, public knows the war is going badly 11:30 Trump is talking tough, but his actions are cautious 12:30 Iranians know Trump is desperate and Iranians have serious leverage 14:00 Iranians know Trump is on the clock, and they have time on their side 14:30 China’s position has been strengthened by Iran war 15:45 U.S. is stretched too thin currently to defend Taiwan 17:00 Energy shock increases demand for clean energy, where China leads 18:15 Bibi suckered Trump into a generational foreign policy disaster 19:15 We’re likely stuck without a resolution to the war for awhile 20:15 Best Trump can hope for is redoing the Obama nuclear deal 21:30 Time is running out on the 60 day war powers resolution deadline 22:45 Trump has 5 weeks to get a deal before congress is forced to step in 23:30 Atlantic publishes story about Kash Patel being MIA & drunk 24:30 Patel denied everything, hoping for White House backup 25:30 Just because it’s a “hit piece” doesn’t mean it’s not true 26:15 People working at the FBI don’t trust the guy leading it 28:00 Atlantic paints a portrait of an FBI leader that’s completely unreliable 29:00 Patel’s ineptitude creates a national security threat to the U.S. 30:30 Rank & file intel professionals don’t trust the people in charge 31:45 Trump hates anecdotes about drinking, Patel’s days are numbered 32:30 Patel believes he’s going to be fired 34:00 Balloting for Virginia redistricting ends on Tuesday, looks like it will pass 34:30 Democrats expending political capital to only pick up two house seats 35:30 Redistricting fight has been terrible politically for Abigail Spanberger 38:00 New map will trim two very blue districts and export voters to swing districts 40:30 Blowing all this political capital for two seats doesn’t seem worth it 42:15 Livestream on Tuesday evening breaking down the results from VA 48:30 Sarah Isgur (Last Branch Standing) joins the Chuck ToddCast 50:15 The Supreme Court’s politics don’t map neatly to current left/right 51:30 Bono called Chuck a “radical centrist” 52:15 Brett Kavanaugh’s biggest regret was not getting selfie with Bono 54:00 Songs that best comment on American political culture 57:00 Incrimentalism more important than liberal/conservative 58:00 Kavanaugh & Kagan most similar to Chuck in philosophy 59:30 Kagan plays a major role on the court behind the scenes 1:00:30 The reputation of the solicitor general has changed under Trump 1:01:15 Earlier justices didn’t have the uniform resume of the current justices 1:03:00 Current justices are detached from the real world 1:04:15 Alito likely retiring this summer or next as Dems senate chances increase 1:05:15 White House is eager to get a Supreme Court opening 1:06:00 Trump may have his hands tied, Alito will want to approve successor 1:08:00 Alito will want someone like him to replace him 1:08:30 Unlikely Ted Cruz or Mike Lee will be nominated for the court 1:09:30 We’ve narrowed down who can be justices by the time candidates are 18 1:10:15 Justices have to lead an incredibly sheltered life for safety 1:12:15 The court isn’t really 6-3, it’s 3-3-3 1:14:15 Which justices are the most overtly political for their side? 1:15:30 Gorsuch had best opinion of the year on Trump’s tariffs 1:16:15 Congress has abdicated their duty, forced the court to legislate 1:17:15 There’s no dialogue between congress & court. Court gets final word 1:18:30 Congress didn’t have the guts to take on Roe, forced it to the court 1:20:15 Court has become the arbiter of rights, making confirmations existential 1:21:45 Rights of criminal defendants are compromised by an elected judiciary 1:22:45 Elections for judges create perverse incentive structures 1:24:15 Jackson & Kavanaugh share view of their role on the court 1:25:15 In past 20 years, over 90% of rulings had a liberal in the majority 1:27:00 Justice Thomas has been remarkably consistent in his rulings 1:29:00 Gorsuch consistently relies on the text and applies it 1:29:45 Thomas is a hardcore originalist 1:31:30 Chief Justice Roberts has eschewed any type of label 1:33:30 Kagan tries to keep the court out of issues unless they must intervene 1:34:45 Justices are taking fewer cases and writing more opinions than ever 1:35:45 The court speaks in too many voices now 1:37:30 Justice Alito’s favorite movie is “Being There” 1:38:45 Breyer was a 2nd backup choice for the court 1:40:30 The value of moderation vs. abstention 1:42:15 Should the confirmation threshold for justices be raised to 60 or 75? 