Podcasts about Legal history

#LindsayClancy #CrimeTalk #LindsayClancyTrial #VerdictWatch #TrueCrime #TrueCrimeNews #BryanKohberger #TylerRobinson #CharlieKirk #TupacShakur #KeffeD  The Lindsay Clancy jury says it cannot reach a unanimous verdict. After more than 17 hours of deliberations, jurors informed Judge William Sullivan that they were deadlocked — but the judge sent them back to continue deliberating. What happens if they still cannot agree? Could we be heading toward a hung jury and mistrial? Scott breaks down the possible scenarios. Also on today's Crime Talk: Tyler Robinson returns to court in the Charlie Kirk murder case, Duane "Keffe D" Davis is found guilty in the murder of Tupac Shakur, Bryan Kohberger escalates his attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, plus Other Cases, Legal History, the Legal Quote of the Day, and our Dumb Criminal of the Day. Join Scott Reisch for today's Crime Talk.

In this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts Alisha Searcy of Center for Strong Public Schools and retired Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Barry Anderson speak with Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, about constitutional originalism, textualism, and the enduring principles of the U.S. Constitution. Prof. Wurman discusses his new book, The Constitution of 1789, exploring the Constitution's structure, separation of powers, federalism, and the Founders' approach to legislative, executive, and judicial authority. He examines the intellectual influences that shaped the Founders, the significance of early state constitutions, and the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. Prof. Wurman also considers debates between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, limits on executive power, the proper role of the Supreme Court, federalism, and the Fourteenth Amendment. He reflects on how originalist principles can help restore America's system of ordered liberty. Finally, Prof. Wurman reads a passage from his book, The Constitution of 1789.

Ohio's new passenger ID law is making headlines—learn what it means for you when you ride in a car.Are Ohio Passengers Required to Show ID During Traffic Stops? Here's What You Need to KnowRefusing to do so is no longer a minor issue – it's now a fourth-degree misdemeanor, meaning you could be facing up to 30 days in jail and a $250 fine for simply declining to identify yourself, even if you're not driving.Legal History and Supreme Court ContextThe legal backbone for laws requiring identification during traffic stops includes Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. This is a U.S. Supreme Court case that solidified police authority to request identification when there is reasonable suspicion for a stop.But what about passengers? We look at Brendlin v. California (2007), where the Supreme Court held that passengers, as well as drivers, can challenge the legality of a traffic stop and the admissibility of evidence found during those stops. This gives passengers certain legal “standing” they didn't have before, bringing new dimensions to how laws like Ohio's might be interpreted and challenged.Current Legal Landscape and Unresolved QuestionsThere is uncertainty around how this new law will fare in the courts. There are relevant decisions from the Sixth Circuit (which covers Ohio), where refusing to provide identification didn't necessarily rise to the level of obstruction of official business—until now, with this newly created crime.Here are several points to consider:Whether requiring passengers to identify themselves, absent any reasonable suspicion against them, is constitutional.If enforcement of this law unreasonably prolongs traffic stops, an issue courts have frowned upon in the past.The potentially harsher punishment for passengers (a misdemeanor) compared to some minor traffic offenses that prompted the stop in the first place.Predictions and Future Court BattlesWe predict that Ohio's Passenger ID Law is almost certain to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, given the absence of clear precedent and the high stakes involved. The prevailing prediction? If there is reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop itself, courts may side with allowing police to request identification from all occupants, upholding the constitutionality of Ohio's new law—even as the hosts express their own reservations about its fairness and logic.Takeaways:Ohio House Bill 492 requires passengers, not just drivers, to provide their name, address, and date of birth when requested by law enforcement during a lawful traffic stopFailing to comply with the law is a fourth-degree misdemeanor, carrying up to a $250 fine and 30 days in jailThe law does not require passengers to physically hand over an ID card—providing information verbally is sufficientPast high-profile court cases and constitutional questions suggest this law may face significant legal challenges—potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme CourtPractical examples illustrate how these rules play out in everyday scenarios, what police can lawfully ask, and whether refusing can constitute obstruction5 Frequently Asked Questions about Ohio House Bill 492Do passengers have to show ID in Ohio if stopped by police? - Yes, under Ohio House Bill 492, passengers in lawfully stopped vehicles must provide their name, address, and date of birth to police if asked.Is it a crime to refuse to provide ID as a passenger in Ohio? - Refusing to provide the required information is a fourth-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $250 fine and 30 days in jail.Do you have to physically hand over your ID card as a passenger? - No, the law only requires you to verbally provide your name, address, and date of birth upon request.Can police prolong a traffic stop to check passengers' IDs? - The discussion explored concerns that asking for passenger IDs might unlawfully extend the stop, especially if there's no reasonable suspicion—this could be a basis for future legal challenges.Has the U.S. Supreme Court decided on this specific issue? - Not yet; while related cases were discussed, the Supreme Court has not directly ruled on whether states can require passengers to provide ID during traffic stops. The issue may be heard in the future.Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2026 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At LawMentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

