Podcasts about justices thomas

In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Mexico brought suit against several U.S. gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson. It alleged, among other things, that they were in part liable for the killings perpetrated by Mexican cartels. Mexico argued that the gun manufacturers know the guns they sell are/may be illegally sold to the cartels and thus are the proximate causes of the resulting gun violence.The manufacturers argued that they were immune from such suits under the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects U.S. gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, though not universally, as it contains a predicate exception for manufacturers who knowingly violate applicable federal (and potentially international) law.The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 4, 2025. On June 5, 2025, the Court issued a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kagan, ruling that the PLCAA did prevent the suit from moving forward. Justices Thomas and Jackson both filed concurrences.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.Featuring:Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

In Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court addressed what context courts need to consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment.Some circuits, including the Fifth Circuit (which decided Barnes before it reached the Supreme Court), as well as the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits, had adopted the “moment of threat” doctrine. This approach focuses solely on whether there was an imminent danger that created a reasonable fear for one’s life in the immediate moments preceding the use of force. In contrast, other circuits, including the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, held that courts must consider the “totality of the circumstances” when assessing whether the use of force was justified.The Court heard oral argument on January 22, 2025, and on May 15 issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Kagan, vacating the Fifth Circuit and remanding. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what it may mean for excessive force claims moving forward.Featuring:Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

This Day in Legal History: National Defense ActOn June 3, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the National Defense Act into law, marking a major shift in American military and legal policy. Passed amid growing tensions related to World War I, the Act dramatically expanded the U.S. Army and strengthened the National Guard, officially integrating it as the Army's primary reserve force. It increased the size of the Regular Army to over 175,000 soldiers and provided for a National Guard force of over 400,000 when fully mobilized. The law also created the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), formalizing military education at civilian colleges and universities across the country.Crucially, the Act clarified federal authority over the National Guard, requiring units to conform to federal training standards and granting the president the power to mobilize them for national emergencies. This federalization of a traditionally state-controlled force marked a significant legal development in the balance between state and federal military power. It addressed long-standing constitutional ambiguities surrounding the militia clauses and reflected evolving views of national defense in a modern industrial society.The Act emerged from broader preparedness debates within the U.S. political and legal spheres, balancing isolationist tendencies with the perceived need for greater military readiness. Though the U.S. would not enter World War I until 1917, the National Defense Act of 1916 laid essential legal groundwork for rapid mobilization. It remains a foundational statute for the structure of the modern U.S. military.The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear two significant Second Amendment challenges involving bans on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines in Maryland and Rhode Island. By refusing the appeals, the Court left in place lower court rulings upholding the restrictions. Maryland's law, enacted after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, bans certain semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, while Rhode Island's 2022 law prohibits magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Plaintiffs in both cases argued that these weapons and accessories are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens and thus protected by the Constitution.The Court's conservative bloc showed signs of division. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, indicating they would have reviewed the bans. Justice Kavanaugh did not dissent but issued a statement expressing openness to hearing similar cases in the future, suggesting that the Court would eventually need to rule on whether AR-15s are constitutionally protected.Lower courts rejected the challenges based on the weapons' military-style design and their use in mass killings, reasoning that they are not suitable for self-defense and thus fall outside Second Amendment protection. The challengers contended that these laws ignore the Court's prior rulings on weapons in “common use.” Despite recent decisions expanding gun rights, the justices allowed these bans to stand for now.US Supreme Court won't review assault weapon, high-capacity magazine bans | ReutersThree federal lawsuits filed on June 2, 2025, allege that major class action settlement administrators and two banks engaged in a kickback scheme that siphoned funds away from class members. The suits, brought in New York, Florida, and California, accuse Epiq Solutions, Angeion Group, and JND Legal Administration of securing illicit payments from Huntington National Bank and Western Alliance Bank in exchange for directing large volumes of settlement deposits to them. In return, the administrators allegedly received a share of the banks' profits.Plaintiffs claim the scheme dates back years and coincided with rising interest rates in 2021, which increased the potential value of settlement fund deposits. According to the lawsuits, administrators threatened to stop using the banks unless they shared profits. As a result, class members allegedly received lower payouts due to below-market interest rates on their settlement funds.Together, the defendant banks are said to control over 80% of the U.S. settlement fund market, while the administrators manage over 65% of class action services. The plaintiffs argue this arrangement violated U.S. antitrust law by reducing competition and fixing prices. JND and Western Alliance have denied wrongdoing, calling the claims baseless or inaccurate. Huntington declined to comment, and other parties have yet to respond.Class action administrators, banks accused of kickback scheme in new lawsuits | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Spain's proposed 100% tax on non-EU homebuyers, introduced as a bold fix for the country's deepening housing crisis. The government is responding to surging public frustration over exploding rents—up more than 60% in Barcelona in five years—and the sense that local housing is being turned into an asset class for absentee owners. But while the policy grabs attention, I argue it misses the real target. The problem isn't who owns the homes—it's how those homes are being used. A blanket nationality-based tax is a blunt instrument that's economically ineffective, legally risky under EU and international law, and symbolically inflammatory.Instead, I suggest a more focused approach: taxing speculative flipping and underutilization directly. A resale tax on homes sold within a short holding period, calibrated by how quickly they're flipped, would discourage fast-moving speculation without penalizing genuine residents or workers. Similarly, a progressive vacancy tax—getting steeper the longer a property remains empty—would address the roughly four million vacant or underused homes across Spain. These tools would pressure banks and investors to put housing back into circulation while raising revenue for public housing initiatives.Critically, these proposals are neutral as to the owner's nationality. Whether a home is owned by a Spanish bank, a Canadian retiree, or a U.S. fund manager, what matters is whether it's being used as shelter or as a sidelined asset. The column makes the case that Spain's housing crisis won't be solved by turning foreign investors into political scapegoats, but by confronting speculative behaviors that choke supply and inflate prices—regardless of the flag the buyer flies. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In an unusual late-night order, the Supreme Court temporarily barred the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants being held in Texas using an 18th century law called the Alien Enemies Act. The order came in response to an emergency petition filed by the ACLU, with Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting. John Yang speaks with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog for more. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