1:45:00 Requirement to join the Federalist Society if you want to be a judge 1:46:00 Proposal for how to fix the confirmation wars 1:48:30 Current nomination process is bad for the court & rule of law 1:53:30 Court is last branch standing for now, haven’t seen result of 50 vote confirmation 1:56:30 Thoughts on Sarah Isgur’s proposal on SCOTUS confirmations 1:57:30 ToddCast Time Machine April 20th, 1898 - Spanish American War 1:59:00 U.S.S. Maine exploded in Havana harbor, conclusion was Spain did it 1:59:30 The facts didn’t lead to the conclusion, the conclusion came first 2:00:15 Hearst & Pulitzer were locked in a publishing war, competing for readers 2:01:00 William McKinley didn’t want war, but pressure kept building 2:02:00 It was a War of Choice, and the press pushed leaders into war 2:02:30 Congress demanded that Spain leave Cuba 2:03:30 U.S. begins blockage of Cuba, basically kicking off the war 2:04:15 Congress backdated their declaration of war 2:05:00 Teddy Roosevelt’s rise scared establishment Republicans 2:05:30 The war produced Roosevelt’s presidency 2:06:30 It was a war of choice, until it felt like there was no other option 2:07:00 Wars of choice never end well 2:07:30 Ask Chuck 2:07:45 As Trump’s support erodes, any chance the 25th amendment gets invoked? 2:11:30 Does Federalist 10 still hold up? Is there a case for a constitutional convention? 2:18:00 A Top 5 list of races where you think the election projections are off? 2:24:30 Did I hear a dog in the background in your Wednesday episode? 2:26:45 Can you bring on a late night host like Colbert, Oliver or Maher? 2:29:30 What can and can’t be done with the huge fundraising hauls Dems are getting? 2:36:30 Thoughts on the NBA playoffsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sarah Isgur — legal commentator, former DOJ spokesperson, and author of Last Branch Standing — joins the Chuck Toddcast for a comprehensive deep dive into the Supreme Court that challenges virtually everything the public thinks it knows about how the institution actually works. Isgur argues that the court's politics don't map neatly onto the current left-right spectrum, and that the court isn't really 6-3 but rather 3-3-3 — with a bloc of doctrinaire conservatives, a liberal minority, and a pragmatic center that includes Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts. She reveals that Elena Kagan plays a major behind-the-scenes role that the public rarely sees, and that over the past 20 years more than 90% of rulings have had a liberal justice in the majority (undermining the narrative of a runaway conservative court) The conversation turns to deeper structural concerns about the judiciary that Isgur argues are undermining the rule of law itself. She notes that today's justices all have eerily uniform résumés — a problem created by a system that essentially identifies future Supreme Court candidates by the time they're 18 and forces them to lead incredibly sheltered lives for both career and safety reasons — making them detached from the real world in ways that earlier, more varied courts were not. She is sharply critical of Congress for making the court the arbiter of fundamental rights, which has turned every confirmation into an existential battle — the refusal to take on issues like Roe legislatively forced them to the court, and now there's no real dialogue between the branches. They close by debating a provocative proposal: the confirmation threshold for justices should be raised to 60 or even 75 votes to force presidents to nominate consensus candidates, breaking the cycle of partisan warfare that has made the Federalist Society effectively a prerequisite for any aspiring conservative judge and turned the nomination process into something that is actively bad for both the court and the rule of law. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Sarah Isgur (Last Branch Standing) joins the Chuck ToddCast 01:45 The Supreme Court’s politics don’t map neatly to current left/right 03:00 Bono called Chuck a “radical centrist” 03:45 Brett Kavanaugh’s biggest regret was not getting selfie with Bono 05:30 Songs that best comment on American political culture 08:30 Incrimentalism more important than liberal/conservative 09:30 Kavanaugh & Kagan most similar to Chuck in philosophy 11:00 Kagan plays a major role on the court behind the scenes 12:00 The reputation of the solicitor general has changed under Trump 12:45 Earlier justices didn’t have the uniform resume of the current justices 14:30 Current justices are detached from the real world 15:45 Alito likely retiring this summer or next as Dems senate chances increase 16:45 White House is eager to get a Supreme Court opening 17:30 Trump may have his hands tied, Alito will want to approve successor 19:30 Alito will want someone like him to replace him 20:00 Unlikely Ted Cruz or Mike Lee will be nominated for the court 21:00 We’ve narrowed down who can be justices by the time candidates are 18 21:45 Justices have to lead an incredibly sheltered life for safety 23:45 The court isn’t really 6-3, it’s 3-3-3 25:45 Which justices are the most overtly political for their side? 27:00 Gorsuch had best opinion of the year on Trump’s tariffs 27:45 Congress has abdicated their duty, forced the court to legislate 28:45 There’s no dialogue between congress & court. Court gets final word 30:00 Congress didn’t have the guts to take on Roe, forced it to the court 31:45 Court has become the arbiter of rights, making confirmations existential 33:15 Rights of criminal defendants are compromised by an elected judiciary 34:15 Elections for judges create perverse incentive structures 35:45 Jackson & Kavanaugh share view of their role on the court 36:45 In past 20 years, over 90% of rulings had a liberal in the majority 38:30 Justice Thomas has been remarkably consistent in his rulings 40:30 Gorsuch consistently relies on the text and applies it 41:15 Thomas is a hardcore originalist 43:00 Chief Justice Roberts has eschewed any type of label 45:00 Kagan tries to keep the court out of issues unless they must intervene 46:15 Justices are taking fewer cases and writing more opinions than ever 47:15 The court speaks in too many voices now 49:00 Justice Alito’s favorite movie is “Being There” 50:15 Breyer was a 2nd backup choice for the court 52:00 The value of moderation vs. abstention 53:45 Should the confirmation threshold for justices be raised to 60 or 75? 56:30 Requirement to join the Federalist Society if you want to be a judge 57:30 Proposal for how to fix the confirmation wars 1:00:00 Current nomination process is bad for the court & rule of law 1:05:00 Court is last branch standing for now, haven’t seen result of 50 vote confirmationSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to Last Call, a look at the biggest stories Jim and Greg covered over the past week on the 3 Martini Lunch. This week, Jim and Greg break down two high-profile congressional resignations, the radical views of popular lefty podcaster and influencer Hasan Piker, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman's baffling stance on the Iran war, and some badly needed judicial wisdom from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.First, they welcome the resignations of Caiifornia Rep. Eric Swalwell and Texas Rep. Tony Gonzales. Swalwell is the Democrat who was running for governor until sexual assault and other allegations forced him out of the race. Gonzales, a Republican who is married, had an affair with a married staffer who later committed suicide by self-immolation. They react to the resignations and what's left of the Democrats running for governor in Caiifornia.Next, they react to lefty podcaster Hasan Piker doubling down on his claim that Israel is a thousand times worse than Hamas. Piker is a prominent voice on the left and some candidates have asked him to campaign with them. You'll also learn who Piker sees as the biggest terrorist organization in the world.Then they throw up their hands as longtime New York Times columnist Tom Friedman says he's conflicted over who he wants to win the Iran war. We'll explain the absurd reasons for his conundrum and just how deranged that thinking is.Finally, after all of that bad news, Greg and Thursday guest host and former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli close with some refreshing wisdom from Justice Thomas about the proper role of judges.Please visit our great sponsors:Schedule a free gold strategy session with Noble Gold. Visit https://NobleGoldInvestments.com/3ML to learn how to build lasting financial security.Better plants, better growing, and an extra 20% off with code MARTINI at https://FastGrowingTrees.com/Martini for a limited time; terms and conditions may apply.New episodes every weekday. 