Today I am honored to speak with Elizabeth Hinton and  Elsa Julien Lora about their new book, Harm and Punishment: Incarcerated Writers on Violence and the US Prison. Along with two research assistants, Lora and Hinton pored over hundreds of essays by prisoners, found in the American Prison Writing Archive.  They then selected and organized the essays found in this volume, offering illuminating introductions to each section.Our discussion moves through many topics—the brutal, dehumanizing, and punitive nature of the prison system, the damage it does to lives both inside and outside prison, and the ways prisoners find to survive and offer each other support, despite being pitted against each other. At base, we consider how we, as a society, are “addicted to violence,” and why and how it is crucial to understand that violence can only produce more violence. These essays organically blend personal observations and stories with a deep understanding of the broad, systemic nature of violence.Elizabeth Hinton is one of the nation's leading experts on the roots of mass incarceration and enduring inequality in the United States. The Class of 1954 Professor of History, Black Studies, and Law at Yale University, Hinton serves as the founding director of the Justice for Everybody Movement J4EM, a university-based center focused on promoting public safety through education, research, and coalition-building. At Harvard, she is the founding co-director (with Brandon M. Terry) of the Hutchins Center's Institute on Policing, Incarceration, and Public Safety.  Hinton's groundbreaking books—From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime and America on Fire—were each named New York Times Notable Books and have become essential texts in policy and social justice circles. A sought-after public intellectual, Hinton's commentary appears in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, New York Magazine, The Los Angeles Times and beyond. Her research has been supported by the Carnegie Corporation and the Guggenheim, Mellon, and Ford Foundations. Hinton served on the National Academies of Sciences Committee on Reducing Racial Inequalities in the Criminal Justice System and in 2022 was elected to the American Philosophical Society as one of the youngest members in its history. At J4EM, Hinton is building the infrastructure for a more just and robust democracy—where education is not a privilege, but a cornerstone of public safety.Elsa Julien Lora is a U.S. historian and interdisciplinary scholar whose research focuses on the history of American prisons and the texture and intimacy of family life. A Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Columbia University Society of Fellows, Elsa is at work on her book, Life in Prison: An Intimate History of American Punishment. Her research has been supported by the Mellon Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies, the Institute for Citizens and Scholars, and the American Society for Legal History. Elsa's writing about race, justice, and family has appeared in the Virginia Quarterly Review, Aperture, and Public Books, and she is currently producing a documentary about her grandmother, boundary-breaking modern dancer Mary Hinkson. She holds a PhD in African and African American Studies from Harvard University and a JD from Yale Law School. 

Fear of the False: Forensic Science and the Law of Crime in Colonial South Asia (Cornell University Press, 2026) uncovers colonial South Asia's critical role in the development of forensic science. Around 1900, the government of British India created a web of institutions for the scientific detection of crime. Driven by anxieties about "native mendacity," newly minted forensic analysts focused on uncovering faked evidence planted by South Asians. These experts, joining toxicologists known as "chemical examiners," were supposed to extract objective, scientific truth in the service of British justice. But in trying to counteract the presumed tendency of colonized peoples to lie, the system enabled widespread misconduct by state experts, increasing the risk of wrongful convictions of South Asian defendants. Through scrupulously documented legal cases, Mitra Sharafi reveals that colonial dynamics put special pressure on the relationship between truth and justice. Examining falsity on both sides of the law through the use of testing to (mis)identify poisons, blood, and spermatozoa, as well as debates over adversarialism and inquisitorialism in the colonial courtroom, Fear of the False explores advances in forensic science and shortcuts in criminal procedure against the backdrop of colonial mistrust. Thanks to generous funding from the University of Wisconsin Law School, the ebook editions of this book are available as open access volumes through the Cornell Open initiative. Mitra Sharafi is a legal historian whose research focuses on South Asia. She is the Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law at University of Wisconsin-Madison and currently serves as the president of the American Society for Legal History. She has been the host of the South Asian Legal History Resources website since 2010. Saumya Dadoo is a PhD candidate at Columbia University's Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Fear of the False: Forensic Science and the Law of Crime in Colonial South Asia (Cornell University Press, 2026) uncovers colonial South Asia's critical role in the development of forensic science. Around 1900, the government of British India created a web of institutions for the scientific detection of crime. Driven by anxieties about "native mendacity," newly minted forensic analysts focused on uncovering faked evidence planted by South Asians. These experts, joining toxicologists known as "chemical examiners," were supposed to extract objective, scientific truth in the service of British justice. But in trying to counteract the presumed tendency of colonized peoples to lie, the system enabled widespread misconduct by state experts, increasing the risk of wrongful convictions of South Asian defendants. Through scrupulously documented legal cases, Mitra Sharafi reveals that colonial dynamics put special pressure on the relationship between truth and justice. Examining falsity on both sides of the law through the use of testing to (mis)identify poisons, blood, and spermatozoa, as well as debates over adversarialism and inquisitorialism in the colonial courtroom, Fear of the False explores advances in forensic science and shortcuts in criminal procedure against the backdrop of colonial mistrust. Thanks to generous funding from the University of Wisconsin Law School, the ebook editions of this book are available as open access volumes through the Cornell Open initiative. Mitra Sharafi is a legal historian whose research focuses on South Asia. She is the Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law at University of Wisconsin-Madison and currently serves as the president of the American Society for Legal History. She has been the host of the South Asian Legal History Resources website since 2010. Saumya Dadoo is a PhD candidate at Columbia University's Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/south-asian-studies

