POPULARITY
7 episodes with learning resources
5 episodes with learning resources
2 episodes with learning resources
2 episodes with learning resources
2 episodes with learning resources
2 episodes with learning resources
4 episodes with learning resources
9 episodes with learning resources
2 episodes with learning resources
OA1239 - Did the Supreme Court just hand Donald Trump the biggest L in US presidential history? We go beyond the headlines to break down the first decision on the merits of any of the second Trump term's policies. What is the deal with the “major questions doctrine” and why can't the conservative justices agree about what it is and how to use it? Why did Neil Gorsuch choose this case to drop a lengthy diss track with bars about every one of his colleagues? And is there anything Clarence Thomas wouldn't let a Republican president do? We then review a lesser-noticed SCOTUS decision from this week on whether you can sue USPS for intentionally stealing your mail for openly racist reasons (the answer may surprise you!). Finally, in today's footnote: Thomas Takes the ICE Exam! Learning Resources, Inc. et al. v. Trump (2/20/2026) United States Postal Service v. Konan (2/24/2026) “The Postmaster,” William Shawn, The New Yorker (11/14/1970)(letter addressed to William Faulkner from Post Office Inspector Mark Webster) Memorandum Summary of Documents Newly Received from DHS Whistleblowers, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (2/23/2026)(with leaked ICE training documents attached) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
On February 20, the Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA, does not authorize President Trump's sweeping tariffs. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, and the consolidated case, the Court held that the statute does not grant the President the power to impose tariffs under a declaration of economic emergency. In this episode, we explore what the Court held, why the Justices disagreed about the reasoning, and what this decision might tell us about the future of presidential emergency power. To help us explore these questions are two leading Court watchers and constitutional experts, Zachary Shemtob of SCOTUSblog and Ilya Somin of the George Mason University. Julie Silverbrook, vice president of civic education of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (2026) “Supreme Court strikes down tariffs,” SCOTUSblog (2/20/2026) Ilya Somin, “How the Supreme Court Spared America,” The Atlantic (2/21/2026) Ilya Somin, “The Supreme Court Spurns a Presidential Power Grab,” The Dispatch (2/23/2026) Ilya Somin, “Trump's new tariffs are another dangerous presidential power grab,” Boston Globe (2/24/2026) Ilya Somin, “Not Everything Is an Emergency,” The Dispatch (1/31/2025) “Are Trump's Tariffs Lawful?,” We the People (11/06/2025) Biden v. Nebraska (2023) Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. (2001) Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981) Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1953) United States v. Yoshida International, Inc. (CCPA, 1975) United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936) Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube Support our important work Donate
I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court hand President Donald Trump a gut punch on live tariffs, but here we are, listeners, just days after their bombshell ruling on Friday, February 20, 2026. Picture this: I'm in my living room in Washington, D.C., coffee in hand, when the news breaks from SCOTUSblog and The New York Times—Justices Strike Down Trump's Tariffs. In the consolidated cases Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, a 6-3 majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president the green light to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies.Trump had declared emergencies over drug trafficking from Canada and massive trade deficits, hitting Canadian goods with 25% duties and more worldwide. But Roberts' opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said IEEPA lets the president regulate, block, or prohibit imports—not tax them with tariffs. The Court vacated one lower court ruling and affirmed another from the Federal Circuit, sending shockwaves through Wall Street and the heartland. Even among conservatives, there was drama: Justice Neil Gorsuch and Barrett concurred but split on details, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, arguing IEEPA's text and history backed Trump's power, and slamming the majority for ignoring the major questions doctrine in foreign affairs.By evening, Trump stormed to the podium outside the White House, as captured in that fiery CNBC Television clip. "I'm absolutely ashamed of certain members of the court," he thundered, calling some justices "disloyal to the Constitution" and "unpatriotic," swayed by "foreign interests." He ripped his own appointees—praising Kavanaugh's "genius" but blasting others as an "embarrassment to their families." No backing down, though. Trump vowed revenge, signing an executive order that very day titled "Ending Certain Tariff Actions," but pivoting to new weapons: a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, set to kick in within days for up to 150 days or longer. He teased Section 301 investigations for unfair practices by China and others, plus fresh Section 232 probes on steel, aluminum, cars, copper—you name it.Fast-forward to Tuesday, February 24, in his State of the Union address, as ABC World News Tonight reported, Trump doubled down, framing the ruling as a bump in his America First road. Politico and Axios chronicled the fallout: lawmakers from both parties reacted, businesses cheered lower costs, but Trump's base roared approval online. The Washington Times noted his promise of "other authorities" to fight back, while Fox News called it a "major test of executive branch powers." Even The Guardian dubbed it the end of Trump's "one-man tariff war."Here I am on February 25, still buzzing. This isn't just legalese—it's a clash reshaping trade, presidential power, and maybe the Court itself. Will new tariffs survive in the D.C. Circuit or Federal Circuit? Trump's already hinting at years of fights. Clark Hill and DLA Piper analysts say uncertainty reigns, but Trump's playbook is thick.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
DOCKET ALERTS:Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on the stolen documents case must remain sealed forever in perpetuity.Kouri Richins goes on trial for murdering her husband in Utah. She's not being charged for writing a terrible children's book about dealing with grief over the loss of a parent … but maybe she should be? The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, allowed Louisiana to require the display of the Ten Commandments in every classroom statewide. The law had been blocked, but the Court decided that no one had been injured yet, so the case is unripe.Elon Musk is being sued for securities fraud in California. But they can't seat a jury because everyone hates him.MAIN SHOW:It's all about tariffs. We break down the Supreme Court's Learning Resources v. Trump, and explain why dragging this case out for a year ensures chaos as importers try to recoup money they've already paid. And we'll talk about Trump's plan to impose new illegal tariffs based on a gross misinterpretation of yet another internal statute.The opinion is particularly contentious, revealing the justices' angry, internal feuding over the future of the court. And subscribers will get a deep dive into the origins of this conflict, reaching back to Justice Kagan's famous 2015 “Antonin Scalia Lecture Series” lecture at Harvard Law School and extending through Justice Jackson's concurrence in Learning Resources.US v. Trump [stolen documents case]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trumpKouri Richins Warranthttps://www.scribd.com/document/654496602/Kouri-Richins-WarrantContempt for Musk clouds jury selection in Twitter takeover trialhttps://www.courthousenews.com/contempt-for-musk-clouds-jury-selection-in-twitter-takeover-trial/Roake v. Brumley [Fifth Circuit Ten Commandments]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.221848/gov.uscourts.ca5.221848.389.1.pdfLearning Resources, Inc. v. Trump [tariffs case]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdfCongressional Research Service, “Congressional and Presidential Authority to Impose Import Tariffs”https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48435/R48435.1.pdfElena Kagan “Antonin Scalia Lecture Series,” Harvard Law School (2015) [via YouTube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpEtszFT0TgShow Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
El Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos emitió el pasado viernes una trascendental sentencia al declarar ilegales buena parte de los aranceles impuestos por Donald Trump hace casi un año. Con una mayoría de 6 votos frente a 3, los magistrados del Supremo determinaron que el presidente excedió sus facultades al utilizar la Ley de Poderes Económicos de Emergencia Internacional de 1977 para aplicar gravámenes de forma unilateral sin permiso del Congreso. El núcleo de la sentencia sostiene que, si bien esta ley permite regular importaciones en situaciones de emergencia nacional, no otorga al Ejecutivo el poder de establecer impuestos fronterizos ilimitados, una competencia que la Constitución reserva exclusivamente al Congreso bajo el principio histórico de que no puede haber impuestos sin representación. Esta decisión anula más del 60% de los aranceles del llamado "Día de la Liberación", incluyendo el arancel global del 10% y los aranceles adicionales aplicados a China, México y Canadá. El impacto económico es de gran envergadura. Se estima que el gobierno podría verse obligado a reembolsar más de 175.000 millones de dólares a los importadores afectados. Aunque técnicamente estos reembolsos podrían ejecutarse de forma automática mediante los sistemas digitales de aduanas, existe el temor de que la administración imponga trabas burocráticas para retrasar los pagos, obligando así a muchas pequeñas empresas a recurrir a largos y costosos litigios. El origen jurídico de este revés se encuentra en la demanda interpuesta por empresas como Learning Resources, que esgrimieron ante el Tribunal Supremo que la competencia para gravar el comercio internacional pertenece al poder legislativo, no al ejecutivo. La reacción de Trump fue inmediata y virulenta, calificó el fallo de "antiestadounidense" y atacó incluso a los jueces que él mismo había nominado. No obstante, en un intento por esquivar la sentencia, el presidente anunció rápidamente un nuevo arancel global del 15% recurriendo a la Sección 122 de la Ley de Comercio de 1974. Esta vía alternativa, aunque legalmente más sólida para el corto plazo, tiene límites temporales y de cuantía que no existían con las medidas que tomó en abril del año pasado. A largo plazo, el fallo representa una victoria importante para la división de poderes y el Estado de derecho. Impide que futuros presidentes utilicen presuntas emergencias nacionales para eludir el control parlamentario sobre la política fiscal. Pero la batalla comercial persiste. El Gobierno Trump no se da por vencido y explora otros resquicios legales como las Secciones 232 y 301 para mantener los aranceles sobre el acero, el aluminio y productos tecnológicos. Entretanto, la realidad económica ha contradicho los objetivos iniciales del gobierno: el déficit comercial no se ha reducido y el coste de estas tensiones arancelarias sigue recayendo directamente sobre las empresas y los consumidores estadounidenses, que son quienes están pagando los productos importados más caros en un entorno de incertidumbre creciente. En La ContraRéplica: 0:00 Introducción 3:32 Liberación arancelaria 30:57 “Contra el pesimismo”… https://amzn.to/4m1RX2R 32:55 El burka en el mundo islámico 40:57 El fin del Mencho · Canal de Telegram: https://t.me/lacontracronica · “Contra el pesimismo”… https://amzn.to/4m1RX2R · “Hispanos. Breve historia de los pueblos de habla hispana”… https://amzn.to/428js1G · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Contra la Revolución Francesa”… https://amzn.to/4aF0LpZ · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva Sígueme en: · Web... https://diazvillanueva.com · Twitter... https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva · Facebook... https://www.facebook.com/fernandodiazvillanueva1/ · Instagram... https://www.instagram.com/diazvillanueva · Linkedin… https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-d%C3%ADaz-villanueva-7303865/ · Flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/147276463@N05/?/ · Pinterest... https://www.pinterest.com/fernandodiazvillanueva Encuentra mis libros en: · Amazon... https://www.amazon.es/Fernando-Diaz-Villanueva/e/B00J2ASBXM #FernandoDiazVillanueva #aranceles #trump Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals
This Day in Legal History: Marbury v. MadisonOn February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that permanently reshaped American constitutional law. The dispute arose after President John Adams appointed several “midnight judges” in the final hours of his administration. One of those appointees, William Marbury, never received his commission because it was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commission, prompting Marbury to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court.Presiding over the case was Chief Justice John Marshall, whose involvement added a striking layer of irony. Before becoming Chief Justice, Marshall had served as Secretary of State under Adams and had been responsible for sealing the very commissions at issue. In other words, Marshall was now reviewing the legal consequences of actions taken by his former office. Rather than recuse himself, he authored the opinion that would define the Court's authority.Marshall concluded that Marbury had a legal right to his commission but held that the statute granting the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Marshall reasoned, any conflicting statute must be void. In declaring part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the Court asserted the power of judicial review for the first time.The decision simultaneously denied Marbury his remedy while expanding the Court's institutional authority. It avoided a direct political confrontation with Jefferson while firmly establishing the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. What began as a minor political dispute over an undelivered commission became the foundation for the Supreme Court's power to strike down unconstitutional laws.A federal judge has permanently blocked the Justice Department from releasing a prosecutor's report concerning the classified documents case against President Donald Trump. The ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who concluded that making the report public would amount to a “manifest injustice” because the case never went to trial. She reasoned that publishing detailed allegations of criminal conduct without a jury verdict would undermine basic fairness principles.The case had been brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith and accused Trump of unlawfully retaining sensitive national defense materials at his Mar-a-Lago property and obstructing government efforts to recover them. Trump and his co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, pleaded not guilty and described the prosecution as politically motivated. In 2024, Cannon dismissed the charges, finding that Smith had not been lawfully appointed.After Trump returned to office, the Justice Department supported efforts to keep the report confidential. Although special counsels are typically required to submit reports explaining their charging decisions, Cannon held that releasing this one would conflict with her earlier rulings, including her determination that Smith's appointment was invalid. She also cited concerns about exposing grand jury material.The decision prevents public disclosure of substantial details about one of the four criminal cases Trump faced after leaving office. It follows the Supreme Court's recent decision limiting Trump's tariff authority and marks another significant legal development in the ongoing disputes surrounding his post-presidency investigations.US judge permanently blocks release of report on Trump documents case | ReutersThe chief judges of two major federal appeals courts have announced plans to step back from active service later this year, creating new vacancies for President Donald Trump to fill. Debra Ann Livingston of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both notified the president that they intend to take senior status. Livingston plans to assume senior status on July 1, while Sutton will do so on October 1.Their decisions come ahead of the November midterm elections, when control of the U.S. Senate could shift, potentially complicating confirmation of successors. Because judicial vacancies have been relatively scarce during Trump's second term, the openings present an opportunity to expand his appellate appointments. During his first term, Trump appointed 54 appellate judges, significantly influencing the judiciary's ideological direction.Both judges were originally appointed by President George W. Bush. Livingston, who has served on the Second Circuit since 2007 and became chief judge in 2020, has at times issued notable dissents, including in cases involving LGBTQ workplace protections and congressional subpoenas tied to Trump's business records. Sutton, on the Sixth Circuit since 2003 and chief judge since 2021, has been an influential conservative jurist. He authored a 2014 opinion upholding same-sex marriage bans that the Supreme Court later overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges.Senior status allows eligible judges to continue hearing cases on a reduced basis while enabling the president to nominate full-time replacements. Their departures will hand Trump two high-profile appellate vacancies at a time when few others are available.Two chief US appellate judges to leave active service, handing Trump vacancies | ReutersIn my weekly column for Bloomberg Tax, I examine the Trump administration's proposed 0.125% “land port maintenance tax” and question whether it is truly infrastructure policy or contingency planning after the Supreme Court curtailed its tariff authority. The proposal is framed as a parity measure to mirror the Harbor Maintenance Fee, but I argue the timing is hard to ignore. Just this week, the Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, reaffirming that Congress controls taxing power absent clear delegation. In my view, that ruling narrows executive trade authority and invites efforts to find alternative mechanisms embedded elsewhere in the customs code.I suggest the land port tax looks like one such alternative. Although labeled a “maintenance” fee, it would be imposed at the border and function economically like a tariff, with costs passed to US importers and consumers. Because most land-based trade flows through Canada and Mexico, I note that the charge would operate in practice as a North American supply chain tax. Calling it infrastructure policy does not change its price effects.I also argue that the Harbor Maintenance Fee analogy falls apart on inspection. Whatever its flaws, the HMF at least carries a user-fee logic tied to dredging and port upkeep. By contrast, the new proposal appears loosely connected to land-border infrastructure and bundled within a broader maritime industrial policy agenda. If shipbuilding is a national security priority, I contend Congress should fund it transparently through the Defense Department and regular appropriations. If the HMF distorts shipping routes, it should be reformed directly rather than replicated inland.Ultimately, I maintain that after Learning Resources, any border charge that operates like a tariff will face legal skepticism. If policymakers intend to subsidize maritime industry, they should say so clearly, define measurable goals, and subject the costs to democratic accountability. 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 a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court decided that President Trump's global tariffs on imported goods were unconstitutional. With Trump promising to find other ways to impose his tariffs, small business owners are unsure of how or if they'll get their entitled refunds. In the Loop spoke with Stephen Woldenberg, Senior Vice President of Sales for Learning Resources, the Vernon Hills-based business that led the charge to bring the legal case to the country's highest court. Plus, we talk to Cécile Shea, nonresident senior fellow on security and diplomacy at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. For a full archive of In the Loop interviews, head over to wbez.org/intheloop.
We're less than a week out from the Learning Resources case. No surprise, I'm still collecting my thoughts. At issue were the reciprocal tariffs used under IEEPA, or, put another way, the "gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch & away from the people's representatives." In this video, I take an excerpt from the oral arguments between Justice Gorsuch & Solicitor General Sauer where we first heard of the "one-way ratchet." We then look at Justice Gorsuch's closing paragraph in his concurring opinion. Spoiler: it's a message for you. And you won't want to miss it.This program is brought to you by DAT Freight & Analytics. Since 1978, DAT has helped truckers & brokers discover more available loads. Whether you're heading home or looking for your next adventure, DAT is building the most trusted marketplace in freight. New users of DAT can save 10% off for the first 12 months by following the link below. Built on the latest technology, DAT One gives you control over every aspect of moving freight, so that you can run your business with speed & efficiency. This program is also brought to you by our newest sponsor, GenLogs. GenLogs is setting a new standard of care for freight intelligence. Book your demo for GenLogs today at www.genlogs.io today!
I never thought I'd be standing in the shadow of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on a crisp February morning in 2026, feeling the weight of a decision that just reshaped presidential power. But here we are, listeners, just two days ago on Friday, February 20, the nine justices handed down a bombshell in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and the consolidated case V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump. By a 6-3 vote, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion striking down the sweeping tariffs President Donald Trump imposed through executive orders, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president authority to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies like drug trafficking from Canada or massive trade deficits.Picture this: Trump had declared these threats "unusual and extraordinary," hitting Canadian goods with a 25% duty and broader tariffs on everything from electronics to steel, all under IEEPA's vague language about regulating importation. But Roberts, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said no way. The Court applied the major questions doctrine, arguing Congress never clearly delegated such huge economic power to the executive branch. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the Democratic appointees, signed on to parts rejecting the tariffs outright, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, insisting IEEPA's text, history, and precedents backed Trump all the way, calling it a "straightforward case" for presidential authority in foreign affairs.The ruling came fast—arguments were back in November 2025 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Federal Circuit—and it vacated lower court judgments, remanding one with instructions to dismiss. Importers like Learning Resources, Inc., who challenged the tariffs on toys and educational materials, celebrated outside the marble steps, while businesses nationwide breathed easier, spared from billions in extra costs.That same evening, President Trump took the stage in the White House Rose Garden, crowd roaring behind him, and unloaded. According to CNBC's live coverage, he called the decision "deeply disappointing," slamming certain justices as "ashamed," "unpatriotic," and "disloyal to our Constitution," hinting they were swayed by "foreign interests and a small political movement." He praised Justice Kavanaugh's "genius" dissent and his own appointee Justice Alito, but vowed to fight on. Trump announced he'd sign an executive order that day for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, effective in days, plus Section 301 investigations into unfair practices by countries like China. "We'll end up being in court for the next five years," he shrugged, but insisted America wouldn't lose.Across the country, reactions poured in. California Governor Gavin Newsom demanded immediate refund checks for Americans hit by the now-invalid tariffs, calling them "illegal" in a Sacramento presser. Legal experts at Holland & Knight law firm noted importers could now seek reimbursements, while SCOTUSblog broke it down: Roberts dissected IEEPA's two little words—"regulate... importation"—ruling they don't stretch to outright tariffs, a tool historically for Congress.As I wrap up this whirlwind from the past few days, it's clear this Supreme Court showdown isn't just about trade—it's a defining line on executive power, echoing Trump's past battles like Trump v. Vance in 2020, where the Court said no absolute immunity from state subpoenas. With Trump's three appointees—Gorsuch in 2017, Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett in 2020—shifting the bench to a 6-3 conservative tilt, yet ruling against him here, the tensions are electric.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
With unpredictable timeliness, we have a quasi-emergency episode on the 170-page tariffs decision, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Come for the in-the-weeds legal analysis, stay for the deep dive into the origins of the phrase "no, no, a thousand times no."