For the second week in a row, the 3WHH gang (minus one) were on the road, this time recording live in the corner of a hotel lobby before the annual meeting of the Philadelphia Society. The sound quality of this episode is . . . authentic. Yes, I'll go with that. John Yoo couldn't make the meeting, so we have a special guest, our old pal Glenn Ellmers. With John absent, we get our freak on about the Clean Air Act . . . actually we didn't do that. We did worse: We get down in the weeds of metaphysics, radical historicism, the theological-political problem (especially in the context of this week's feud between the President and the Pope), dishing on Laura Field's terrible book Furious Minds, contrasting Justice Sotomayor's jurisprudence of "feels" versus Justice Thomas's jurisprudence of principle—the principle of the Declaration of Independence. And finally, we take up the perennial question, what's the matter with kids today. And as such the exit music this week is "Kids," from moe:Kids will try to run you overKids will try to bring you downKids will never say they're sorryKids back then are older now

Joe talks about the breaking news coming out of the Middle East, Senator Johnson putting a pompous Leftist in his place, and Justice Thomas dishing out some sage adviceSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For decades, Americans viewed the Supreme Court as an impartial referee standing above the political fray. However, public trust in this vital institution has recently plummeted to historic lows. Many observers blame a surge in ideological rulings that align with the party of the President who appointed each justice. If the referee is suddenly wearing a team jersey, the fundamental systems of democracy and capitalism begin to break down. Georgetown University Law Professor Steve Vladeck joins Luigi and Bethany to argue that the real culprit isn't just partisan justices, but a complete abdication of responsibility by Congress. Rather than viewing judicial reform as a zero-sum game of packing the court, he proposes that lawmakers must reclaim their constitutional authority to check judicial overreach. He explains how special interest groups have successfully manipulated this power vacuum to reshape American regulations. This perspective completely reframes the crisis from a partisan dispute into a structural collapse of institutional power. This episode explores the hidden mechanisms that allow unaccountable judges to unilaterally rewrite the rules of our economic system, why decades of political complacency allowed this shift and what actionable steps can actually fix it. Vladeck answers whether the business community will ultimately regret enabling a system that erodes the reliable rule of law and why saving our markets may require Congress to finally stand up and do its job. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Send a textThis episode breaks down excerpts from a Supreme Court oral argument about whether federal law 18 USC 922(g)(3) can categorically bar “unlawful” marijuana users from Second Amendment rights under the Bruin historical-tradition test and in light of Rahimi's dangerousness focus. It highlights Justice Gorsuch questioning whether “habitual user” is defined too loosely compared to historical “habitual drunkard” laws, and similar concerns from Justices Sotomayor and Barrett about whether scheduling decisions reflect individualized dangerousness. Justice Thomas presses distinctions between marijuana and other drugs (including anabolic steroids) and notes the DEA's ongoing rescheduling process, while Justice Alito emphasizes the founders' lack of experience with modern drugs. Justice Kagan poses an ayahuasca hypothetical, and the host predicts a likely 6–3 or 7–2 outcome against the government's position, with a decision expected by late June.Shout out to this channel, here's the whole thing: https://youtu.be/iMow-Yt1sJo?si=JU1zmjqVxBAgOk_l00:00 Supreme Court Preview00:34 Gorsuch Questions Habitual Use02:14 Founding Era Context03:57 Sotomayor Ambien Analogy05:08 Thomas on Illegality07:24 Alito History Problem09:01 Kavanaugh Mens Rea12:13 Gorsuch Rescheduling Pushback16:19 Barrett Demands Dangerousness23:15 Jackson on Bruin Limits25:25 Kagan Ayahuasca Hypothetical29:02 Predicted Vote Count30:22 Wrap Up and SponsorSupport the showGet our newsletter: https://bit.ly/3VEn9vu