In an unusual late-night order, the Supreme Court temporarily barred the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants being held in Texas using an 18th century law called the Alien Enemies Act. The order came in response to an emergency petition filed by the ACLU, with Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting. John Yang speaks with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog for more. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

In an unusual late-night order, the Supreme Court temporarily barred the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants being held in Texas using an 18th century law called the Alien Enemies Act. The order came in response to an emergency petition filed by the ACLU, with Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting. John Yang speaks with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog for more. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

This week, we're taking a close look at the Supreme Court's ruling in Bondi v. VanDerStok. To do that, we have the Independence Institute's David Kopel on the show. Kopel has written extensively on gun policy and been cited repeatedly at the Supreme Court. So, there are few people better qualified to dissect what the VanDerStok ruling means. Kopel argued the decision upholding the ATF's "ghost gun" kit ban is relatively narrow, but still likely applies to more than just the Polymer80 "buy build shoot" kits discussed at length by the majority. He also explained why the majority decided the case as a facial challenge and why he, along with Justices Thomas and Alito, disagrees with the use of that standard. He said the Trump Administration could have tried to intervene in this case, but didn't move fast enough. However, he argued that it can still try to undo the rule despite the decision. Kopel also gave his view on where the balance of the court lies on gun issues and whether there's a reliable way to read what they might do with other pending gun cases. Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utmsource=thereload&utmmedium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0125 Special Guest: David Kopel.

The Utah Supreme Court will not be LARPing as amateur historians, no matter what nonsense Justices Thomas and Alito get up to. The state's highest court upholds an injunction blocking an abortion ban. And we'll check in on Rudy Giuliani's ignominious exit from bankruptcy, along with Project 2025's implosion. Have rumors of the manifesto's demise been greatly exaggerated?   Links: Gina Carano's Trollsuit Against Disney Lives To Fight Another Day https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/gina-caranos-trollsuit-against-disney Roake v. Brumley - LA Ten Commandments docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68879768/roake-v-brumley/ Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Utah https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25023061/pp-utah.pdf Giuliani Bankruptcy Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68108037/rudolph-w-giuliani/  NY Denial of Trump Gag Order Appeal https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25023087-ny-appeals-ruling-on-trump-gag-order The Man Behind Project 2025's Most Radical Plans https://www.propublica.org/article/project-2025-trump-campaign-heritage-foundation-paul-dans   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod

Jeremy Dys, Esq., is Senior Counsel for First Liberty. Statement by First Liberty: President Biden's court “reform” scheme is nothing more than a desperate attack to subvert the legitimacy of the Supreme Court because it contains a majority of justices committed to the Constitution and originalism. Term limits are simply court-packing by another name and are designed to target Justices Thomas and Alito in an act of pure political revenge. If successful, the judiciary will no longer be a safeguard of our civil liberties but will instead be little more than a political tool used to crush the freedom of Americans.