This week Ken and Josh discuss the Supreme Court's ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump, throwing out the massive country-specific tariffs the president purported to impose under the Nixon-era International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The opinion was messy: 6-3, but with the six-justice majority not agreeing on exactly why the tariffs were illegal. Also this week, we look at a contempt order from Judge Laura Provenzino, putting a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in contempt over the government's failure to return identification documents to a non-citizen released from immigration custody on her orders. We discuss how an order like this matters, and how judges could further escalate in the face of widespread noncompliance by the federal government in these immigration cases.Plus, we discuss a mistrial over a defense attorney's t-shirt, Judge Paula Xinis's rejection of yet another effort to detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Sen. Mark Kelly's exclamation-mark-laden preliminary win against efforts to reduce his military rank and pension, and a Minnesota judge's order directing the government to let ICE detainees talk with their lawyers. And we look at an all-timer performance from billionaire Les Wexner's attorney, who whispered in his ear during a congressional deposition, threatening to kill him if he says any more answers longer than five words.Upgrade your subscription to receive all of our episodes at serioustrouble.show. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.serioustrouble.show/subscribe
In a highly anticipated SCOTUS decision, one with significant impact on the Trump presidency and foreign relations. The Supreme Court issued its decision in the cases of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose the tariffs. The Crazy Cajun Doug brought in Amber May as a surprise guest. The search for Nancy Guthrie has entered its third week with no suspects identified. A glove containing DNA evidence that was recovered roughly 2 miles from Guthrie's home appears consistent with a glove worn by a person seen in a doorbell camera video from the morning she disappeared. Her family, including Savannah Guthrie, has made emotional public appeals as the reward for information has climbed to $100,000. Sgt. Marlon Marrache, a decorated 24-year veteran officer with the LAPD, joins me to discuss the latest breaking news in the case.A Philadelphia School District drew some unwanted attention when its new History curriculum became public. Rep. Ted Lieu made some wild claims about Donald Trump. Obama caused a stir when he said that extraterrestrials are real, so he tried to step back a bit from his statement, which seemed to be working until Donald Trump accused Obama of leaking classified information. Becky Noble, a journalist at Red State and her Substack, Gumshoe Politics, joins me to discuss these topics and more, if time allows.The Amber May ShowPodcast Like a PROSgt. Marlon MarracheThe Marlon Marrache ShowBecky Noble at Red StateGumshoe PoliticsBecome a supporter of Tapp into the Truth: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tapp-into-the-truth--556114/support Tapp into the Truth on Rumble. Follow, watch the older shows, and join the live streams.Aimee's Audios Subliminal Acoustic Fingerprinting“Remember Pop Rocks? Now, imagine they gave you superpowers.” Please let me introduce you to Energy Rocks! Born from the grit and ambition of a competitive athlete who wanted a better, cleaner way to fuel the body and mind, without the hassle of mixing powders, messy bottles, or caffeine crashes. Energy Rocks is a reimagining of energy into something fun, functional, and fantastically effective. A delicious popping candy energy supplement that delivers a rapid boost of clean energy and focus — anytime, anywhere. No water. No mixing. No bulky bottles. Just open, pop it in your mouth, and get ready to rock. Making any time the right time to “Get in the Zone, One Pop at a Time.”Take This Free Quiz To Find Out The Best & Worst Foods To Avoid For Joint Pain!Do you wake up in the morning with stiff joints or pain in your hips, back, knees, or elbows? Then, chances are you're feeling the effects of chronic inflammation taking its toll on your body. The good news is that it is NEVER too late to help get this under control. And the best part is certain foods help you do this naturally, without the need for prescription medications.If recent events have proven anything, you need to be as prepared as possible for when things go sideways. You certainly can't count on the government for help. True liberty requires self-reliance. My Patriot SupplySupport American jobs! Support the show! Get great products at great prices! Go to My Pillow and use promo code TAPP to save! Visit Patriot Mobile or Call (817) 380-9081 to take advantage of a FREE Month of service when you switch using promo code TAPP! Morning Kick is a revolutionary new daily drink from Roundhouse Provisions that combines ultra-potent greens like spirulina and kale with probiotics, prebiotics, collagen, and even ashwagandha. Just mix with water, stir, and enjoy!Follow Tapp into the Truth on Locals Follow Tapp into the Truth on SubstackHero SoapPatriot DepotBlue CoolersKoa CoffeeBrainMDDiamond CBDSauce Bae2nd SkullEinstokBeanstoxBelle IsleHoneyFund"Homegrown" Boone's BourbonBlackout Coffee Co.Full Circle Brewing Co.Pasmosa Sangria
One of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case that overturned many of President Trump's tariffs is Rick Woldenberg. He's the owner of the Chicago-based small toy manufacturer, Learning Resources. Woldenberg joined Geoff Bennett to discuss the ruling and what comes next for his business. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
The US Supreme Court on Friday handed President Donald Trump one of the biggest losses of his second term, striking down his signature tariff plan. On today’s Big Take podcast, Sarah Holder talks to one of the people at the heart of the drama: Rick Woldenberg, the CEO of Learning Resources, a toy company that was a lead plaintiff in the case. And she unpacks the decision and its implications with Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr and global trade editor Brendan Murray. The Big Take Asia followed Learning Resources throughout 2025 as it formulated its legal response to the new US tariffs and grappled with the challenges of shifting its supply chain from China to some lower-tariff neighbors. To hear more, listen to these Big Take Asia episodes: Tariffed: The Toymaker That Took on Trump Part One Tariffed: The Toymaker That Took on Trump Part Two Tariffed: The Toymaker That Took on Trump Part Three The American Toymaker Suing Trump Over Destructive Tariffs Hosted by Sarah Holder; Produced by Julia Press and David Fox; Reported by Greg Stohr and Brendan Murray; Edited by Tracey Samuelson. Fact-checking by Rachael Lewis-Krisky; Engineering by Alex Sugiura. Senior Producer: Naomi Shavin; Deputy Executive Producer: Julia Weaver. Executive Producer: Nicole Beemsterboer.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
One of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case that overturned many of President Trump's tariffs is Rick Woldenberg. He's the owner of the Chicago-based small toy manufacturer, Learning Resources. Woldenberg joined Geoff Bennett to discuss the ruling and what comes next for his business. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
One of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case that overturned many of President Trump's tariffs is Rick Woldenberg. He's the owner of the Chicago-based small toy manufacturer, Learning Resources. Woldenberg joined Geoff Bennett to discuss the ruling and what comes next for his business. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
IEEPA tariffs are found Unconstitutional, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (2026).Today, Feb 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in two combined cases that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the President the power to impose tariffs on imports. This decision stopped tariffs set by President Trump to fight drug trafficking and trade deficits.Soon after becoming president, Trump declared national emergencies under IEEPA. He cited two big threats: Drug influx & Trade deficits.Businesses and states sued, saying IEEPA doesn't allow tariffs. One case started in a D.C. district court, which blocked the tariffs temporarily. The other went to the Court of International Trade (CIT) and was upheld by the Federal Circuit appeals court. They said IEEPA's words about "regulating importation" don't cover unlimited tariffs. The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to set taxes and duties, including tariffs (Article I, Section 8). The Framers wanted Congress to control "the pockets of the people." Presidents have no natural right to impose tariffs in peacetime. The government argued IEEPA lets the President "regulate... importation," which they said includes tariffs of any size, length, or scope. But the Court disagreed, using these key points:Major Questions Doctrine: The Court is wary of laws that vaguely give away huge powers. Tariffs affect the economy massively, trillions in trade and billions in revenue. Congress wouldn't hide such a big handover in unclear words. In 50 years of IEEPA, no president had used it for tariffs. Past laws delegating tariff power were always clear and limited. This claim was too extreme, especially for the "power of the purse."Word Meanings in IEEPA: The law lists powers like "investigate, block, regulate, direct, nullify" imports or exports. It doesn't mention tariffs or duties. "Regulate" usually means to control or restrict, not to tax. Taxes are separate, Congress always says so explicitly when giving tax powers. If "regulate" included taxes, it might violate the Constitution's ban on export taxes. The other words in the list are about sanctions or controls, not raising money.No Exceptions: Even in emergencies or foreign affairs, Congress must clearly say if it's giving away tariff power. Tariffs aren't just regulation; they're taxes with big economic and political effects.The Court vacated (canceled) the D.C. case for jurisdictional reasons and affirmed (upheld) the Federal Circuit's ruling. IEEPA can't be used for tariffs. This protects Congress's role in trade policy.The opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts, with parts joined by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett. It stresses separation of powers and careful reading of laws.This program is brought to you by DAT Freight & Analytics. Since 1978, DAT has helped truckers & brokers discover more available loads. Whether you're heading home or looking for your next adventure, DAT is building the most trusted marketplace in freight. New users of DAT can save 10% off for the first 12 months by following the link below. Built on the latest technology, DAT One gives you control over every aspect of moving freight, so that you can run your business with speed & efficiency. This program is also brought to you by our newest sponsor, GenLogs. GenLogs is setting a new standard of care for freight intelligence. Book your demo for GenLogs today at www.genlogs.io today!
International Bankruptcy, Restructuring, True Crime and Appeals - Court Audio Recording Podcast
Listen to the tariffs argument held by the U.S. Supreme Court in November of 2025 when you have a couple of hours to listen to long form content, such as your favorite podcasts.I am reposting the argument today because of the Breaking News that the Supreme Court has reached a decision. After considering the arguments of counsel and the law, today a majority of the Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court reportedly struck down the tariffs in a ruling.The Presidential administration has reportedly responded that it will seek to apply tariffs under other legal authorities, so stay tuned for more news on whether tariffs will continue to be imposed, in light of the ruling.I am not sure when the ruling was handed down. I happened to be on LinkedIn around 11:00 am or so, when the press started reporting that a ruling had been handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.I always find it interesting when an important ruling is handed down on a Friday morning. Often markets are open and trading shifts in real time, in response to the ruling. This is not inevitable.It's possible to release significant rulings, or reports, in a way that doesn't kick off an immediate reaction, like imagine that today's tariff news came out after close of business. On the other hand, with a Friday release of an important ruling there is a chance to triage over the weekend and stabilize markets.I don't know why… I am reminded of the handling of the Mueller report, over a weekend, where there was somewhat of a catch and kill, helpful to the President. I suppose this leads to the observation you really never know how a response to the Supreme Court tariff ruling can play out, much as the tariff ruling seems momentous.Making things more interesting in the current market conditions is that Crypto and other assets trade 24/7, and prices of Bitcoin and other assets that have experienced some volatility of late could respond to the tariff ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court today.—The audio in this post/podcast is the official court audio of the oral argument on tariffs, from the U.S. Supreme Court's website:supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-1287
The US Supreme Court on Friday handed President Donald Trump one of the biggest losses of his second term, striking down his signature tariff plan. On today’s Big Take podcast, Sarah Holder talks to one of the people at the heart of the drama: Rick Woldenberg, the CEO of Learning Resources, a toy company that was a lead plaintiff in the case. And she unpacks the decision and its implications with Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr and global trade editor Brendan Murray. The Big Take Asia followed Learning Resources throughout 2025 as it formulated its legal response to the new US tariffs and grappled with the challenges of shifting its supply chain from China to some lower-tariff neighbors. To hear more, listen to these Big Take Asia episodes: Tariffed: The Toymaker That Took on Trump Part One Tariffed: The Toymaker That Took on Trump Part Two Tariffed: The Toymaker That Took on Trump Part Three The American Toymaker Suing Trump Over Destructive Tariffs Hosted by Sarah Holder; Produced by Julia Press and David Fox; Reported by Greg Stohr and Brendan Murray; Edited by Tracey Samuelson. Fact-checking by Rachael Lewis-Krisky; Engineering by Alex Sugiura. Senior Producer: Naomi Shavin; Deputy Executive Producer: Julia Weaver. Executive Producer: Nicole Beemsterboer.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Like the show? Show your support by using our sponsors.Promotive can help you find your dream job. Touch HERE to see open jobs.Need to update your shop systems and software? Try Tekmetric HERERegister for Tektonic HERE!In this episode, Jeff is joined by Josh Whiteman to discuss his role as an instructor with Garage Gurus which offers automotive training. Josh talks about the importance of ongoing education and adapting diagnostic processes to real-world conditions. They also speak on industry challenges, from technician pay structures to fostering a culture of compassion and mentorship within workshops.Timestamps:00:00 Life as a Full-Time Instructor10:30 "Importance of Transparent Auto Repair"15:43 "Skill Gaps and Training Challenges"16:51 Trade Education Builds Knowledge24:59 "Learning Through Osmosis Everywhere"27:55 "Efficient Module Testing Insights"33:15 "Diagnostic Tools and Strategies"38:41 Resistance Testing Flaws and Tools45:37 Managing Customer Expectations52:13 "Flat Rate Tech Efficiency"55:39 "Pay Over Hours: A Debate"01:01:36 "Listening vs Distraction at Work"01:07:29 "Dealing with Difficult Techs"01:14:32 Engine Diagnostics and Pressure Analysis01:16:09 "Practical Testing and Tools Guide"01:22:00 "A-Techs vs. Specialists: Shop Roles"01:28:16 "Free Training Event Explanation" Follow/Subscribe to the show on social media! TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@jeffcompton7YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@TheJadedMechanicFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100091347564232