We cover Justice Thomas' Concurring Opinion for the Court today for Part 5 (Episode 16) of this deep dive as we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Justice Thomas' concurring Opinion for the Court. We have one more part in this Deep Dive after this one to do the concurrence by Gorsuch. This is the 16th Chevron Deference Deep Dive episode we've done on TRP podcast since winter 2024. And here it is winter 2026. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. We will pick up with the Gorsuch's Republican concurrence in Loper Bright next time. Today's episode includes readings from Psalm 104 (RSV) and 25 January in Streams in the Desert (Cowman Publications Lost Feliz Station Lost Angeles, California 1925 non-woke original edition). The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-separation-of-powers podcast. 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

From July 16, 2024: On July 15, Judge Cannon granted former President Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith for the alleged mishandling of classified documents. She found that Smith was appointed as a special counsel in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.In a live podcast recording, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes talked to Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett, Legal Fellow and Courts Correspondent Anna Bower, Senior Editors Alan Rozenshtein and Quinta Jurecic, and Columbia Law professor Michel Paradis about Judge Cannon's decision, what Special Counsel Jack Smith may do next, how the Eleventh Circuit may rule on an appeal, how Justice Thomas's immunity concurrence plays a role, and more.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Angel Studios https://Angel.com/HermanJoin the Angel Guild today where you can stream Thank You, Dr. Fauci and be part of the conversation demanding truth and accountability.  Renue Healthcare https://Renue.Healthcare/ToddYour journey to a better life starts at Renue Healthcare. Visit https://Renue.Healthcare/Todd Bulwark Capital https://KnowYourRiskPodcast.comBe confident in your portfolio with Bulwark! Schedule your free Know Your Risk Portfolio review. Go to KnowYourRiskPodcast.com today. Alan's Soaps https://www.AlansArtisanSoaps.comUse coupon code TODD to save an additional 10% off the bundle price.Bonefrog https://BonefrogCoffee.com/ToddThe new GOLDEN AGE is here!  Use code TODD at checkout to receive 10% off your first purchase and 15% on subscriptions.LISTEN and SUBSCRIBE at:The Todd Herman Show - Podcast - Apple PodcastsThe Todd Herman Show | Podcast on SpotifyWATCH and SUBSCRIBE at: Todd Herman - The Todd Herman Show - YouTubePresident Trump Decided To Lose To Rob Reiner's Ghost. //  If These Are Our Betters, Who Are They Following? // The Holy Spirit Won't Let Me Care About RaceEpisode Links:CBS just had Hunter Kozak appear at the Erika Kirk townhall and ask her to condemn Trump's rhetoric. This is the leftist who asked Charlie his last question in Utah. He never even said sorry for your lossI disagreed with nearly everything Rob Reiner believed politically, but I won't celebrate his death. His thoughts on Charlie Kirk were heartfelt and caring. Justice Thomas grills Russia collusion hoaxer Marc Elias about his rambling campaign finance arguments. “I still don't understand what you're saying.”@RepThomasMassie calls out @SpeakerJohnson for flip-flopping on FISA reform, stating that the SCIF meeting that allegedly changed his mind — which Massie also attended — had nothing of substanceDigital ID - I made my thoughts abundantly clear in Parliament. We must resist it. Because once it's in, we are never turning back. I plan on resisting. I will not download a Digital ID. I will not comply.