In the case of Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court quite literally ruled that portions of our Constitution are unconstitutional. This is a gross abuse of judicial power by six Supreme Court justices.Kim Wehle is a law professor, a constitutional law and separation of powers expert, an ABC News legal analyst, a former federal prosecutor and the author of three books (links below), and a fourth book set to be released on September 2, that could not be more timely: "Pardon Power: How The Pardon System Works - And Why."In part 3 of Glenn's conversation with Kim, they discuss, among other topics, Senator Whitehouse's formal request of Attorney General Merrick Garland that Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito be criminals investigated, as well as the articles of impeachment that have been drafted for the same two justices.Link to Kim's website: kimberlywehle.comTo pre-order Pardon Power: How The Pardon System Works―And WhyReleased date - September 2, 2024https://a.co/d/6iiAxBKKimm's. other books:How to Read the Constitution--and Whyhttps://a.co/d/4DKz18oWhat You Need to Know About Voting--and Whyhttps://a.co/d/78V2EJCHow to Think Like a Lawyer--and Why: A Common-Sense Guide to Everyday Dilemmashttps://a.co/d/gv1ab88If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts and mission, you can becoming a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner And my website at glennkirschner.comFollow me on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: / glennkirschner2 Facebook: / glennkirschner2 Instagram: / glennkirschner2 See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In the case of Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court quite literally ruled that portions of our Constitution are unconstitutional. This is a gross abuse of judicial power by six Supreme Court justices.Kim Wehle is a law professor, a constitutional law and separation of powers expert, an ABC News legal analyst, a former federal prosecutor and the author of three books (links below), and a fourth book set to be released on September 2, that could not be more timely: "Pardon Power: How The Pardon System Works - And Why."In part 3 of Glenn's conversation with Kim, they discuss, among other topics, Senator Whitehouse's formal request of Attorney General Merrick Garland that Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito be criminals investigated, as well as the articles of impeachment that have been drafted for the same two justices.Link to Kim's website: kimberlywehle.comTo pre-order Pardon Power: How The Pardon System Works―And WhyReleased date - September 2, 2024https://a.co/d/6iiAxBKKimm's. other books:How to Read the Constitution--and Whyhttps://a.co/d/4DKz18oWhat You Need to Know About Voting--and Whyhttps://a.co/d/78V2EJCHow to Think Like a Lawyer--and Why: A Common-Sense Guide to Everyday Dilemmashttps://a.co/d/gv1ab88If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts and mission, you can becoming a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner And my website at glennkirschner.comFollow me on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: / glennkirschner2 Facebook: / glennkirschner2 Instagram: / glennkirschner2 See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v International Brotherhood of Teamsters. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the National Labor Relations Act preempt a state-court lawsuit against a union for intentionally destroying an employer's property during a labor dispute? The case was decided on June 1, 2023. The Supreme Court held that The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) did not preempt Glacier's state-court lawsuit alleging that the union intentionally destroyed the company's property during a labor dispute. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion of the Court. The position of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is that while the NLRA generally recognizes the right of workers to strike, it does not protect from liability strikers who fail to take “reasonable precautions” to protect their employer's property from foreseeable harms caused by the sudden cessation of work. At the motion to dismiss stage, the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true. Accepting the allegations here as true, the Union failed to take reasonable precautions to protect Glacier's property, as the Union knew that concrete is highly perishable and, if left to harden in a truck's drum, will cause significant damage to the truck. Because the Union knew of this risk—and indeed intended that result—the strike went beyond the conduct protected by the NLRA. Because the strike was not protected by federal law, the state tort claims were not preempted. Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Justice Thomas would reach the same conclusion that the state-court claims are not preempted based on adherence to the Court's decision in ___. He wrote separately to emphasize the “oddity” of the “broad pre-emption regime” in the case the majority relied on—San Diego Building Trades Council v Garmon, —and suggesting that the Court reassess its holding in that case. Justice Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which both Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined. Justice Alito would reach the same conclusion based solely on the Court's longstanding position that the NLRA does not immunize strikers who engage in trespass or violence against the employer's property. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, pointing out that the test in Garmon is only whether the conduct at issue is “arguably” protected by the NLRA, as determined by the Board. She criticized the Court for stepping in to make that determination instead of allowing the Board to do so. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

After long-enduring obvious corruption, conflicts, abuses and potential crimes by Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, members of Congress are finally trying to do something about it. Senators Whitehouse and Wyden have formally requested that Attorney General Merrick Garland appoint a special counsel to criminally investigate Thomas and Alito for potentially violating federal financial disclosure laws, tax laws, false statements laws, etc.In another breaking legal development, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has introduced articles of impeachment for Thomas and Alito for their alleged crimes and abuses.Glenn reviews the new reporting on these and other related issues and argues that these actions are an important first step to address the rot at the top of the Judicial branch of governmentIf you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch... See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

After long-enduring obvious corruption, conflicts, abuses and potential crimes by Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, members of Congress are finally trying to do something about it. Senators Whitehouse and Wyden have formally requested that Attorney General Merrick Garland appoint a special counsel to criminally investigate Thomas and Alito for potentially violating federal financial disclosure laws, tax laws, false statements laws, etc.In another breaking legal development, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has introduced articles of impeachment for Thomas and Alito for their alleged crimes and abuses.Glenn reviews the new reporting on these and other related issues and argues that these actions are an important first step to address the rot at the top of the Judicial branch of governmentIf you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch... See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Get tickets for the #SistersInLaw Live Show in NYC on 9/20/24 at politicon.com/tour  Kimberly Atkins Stohr hosts #SistersInLaw to discuss AOC's introduction of articles of impeachment against Justices Thomas and Alito and the calls for the DOJ to open a criminal investigation into their abuses after Thomas' free trip to Putin's hometown came to light.  Then, the #Sisters give an update on Senator Menendez's corruption trial, explore whether there is Senatorial immunity, and review the strength of his possible defenses.  They also break down the dangers of Project 2025, with an emphasis on the Heritage Foundation's attempt to consolidate prosecutorial power in the hands of the federal government and the threat it poses to minority groups. Get your #SistersInLaw merchandise at politicon.com/merch WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast Mentioned By The #Sisters: iGen Politics Episode with Former Secretary of Defense Chris Miller Jill on what the SCOTUS immunity decision would have meant for Nixon From Joyce - The Project 2025 Columns Index Project 2025 Get tickets for the #SistersInLaw Live Show in NYC on 9/20/24 at politicon.com/tour  Get text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon.  Please Support This Week's Sponsors: Thrive: For 10% off incredible clean and cause-focused beauty products, go to thrivecausemetics.com/sisters OneSkin: Get 15% off OneSkin with the code: SISTERS at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod Blueland: For 15% off your order of green cleaning products, go to blueland.com/sisters HoneyLove: Get 20% OFF @honeylove by going to honeylove.com/sisters! #honeylovepod Get Barb's New Book:  Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America Barb's Book Tour  Get More From #SistersInLaw Joyce Vance: Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack Jill Wine-Banks: Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | Unbound Newsletter Barb McQuade: Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC

Tonight on The Last Word: The stock market again closes at an all-time high under President Biden. Also, the AFL-CIO reaffirms its endorsement of Biden. Plus, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez files impeachment articles against Justices Thomas and Alito. And Democrats are defending the North Carolina governorship in a tight race. Rep. Katie Porter, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, and North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein join Lawrence O'Donnell.