saas.unbound is a podcast for and about founders who are working on scaling inspiring products that people love, brought to you by https://saas.group/, a serial acquirer of B2B SaaS companies. In episode #6 of season 6, Anna Nadeina talks with Belma Ibrahimovic, Head of AI at saas.group, a founder-friendly acquirer of B2B SaaS companies and a global team of passionate SaaS operators building the future of software.----------- Episode's Chapters -----------0:00 — Introduction & Belma's Background2:44 — Is Anyone Behind in AI?6:14 — Where to Draw the Line with AI9:46 — Can AI Replace Teams?14:26 — AI Empowerment at SaaS Group18:06 — Learning Resources & Time Investment21:50 — How Brands Use AI in Products30:44 — Building with AI: Technical Challenges35:23 — Staying Ahead in AI39:47 — Biggest Wins & Failures45:42 — Practical AI Hack: Using ProjectsBelma - https://www.linkedin.com/in/belma-ibrahimovic/Saas.group - https://saas.group/Subscribe to our channel to be the first to see the interviews that we publish - https://www.youtube.com/@saas-groupStay up to date:Twitter: https://twitter.com/SaaS_groupLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/14790796
Hey folks, imagine this: it's early 2026, and I'm glued to my screen in my Washington D.C. apartment, coffee going cold as the Supreme Court ramps up for what could be the biggest clash yet with President Donald Trump. Just days ago, on January 28th, News4JAX aired a riveting breakdown on Politics & Power, hosted by Bruce Hamilton alongside a constitutional law scholar, dissecting how Chief Justice John Roberts subtly defended the court's independence in his end-of-2025 year-end report. Roberts leaned hard on history over politics, but they warned 2026 is the real showdown—cases testing if Trump can unilaterally rewrite citizenship laws, slap massive tariffs worldwide, and even fire Federal Reserve governors like Lisa Cook.Let me take you back a bit. Trump's second term kicked off January 20, 2025, and he hit the ground running with executive orders that shook everything up. By February and April, he'd unleashed tariffs on imports from nearly every country—10 to 50 percent reciprocal hits, tweaking them for toys from China or steel from Europe. Two Illinois companies, Learning Resources, Inc., and hand2mind, Inc., weren't having it. They sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president carte blanche for unlimited tariffs. The district court sided with them in May, issuing a preliminary injunction. The Court of International Trade echoed that without the injunction, and by August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shot down Trump's appeal. Boom—the Supreme Court grabbed it for expedited review, hearing oral arguments on November 5, 2025, right in the thick of their term that started October 6.SCOTUSblog's been all over it, noting the justices are in winter recess now, not back on the bench until February 20. That's when we might get the tariffs ruling—unless they drop it early like they did with Trump v. Anderson in 2024, zipping out a decision before Super Tuesday primaries. Trump's fighting tooth and nail, calling the stakes massive for America's economy.But tariffs are just the appetizer. There's Trump v. Barbara, straight from Oyez, challenging Executive Order No. 14,160 that aims to gut birthright citizenship—can he really end it by fiat? Then there's the Lisa Cook drama. Trump tried firing the Federal Reserve Governor over alleged mortgage fraud, claiming dual primary residences in D.C. and Atlanta. Lower courts blocked it, saying no full hearing yet, and the Supreme Court agreed across ideologies: Cook stays put until it's sorted. The Ninth Circuit's National TPS Alliance v. Noem ruling ties in too—Trump's team, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed January 25, 2025, moved fast to vacate Haiti's Temporary Protected Status extension set to expire August 2025.And don't get me started on Kilmar Orega or those nationwide injunctions Trump hates—judges in far-off districts halting his policies for the whole U.S. without everyone getting a say. Britannica lists these as marquee 2025-26 term battles: Learning Resources v. Trump, plus Chiles v. Salazar, Louisiana v. Callais, Little v. Hecox—all probing separation of powers. Experts on that News4JAX show predict Trump might lose big on delegation doctrine; Congress, not the president, sets agency rules. It's midterm election year, Trump's termed out, politically weaker—courts historically push back harder then. The Supreme Court's legitimacy hangs in the balance, walking that tightrope between executive muscle and judicial check.Whew, listeners, what a whirlwind these past days. From tariff showdowns to citizenship overhauls, Trump's vision collides head-on with the robes in black. Thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
In this episode, I welcome back Dr. Krista Leh, instructional coach, former high school educator, and founder of Resonance Education, to explore what it really means to personalize learning resources through an SEL lens. You'll also hear practical examples of how teachers can use student interests, relationships, and even AI tools to make academic content more meaningful, motivating, and relevant for individual learners. If you're interested in personalizing learning resources in ways that feel doable, authentic, and impactful for students and families, this episode has you covered! Show notes: https://classtechtips.com/2026/01/30/personalizing-learning-resources-bonus/ Sponsored by Jotform: https://jotform.com/enterprise/education/ Follow Dr. Krista Leh on social: https://www.instagram.com/resonance_ed/ Follow Monica on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/classtechtips/ Take your pick of free EdTech resources: https://classtechtips.com/free-stuff-favorites/
- Announcements and Introductions (0:10) - Dioxin Testing and Food Safety (6:45) - Natural Medicine and Hospital Observations (21:41) - Gold and Silver Market Analysis (26:27) - Preparing for the Big Freeze (32:33) - Decentralized TV Episode with Roger McPhillan and Tracy Thurman (58:21) - Impact of Psychiatric Drugs on Empathy and Connection (1:15:42) - Spiritual Warfare and Psychiatric Drugs (1:21:14) - Mental Illness and Meaning (1:23:24) - Psychosomatic Conditions and Placebo Effect (1:25:57) - Personal Experiences with Psychiatric Drugs (1:28:33) - Alternative Healing Methods and Spiritual Awakening (1:33:27) - Impact of Technology and Isolation on Mental Health (1:36:41) - Spiritual Warfare and Psychiatric Drugging (1:39:36) - Mass Psychological Conditioning and Algorithms (1:47:36) - Empowerment and Sovereignty in Healing (1:54:50) - Final Thoughts and Practical Advice (1:59:13) - Dennis Gray's Interview and Learning Resources (2:35:38) - Silver Price Predictions and Sponsorship (2:38:30) - Dollar-Cost Averaging and Self-Custody (2:41:01) - Historical Silver Purchases and Audience Engagement (2:42:12) For more updates, visit: http://www.brighteon.com/channel/hrreport NaturalNews videos would not be possible without you, as always we remain passionately dedicated to our mission of educating people all over the world on the subject of natural healing remedies and personal liberty (food freedom, medical freedom, the freedom of speech, etc.). Together, we're helping create a better world, with more honest food labeling, reduced chemical contamination, the avoidance of toxic heavy metals and vastly increased scientific transparency. ▶️ Every dollar you spend at the Health Ranger Store goes toward helping us achieve important science and content goals for humanity: https://www.healthrangerstore.com/ ▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: https://www.naturalnews.com/Readerregistration.html ▶️ Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/hrreport ▶️ Join Our Social Network: https://brighteon.social/@HealthRanger ▶️ Check In Stock Products at: https://PrepWithMike.com
In this week's episode Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC discuss a wide range of issues affecting UK law and politics and answer some listeners' questions. Does Elon Musk's climbdown over Grok's image generator represent a victory for online safety campaigners and have Ken and Tim been unfair about Ofcom's record of enforcing the Online Safety Act ? Will the US Supreme Court's imminent ruling in Learning Resources v Trump declare Trump's unilateral imposition of tariffs without Congressional approval to be unlawful and what would that mean for Trump's latest threats to impose tariffs on any NATO country opposing his demand to take over Greenland? And is being turned down for the Nobel Peace Prize a good reason to invade a sovereign State ? The decision of 6 Palestine Action activists to end their hunger strike was greeted with relief by the Ministry of Justice but what were the activists demanding and what is the law concerning the duty of the Prison Service in response to hunger strikes? Ken and Tim explain the fundamental shift in the law from mandatory force feeding of the Suffragettes, as established in the 1909 judgment in Leigh v Gladstone, to the turning point in the ‘70s and 80s involving IRA hunger strikers. What do recent amendments to the Parole Board's powers and the Justice Secretary's new power to direct the Parole Board to refer a release decision in “top-tier” cases to the High Court say about Labour's approach to sentencing, fairness and respect for judicial independence? See this for a background to the changes - https://www.no5.com/2025/12/the-parole-board-new-powers-and-new-challenges/ Finally, Ken and Tim reflect on the defection of Robert Jenrick to Reform, the record of his replacement as Shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Timothy MP, and the mysterious decision by SFO Director, Nick Ephgrave, to announce his early retirement after only 2 and half years in the job. -- overing the critical intersections of politics and law in the UK with expert commentary on high-profile legal cases, political controversies, prisons and sentencing, human rights law, current political events and the shifting landscape of justice and democracy. With in-depth discussions and influential guests, Double Jeopardy is the podcast that uncovers the forces shaping Britain's legal and political future. What happens when politics and law collide? How do politics shape the law - and when does the law push back? What happens when judicial independence is tested, human rights come under attack, or freedom of expression is challenged? And who really holds power in Britain's legal and political system? Get answers to questions like these weekly on Wednesdays. Double Jeopardy is presented by Ken Macdonald KC, former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Tim Owen KC, as they break down the legal and political issues in Britain. From high-profile legal cases to the evolving state of British democracy, Double Jeopardy offers expert legal commentary on the most pressing topics in UK law, politics, and human rights. Ken Macdonald KC served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003-2008, shaping modern prosecutorial policy and advocating for the rule of law. He is a former Warden of Wadham College, Oxford, a crossbench member of the House of Lords, and a leading writer, commentator and broadcaster on politics and the rule of law. Tim Owen KC has been involved in many of the most significant public, criminal and human rights law cases over the past four decades. Both bring unparalleled experience from the frontline of Britain's legal and political landscape. If you like The Rest Is Politics, Talking Politics, Law Pod UK and Today in Focus, you'll love Double Jeopardy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I never thought I'd be glued to my screen tracking court battles like they're the Super Bowl, but here we are in mid-January 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal showdowns are dominating the dockets from Hawaii to the Supreme Court steps in Washington, D.C. Just this past week, as the Supreme Court wrapped up arguments in cases like Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish in Louisiana and Little v. Hecox, all eyes shifted to Trump's escalating clashes with federal agencies and old foes. On Friday, January 16, SCOTUSblog reported the justices huddled in private conference, voting on petitions that could add more Trump-related fireworks to their calendar.Take Trump v. Cook, heating up big time. President Trump tried firing Lisa Cook, a Democratic holdover on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, back in August 2025, calling her policies a mismatch for his America First agenda. U.S. District Judge Cobb in Washington blocked it, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her ruling 2-1. Now, the Trump administration, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is begging the Supreme Court to intervene. Oral arguments hit Wednesday, January 21, at 10 a.m. in the Supreme Court building, with Paul Clement—former Solicitor General under George W. Bush—defending Cook. Sauer blasted the lower courts as meddling in presidential removal power, echoing fights in Trump v. Slaughter, where the Court already chewed over firing FTC Chair Lina Khan's allies like Alvaro Bedoya last December. Dykema's Last Month at the Supreme Court newsletter calls it a direct shot at the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent, questioning if Congress can shield multi-member agency heads from the president's axe.It's not just agency drama. E. Jean Carroll, the former Elle writer who won $5 million defaming her after a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the 1990s, just urged the Supreme Court to swat down his latest petition. ABC News covered her filing this week, where she argues U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in New York got evidence rules spot-on—no reversal needed.And that's barely scratching the surface. The Court's January calendar, straight from supremecourt.gov, lists Trump v. Cook smack in the middle, following Wolford v. Lopez on Tuesday, January 20—a Second Amendment tussle over Hawaii's law banning guns on private property open to the public without the owner's okay. Axios predicts 2026 bombshells like Trump v. Barbara on his executive order gutting birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, potentially stripping citizenship from kids of undocumented immigrants born on U.S. soil. Then there's Learning Resources v. Trump, challenging his national emergency tariffs on foreign goods—Axios says a loss could force $100 billion in refunds and crimp his trade wars.Over in lower courts, Just Security's litigation tracker logs fresh salvos: challenges to Executive Order 14164 jamming January 6 convicts into ADX Florence supermax in Colorado, and suits against orders targeting law firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale for alleged anti-Trump bias. Lawfare's tracker flags national security spins on these executive actions. Even California Republicans appealed a Los Angeles panel's smackdown of their gerrymander claims against Governor Gavin Newsom's maps to the Supreme Court this week, per SCOTUStoday.These cases aren't just legal jargon—they're power plays reshaping the presidency, from Fed independence to gun rights and citizenship. As Trump posts fire on Truth Social about "evil, American-hating forces," the justices gear up for a term that could torch decades of precedent.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