Fear of the False: Forensic Science and the Law of Crime in Colonial South Asia (Cornell University Press, 2026) uncovers colonial South Asia's critical role in the development of forensic science. Around 1900, the government of British India created a web of institutions for the scientific detection of crime. Driven by anxieties about "native mendacity," newly minted forensic analysts focused on uncovering faked evidence planted by South Asians. These experts, joining toxicologists known as "chemical examiners," were supposed to extract objective, scientific truth in the service of British justice. But in trying to counteract the presumed tendency of colonized peoples to lie, the system enabled widespread misconduct by state experts, increasing the risk of wrongful convictions of South Asian defendants. Through scrupulously documented legal cases, Mitra Sharafi reveals that colonial dynamics put special pressure on the relationship between truth and justice. Examining falsity on both sides of the law through the use of testing to (mis)identify poisons, blood, and spermatozoa, as well as debates over adversarialism and inquisitorialism in the colonial courtroom, Fear of the False explores advances in forensic science and shortcuts in criminal procedure against the backdrop of colonial mistrust. Thanks to generous funding from the University of Wisconsin Law School, the ebook editions of this book are available as open access volumes through the Cornell Open initiative. Mitra Sharafi is a legal historian whose research focuses on South Asia. She is the Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law at University of Wisconsin-Madison and currently serves as the president of the American Society for Legal History. She has been the host of the South Asian Legal History Resources website since 2010. Saumya Dadoo is a PhD candidate at Columbia University's Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Fear of the False: Forensic Science and the Law of Crime in Colonial South Asia (Cornell University Press, 2026) uncovers colonial South Asia's critical role in the development of forensic science. Around 1900, the government of British India created a web of institutions for the scientific detection of crime. Driven by anxieties about "native mendacity," newly minted forensic analysts focused on uncovering faked evidence planted by South Asians. These experts, joining toxicologists known as "chemical examiners," were supposed to extract objective, scientific truth in the service of British justice. But in trying to counteract the presumed tendency of colonized peoples to lie, the system enabled widespread misconduct by state experts, increasing the risk of wrongful convictions of South Asian defendants. Through scrupulously documented legal cases, Mitra Sharafi reveals that colonial dynamics put special pressure on the relationship between truth and justice. Examining falsity on both sides of the law through the use of testing to (mis)identify poisons, blood, and spermatozoa, as well as debates over adversarialism and inquisitorialism in the colonial courtroom, Fear of the False explores advances in forensic science and shortcuts in criminal procedure against the backdrop of colonial mistrust. Thanks to generous funding from the University of Wisconsin Law School, the ebook editions of this book are available as open access volumes through the Cornell Open initiative. Mitra Sharafi is a legal historian whose research focuses on South Asia. She is the Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law at University of Wisconsin-Madison and currently serves as the president of the American Society for Legal History. She has been the host of the South Asian Legal History Resources website since 2010. Saumya Dadoo is a PhD candidate at Columbia University's Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Fear of the False: Forensic Science and the Law of Crime in Colonial South Asia (Cornell University Press, 2026) uncovers colonial South Asia's critical role in the development of forensic science. Around 1900, the government of British India created a web of institutions for the scientific detection of crime. Driven by anxieties about "native mendacity," newly minted forensic analysts focused on uncovering faked evidence planted by South Asians. These experts, joining toxicologists known as "chemical examiners," were supposed to extract objective, scientific truth in the service of British justice. But in trying to counteract the presumed tendency of colonized peoples to lie, the system enabled widespread misconduct by state experts, increasing the risk of wrongful convictions of South Asian defendants. Through scrupulously documented legal cases, Mitra Sharafi reveals that colonial dynamics put special pressure on the relationship between truth and justice. Examining falsity on both sides of the law through the use of testing to (mis)identify poisons, blood, and spermatozoa, as well as debates over adversarialism and inquisitorialism in the colonial courtroom, Fear of the False explores advances in forensic science and shortcuts in criminal procedure against the backdrop of colonial mistrust. Thanks to generous funding from the University of Wisconsin Law School, the ebook editions of this book are available as open access volumes through the Cornell Open initiative. Mitra Sharafi is a legal historian whose research focuses on South Asia. She is the Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law at University of Wisconsin-Madison and currently serves as the president of the American Society for Legal History. She has been the host of the South Asian Legal History Resources website since 2010. Saumya Dadoo is a PhD candidate at Columbia University's Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies

Fear of the False: Forensic Science and the Law of Crime in Colonial South Asia (Cornell University Press, 2026) uncovers colonial South Asia's critical role in the development of forensic science. Around 1900, the government of British India created a web of institutions for the scientific detection of crime. Driven by anxieties about "native mendacity," newly minted forensic analysts focused on uncovering faked evidence planted by South Asians. These experts, joining toxicologists known as "chemical examiners," were supposed to extract objective, scientific truth in the service of British justice. But in trying to counteract the presumed tendency of colonized peoples to lie, the system enabled widespread misconduct by state experts, increasing the risk of wrongful convictions of South Asian defendants. Through scrupulously documented legal cases, Mitra Sharafi reveals that colonial dynamics put special pressure on the relationship between truth and justice. Examining falsity on both sides of the law through the use of testing to (mis)identify poisons, blood, and spermatozoa, as well as debates over adversarialism and inquisitorialism in the colonial courtroom, Fear of the False explores advances in forensic science and shortcuts in criminal procedure against the backdrop of colonial mistrust. Thanks to generous funding from the University of Wisconsin Law School, the ebook editions of this book are available as open access volumes through the Cornell Open initiative. Mitra Sharafi is a legal historian whose research focuses on South Asia. She is the Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law at University of Wisconsin-Madison and currently serves as the president of the American Society for Legal History. She has been the host of the South Asian Legal History Resources website since 2010. Saumya Dadoo is a PhD candidate at Columbia University's Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