EPISODE TW: Physical assault.  Satan's misogynistic minions were hard at work this week… but so were we! The Supreme Court heard not one, but TWO abobo-related cases this week: First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin AND a case involving a violent clinic harasser we personally know all too well. SCOTUS is playing with the safety of pregnant people, the future of clinic protections, and the legality of deception as a political strategy. Did you think we'd let you drown in legalese all on your lonesome? HELL NO! Moji is flying solo this week on the pod, but she brought in the big guns to break down in normal peoplespeak WTF what went down this week. GUEST ROLL CALL! Dr. Michele Goodwin is BACK! The constitutional law scholar, award-winning author, AAF board member, and the sharpest legal badass we know is here to help us understand exactly what these cases mean and what the court is signaling about the future of abortion access. PLUS, welcome back Kristin Hady! AAF's very own Programs Director, extremist whisperer, and longtime Ohio-based clinic defender. Kristin has firsthand experience with the clinic harasshole whose case is now in front of the justices. She shares her personal story of how truly VIOLENT and dangerous this man is, and how his behavior connects to the larger ecosystem of anti-abortion extremism. This is a goodie you don't want to miss! Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu.  OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: Check out our NEW Operation Save Abortion workshop, recorded a live from Netroots Nation 2025 that'll train you in coming for anti-abobo lawmakers, spotting and fighting against fake clinics, AND gears you up on how to help someone in a banned state access abortion. You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to past Operation Save Abortion trainings by clicking HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead @LizzWinsteadMoji Alawode-El @MojiLocks SPECIAL GUESTS: Kristin Hady IG: @aggiefund and @tac_escortsDr. Michele Goodwin IG: @Michelebgoodwin Bluesky: @Michelebgoodwin.bsky.social GUEST LINKS: VOLUNTEER: Abortion Access FrontGreenville Women's Clinic The Agnes Reynolds Jackson Fund (Aggie Fund) Toledo Abortion Center Escorts Dr. Michele Goodwin WebsiteREAD: Dr. Goodwin's Book “Policing The Womb” EPISODE LINKS:SCOTUS CASE 12/2: Court to Hear Arguments on Faith-Based Pregnancy Centers' Challenge to State SubpoenaSCOTUS CASE 12/3: Olivier v. City of Brandon, MississippiSupreme Court Seems Open to Letting Street Preacher's Lawsuit Be HeardConfrontation Outside Greenville Abortion Clinic Posted to TikTokVIDEO: (TW: violence) Attack Outside of Clinic in Greenville, SC VIDEO: (TW: violence) Gabe Olivier Violent Attack ADOPT-A-CLINIC: Pro-Choice Milwaukee Clinic Escorts EMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK PodcastInstagram ~ @AbortionFrontTwitter ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFront TALK 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! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

In breaking news, there are not 4 votes on the US Supreme Court to overturn the Constitutional right for people to marry who they choose and same sex marriage, as the Supreme Court refuses to hear on appeal the case of Kim Davis, the clerk who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same sex couples on religious grounds. Michael Popok explains how Davis, the stalking horse of the MAGA right-wing religious zealots who sought to have the Court follow Justice Thomas' call to have same sex marriage as a constitutional right protected from State attack, overturned, and how even MAGA justices like Amy Coney Barrett and Alito think that's going too far. Lola Blankets: Get 40% off your entire order at https://lolablankets.com by using code LEGALAF at checkout. Experience the world's #1 blanket with Lola Blankets. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why Gorsuch is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020)(part 7 in a series) about his faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- this is a real hoot. Part 7: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dissents, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover the Republican dissenting opinion written by Justice Alito (joined by Justice Thomas) through Roman numeral I letter A. Part 7. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. 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

What do First Amendment rights have in common with Calvin and Hobbes? In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the First Amendment is on trial, and according to Prof. Eric Goldman, it looks like the referees are playing Calvinball. On the latest episode of Tech Policy Grind, hosted by Justice Shannon, Prof. Goldman, a leading First Amendment scholar and law professor, breaks down the Supreme Court's fractured logic in this pivotal case. His take? Justice Thomas didn't follow precedent, he put it in a blender, cherry-picking fragments of past rulings to justify a result that was already decided. It's a bold critique of how the Court handles First Amendment rights in the digital age and a warning for the future of content regulation, free speech, and tech policy.

One can only hope. ----- For a long time, the bar exam seemed like the nasty habit that the legal profession just couldn't quit. But there's finally some progress on that front, with Utah unveiling a new alternative pathway to licensure that values experience and the skills that an actual practitioner needs. We also check in on Cadwalader, where the firm brings on a new co-manager while taking some serious blows in the lateral market. Finally, the Supreme Court is back in session, so we look back at the summer of shadows, when the Court's shadow docket finally crashed into the reality of a president unwilling to play the game and Justice Thomas shed a little light on his decision to bail on teaching his class after Dobbs.