I step into the studio with one question in mind: where do all of Donald Trump's many legal battles actually stand right now, especially in the courts over the past few days?Let's start with the arena that now overshadows almost everything else: the Supreme Court. Axios reports that the justices are gearing up for a series of blockbuster Trump cases this year, and some of the key moves have landed just in recent days and weeks. According to Axios, one of the biggest is Learning Resources v. Trump, the case that will decide whether Donald Trump can use a declared national emergency to impose sweeping tariffs without Congress. A recent Supreme Court docket entry shows that an emergency application tied to this dispute has been set for full argument in January, rather than decided quietly on the shadow docket, a sign the Court knows how massive the stakes are. A ruling against Trump could force the government to refund more than 100 billion dollars in tariffs and sharply limit his ability to drive economic policy through emergency powers alone, something economists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics have been closely watching.But that tariff fight is only one front. Axios also highlights Trump v. Barbara, the case over his executive order targeting birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants. Lower courts have split and issued injunctions, and now the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether a policy Trump calls essential to immigration enforcement can override more than a century of Fourteenth Amendment precedent.On the power front, Axios notes yet another Supreme Court showdown: Trump's attempt to fire independent agency officials like Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and Federal Trade Commission officials Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. The question is whether a president can unilaterally remove these figures for policy reasons, shredding a 90‑year tradition of insulation from raw politics. If Trump prevails here, the presidency's reach over watchdogs and economic regulators could expand dramatically.Zoom out from the Supreme Court, and you see the lower courts straining under wave after wave of Trump‑era litigation. Just Security and Lawfare both maintain litigation trackers showing dozens of ongoing suits targeting Trump's executive orders on everything from conditions of imprisonment to crackdowns on law firms and civil rights groups. These trackers reveal a pattern: plaintiffs argue that Trump's actions routinely stretch or shatter constitutional limits, invoking the First Amendment, due process, equal protection, and separation of powers in case after case.Politico, looking at the criminal and enforcement landscape more broadly, describes what it calls a renaissance in the use and resistance of grand juries around Trump‑related prosecutions. Veteran prosecutors told Politico they had rarely seen grand juries push back on indictments the way some have when confronted with aggressive Trump‑aligned cases, and at least one federal judge has openly criticized what she called “apparent prosecutorial machinations” tied to these efforts. Even where Trump himself is not the defendant, his policies and his Justice Department's tactics keep popping up in the courtroom record.Taken together, the last few days have not brought a single dramatic verdict with Donald Trump at the defense table, but they have tightened the vise around his presidency's legal legacy. Supreme Court calendars, emergency applications, and fresh filings in federal courts all point to 2026 as the year when judges, not voters, will finally decide how far Trump can go on tariffs, immigration, and presidential power itself.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe US is now withdrawing from the GCF, the entire plan of the [WEF]/[CB] is imploding. Housing is going to boom, Trump has all the pieces in place. Supreme Court is suppose to make a decision on tariffs, if they rule against Trump he has another card up his sleeve.US trade deficit dropped by 40%. Trump just gave the [WEF] the middle finger and shutdown their entire agenda. The [DS] is doing exactly what Trump wants, they are building the insurrection right in front of the countries eyes. Trump has now set the trap of all traps, never interfere with an enemy while in the process of destroying themselves. Trump has the military, he has the law on his side, everything has been planned for, playbook known. Economy https://twitter.com/SecScottBessent/status/2009264006083522849?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/TKL_Adam/status/2009018778294927730?s=20 https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/2009298104764219475?s=20 The Supreme Court is expected to potentially rule on the legality of President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as early as tomorrow, January 9, 2026, at around 10 a.m. ET. The justices heard oral arguments in the consolidated cases (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.) on November 5, 2025, where they appeared skeptical of the administration’s position that IEEPA grants the president authority to impose such sweeping tariffs during declared national emergencies. Lower courts had previously ruled against the tariffs’ legality, but they remain in effect pending the Supreme Court’s decision. These options are drawn from existing trade laws and have been used by past administrations. Here’s a breakdown of the key alternatives: Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962: This allows the president to impose tariffs on imports deemed a threat to national security after an investigation by the Department of Commerce. There’s no cap on duty levels or duration, making it flexible for broad application, such as on steel or autos. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: Through the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), this permits tariffs in response to unfair or discriminatory foreign trade practices that violate international agreements or harm U.S. commerce. No rate limit exists, but it requires an investigation and findings, which could target specific countries like China. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: This enables temporary import surcharges of up to 15% (or quotas) for up to 150 days to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits. It’s seen as a quick interim option while longer-term measures are pursued, but extensions need congressional approval. Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974: Known as “safeguard” measures, this authorizes tariffs if surging imports are causing or threatening serious injury to domestic industries. It requires a U.S. International Trade Commission investigation and recommendation, with tariffs potentially lasting up to four years (extendable to eight). Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930: This allows duties up to 50% on imports from countries engaging in “unfair” practices that discriminate against U.S. exports. It’s less commonly used and could face immediate lawsuits due to its broad interpretation potential. The administration has signaled readiness to shift to these tools, potentially starting with Section 122 for rapid implementation. U.S. Trade Deficit Drops 40% in Latest Commerce Dept Report As you review this latest data on trade, remember any drop in trade deficits has two big picture functions: First, lower trade deficits generally mean the accompanying GDP release will be stronger than anticipated because imported products are a deduction from the valuation of all goods and services created in the U.S. economy. Lower imports mean less is deducted. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, a drop in the trade deficit created by diminished imports means more wealth remains inside the USA. We are not spending, sending money overseas, to import foreign goods at the same rate, and that money stays inside the U.S. economy. More wealth inside the U.S. provides the fuel for expanded domestic growth, more investment gains in USA manufacturing and USA industry and the ability to pay higher USA wages. The Commerce Department is reporting today that the U.S. trade deficit for October 2025 dropped to the smallest amount in 16-years. A significant amount of the deficit drop was because a high value of physical precious metals (gold/silver) was exported, simultaneous with big offshore pharmaceutical companies dropping the prices of imported products (policy and tariff pressure). Some may question whether internal consumer demand has declined, causing the significant drop in imports. However, the U.S productivity rate is still very high – which generally means domestic consumer demand is still high and all units produced have a lower overall cost per unit. Economic analysis can get weedy…. so, a simple way to look at productivity is to think about baking bread in your kitchen. If you were going to bake 4 loaves of bread it might take you 2 hrs. start to finish. However, if you were going to bake 8 loaves of bread it would not take you twice as long because most of the tasks can be accomplished with simple increases in batch size, and only minor increases in labor time. Your productivity measured in the last four loaves is higher. Economic Productivity is measured much the same way, within what's called a production probability equation. Additionally, if two hours of your time are worth $40, each of four loaves of bread costs $10 in labor; but if you make 8 loaves in the same amount of time the labor cost is only $5/per loaf. When we see higher productivity in direct alignment with GDP increases, the increased production indicates sustainable GDP growth. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com https://twitter.com/RealEJAntoni/status/2009314808332734604?s=20 Political/Rights https://twitter.com/lizcollin/status/2009046198314008954?s=20 DOGE Geopolitical https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2009287108796575807?s=20 https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2009306335087665208?s=20 These nine Republican lawmakers joined the Democrats: Fitzpatrick (PA), Bresnahan (PA), Mackenzie (PA), Lawler (NY), Salazar (FL), LaLota (NY), Valadao (CA), Kean (NJ), Miller (OH). Yes, for S.J. Res. 98 (the Venezuela war powers resolution referenced in the post) to become law and enforce limits on further U.S. military actions, it must pass the House of Representatives after its recent advancement in the Senate. If the House approves it, the bill would then go to President Trump, who has indicated he would likely veto it based on similar past actions. If vetoed, Congress would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. Article II of the Constitution, as all Presidents, and their Departments of Justice, have determined before me. Nevertheless, a more important Senate Vote will be taking place next week on this very subject. https://twitter.com/DOGEai_tx/status/2009076665054277855?s=20 101’s 11-point democratization criteria – including releasing political prisoners and restoring National Assembly powers. The 2025 bill mandates strict oversight of any aid through Section 204’s safeguards against regime capture. Taxpayers deserve transparency: Will this embassy facilitate accountability for $150B in stolen oil revenues, or just greenlight more foreign aid slush funds? Strategic engagement only works if tied to verifiable reforms, not symbolic gestures. https://twitter.com/estrellainfant/status/2008948263916015793?s=20 Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth continue to expose Delcy Rodríguez and, at the same time, prevent the internal fissures of the regime from spiraling into an uncontrolled collapse. That is no coincidence: it is strategy. Rubio is not acting to provoke an immediate implosion, but to manage the decomposition of power. By exposing contradictions, routes, false narratives, and opaque movements, he weakens Delcy in front of the Chavista leadership, but without pushing the system toward a violent break that generates a power vacuum, chaos, or an unpredictable military reaction. This achieves several objectives at once: First, it isolates Delcy. Every time she is exposed, her room to maneuver shrinks in front of her “external allies” and the regime’s hardline elements. She shifts from being an operator to becoming a risk. Second, it deepens internal distrust. When sensitive information starts to align with U.S. actions, within the regime no one knows who is leaking what. That paranoia is corrosive and weakens more than a direct strike. Third, it preserves the minimum governability necessary for a transition. An abrupt collapse favors criminal actors, armed dissidents, and foreign powers. Controlling the pace of the erosion allows maintaining channels, containing damage, and preparing the ground for a subsequent political process. In that context, Delcy is trapped. If she cooperates, she exposes herself. If she doesn’t cooperate, she becomes isolated. Any move weakens her. And Rubio, aware of that, pressures her without touching the final detonator. That’s why this deserves attention: we are not seeing improvisation or personal revenge, but a calibrated operation of attrition, where the goal is not to humiliate for spectacle, but to dismantle the regime piece by piece, avoiding Venezuela paying the cost of an uncontrolled collapse. https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2008967791966376081?s=20 https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2009090766354960453?s=20 War/Peace Security Alert – U. S. Embassy Kyiv, Ukraine (January 8, 2026) Location: Ukraine, all districts Event: The U.S. embassy in Kyiv has received information concerning a potentially significant air attack that may occur at any time over the next several days. The embassy, as always, recommends U.S. citizens be prepared to immediately shelter in the event an air alert is announced. Actions to Take: Identify shelter locations before any air alert. Download a reliable air alert app to your mobile phone, like Air Raid Siren or Alarm Map . Immediately take shelter if an air alert is announced. Check local media for breaking news. Be prepared to adjust your plans. Keep reserves of water, food, and medication. Follow the directions of Ukrainian officials and first responders in the event of an emergency. Review what the Department of State Can and Cannot Do in a Crisis . https://twitter.com/Geiger_Capital/status/2008991231507099730?s=20 tremendous numbers being produced by Tariffs from other Countries, many of which, in the past, have “ripped off” the United States at levels never seen before, I would stay at the $1 Trillion Dollar number but, because of Tariffs, and the tremendous Income that they bring, amounts being generated, that would have been unthinkable in the past (especially just one year ago during the Sleepy Joe Biden Administration, the Worst President in the History of our Country!), we are able to easily hit the $1.5 Trillion Dollar number while, at the same time, producing an unparalleled Military Force, and having the ability to, at the same time, pay down Debt, and likewise, pay a substantial Dividend to moderate income Patriots within our Country! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP Medical/False Flags [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/DerrickEvans4WV/status/2009097879106015609?s=20 https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/2009305173395415310?s=20 https://twitter.com/susancrabtree/status/2009271768121242054?s=20 years, which is happening this morning. This is the arrogant California corruption that has occurred under Newsom's watch and in this case —possibly his own direction or one of his top aide's —because the light was finally beginning to shine on why the Golden State has become so tarnished under his watch. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2009188335873302712?s=20 She warned that the intimidation is systemic, and basically if you speak up, expect your life to be dismantled. Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected by law, and if they're being hunted for telling the truth, the system is being weaponized. @MarionONeill1 : “Retaliation has been going on for quite some time and it's now escalated. You're going to lose your job. You're going to lose your home. They'll track your children. They'll make sure you can't get a job anywhere Democrats control. https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/2009099844506501431?s=20 https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2009087403575947648?s=20 DHS Sec. Kristi Noem Drops Facts, Cooks Walz and Frey During Presser on MN Anti-ICE Incident https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/2009046495262110138?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2009046495262110138%7Ctwgr%5Ec2c616dd05bfbbc6e3cd4613990f826fb989a6af%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fsister-toldjah%2F2026%2F01%2F07%2Fkristi-noem-drops-facts-cooks-walz-and-frey-during-presser-on-mn-anti-ice-incident-n2197890 these federal law enforcement officers, they’ll say that when you call for back-up…it’s hit and miss.” https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/2009044827158007875?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2009044827158007875%7Ctwgr%5Ec2c616dd05bfbbc6e3cd4613990f826fb989a6af%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fsister-toldjah%2F2026%2F01%2F07%2Fkristi-noem-drops-facts-cooks-walz-and-frey-during-presser-on-mn-anti-ice-incident-n2197890 Noem also shared that the woman in the SUV had been “stalking and impeding” the agents during the course of the day: https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/2009050638232244548?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2009050638232244548%7Ctwgr%5Ec2c616dd05bfbbc6e3cd4613990f826fb989a6af%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fsister-toldjah%2F2026%2F01%2F07%2Fkristi-noem-drops-facts-cooks-walz-and-frey-during-presser-on-mn-anti-ice-incident-n2197890 Source: redstate.com Breaking: The same ICE agent appears to have been dragged roughly 300 feet while executing an arrest warrant on an illegal alien, resulting in 33 stitches just six months ago. Video and full details below. Thanks to @MWhitney93679 for bring this to my attention. @DataRepublican @elonmusk https://cbsnews.com/minnesota/video/shocking-footage-shows-driver-dragging-deportation-officer/?referrer=grok.com https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2009292194406895696?s=20 https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/2009044298486948261?s=20 https://twitter.com/warriors_mom/status/2009038176627876188?s=20 force by an ICE agent becomes unavoidable. And the local Minneapolis politicians decide it's the perfect opportunity to declare war against the federal government? https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2009142447905882188?s=20 to the deadly incident, leftists are urging vengeance and riots in Minneapolis. Rioters earlier surged to a federal building and smashed up the entrance. The shooting incident occurred in the context of the far-left and Antifa urging violence against ICE for months. It has led to an Antifa cell carrying out an ambush shooting in Texas on the Prairieland facility. At least seven have pleaded guilty to a federal terrorism charge. Then, in Dallas, an ICE facility was shot up by an anti-ICE activist, killing people. https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/2009040818896830650?s=20 BREAKING: The wife of Renee Nicole Good—the 37-year-old Minneapolis shooting victim who attempted to run over an ICE officer—appears to have been outside the vehicle filming as her wife blocked ICE vehicles. She is seen wearing a flannel shirt, walking around the vehicle and recording ICE officers. She later runs back to the vehicle to check on Renee. Afterward, she tells a nearby man, “That's my wife.” When he asks if she knows any of her wife's relatives she could call, she responds, “We’re new here. I don’t have people… I can't even breathe right now.” Why was she outside the vehicle filming while her wife was blocking ICE officers? Terrible https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/2009143305075097679?s=20 https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/2009103459019002182?s=20 https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2009270499398893758?s=20 https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2009132509607677966?s=20 https://twitter.com/iAnonPatriot/status/2009087576402219051?s=20 https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/2008995871724355652?s=20 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2009297640555503770?s=20 https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2009197905723216144?s=20 After about two minutes on scene, my security began wanting to bring me out of there due to the immediate threats of violence. I tried to shorten this video as much as possible but it's tough given all the BS that unfolded. As soon as I dialed 911, one of the leftist screamed “Minneapolis Police are on OUR side!” Turns out, he was right. – A vehicle began chasing us the wrong way down a one way and then threatened to kiII me (dispatch heard this and responded by asking for my last name?) – First dispatcher promised they'd respond, asked me if I was “White,” held me on the phone for the 10 mins, and then ended the call – Second one called back and gave me the runaround as the situation worsens – Third one calls me back and tells me to go fck myself, essentially We ended up being FOLLOWED out of town, and requested backup set to arrive in a few hours. We are NOT giving up. Leftists WILL NOT terrorize us into silence. See you in a few hours, Minneapolis. Stay tuned. Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? Before Jan 20, 2029 57% Before 2027 43% Before Jan 20, 2029 If the President of the United States has invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy the United States military and/or the federalized National Guard within the United States before Jan 20, 2029, then the market resolves to Yes. Sources from the White House, The New York Times, the Associated Press, Reuters, Axios, Politico, Semafor, The Information, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Minneapolis Public Schools Cancel Classes and Activities for Rest of Week Minneapolis Public Schools announced Wednesday night that all classes and activities were canceled for the rest of the week and that students would not have to do ‘e-learning' at home while schools are closed. Protests are expected in the coming days after a woman driver was shot and killed by a federal officer when she allegedly tried to run him over during a protest against ICE in a Minneapolis residential neighborhood Wednesday morning. MPS statement: No school Jan. 8-9 due to safety concerns Source: thegatewaypundit.com Preplanned Riot patterns. https://twitter.com/TheSCIF/status/2009115663848362251?s=20 https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2009077478073979120?s=20 Do you think the criminals are trying to cover their tracks, with the riots are they going to burn down the many Somali daycares will they then file for insurance claims, loss of business revenue claims. https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2009131575724625972?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2009009290518872568?s=20 https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/2009041195717284106?s=20 https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2009020845239533590?s=20 TAKE A LISTEN https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2009117399300362278?s=20 DHS makes over 1500 immigration arrests in Minneapolis, Secretary Kristi Noem says https://twitter.com/Sec_Noem/status/2008718230039450008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2008718230039450008%7Ctwgr%5Ec51cd928497b686ddee7e7e639023089bf1f9b57%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthenationaldesk.com%2Fnews%2Famericas-news-now%2Fdhs-makes-1500-arrests-in-minneapolis-secretary-kristi-noem-says source: wgxa.tv/ https://twitter.com/JDVance/status/2009090255908130994?s=20 https://twitter.com/jsolomonReports/status/2009278938019688755?s=20 President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/2009059590726627814?s=20 https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2009334017250996436?s=20 The saying “don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes” (or similar variations) is most famously associated with the Battle of Bunker Hill on June 17, 1775, during the early stages of the American Revolutionary War. American colonial forces, low on ammunition and facing British regulars advancing uphill, were reportedly instructed to hold their fire until the enemy was close enough for shots to be effective—maximizing the impact of limited powder and musket balls, which were inaccurate at longer ranges. BREAKING: Obama Judge Disqualifies Trump-Appointed US Attorney Overseeing Letitia James Investigations, Tosses Subpoenas Issued to James A federal judge on Thursday disqualified the Trump-appointed US Attorney for the Northern District of New York overseeing investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James. US District Judge Lorna Schofield, an Obama appointee, disqualified acting US Attorney John Sarcone and quashed two subpoenas issues to Letitia James. Sarcone is the fifth Trump-appointed US Attorney to be disqualified by a rogue judge Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/2009025328065466665?s=20 WITHDRAWING FROM INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organizations that no longer serve American interests. The Memorandum orders all Executive Departments and Agencies to cease participating in and funding 35 non-United Nations (UN) organizations and 31 UN entities that operate contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty. This follows a review ordered earlier this year of all international intergovernmental organizations, conventions, and treaties that the United States is a member of or party to, or that the United States funds or supports. These withdrawals will end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over U.S. priorities, or that address important issues inefficiently or ineffectively such that U.S. taxpayer dollars are best allocated in other ways to support the relevant missions. RESTORING AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY: President Trump is ending U.S. participation in international organizations that undermine America's independence and waste taxpayer dollars on ineffective or hostile agendas. Many of these bodies promote radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programs that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic strength. American taxpayers have spent billions on these organizations with little return, while they often criticize U.S. policies, advance agendas contrary to our values, or waste taxpayer dollars by purporting to address important issues but not achieving any real results. By exiting these entities, President Trump is saving taxpayer money and refocusing resources on America First priorities. This is factually a much bigger deal, a bigger win, than most will initially appreciate. Each of the institutions carry “membership fees” or financial obligations each participating government pays into. Each organization consists of board members, stakeholders and other administrative offices which employ the friends and families of current and former politicians, world “leaders” and essentially well-connected and disconnected elites who run the agencies. It's like a massive network of NGOs, except the entities exist exclusively with government funding. Just like the United Nations itself, the USA always pays the dues, fees and largest portion of the operating expenses, which includes payrolls and travel benefits. Other countries participate, but it is the USA who picks up the largest portion of the financial obligations for the organization itself to exist. Like USAID, the designated “global” organizations (conventions, treaties, etc) operate as massive bureaucratic rule makers for global standards and practices. The organizations themselves employ a network of downstream entities, agencies, contractors, think-tanks, academic liaisons and internal government offices who collaborate with the goals and objectives of the parent organization. Withdrawing the support of the U.S. means cutting that entire apparatus off from receiving funding from the USA. Europe and the USA are the largest funders of each of these World Economic Forum aligned agencies. It is not coincidental that President Trump and Secretary Rubio are making this move in advance of President Trump traveling to Davos, where the network associations congregate. President Trump is expected to deliver a bucket of ice water upon the heads of those who attend Davos annually. The GREAT RESET crew, who design the global government customs and norms, is being reset. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");
I never thought I'd be glued to my screen, watching the Supreme Court become the hottest ticket in town, but here we are on this crisp January morning in 2026, with President Donald Trump's legal battles dominating the headlines. Just days ago, on December 23, 2025, the justices handed down a key ruling in Trump v. Illinois, partially siding with the administration in a tense showdown over federalizing the National Guard in Illinois. The majority allowed the move, with Justice Kavanaugh writing a concurrence, while Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, arguing it overstepped state authority. According to the Brennan Center's Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker, this decision came after a First Circuit ruling let it stand, underscoring Trump's push to assert federal control amid rising urban unrest in Chicago.But that's just the appetizer. The real drama kicks off next week. On January 13, the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., will hear oral arguments in two massive challenges to state bans on transgender students—like those in West Virginia and Idaho—playing on sports teams matching their gender identity. KVUE News reports these cases hinge on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools. Challengers say the bans unfairly sideline kids like Becky Pepper-Jackson in West Virginia, who's been fighting since 2021 to compete in girls' track.Then, on January 21, all eyes turn to Trump v. Cook, a blockbuster testing presidential firing powers. President Trump tried to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in August 2025, citing alleged mortgage fraud from before her 2023 appointment to the Fed's Board in Washington. A D.C. district judge blocked it, and now the Supreme Court has deferred any stay until arguments, per the official docket for case 25A312. The Constitution Center notes this stems from the Federal Reserve Act, which only allows removal "for cause," not at-will. If Trump wins, it could reshape independent agencies like the Fed, which steers the U.S. economy with trillions in influence—think interest rates affecting your mortgage or job market.These aren't isolated fights. The Court's fall term already tackled Trump v. Slaughter on firing a Federal Trade Commissioner and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump over tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker logs dozens more, from immigration deportations under the Alien Enemies Act in Trump v. J.G.G. to earlier agency head removals. With decisions due by June, the stakes couldn't be higher—executive power, civil rights, economic stability all colliding.As I sip my coffee, scrolling updates from the National Constitution Center, I can't help but wonder: will this term redefine Trump's second presidency? The justices, from Chief Justice John Roberts to the newest voices, hold the gavel.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
# Supreme Court's Trump Trials: A Week of Historic Decisions AheadAs we kick off 2026, the Supreme Court is preparing for what could be one of the most consequential months in recent judicial history. Next week, the justices will begin hearing arguments in cases that could fundamentally reshape American law, presidential power, and individual rights. Let me walk you through what's coming and why it matters.The most immediate case hits the core of executive authority. On January 21st, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Trump v. Cook, a case centered on whether President Donald Trump can fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Cook began her fourteen-year term on the board in 2023. Trump attempted to remove her in August, alleging mortgage fraud that occurred before her appointment. Here's the legal tension: the Federal Reserve Act explicitly states that the president can only remove board members for cause. Trump's lawyers argue he should be able to dismiss her freely, while Cook's team contends the removal protections exist for a reason, to insulate the Fed from political pressure.What makes this case historic is its broader implications. According to analysis from Georgetown professor Stephen Vladeck, the Trump administration has filed nineteen shadow docket applications in its first twenty weeks, matching what the entire Biden administration filed over four years. If the Court rules in Trump's favor on the Cook case, it would overturn nearly a century-old precedent protecting independent agency commissioners from arbitrary dismissal. That could reshape how federal agencies operate and their independence from political winds.But the Fed case isn't the only executive power question before the justices. The Supreme Court's January calendar also includes Trump v. Barbara, which will examine whether Trump's executive order eliminating birthright citizenship can stand. This order aims to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants. Such a ruling would overturn protections established by the 14th Amendment that the Court has maintained for over a century. Multiple courts have already temporarily blocked the order's enforcement, signaling serious constitutional concerns.There's also the tariffs case. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump will determine whether Trump can invoke a national emergency to impose extensive tariffs on foreign goods without congressional approval. Trump has called this the most significant case ever. The stakes are enormous. If the Court rules against him, the government might need to reimburse over one hundred billion dollars in tariffs already collected, and Trump's ability to use emergency declarations for economic policy would be severely constrained.Beyond Trump's cases, listeners should know that on January 13th, the Court will hear arguments in cases challenging state bans on transgender students participating in sports that align with their gender identity. These cases raise questions about the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and Title IX protections against sex-based discrimination in education.As these arguments unfold over the coming weeks, decisions are expected before the end of June. The Court's rulings could reshape the balance between presidential power and institutional independence, alter immigration law, transform federal economic policy, and redefine civil rights protections. These aren't abstract legal questions, listeners. They'll affect real people's lives and how American government functions.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more analysis as these historic arguments begin. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Mentor Sessions Ep. 045: Bitcoin Privacy Erosion, Quantum Myths & AI Data Threats | Time Chain Calendar Creator TCWhat if the Biggest threat to your Bitcoin isn't AI or Quantum computers, but your own lack of knowledge? Time to level up. In this must-watch episode of BTC Sessions, anonymous Bitcoin trailblazer TC (@Meditation_Man), creator of the revolutionary Time Chain Calendar, exposes why privacy is Bitcoin's endangered lifeline—handing over your data to social media and governments isn't just careless, it's handing enemies an asymmetric edge that could wreck your stack. He debunks quantum FUD as overhyped mythology, reveals how AI devours your personal info into manipulative models, and drops actionable secrets like running your own node for true sovereignty, mastering UTXOs to slash fees and boost privacy, and why Nostr is the decentralized shield against censorship. From $5 wrench attacks to regulation by prosecution horrors like the Samurai case, TC warns normies: Bitcoin isn't just "number go up"—it's your stand for freedom in a world rigged to control you. If you're stacking sats the best thing you can do to level up your security is to keep learning! Dive in now for the tools to protect your Bitcoin forever.Key topics: Bitcoin privacy, quantum myths, AI data dangers, running nodes, UTXO management, Time Chain Calendar, Nostr privacy.Support Time Chain CalendarWebsite: https://timechaincalendar.comApp: Search "Time Chain Calendar" on App Store or Google PlayX: @Meditation_ManChapters:00:00 Teaser & Intro00:01:12 TC's Name Origin & Privacy Importance00:02:35 Privacy as Endangered Species00:04:46 Privacy vs Secrecy Debate00:05:47 Social Media Addiction & Data Risks00:07:28 Asymmetric Information Advantage00:08:43 Trust in Society & Tech Pitfalls00:10:44 Future AI Dangers00:12:47 $5 Wrench Attacks & Privacy Street Smarts00:14:19 Basic Privacy Tips for Bitcoiners00:16:30 Nostr as Privacy Tool00:19:51 Samurai Case & Regulation by Prosecution00:23:20 State Power & Black Pill Realities00:26:14 Why Run a Bitcoin Node00:32:23 Node Setup & Empowerment00:35:22 AI as Learning Tool00:39:15 Difficulty Adjustment Explained00:47:19 Time Chain Calendar Demo00:57:24 Hash Rate & Mining Power01:02:02 UTXO Model & Management01:12:51 Sparrow Wallet Tools01:14:13 UTXO Set Size Concerns01:18:15 Quantum Myths Busted01:25:17 Learning Resources & Conversations01:29:50 Events, Privacy Trade-offs & App Features01:37:41 Where to Find TC & ClosingPrevious Episode:Mentor Sessions Ep. 044: Bitcoin Freedom, Government Adoption Risks & IMF Criticism | My First Bitcoin Founder John Dennehy: https://youtu.be/miWc1mymTa0
I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court hand President Donald Trump a rare courtroom defeat, but here we are, listeners, on the heels of Christmas 2025. Just days ago, on December 23, the Justices in Washington, D.C., issued a sharp three-page unsigned order in Trump v. Illinois, rejecting the Trump administration's emergency plea to deploy the Illinois National Guard and Texas National Guard troops to Chicago. Picture this: Back on October 4, President Trump federalized 300 Illinois National Guard members to safeguard federal property amid reports of riots—protesters hurling tear gas canisters at officers, yanking off gas masks, even targeting them with bullhorns that could cause permanent hearing loss. The administration argued it was essential under federal law, citing unrefuted declarations of violence that local police in Chicago couldn't handle alone.But a federal judge in Chicago slapped down a temporary restraining order, and the Supreme Court let it stand. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented fiercely—Alito's opinion called out the lower court for ignoring the facts, questioning why grand jury no-indictments for some rioters weren't enough to discredit the violence claims. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred separately, but the majority sided against the administration, marking a loss in the shadow docket frenzy that's defined Trump's second term. According to the Brennan Center's tracker, since January 20, 2025, the Court has ruled on 25 such emergency applications challenging Trump actions—20 at least partially in his favor, but this one, no dice. SCOTUSblog reported it straight: the deployment stays blocked while litigation drags on.This isn't isolated. Oral arguments wrapped up just last month on November 5 in Learning Resources v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. VOS Selections before the Supreme Court. At stake? Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets President Trump slap trade tariffs during national emergencies he declares—and if so, does it unconstitutionally hand Congress's power to the executive? Dykema's legal alert calls it the term's biggest case, pitting presidential authority against separation-of-powers limits. Whispers from the bench suggest the Justices are skeptical, probing the delegation doctrine hard.Meanwhile, Trump's legal battles echo from his first term. In New York, Judge Juan Merchan's decision in People v. Donald J. Trump keeps sentencing on ice—pushed from July 2024 past the election to November 26 at Trump's own request, now stayed pending Supreme Court immunity fallout from Trump v. United States. Federal appeals upheld a jury's E. Jean Carroll verdict against him, with no reversal in sight. And the floodgates? Education policies sparked 71 lawsuits in 2025 alone, per Education Week, with Trump losing nearly 70 percent at lower courts. Immigration clashes rage on—from Noem v. Doe revoking parole for half a million from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, to Alien Enemies Act deportations where the Court sometimes greenlights, sometimes blocks.It's a whirlwind, listeners—tariffs, troops, tariffs again—reminding us the courts are checking power like never before. As 2025 closes, Trump's docket tests every constitutional seam.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Since the start of his second term, President Donald Trump has imposed sweeping tariffs – especially on China, where most toys are made. On today’s Big Take Asia Podcast, host Oanh Ha talks with Rick Woldenberg, CEO of four‑generation toymaker Learning Resources, about his company’s battle against tariffs in stores and in court – and what it reveals about the true cost of America’s trade war. Read more: Cutting Ties With China Is Harder Than Companies Expected Further listening: An American Toymaker Struggles to Break Up With ChinaIndia Wanted to Become The World’s Toymaker. Then Tariffs HappenedSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Learning Resources v. Trump, a case examining the scope of presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and its use to impose tariffs. This program will break down the argument, highlight how the Justices probed IEEPA’s limits, and discuss what the Court’s decision may mean for executive power, trade policy, and the future deployment of emergency economic tools. Featuring:Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law, William & Mary Law SchoolAdam White, Laurence H. Silberman Chair in Constitutional Governance and Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
Eytan Seidman, VP of product at Shopify, joins the podcast to unpack Shopify's Winter '26 Edition and how AI is emerging into the market for developers and merchants. They discuss the new Dev MCP server, showing how tools like Cursor and Claude Desktop can rapidly scaffold Shopify apps, wire up Shopify functions, and ship payment customization and checkout UI extension experiences that lean on Shopify primitives like meta fields and meta objects across online stores and point of sale. Eytan also breaks down how Sidekick connects with apps, why the new analytics API and ShopifyQL open fresh analytics use cases, and more. Links Shopify Winter '26 Edition: https://www.shopify.com/editions/winter2026 We want to hear from you! How did you find us? Did you see us on Twitter? In a newsletter? Or maybe we were recommended by a friend? Fill out our listener survey (https://t.co/oKVAEXipxu)! https://t.co/oKVAEXipxu Let us know by sending an email to our producer, Elizabeth, at elizabeth.becz@logrocket.com (mailto:elizabeth.becz@logrocket.com), or tweet at us at PodRocketPod (https://twitter.com/PodRocketpod). Check out our newsletter (https://blog.logrocket.com/the-replay-newsletter/)! https://blog.logrocket.com/the-replay-newsletter/ Follow us. Get free stickers. Follow us on Apple Podcasts, fill out this form (https://podrocket.logrocket.com/get-podrocket-stickers), and we'll send you free PodRocket stickers! What does LogRocket do? LogRocket provides AI-first session replay and analytics that surfaces the UX and technical issues impacting user experiences. Start understanding where your users are struggling by trying it for free at LogRocket.com. Try LogRocket for free today. (https://logrocket.com/signup/?pdr) Chapters 01:00 — AI as the Focus of Winter '26 02:00 — MCP Server as the Ideal Dev Workflow 03:00 — Best Clients for MCP (Cursor, Claude Desktop) 04:00 — Hallucinations & Code Validation in MCP 06:00 — Developer Judgment & Platform Primitives 07:00 — Storage Choices: Meta Fields vs External Storage 09:00 — Learning UI Patterns Through MCP 10:00 — Sidekick Overview & Merchant Automation 11:00 — Apps Inside Sidekick: Data & UI Integration 13:00 — Scopes, Data Access & Developer Responsibility 14:00 — AI-Ready Platform & Explosion of New Apps 16:00 — New Developer Demographics Entering Shopify 17:00 — Where Indie Devs Should Focus (POS, Analytics) 18:00 — New Analytics API & Opportunities 19:00 — Full Platform Coverage via MCP Tools 20:00 — Building Complete Apps in Minutes 21:00 — Large Stores, Token Limits & MCP Scaling 22:00 — Reducing Errors with UI & Function Testing 23:00 — Lessons from Building the MCP Server 25:00 — Lowering Barriers for Non-Experts 26:00 — High-Quality Rust Functions via MCP 27:00 — MCP Spec Adoption: Tools Over Resources 28:00 — Future: Speed, Quality & UI Precision 29:00 — Model Evolution, Evals & Reliability 31:00 — Core Shopify Primitives to Build On 33:00 — Docs, Community & Learning Resources
Aughie and Nia discuss the oral arguments before the US Supreme Court in consolidated cases Learning Resources, Inc v Trump and Trump v V.O.S. Selections. These cases argue that the Presidential imposition of tariffs is unconsitutional.
Live from Crooked Con in Washington, Leah, Kate, and Melissa unpack the surprisingly not-awful oral arguments for Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which put the president's tariffs in the hot seat. Then the hosts are joined by Representative LaMonica McIver of New Jersey to discuss the bogus charges against her for “assaulting” federal agents while conducting an oversight visit of an ICE detention center. Finally, friend of the pod Steve Vladeck joins Leah to break down the 3D chess behind Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's Friday night order granting an administrative stay in a case about the funding of SNAP benefits. Read Steve's excellent piece on the subject here, and enter Leah's Lawless giveaway here.Favorite Things:Kate: Judge Sara Ellis's reading of Chicago by Carl Sandburg; How to Be a Good Citizen When Your Country Does Bad Things, M. Gessen (NYT); The 25 Young(ish) New Democrats to Watch, Matt Stieb and Kaleigh Rogers (New York Magazine)Leah: Zohran Mamdani's Victory SpeechMelissa: The Can't Win Victory Fund Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/events Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Full audio of the Supreme Court oral argument in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (No. 24-1287), argued November 5, 2025. This high-stakes case tests whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes President Trump's use of national emergency declarations to impose broad import tariffs—and, if so, whether that sweeping authority is an unconstitutional delegation of Congress's taxing power. The Justices press both sides on statutory text, separation of powers, and the limits of executive economic "emergency" authority in a case with massive implications for trade, small businesses, and presidential power. Check out the official Crime Talk merch at the Crime Talk Store: scottreisch.com/crime-talk-store. #LearningResourcesvTrump #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #Tariffs #SeparationOfPowers #CrimeTalk
The Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices have been treating the Trump administration with such extreme deference that we were honestly a little flummoxed listening to this week's arguments over his “Liberation Day” tariffs. Shockingly, during Wednesday's arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, it seemed like the justices were in fact, concerned with presidential overreach. But was this a true bridge-too-far-moment, or were they more concerned about their own pocketbooks? This week, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the arguments with Marc Busch, the Karl F. Landegger Professor of International Business Diplomacy at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Busch is an expert on international trade policy and law, and signed onto an amicus brief on behalf of trade scholars explaining the history and context of IEEPA. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices have been treating the Trump administration with such extreme deference that we were honestly a little flummoxed listening to this week's arguments over his “Liberation Day” tariffs. Shockingly, during Wednesday's arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, it seemed like the justices were in fact, concerned with presidential overreach. But was this a true bridge-too-far-moment, or were they more concerned about their own pocketbooks? This week, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the arguments with Marc Busch, the Karl F. Landegger Professor of International Business Diplomacy at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Busch is an expert on international trade policy and law, and signed onto an amicus brief on behalf of trade scholars explaining the history and context of IEEPA. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices have been treating the Trump administration with such extreme deference that we were honestly a little flummoxed listening to this week's arguments over his “Liberation Day” tariffs. Shockingly, during Wednesday's arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, it seemed like the justices were in fact, concerned with presidential overreach. But was this a true bridge-too-far-moment, or were they more concerned about their own pocketbooks? This week, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the arguments with Marc Busch, the Karl F. Landegger Professor of International Business Diplomacy at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Busch is an expert on international trade policy and law, and signed onto an amicus brief on behalf of trade scholars explaining the history and context of IEEPA. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
OA1205 - It's another good news Friday! Voting rights expert Jenessa runs down some of the highlights of the off-year blue sweep in this week's elections, as well as some recent unsung national victories for voting and disability rights. Matt then checks in on the Supreme Court's oral arguments from the challenge to Trump's unprecedented tariffs and why it is looking like he might actually lose his administration's first attempt to defend one of his second administration's policies on the merits. Finally, in today's footnote: Why a federal judge recently decided that a lawsuit brought by the man whose penis was once featured on the cover of the most important albums of 1990s smelled like summary judgment. Supreme Court oral arguments in Learning Resources, Inc v. Trump (11/5/2025) The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 “Regulating Imports with a Reciprocal Tariff to Rectify Trade Pratcies that Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits,” The White House (4/2/2025)(executive order on tariffs) Solicitor General John Sauer's brief in Learning Resources Plaintiff's second amended complaint in Elden v. Nirvana LLC et al D.C. federal judge Coleen Kollar-Kotelly's opinion in combined litigation challenging Trump's executive order on citizenship requirements for voting (10/31/25) DC federal judge Amir Ali's order in National Association of the Deaf v. Trump (11/4/25) Order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in Elden v. Nirvana, LLC (9/30/2025)
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the consolidated cases of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., both of which challenged some of the president's authority to unilaterally issue foreign duties. Trump has justified his broad “reciprocal tariffs” on U.S trading partners by declaring a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which prompted the legal challenges. The court's decision could set the precedent for presidential authority over trade and the use of emergency powers.Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast here, our “Under the Radar” story here and today's “Have a nice day” story here.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: How do you think the Supreme Court will rule? Let us know.Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the International Emergency Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 (“IEEPA”), permits the president to impose tariffs.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the International Emergency Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 (“IEEPA”), permits the president to impose tariffs.
Sarah Isgur and David French preview the biggest Supreme Court case of the term, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which challenges President Donald Trump's power to impose sweeping tariffs on virtually all goods imported into the United States. For additional analysis, join the SCOTUSbloglive blog on November 5 at 10:00 a.m. ET. The Agenda:—How to get CLE credit by listening to Advisory Opinions—Laying the groundwork for Trump's tariffs case—Divided liberal justices—National Guard deployment to Chicago on the interim docket—Sex markers on passports—Justices aren't policy experts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Kate, Leah, and Melissa dive into the legal pushback over ICE and the National Guard in Chicago and Portland, anti-marriage equality goblin Kim Davis's unwelcome return to the courts, the administration's lawless strikes on boats in the waters around South America, and the specter of Trump 3.0. Then, they preview November's SCOTUS cases, including Learning Resources v. Trump, which challenges Trump's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Favorite things:Leah: Task (HBO Max); West End Girl, Lily Allen; The Kavanaugh Stop - 50 days later, Chris Geidner (Law Dork); The Supreme Court's Self-Defeating Supremacy, Steve Vladeck (The Supreme Court Review); God's Chief Justice, Doug Bock Clark (ProPublica); Lawyers March for Democracy on November 15 at 1-3pm.Kate: The Emergency, George Packer; Expert Backgrounder on War Powers Resolution 60-Day Clock for Boat Strikes Expiring Monday, Rebecca Ingber and Jessica Thibodeau (Just Security)Melissa: Impermissible Punishments: How Prison Became a Problem for Democracy, Judith ResnikHurricane relief for Jamaica:The WalkGood Jamaica Relief FundThe American Friends of JamaicaGlobal Empowerment MissionMercy CorpsFood for the Poor Jamaica Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/events Get tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.com Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
“The Chief Justice… is presiding over the end of the rule of law in America”. That quote did not come from host Dahlia Lithwick, but this week's guest, former Federal Circuit Court Judge and George H. W. Bush appointee, J Michael Luttig. On this week's show, Judge Luttig explains the unprecedented split we're seeing between the federal courts and the highest court in the land in response to Trump's lawlessness on everything from tariffs, to due process, to deploying the National Guard, and what it all means for the future of American democracy. Next, Dahlia talks to the CEO of the small family business at the center of the tariffs case that will be argued at SCOTUS on Wednesday. Rick Woldenberg of Learning Resources explains why he's standing up to Trump's monarchic power grab, and why he sees himself standing shoulder-to-shoulder with James Madison. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
“The Chief Justice… is presiding over the end of the rule of law in America”. That quote did not come from host Dahlia Lithwick, but this week's guest, former Federal Circuit Court Judge and George H. W. Bush appointee, J Michael Luttig. On this week's show, Judge Luttig explains the unprecedented split we're seeing between the federal courts and the highest court in the land in response to Trump's lawlessness on everything from tariffs, to due process, to deploying the National Guard, and what it all means for the future of American democracy. Next, Dahlia talks to the CEO of the small family business at the center of the tariffs case that will be argued at SCOTUS on Wednesday. Rick Woldenberg of Learning Resources explains why he's standing up to Trump's monarchic power grab, and why he sees himself standing shoulder-to-shoulder with James Madison. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the Eighth Amendment in light of a prisoner's request to die by firing squad. But first, join us for a livestream analysis of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the case that asks whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs. (Click on SCOTUSblog's oral arguments page for updates.) The Agenda:—National Guard in Portland—Eliminating horizontal stare decisis—A defense of the spoils system—Who should argue in the tariffs case?—Did we get immigration wrong for the entire Biden administration? 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
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