Robert Steinbuch, Professor of Law at University of Arkansas - Little Rock, talks to Shaun about the recent SCOTUS Chevron ruling, right to work states, and AOC filing articles of impeachment on Justices Thomas and Alito.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Democrats are still in full melt-down mode! PLUS, Gun Owners of America's Luis Valdes talks to Shaun about Chicago's extremely violent July 4th weekend and how Americans are yearning for freedom again. Shaun talks to Scott Wilder, spokesman for PreBorn, tells Shaun about their program that provides FREE ultra-sounds to women so that they may choose LIFE! For a $28 gift, you can help save the life of an unborn baby today - donate today at 560theanswer.com/preborn  And Robert Steinbuch, Professor of Law at University of Arkansas - Little Rock, talks to Shaun about the recent SCOTUS Chevron ruling, right to work states, and AOC filing articles of impeachment on Justices Thomas and Alito.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

AOC brings articles of impeachment on Justices Thomas and Alito. Huma Abedin engaged to Alex Soros. Jim Banks joins show to talk about the SAVE Act. CPI Report. Thursday Music Moment. Big Boy PresserSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Schumer is willing to dump Joe. Stephanopolous was caught being honest, and ABC won't have that. House votes on SAVE Act as Election Day nears. Carved Wooden Heads on the Marketplace. There is nothing to glean from Trump's talk of VP. NY a battleground for Trump? BMW Recall. All Eyes on the Fed. Big Boy Press Conference Today. Mick Jagger Steps in it in Canada. Howard Dean admits that Biden is “disabled”. Macy's card interest rates increase to nearly 35% George Clooney is no hero. AOC brings articles of impeachment on Justices Thomas and Alito. Huma Abedin engaged to Alex Soros. Jim Banks joins show to talk about the SAVE Act. CPI Report. Thursday Music Moment. Big Boy PresserSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hollywood's Democratic allies enter Biden withdrawal debate. AOC moves to impeach Justices Thomas and Alito and GOP commissioners face backlash after they refuse to certify Nevada county recount results.

Today's show opens with yesterday's passage of the SAVE Act, putting in place preventative measures to keep illegals from voting in American elections. What's worthy of note is 198 Democrats decided they were more in support of illegals than they were in support of Americans. Once again, we have several soundbites about the upcoming election. Some of the designated members of the Democrat body politic, like Rep. Rishi Kumar (D-CA) who gets to use the term “bloodbath” when describing the upcoming defeat they will face if Biden stays in the race. Joe Scarborough evoked Lincoln's post-Civil War speech and likened it to letting the South win control of government if Trump wins. CNN wants us to know that if the people choose Trump in a landslide, that will jeopardize our democracy. It appears, the only way to save our democracy, in not to let the people decide for themselves in a free and fair election, but to have a select few people already in power make that decision for the rest of us. That's their version of “democracy.” Rep. James Comer (R-KY) has decided he wants to speak to the Triple A's who surround Joe Biden and keep him insulated and under total control. Annie Tomasini, Ashley Williams and Anthony Bernal have all received a letter informing them of being called to testify. Our Intelligence Community is dragging out the old “Russia, Russia, Russia” playbook again. They want us to believe Putin prefers Trump over Biden. Throwing her promised toddler-like tantrum, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has filed her article of impeachment against Justices Thomas and Alito. Their version of democracy also seems centered around the belief that they cannot allow anyone who affirms the Constitution to be kept in their roles. The Daily Show got a shock when a 6 person, all-black panel in New York City was split 50/50 in their support of Trump versus Biden. Those voting for trump cut across age ranges and generations. But the true test for Joe Biden today is his BIG BOY press conference. It is scheduled for around 5:30PM today. I'll will be watching with undivided attention and will bring the relevant moments to Friday's show. Sources behind the scenes are telling MSNBC and Politico that President Obama is behind the scenes, pushing to oust Joe Biden. It's not secret there is no love lost between the Biden's and the Obama's. But, make no mistake, Obama is going to get his way. In a turn of irony, SCOTUS Sotomayor, who dissenting against the idea that the Second Amendment was meant to protect a private right of armed self defense, found her bodyguard's in a shoot-out with a would-be carjacker. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has just signed into law the bill making it harder to request a recount over an allegation of fraud. The law strips the Board of Canvassers of its investigative authority. If you are going to cheat, might as well make it legal. But, in two somewhat related wins, the radical judge, Sarah Netburn, who is part of the woke, ‘what is a woman,' screwball culture was shot down for the Court of Appeals. And, Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) has her bill pass the House, blocking Joe Biden's radical Title IX rewrite. Take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR and TRUTH Social by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. You can also support the show by visiting my Patreon page!