The only news you can trust comes from conservative sources.The rest of it is propaganda…MADE UP!!I thought Justice Thomas was joking when he told me this. And even when I realized that much of the news was fake, I still reserved some judgement. I'm watching this show about foreign governments using social media to generate news in America (and elsewhere). They establish groups, get people to join. Then set up counter groups, and get the two groups fighting each other.What appears to be legit has been staged, sort of.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

For thirty years, Clarence Thomas has been denounced as the “cruelest justice,” a betrayer of his race, an ideologue, and the enemy of the little guy. Today, Judge Amul Thapar will demolish that caricature. Every day, Americans go to court. Invoking the Constitution, they fight for their homes, for a better education for their children, and to save their cities from violence. “Finding the right answer,” Justice Thomas has observed, “is often the least difficult problem.” What is needed is “the courage to assert that answer and stand firm in the face of the constant winds of protest and criticism.”Become a Parshall Partner: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/inthemarket/partnersSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We're joined by a special guest, Harvard Law Professor Stephen Sachs, to talk about Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. Fuld is last week's big personal jurisdiction case, where the Court upheld federal laws extending jurisdiction to the PLO and PA for antiterrorism lawsuits. The author of several important articles on these issues and an amicus brief in Fuld, Steve gives us his take on the relationship between personal jurisdiction, international law and due process, and helps us evaluate the majority opinion and Justice Thomas's concurrence.

Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court issued an order blocking the deportation of Venezuelan illegal immigrants under an 18th-century law. Justice Alito and Justice Thomas dissented, criticizing the decision as hasty and legally questionable. The ruling was made without giving lower courts a chance to rule or hearing from the opposing party. Implications for the Trump Administration: The ruling poses a challenge to the Trump administration's efforts to deport illegal immigrants. The decision was seen as a significant roadblock, with concerns about its impact on future immigration policies. Procedural Concerns: The dissent highlighted procedural issues, including the quick turnaround time for the ruling and the lack of jurisdiction. The process was compared to emergency appeals in death penalty cases, where last-minute filings can lead to rushed decisions. Political Strategy: The discussion suggests that the Democrats might be aiming to frustrate the Supreme Court justices to influence future rulings against the Trump administration. The strategy involves creating legal and procedural hurdles to delay or block deportation efforts. Vandalism Incident: We also mention a separate incident involving a Minnesota state employee who vandalized multiple Tesla vehicles. The district attorney decided not to press charges, leading to frustration among law enforcement and the public. The discussion touches on broader issues of lawlessness and political bias in prosecuting crimes. Democratic Party Disarray: A discussion on the internal challenges within the Democratic Party. Polling data shows declining confidence in Democratic leaders, with significant dissatisfaction among party members. The potential for younger politicians to step forward and the impact of senior Democrats retiring are also discussed. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening #seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmericaYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Democratic Senators' Stance on Illegal Immigration: The podcast criticizes Democratic senators for their stance on illegal immigration, particularly focusing on MS-13 gang members. Senator Chris Van Hollen from Maryland is highlighted for his visit to El Salvador to meet with an MS-13 gang member, which the hosts find astonishing and politically motivated. The discussion includes a critique of Van Hollen's defense of the gang member's due process rights and the broader implications of this stance for the Democratic Party. Supreme Court Decision on Deportations: The podcast covers a Supreme Court decision that temporarily halted the deportations of Venezuelan illegal immigrants. Justice Alito and Justice Thomas dissented strongly against this decision, arguing that it was hastily and prematurely granted. The hosts express concern about the implications of this ruling for the Trump administration's immigration policies and the broader legal and political landscape. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening #seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmericaYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Favorite Things: Slow Burn: Becoming Justice Thomas Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

In 2019, Justice Clarence Thomas raised the prospect of overturning one of the most consequential free speech decisions ever made. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is a 1964 landmark case that strengthened First Amendment protections by enabling journalists and writers, from top national outlets to local newspapers and bloggers, to pursue the truth without being afraid of being sued. In his book Murder the Truth, author David Enrich explores how Justice Thomas' words coincide with a surge in legal threats and litigation against journalists and media outlets.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy