Podcasts about learning resources

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, US 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 fourth‑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 Tariffs Unravel India’s Dream of Challenging China in Toymaking Further listening: An American Toymaker Struggles to Break Up With China India Wanted to Become The World’s Toymaker. Then Tariffs HappenedSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The US-China trade war has upended global manufacturing, forcing companies like Chicago-based Learning Resources to fundamentally change how and where its products are made, even as it challenges the tariffs in court. On today’s Big Take Asia podcast, K. Oanh Ha heads to India, where the toymaker has begun shifting production of its popular children’s toys. We examine how the company is managing the complex shift from China – where its toys have been made for decades, what the factory boom means for communities on the ground in India and how all of this will impact toy prices. Further listening: The American Toymaker Suing Trump Over Destructive TariffsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.

President Trump’s trade threw American businesses, which source everything from aircraft parts to baby strollers from China, into chaos. Over this year, some companies challenged the president’s tariffs in court — including Illinois-based toymaker Learning Resources, whose case is now before the Supreme Court. On today’s Big Take Asia Podcast, host K. Oanh Ha is joined by Rick Woldenberg, CEO of Learning Resources, and Bloomberg’s Lucille Liu, to talk about the impact of the trade war on US importers and Chinese manufacturers – and what it ultimately means for American consumers. Read more: Chinese Toymaker Takes Drastic Action to Survive Trump’s TariffsSee 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

# Trump Court Cases Update: November 2025The legal landscape surrounding Donald Trump has remained extraordinarily active heading into the final month of 2025, with several significant developments unfolding in recent weeks that deserve your attention.The most immediate and consequential matter involves a case that just saw oral arguments before the Supreme Court on November fifth. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., consolidated with Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, presents a fundamental question about presidential power. At the heart of this dispute is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, actually authorizes the president to impose tariffs. The Supreme Court expedited this case with remarkable speed, granting the petition for certiorari on September ninth and setting it for argument less than two months later. During those oral arguments on November fifth, the Solicitor General D. John Sauer represented federal parties, while attorneys Neal K. Katyal and Benjamin N. Gutman argued on behalf of private and state parties respectively.What makes this case particularly compelling is its timing and implications. The case originated in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and was elevated to the Supreme Court with an unusual motion to expedite. The Court allocated one full hour for oral argument and consolidated multiple related cases to address this single crucial question about executive authority. The briefs filed throughout September and October contained arguments from amicus curiae groups including Advancing American Freedom, as well as various state respondents who weighed in on the matter. No opinion has been issued from the Supreme Court as of late November, though such decisions typically take weeks or months following oral arguments.Meanwhile, another significant legal matter involving Trump relates to New York state criminal charges. According to court documents from the New York courts, Trump was convicted of thirty-four counts of falsifying business records with intent to defraud, which included intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote a presidential election by unlawful means. Following his election victory in November 2024, Trump requested a stay of sentencing and eventual dismissal of the case. However, the court acknowledged that while Trump consented to and actually requested the adjournment that postponed sentencing after the election, the record makes clear the defendant's role in directing the case's timeline. The sentencing decision remains pending as we move through November 2025.Additionally, various litigation continues against the Trump administration itself, as reported through legal tracking organizations. A coalition of nonprofits and cities has sued the Trump administration over the suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November 2025, representing yet another frontline legal battle involving the administration's policies and priorities.These cases represent the intersection of executive power, electoral politics, and administrative action that will likely shape legal precedent for years to come. The tariff case at the Supreme Court, in particular, carries enormous consequences for how future presidents may wield economic authority.Thank you so much for tuning in to this update on Trump administration litigation. Be sure to come back next week for more on how these cases develop and what they mean for American law and governance. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more analysis and information, please visit Quiet Please dot AI.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

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.

It's November 19th, 2025, and if you've been following the headlines, you know the name Donald Trump has been front and center—once again, dominating courtroom news across the nation. Just yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a pair of consolidated cases involving “Trump, President of the United States versus V.O.S. Selections, Inc.” and "Learning Resources, Inc. versus Trump, President of the United States.” According to the official Supreme Court November calendar, the energy in the courtroom was electric as the justices pressed both sides on issues ranging from executive authority to civil liberties. Legal analysts rushed out of the chamber, some shaking their heads, others feverishly texting updates as arguments wrapped up after more than an hour of fierce debate.While the Supreme Court scene drew the spotlight, several other federal courtrooms have been just as heated over the past few days. Polico and Lawfare have both highlighted the growing drama as an appeals court panel is considering a hefty million-dollar penalty against Trump for what they describe as a “frivolous lawsuit” targeting Hillary Clinton. One judge on the panel openly questioned Trump's legal strategy, asking pointedly whether his effort to revive the lawsuit was “bad faith” litigation. Analysts said the former president's moves in the courtroom seem as much about making headlines as about winning legal victories, and this latest run-in with an appeals court could make history if the million-dollar penalty is upheld.But that's far from the only legal battle roiling the Trump orbit. Just Security notes that a slew of ongoing lawsuits have tested the limits of Trump's executive power since he returned to office earlier this year. Most notably, litigation over his controversial executive orders targeting prominent law firms—orders that called for curtailing their government contracts and suspending employees' security clearances—has drawn intense scrutiny from judges and civil rights advocates. A federal court in Washington is still weighing whether to permanently block these orders, and legal experts say the final ruling could have far-reaching implications for the separation of powers and for how presidents can respond to perceived political enemies.On the civil rights front, court challenges continue to mount against Trump's bans affecting healthcare for transgender youth and restrictions on “gender ideology” in federal programs. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and advocacy groups like PFLAG are suing the Trump administration in what they call a fight for constitutional rights. With temporary injunctions in place and permanent rulings pending, the nation is watching closely to see how these legal battles play out—and what precedents they will set for years to come.All the while, outside the courthouses, protestors and supporters vie for attention, their voices echoing through the marble corridors and onto the evening news.Thanks for tuning in to this week's update on the unfolding Trump court dramas. Be sure to join us next week for more as the legal fireworks continue. This has been a Quiet Please production—visit Quiet Please Dot A I for more stories like this.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

Tax Notes managing legal reporter Caitlin Mullaney explores the Supreme Court's oral arguments in V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources and predicts whether the Court will strike down President Trump's tariffs. For related tax news, read the following in Tax Notes:Michigan Agencies Forecast Tariff Impacts on Prices, JobsSupreme Court Justices Question Trump's IEEPA TariffsTrump-Xi Summit Yields Lower Tariffs All Around**This episode is sponsored by Avalara. For more information, visit avalara.com.***CreditsHost: David D. StewartExecutive Producers: Jeanne Rauch-Zender, Paige JonesProducers: Jordan Parrish, Peyton RhodesAudio Engineers: Jordan Parrish, Peyton Rhodes****Nominate someone for the Tax Analysts Award of Distinction in U.S. Federal Taxation! For more information, visit awards.taxanalysts.org.

We're digging deep this week at the Armchair Attorney® Podcast as we dive into two Supreme Court cases. The first case is Learning Resources, Inc. v Trump. At issue is whether IEEPA authorizes the use of tariffs, and if it does, did Congress unconstitutionally delegate that power to the President? Oral arguments were last week, we'll discuss! The next case is Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, which will determine whether federal law preempts state-law claims against freight brokers for negligently selecting a motor carrier. Broker liability! This case is significant because different federal circuits have had conflicting rulings on the issue, and the Supreme Court's decision is expected to create a unified standard for all brokers nationwide.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!