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) made waves this past Wednesday by forwarding a bombshell proposal to impeach Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The political maneuver, which has been viewed by many as an escalation in the ongoing feud between the left and the conservative-majority Court, showcases the dynamic and often volatile political climate of our era. Ocasio-Cortez's decision to bring impeachment articles against these two justices was borne out of their alliance with the majority opinion in the case of Trump v. United States. The crux of this historic verdict lies in the establishment of presidential immunity towards official acts, a contentious topic that has captured the attention of the nation. The proposed impeachment articles home in on a series of actions reminiscent of the conservative faction's efforts to undermine the Supreme Court. It emphasizes points of contention linked to supposed gifts and financial reimbursements both justices are alleged to have received from prominent donors whose political inclinations align with their own over the years. Of particular note within the impeachment articles was the explicit reference to Justice Thomas's decision to not step back from cases linked to the Trump administration and events from the 2020 election, in light of his wife's active involvement with Trump's team post-election. According to Ocasio-Cortez, these actions committed by Justices Thomas and Alito were not just inexcusable but also merited serious repercussions. She argued that their behavior necessitated 'impeachment, trial, removal from office, and disqualification from holding future office in the United States of America.'See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

LaDoris Hazzard Cordell was the first lawyer to open a law practice in East Palo Alto, CA, a low-income community of color. In 1978, she was appointed Assistant Dean for Student Affairs at Stanford Law School, where she implemented a successful minority admissions program. In 1982, Governor Jerry Brown appointed her to the Municipal Court of Santa Clara County making her the first African American woman judge in northern California. In1988, Judge Cordell won election to the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. In all, she' spent nearly 20 years on the bench. From 2010 to 2015, she served as Independent Police Auditor for the City of San Jose. In 2015 she was a member of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Transparency, Accountability, and Fairness in Law Enforcement. She's also served as Vice Provost & Special Counselor to the President for Campus Relations at Stanford University; served on the Palo Alto City Council; was the Independent Police Auditor for the City of San Jose; and is the co-founder of the African American Composer Initiative. She is the author of the 2021 book: Her Honor: My Life on the Bench...What Works, What's Broken, and How to Change It. And, she's appeared on CNN, MSNBC, NPR, CBS-5 television and Court TV. Judge Cordell take us back to childhood and her early inspirations; walks us through her illustrious academic and judicial career; helps unpack the latest with convicted-felon Donald Trump's sentencing options in the New York election-interference/hush-money trial; discusses the need for an enforceable code of conduct for the Supreme Court in the wake of new disclosure violations and conflicts of interest with Justices Thomas and Alito; discusses her book; and shares how music has impacted her life. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Perez v Sturgis Public Schools.  In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (I-D-E-A) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require a student to exhaust his administrative proceedings against the school district even when such proceedings would be futile? The case was decided on March 21, 2023. The Supreme Court declined to exempt a highly-compensated worker, paid on a daily basis with no guarantee of a weekly amount, from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay requirements. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Barrett, and Jackson joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Alito joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

The United States Supreme Court unanimously decides a First Amendment case in favor of the National Rifle Association against the New York Department of Financial Services for attempting to coerce insurance companies from doing business with the NRA.  Justice Sotomayer of all people wrote the opinion for the unanimous decision.Congressman Jamie Raskin goes after the US Supreme Court and specifically Justices Thomas and Alito while ignoring the hypocrisy of Judge Merchan in the Donald Trump business records case.Anthony Fauci's previously sealed testimony is finally released and it's a doozy.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a supervisor who makes over $200,000 annually, calculated on a daily basis, entitled to overtime pay, despite a regulation that carves out an exception for highly paid executives? The case was decided on February 22, 2023. The Supreme Court declined to exempt a highly-compensated worker, paid on a daily basis with no guarantee of a weekly amount, from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay requirements. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Barrett, and Jackson joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Alito joined. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

We know who Justices Thomas and Alito truly are. We know that they have no business being on the Supreme Court. A recent report about Justice Alito perfectly illustrates our beliefs. Let's get into it. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rational-boomer/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rational-boomer/support

Speech First, Inc. v. Sands concerns a Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) policy that created a bias response team and protocol where students could report bias incidents. Under this policy, reported incidents would be reviewed and possibly reported to the administration for a formal reprimand. In 2021, Speech First, Inc., a group that focuses on students' freedom of speech on university campuses, filed suit against Virginia Tech on behalf of several students for chilling their right to speech through the bias incident policies. The district court hearing the case ruled in favor of Virginia Tech finding that the Bias Incident policy didn’t specifically outline any particular speech that was chilled for the students being represented and thus the policy wasn’t found to chill speech. In 2022, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case, gave judgment with respect to the Bias Policy claims vacated, and remanded the case to the 4th Circuit with instructions to dismiss those claims as moot under United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. Multiple Justices, including Justices Thomas and Alito, filed dissents.Join us for a litigation update on this important case in light of those developments.Featuring: Abigail Smith, Amicus Attorney, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression(Moderator) Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending Freedom

The United States is in the process of rolling out a sweeping regulation for personal data transfers. But the rulemaking is getting limited attention because it targets transfers to our rivals in the new Cold War – China, Russia, and their allies. Adam Hickey, whose old office is drafting the rules, explains the history of the initiative, which stems from endless Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States efforts to impose such controls on a company-by-company basis. Now, with an executive order as the foundation, the Department of Justice has published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that promises what could be years of slow-motion regulation. Faced with a similar issue—the national security risk posed by connected vehicles, particularly those sourced in China—the Commerce Department issues a laconic notice whose telegraphic style contrasts sharply with the highly detailed Justice draft. I take a stab at the riskiest of ventures—predicting the results in two Supreme Court cases about social media regulations adopted by Florida and Texas. Four hours of strong appellate advocacy and a highly engaged Court make predictions risky, but here goes. I divide the Court into two camps—the Justices (Thomas, Alito, probably Gorsuch) who think that the censorship we should worry about comes from powerful speech-monopolizing platforms and the Justices (Kavanagh, the Chief) who see the cases through a lens that values corporate free speech. Many of the remainder (Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson) see social media content moderation as understandable and justified, but they're uneasy about the power of large platforms and reluctant to grant a sweeping immunity to those companies. To my mind, this foretells a decision striking down the laws insofar as they restrict content moderation. But that decision won't resolve all the issues raised by the two laws, and industry's effort to overturn them entirely on the current record is also likely to fail. There are too many provisions in those laws that some of the justices considered reasonable for Netchoice to win a sweeping victory. So I look for an opinion that rejects the “private censorship” framing but expressly leaves open or even approves other, narrower measures disciplining platform power, leaving the lower courts to deal with them on remand. Kurt Sanger and I dig into the Securities Exchange Commission's amended complaint against Tim Brown and SolarWinds, alleging material misrepresentation with respect to company cybersecurity. The amended complaint tries to bolster the case against the company and its CISO, but at the end of the day it's less than fully persuasive. SolarWinds didn't have the best security, and it was slow to recognize how much harm its compromised software was causing its customers. But the SEC's case for disclosure feels like 20-20 hindsight. Unfortunately, CISOs are likely to spend the next five years trying to guess which intrusions will look bad in hindsight.  I cover the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) release of version 2.0 of the Cybersecurity Framework, particularly its new governance and supply chain features. Adam reviews the latest update on section 702 of FISA, which likely means the program will stumble into 2025, thanks to a certification expected in April. We agree that Silicon Valley is likely to seize on the opportunity to engage in virtue-signaling litigation over the final certification. Kurt explains the remarkable power of adtech data for intelligence purposes, and Senator Ron Wyden's (D-OR) effort to make sure such data is denied to U.S. agencies but not to the rest of the world. He also pulls Adam and me into the debate over whether we need a federal backup for cyber insurance. Bruce Schneier thinks we do, but none of us is persuaded. Finally, Adam and I consider the divide between CISA and GOP election officials. We agree that it has its roots in CISA's imprudently allowing election security mission creep, from the cybersecurity of voting machines to trying to combat “malinformation,” otherwise known as true facts that the administration found inconvenient. We wish CISA well in the vital job of protecting voting machines and processes, as long as it manages in this cycle to stick to its cyber knitting.  Download 494th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets

The United States is in the process of rolling out a sweeping regulation for personal data transfers. But the rulemaking is getting limited attention because it targets transfers to our rivals in the new Cold War – China, Russia, and their allies. Adam Hickey, whose old office is drafting the rules, explains the history of the initiative, which stems from endless Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States efforts to impose such controls on a company-by-company basis. Now, with an executive order as the foundation, the Department of Justice has published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that promises what could be years of slow-motion regulation. Faced with a similar issue—the national security risk posed by connected vehicles, particularly those sourced in China—the Commerce Department issues a laconic notice whose telegraphic style contrasts sharply with the highly detailed Justice draft. I take a stab at the riskiest of ventures—predicting the results in two Supreme Court cases about social media regulations adopted by Florida and Texas. Four hours of strong appellate advocacy and a highly engaged Court make predictions risky, but here goes. I divide the Court into two camps—the Justices (Thomas, Alito, probably Gorsuch) who think that the censorship we should worry about comes from powerful speech-monopolizing platforms and the Justices (Kavanagh, the Chief) who see the cases through a lens that values corporate free speech. Many of the remainder (Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson) see social media content moderation as understandable and justified, but they're uneasy about the power of large platforms and reluctant to grant a sweeping immunity to those companies. To my mind, this foretells a decision striking down the laws insofar as they restrict content moderation. But that decision won't resolve all the issues raised by the two laws, and industry's effort to overturn them entirely on the current record is also likely to fail. There are too many provisions in those laws that some of the justices considered reasonable for Netchoice to win a sweeping victory. So I look for an opinion that rejects the “private censorship” framing but expressly leaves open or even approves other, narrower measures disciplining platform power, leaving the lower courts to deal with them on remand. Kurt Sanger and I dig into the Securities Exchange Commission's amended complaint against Tim Brown and SolarWinds, alleging material misrepresentation with respect to company cybersecurity. The amended complaint tries to bolster the case against the company and its CISO, but at the end of the day it's less than fully persuasive. SolarWinds didn't have the best security, and it was slow to recognize how much harm its compromised software was causing its customers. But the SEC's case for disclosure feels like 20-20 hindsight. Unfortunately, CISOs are likely to spend the next five years trying to guess which intrusions will look bad in hindsight.  I cover the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) release of version 2.0 of the Cybersecurity Framework, particularly its new governance and supply chain features. Adam reviews the latest update on section 702 of FISA, which likely means the program will stumble into 2025, thanks to a certification expected in April. We agree that Silicon Valley is likely to seize on the opportunity to engage in virtue-signaling litigation over the final certification. Kurt explains the remarkable power of adtech data for intelligence purposes, and Senator Ron Wyden's (D-OR) effort to make sure such data is denied to U.S. agencies but not to the rest of the world. He also pulls Adam and me into the debate over whether we need a federal backup for cyber insurance. Bruce Schneier thinks we do, but none of us is persuaded. Finally, Adam and I consider the divide between CISA and GOP election officials. We agree that it has its roots in CISA's imprudently allowing election security mission creep, from the cybersecurity of voting machines to trying to combat “malinformation,” otherwise known as true facts that the administration found inconvenient. We wish CISA well in the vital job of protecting voting machines and processes, as long as it manages in this cycle to stick to its cyber knitting.  Download 494th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets

Today I'll be reading the statement of Justice Kavanaugh regarding the denial of application for stay in Griffin v. HM Florida-Orl, LLC; Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have granted it. Issued November 16, 2023 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a366_i42k.pdf   Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts. www.whatscotuswroteus.com

In today's episode of Counterculture, Danielle explains why it's so harmful that the Left has made it their mission to demonize Supreme Court justices—particularly Justices Thomas and Alito (though Kavanaugh and others have been attacked in the past). Danielle speaks with legal scholar John Yoo about the Court's significance. ⭕️ Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

Matthew Spalding, Vice President of Washington Operations and Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College, joins Hugh Hewitt on the Hillsdale Dialogues to discuss how the Supreme Court's decision to strike down affirmative action will affect college admissions and the nuances of Justices Thomas' and Jackson's arguments. Release Date: 07 June 2023See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Matthew Spalding, Vice President of Washington Operations and Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College, joins Hugh Hewitt on the Hillsdale Dialogues to discuss how the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down affirmative action will affect college admissions and the nuances of Justices Thomas’ and Jackson’s arguments. Release Date: 07 […]

Matthew Spalding, Vice President of Washington Operations and Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College, joins Hugh Hewitt on the Hillsdale Dialogues to discuss how the Supreme Court's decision to strike down affirmative action will affect college admissions and the nuances of Justices Thomas' and Jackson's arguments. Release Date: 07 June 2023See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On Thursday, June 15, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Haaland v. Brackeen. The case was primarily concerned with the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a federal law enacted in 1978 that governs state-level adoption and foster care cases involving Native American children. Among other provisions, the ICWA gives tribal governments jurisdiction over the adoption of Native American children who reside on a reservation or have certain tribal connections.In a 7-2 decision, the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's finding that the ICWA is constitutional, rejected petitioners' Tenth Amendment argument, and found that petitioners lacked the standing required for other challenges made. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion for the Court; Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions; Justices Thomas and Alito filed dissenting opinions. Please join us as Jennifer Weddle discusses the Court's findings.

On Thursday, June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The opinion jointly addressed the issues presented in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina. The question before the Court was whether the race-conscious admissions systems used by Harvard and UNC violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and UNC's admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court; Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions; Justices Sotomayor and Jackson filed dissenting opinions. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of SFFA v. Harvard. Please join us as Curt Levey discusses the decision.

This week, the Supreme Court handed down a major decision relating to elections in America in the Moore v. Harper case. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court rejected the independent state legislature theory, finding that the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures exclusive power over elections, and upholding the power of judicial review in electoral cases, including redistricting decisions. In this episode of We the People, guests Judge Michael Luttig and Professor Evan Bernick join to break down the Moore decision – including why the Court decided to reject the independent state legislature theory; why conservative Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented; and what this means for the future of judicial review of election laws. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Resources: Moore v. Harper (2023) Judge Michael Luttig, “The Court Is Likely to Reject the Independent State Legislature Theory: And that offers hope for American democracy”, The Atlantic, April 13, 2023 Judge Michael Luttig, “There Is Absolutely Nothing to Support the ‘Independent State Legislature' Theory”, The Atlantic, October 3, 2022 J. Michael Luttig, et al, Brief for Non-State Respondents, Moore v. Harper  Brief of Professor Evan Bernick in support of respondents in Harper v. Moore Check out previous We the People episodes on the Moore v. Harper case: Part 1 (March 2022) and Part 2 from (July 2022), and Part 3 (Dec. 2022) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Our featured idealist organization is ProPublica, an online news source, which in 16 years of existence, has won 6 Pulitzers for quality, in-depth reporting. Most recently, ProPublica journalists have broken stories about S. Ct. Justices Thomas and Alito and their “trips” funded by billionaire conservatives who have business before the Court. Ugh. The Big Interview…

On Friday, the Supreme Court issued a stay on a lower court ruling. The stay ensures that, for now, the abortion pill mifepristone will remain widely available. Mifepristone was first approved as safe and effective for ending pregnancies more than 20 years ago. But earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a federal judge in Texas appointed by former President Donald Trump, suspended the Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit challenged part of Kacsmaryk's ruling – leaving mifepristone legal, but making it harder to access. Friday's decision by the Supreme Court halted those 5th Circuit Court restrictions and reestablished the status quo. But the decision is temporary.  This is the first time the Supreme Court has taken action on abortion since overturning Roe v. Wade last year. But, because this was an emergency decision and not a full case, the Court did not provide reasoning, noting only that Justices Thomas and Alito dissented. For more on this, we spoke with Leah Litman, Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School and co-host of the Crooked Media podcast Strict Scrutiny.