The economy, trillions of dollars, and consequences unknown are on the line in the tarrifs case, Learning Resources v. Trump.  We present the justices and the advocates in their own voices from the oral argument, and Akhil reacts in real time as he hears the clips for the first time.  It's a three hour argument, so this is the first of a two-parter.  The Court's recent doctrines, including major questions and non-delegation are in play, perhaps, and therefore many are watching this case closely for consistency vs politics in the Court itself.  And of course there's history and constitutional issues at stake, so we are right at home.  Join us! CLE is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

This week, Paul and Mesh begin with Alls Fair, Ryan Murphy's star-studded, critically-panned over-the-top legal drama streaming on Hulu and a ranking of their top legal dramas. Next, they discuss England's recently-announced education reforms which were, in part, receptive to Ed Sheeran's call for educators to embrace teaching music in the classroom. Finally, Paul provides a high-level recap of Learning Resources v. Trump, a recent case argued before the Supreme Court in which the government justifies trade tariffs as a necessary exercise of emergency powers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode: The Supreme Court is considering a major separation-of-powers case that could redefine the limits of presidential authority during national emergencies, and help define what exactly constitutes a national emergency. Learning Resources v. Trump challenges President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner — tariffs justified largely by declaring a series of national emergencies.At issue is whether the law gives the president the power to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval, and how far courts can go in reviewing those emergency declarations. Elizabeth ‘Liza' Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, explains the oral arguments made on November 5th, how their eventual decision could affect Trump's signature policy and future presidents, and what the ruling might mean for the balance of power between Congress and the Executive Branch.Learn more about the case: https://ballotpedia.org/Learning_Resources,_Inc._v._Trump Read Liza's analysis: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/whats-stake-supreme-court-tariffs-case Complete a brief 5 minute survey to review the show and share some feedback: https://forms.gle/zPxYSog5civyvEKX6 Sign up for our Newsletters: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_Email_Updates Stream "On the Ballot" on Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. If you have questions, comments, or love for BP, feel free to reach out at ontheballot@ballotpedia.org or on X (formerly Twitter) @Ballotpedia.*On The Ballot is a conversational podcast featuring interviews with guests across the political spectrum. The views and opinions expressed by them are solely their own and are not representative of the views of the host or Ballotpedia as a whole.

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.

The American nation faces a legal question of existential dimensions tomorrow in oral argument before the US Supreme Court on the scope of the power of the President to exercise emergency tariff powers as delegated to him by Congress.The oral argument combines two separate cases that have been working their way through the inferior federal courts:  Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (24-1287), Trump v. V.O.S. Selections (25A327).Will the Supreme Court rule, correctly, that the democratically elected Article II Executive Branch President Donald J. Trump, to whom the Article I Congress has delegated emergency tariff powers, has the authority to leverage those tariffs to address and mitigate the nation's trade and other international emergencies?  Or will a series of unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior, district trial court judges, happily acceding to the political will of the anti-American Progressive Fascists win in their feckless argument that American commerce must instead be subject to manipulation and exploitation by scores of foreign and hostile nations?

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, President of U.S. | 11/05/25 | Docket #: 24-1287 24-1287 LEARNING RESOURCES, INC. V. TRUMP DECISION BELOW: THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. CONSOLIDATED WITH 25-250 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. EXPEDITED BRIEFING. THE CASES WILL BE SET FOR ARGUMENT IN THE FIRST WEEK OF THE NOVEMBER 2025 ARGUMENT SESSION.       CERT. GRANTED 9/9/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. ("IEEPA") permits the President, upon a valid emergency declaration, to "investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest[.]" Id. § l 702(a)(1)(B). Until now, no President in IEEPA's nearly 50-year history has ever invoked it to impose tariffs-let alone the sweeping worldwide tariffs imposed pursuant to the executive orders challenged here. The question presented is: Whether IEEPA authorizes the President to impose tariffs. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 25-5202

From the U.S. Supreme Court website: supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-1287

Desde la llegada de Donald Trump al poder, los aranceles impuestos por su administración han generado un profundo impacto en la economía global, afectando tanto a gobiernos como a empresas de distintos tamaños. Para muchas corporaciones, adaptarse a las nuevas tarifas comerciales ha representado uno de los mayores desafíos del año 2025. En un inicio, la incertidumbre giraba en torno a cómo reaccionarían las grandes compañías estadounidenses ante estas medidas. Sin embargo, gigantes tecnológicos como Nvidia, Google o Meta optaron por incrementar sus inversiones dentro del país, trasladando parte de su producción desde el extranjero hacia territorio norteamericano para esquivar los costos adicionales derivados de los aranceles. A pesar de que la atención mediática se ha centrado en las estrategias de las grandes corporaciones, el impacto real se ha sentido con mayor crudeza en las pequeñas y medianas empresas. Estas compañías carecen de los recursos financieros necesarios para adaptarse con rapidez a los cambios impuestos por la política comercial de Trump. Un ejemplo claro es el de Learning Resources, una empresa familiar dedicada a la fabricación de juguetes educativos. Su director ejecutivo, Rick Woldenberg, ha llevado su caso ante la justicia, denunciando los perjuicios económicos que los aranceles han provocado en su negocio. Junto con el bufete Akin Gump, Woldenberg asistió a las audiencias del Tribunal Supremo, donde los jueces comenzaron a cuestionar la legitimidad del uso de la Ley de Poderes Económicos de Emergencia Internacional para justificar estas medidas. El reclamo principal de Woldenberg es sencillo: exige que el gobierno le devuelva el dinero perdido a causa de los gravámenes. Aunque algunos magistrados mostraron una postura crítica hacia el alcance de la autoridad presidencial en materia comercial, cualquier cambio legal tomará tiempo en concretarse. Mientras tanto, cientos de empresas pequeñas continúan luchando por sobrevivir ante la presión económica. A diferencia de las grandes multinacionales, carecen de la liquidez necesaria para trasladar su producción o absorber los costos adicionales. Otro caso emblemático es el de Micro Kits, una empresa que fabrica juguetes y sintetizadores educativos. Su fundador, David Levi, también presentó una demanda, argumentando que su compañía depende de los chips importados desde China. Cuando en primavera los aranceles sobre estos componentes superaron el 100%, se vio obligado a suspender las importaciones, afectando gravemente su producción. Historias como la suya reflejan la incertidumbre que enfrentan miles de pequeñas empresas familiares, que ahora temen que las políticas arancelarias de Trump puedan marcar el comienzo de su fin.

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.

Executive Power: May the President address the balance of trade by imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act? - Argued: Wed, 05 Nov 2025 18:58:48 EDT

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Rico v. U.S. (November 3) - Fugitive-Tolling; Issue(s): Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.Hencely v. Fluor Corporation (November 4) - Federal Tort Claims Act;Issue(s): Whether Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders.The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist (November 4) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal.Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton (November 5) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (November 5) - Tariffs, IEEPA; Issue (s): Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs.The GEO Group v. Menocal (November 10) - Sovereign Immunity; Issue(s): Whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety (November 10) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.Rutherford v. U.S. (November 12) - First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act’s prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).Fernandez v. U.S. (November 12) - Compassionate Release; Issue(s): Whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.Featuring:Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawZac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal FoundationProf. Jacob Schuman, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of LawProf. Erica Zunkel, Director of Clinical and Experiential Learning, Clinical Professor of Law, & Director of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Clinic, University of Chicago Law School(Moderator) Logan Spena, Legal Counsel, Center for Free Speech, Alliance Defending Freedom

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

Bennett Nuss chats with New Civil Liberties Alliance Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione about the tariff case pending before the Supreme Court, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. They discuss the main arguments about the extent of the president's power over tariff policy and what the court might decide. Notes: Trump's tariffs are unconstitutional—we're suing to end […]

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

“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

The US-China tariff war has upended global manufacturing, forcing companies like Chicago-based Learning Resources to fundamentally change how and where its products are made. On today’s Big Take Asia podcast, K. Oanh Ha heads to Vietnam, where the toymaker has begun shifting the production of its popular children’s toys. We examine how the company is managing its complex shift from China – where its toys have been made for decades – what the factory boom means for communities on the ground in Vietnam and how all of this will impact consumers. Further listening: The American Toymaker Suing Trump Over Destructive TariffsXi’s Top Bargaining Chip Is a Trade War Game ChangerSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this podcast episode, Debbie McKeegan interviews Frank Maeder, president of NedGraphics, discussing the latest software release and its significance in the textile design industry. They explore the importance of software updates, the integration of AI in design tools, and the introduction of new features like AI-assisted tagging and colourway generation. The conversation also delves into realism and simulation in textile design, highlighting the launch of the OPTINED Academy for training users on these advanced tools. Overall, the episode emphasises the need for continuous adaptation and learning in a rapidly evolving industry.

The Institute of Internal Auditors Presents: All Things Internal Audit Tech Charles King sits down with Kavin Anburaj from Meta to explore how privacy intersects with internal auditing. They discuss why auditors should care about privacy, key data risks, global regulations, and practical steps for auditing privacy programs. From core privacy principles such as transparency, consent, and data minimization, to lessons learned in cross-functional collaboration, this episode provides auditors with a roadmap for tackling privacy audits in an AI-driven world. HOST: Charles King, CIA, CPA, CFE, CMA AI and Internal Audit Leader, KPMG LLP GUEST: Kavin Anburaj, CISA, CIPP/US Internal Audit Director, Meta  KEY POINTS: Introduction [00:00–00:00:27] Why Privacy Matters for Auditors [00:01:18–00:02:04] Identifying Data with Privacy Implications [00:02:09–00:04:12] Core Privacy Principles [00:05:21–00:09:34] User Rights and Data Traceability [00:09:41–00:12:27] Auditing Privacy Programs [00:13:02–00:16:30] Lessons Learned from Auditing Privacy [00:18:10–00:21:18] Writing with Precision [00:21:22–00:23:18] Learning Resources for Privacy Auditors [00:23:28–00:25:33] Final Thoughts [00:25:42–00:26:40] IIA RELATED CONTENT:  Interested in this topic? Visit the links below for more resources: Auditing the Cybersecurity Program Certificate Global Perspectives and Insights: Cybersecurity Technology Hub Knowledge Centers: Artificial Intelligence Privacy and Data Protection: Part 3 2025 Financial Services Exchange Conference Visit The IIA's website or YouTube channel for related topics and more. Follow All Things Internal Audit: Apple Podcasts Spotify Libsyn Deezer

It's been quite a week watching the unfolding drama in our nation's courts, as the spotlight turns squarely on Donald Trump and the tsunami of litigation swirling around him. I'm here to walk you through what's happened—rapid fire—so let's jump right into the heart of the courtroom battles gripping the country.Washington D.C. has become the epicenter for Trump's most recent legal showdowns. Major cases have been dragging executive actions from his administration into the harsh glow of judicial scrutiny. The National Association of the Deaf, for example, is in the thick of a civil liberties battle. They've sued Trump alongside White House staff Susan Wiles and Karoline Leavitt, arguing that the administration's decision to halt ASL interpretation at official briefings violates not only the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 but the core tenets of the First and Fifth Amendments. This case highlights not just accessibility, but the larger question of equal protection and freedom of information. The deaf and hard of hearing community is demanding that the government reinstate these vital services or face judicial intervention.Meanwhile, Executive Order 14248 has triggered another storm of litigation over election law. The Democratic National Committee, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the states of Washington and Oregon have challenged sweeping changes that require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, freeze federal funds to noncompliant states, and reassess voting systems across the country. Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied a motion by Trump's team to strike the case, signaling that the courts are taking these challenges seriously as they weigh the balance between election integrity and civil rights. The stakes are sky-high as the nation looks ahead to November.But the drama extends all the way to the Supreme Court. As the new term kicked off last week, the justices are staring down monumental cases that could redefine presidential power itself. The most contentious? Trump v. V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which thrust the issue of massive tariffs right onto the Supreme Court's docket. The lower courts have said Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but Trump maintains that his ability to “regulate” foreign imports implicitly includes imposing tariffs. Legal analysts, like Deepak Gupta, are calling it a once-in-a-century test—a battle that could fundamentally alter how much power the presidency wields.Behind the scenes, litigation trackers from Lawfare and Just Security have been working overtime, cataloging dozens of actions challenging Trump's sweeping executive orders. From restoring the death penalty to accessibility and election rules, each case chips away at—or tries to reinforce—the boundary between presidential power and constitutional rights.It's clear that the coming days, and indeed the next several months, will see Trump's legal fate played out not just in headlines but in courtroom arguments and rulings with profound national impact. The questions swirling in America's courts aren't just about Donald Trump—they're about what the presidency itself should be.Thanks for tuning in, and be sure to come back next week for more of the latest updates. 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

In this crossover episode of The Lobby Shop and Talking with One Voice podcasts, The Lobby Shop team is joined by Omar Nashashibi to talk with Rick Woldenberg, CEO of Learning Resources and hand2mind, who is the plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case challenging tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), scheduled for argument in November. Rick discusses his company, the impact of the tariffs, and why manufacturing all his products in the United States isn't feasible. He also shares why he chose to pursue the case when larger companies and trade associations declined—and what it's like to be in the media spotlight during such high-stakes litigation.  

In this crossover episode of The Lobby Shop and Talking with One Voice podcasts, The Lobby Shop team is joined by Omar Nashashibi to talk with Rick Woldenberg, CEO of Learning Resources and hand2mind, who is the plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case challenging tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), scheduled for argument in November. Rick discusses his company, the impact of the tariffs, and why manufacturing all his products in the United States isn't feasible. He also shares why he chose to pursue the case when larger companies and trade associations declined—and what it's like to be in the media spotlight during such high-stakes litigation.

The federal government shuts down as the Supreme Court returns. Our panel looks at the Trump team's plan to use the shutdown for mass layoffs —and previews a new Supreme Court term packed with big fights over tariffs, emergency powers, and the future of “independent” agencies.Featuring: Ryan Bourne, Gene Healy, Thomas Berry, and Jeffrey MironRomina Boccia, "Thoughts About The Impending Government Shutdown," The Debt Dispatch, September 30, 2025.Jeffrey Miron, "Some Libertarians Cheer When Government Shuts Down: Here's Why They Shouldn't," Vox, January 21, 2018.Ryan Bourne, "The Libertarian Experiment That Isn't," Cato at Liberty blog, January 11, 2019.Thomas A. Berry, Brent Skorup, and Charles Brandt, "Learning Resources v. Trump," Cato Amicus Brief, July 30, 2025. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

SELF-REPLICATING DEATH JABS 4 YOU! -- Dr. Sheri Tenpenny Protect Your Retirement W/ a PHYSICAL Gold IRA https://www.sgtreportgold.com/ CALL( 877) 646-5347 - Noble Gold is Who I Trust ---------------- Find out NOW which 3 Foods Chuck Norris Avoids Like the Plague! https://chuckdefense.com/sgt It's FREE. Click above! Dr; Sherri Tenpenny returns to SGT Report with the horrible truth about the existing bioweapons and the NEW self-amplifying (self-replicating) mRNA "vaccines" plus she has a new book out for YOUR library 'ZERO Accountability in a Failed System'. Thanks for tuning in. Get the new book from Dr. Tenpenny HERE: https://drtenpenny.com/zero/ Dr, Tenpenny's Learning Resources: https://learning4you.org/ https://rumble.com/embed/v6u3a2w/?pub=2peuz