On Friday, the Supreme Court issued a stay on a lower court ruling. The stay ensures that, for now, the abortion pill mifepristone will remain widely available. Mifepristone was first approved as safe and effective for ending pregnancies more than 20 years ago. But earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a federal judge in Texas appointed by former President Donald Trump, suspended the Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit challenged part of Kacsmaryk's ruling – leaving mifepristone legal, but making it harder to access. Friday's decision by the Supreme Court halted those 5th Circuit Court restrictions and reestablished the status quo. But the decision is temporary.  This is the first time the Supreme Court has taken action on abortion since overturning Roe v. Wade last year. But, because this was an emergency decision and not a full case, the Court did not provide reasoning, noting only that Justices Thomas and Alito dissented. For more on this, we spoke with Leah Litman, Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School and co-host of the Crooked Media podcast Strict Scrutiny.

Originalism is a type of judicial interpretation of a constitution (especially the U.S. Constitution) that aims to follow how it would have been understood or was intended to be understood at the time it was written. With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the High Court, there are now 4 avowed originalists on the Supreme Court including: Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Originalism has been cited in recent landmark decisions including Dobbs & Bruen, but are these justices abiding by the true definition of the word? Are they truly originalists? Or are they picking and choosing their history based on their ideology? In this episode, host Craig Williams joins guest David H. Gans, Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights & Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center to discuss SCOTUS' move toward originalism, the impact, and the conflict between Justice Thomas' and Justice Jackson's views.

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court released a 6-3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Court overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, holding that the Constitution confers no right to abortion. The Dobbs decision poses critical questions about the Court’s past and future. Is the decision a misguided action or an overdue correction? How will Dobbs frame judicial and legislative disputes over abortion in years to come? What does Justice Alito’s lead decision, together with Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh’s concurrences, project about the Court’s future rulings? Our panel of experts will discuss these issues and more.Featuring:Prof. Mary Anne Case, Arnold I. Shure Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. David D. Cole, National Director, American Civil Liberties UnionProf. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law SchoolMs. Carrie Campbell Severino, President, JCNModerator: Hon. Elizabeth "Lisa" Branch, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives." On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade ruling of 1973, restoring the authority of individual states to regulate abortion. The landmark ruling came on a 6-3 vote, with Justice Samuel Alito writing for the majority. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined in the opinion, with Chief Justice Roberts adding a concurring opinion. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan filed a vigorous dissent. The Court's decision did not outlaw abortion, but instead allows for individual states to make their own laws regarding the practice. The majority opinion is read here in its entirety. Note: the opinion features a great number of quotations and case citations. For the sake of aural comprehension, not every quotation has been identified as such nor every citation named. Links Full text: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf Go to http://www.catholicculture.org/getaudio to register for FREE access to the full archive of audiobooks beyond the most recent 15 episodes. Donate at: http://www.catholicculture.org/donate/audio Theme music: 2 Part Invention, composed by Mark Christopher Brandt, performed by Thomas Mirus. ©️2019 Heart of the Lion Publishing Co./BMI. All rights reserved.

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey are overruled; and that the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.Please join our team of legal experts to discuss the significance of this case.Featuring:Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Shato Professor of Law, University of California - Berkeley; former law clerk, Justice John Paul StevensCarrie Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network; former law clerk, Justice Clarence ThomasModerator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, former Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

Today's Sponsor Go to https://www.GreenChef.com/EmilyBaker135 for $135 Off, plus free shipping! Justice Alito, in delivering the majority opinion for the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson starts by acknowledging that “[a]bortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views”. It is a topic on which discussions of disagreement are difficult to navigate making this case all the more challenging to discuss. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade a 1974 Supreme Court case that extended constitutional protection to the right to an abortion through the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The Court stated in their holding that the “Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.” The ruling is over 200 pages and includes concurrences from Justices Thomas, Justice Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice Roberts. The Dissent is delivered by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. In the Dissent they state “[f]or half a century, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey have protected the liberty and equality of women. Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that the Constitution safeguards a woman's right to decide for herself whether to bear a child.” This decision leaves entirely in the hands of the states the right to regulate or not, abortion. I hope that this episode breaks down this case in a way that makes it understandable and gives some insight into how I break down topics that are significantly charged.  ResourcesDobbs v. Jackson  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf)  Roe v. Wade https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113)  Planned Parenthood v. Casey https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/833 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/833)

After Dark with Hosts Rob & Andrew – The ruling does not end abortion completely. What it did do is conclude that the “Constitution does not confer a right to abortion" and that "the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.” This opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Alito...

Ellen Weintraub, commissioner of the Federal Election Commission since 2002, joins Kate and Leah to break down the Supreme Court's opinion in FEC v. Ted Cruz, an important campaign finance case [2:07]. (Commissioner Weintraub also joined us to preview the case before oral arguments-- go back and listen to that episode if you haven't!) Kate and Leah also debrief the opinion Patel v. Garland, a major immigration case with a pretty devastating result [32:45]. They also flag a grant of a habeas-related case the Court will hear next term, Jones v. Hendrix [47:23], and then try to bring their blood pressure down by catching up on various statements and speeches Justices Thomas and Alito have given recently [52:01].