00:00 Docket 00:59 Intro 02:52 Defense Seeks New Trial for Karmelo Anthony 10:55 R. Kelly Formally Petitions President Trump for Commutation  14:16 70-Year-Old Arrested in 1987 Cold Case Murder 16:51 'Just Unlucky': Sentenced to Life for 12th DWI Conviction 21:13 NJ Babysitter Blames Toddler  23:47 Las Vegas Man Sentenced for Stabbing Girlfriend 26:08 Legal History 27:37 Quote of the Day 28:32 Questions from Subscribers 30:11 Dumb Criminal of the Day Karmelo Anthony wants a new trial after his murder conviction. His defense says an off-the-record deal, courtroom access limits, and alleged judicial bias tainted the process. Prosecutors say the trial was fair and the verdict should stand. Scott breaks down whether this is a real legal issue—or just a long-shot post-trial swing. Watch, comment, and stay to the end. #KarmeloAnthony, #AustinMetcalf, #TrueCrime, #LegalAnalysis, #CrimeTalk, #NewTrial

00:00 Docket 01:15 Intro 03:16 Charlie Kirk Shooting 10:31 New Evidence in Scott Peterson Case 19:24 Ashlee Buzzard gets to use a stress ball in court 21:52 OnlyFans Model Seeks Domestic Violence Proof for trial 25:07 What Do You Do to Get 120 Years? This Case Answers It 28:28 8 Shots Fired in PlayStation Return Dispute 29:51 WD-40 Murder Plot 32:00 Legal History 34:00 Quote of the Day 34:51 Questions from Subscribers 37:58 Dumb Criminal of the Day What do you do to get 120 years? This case gives the court a very clear answer. Timothy J. Dubois Jr. was sentenced after a knifepoint abduction and sexual assault tied to a Starbucks parking lot. Investigators used Apple Watch data, DNA, forensic genealogy, and a recorded confession. Scott breaks down the evidence, the sentencing math, and why the defense's plea for leniency failed. Watch to the end and tell us: was 120 years the right sentence? #CrimeTalk, #ScottReisch, #TrueCrime, #LegalAnalysis, #TimothyDubois, #DNAEvidence

The violence that spread across Harlem on the night of March 19, 1935 was the first large-scale racial disorder in the United States in more than a decade and the first occurrence in the nation's leading Black neighborhood. However, as many observers pointed out, the events were “not a race riot” of the kind that had marked the decades after the Civil War. Racial violence took a new form in 1935. Through a granular analysis of those events and the mapping of their locations, Harlem in Disorder: A Spatial History of How Racial Violence Changed in 1935 (Stanford University Press, 2024) reveals that Harlem's residents participated in a complex new mix of violence that was a multifaceted challenge to white economic and political power. Tracing the legal and government investigations that followed, this project highlights how that violence came to be distorted, diminished, and marginalized by the concern of white authorities to maintain the racial order, and by the unwillingness of Harlem's Black leaders and their white allies to embrace fully such direct forms of protest. Focused on capturing rather than simplifying the complexity of the new form of racial violence, Harlem in Disorder is a multi-layered, hyperlinked narrative that connects different scales of analysis: individual events, aggregated patterns, and a chronological narrative. Its structure foregrounds individual events to counter how data can dehumanize the past, and to make transparent the interpretations involved in the creation of data from uncertain and ambiguous sources. Harlem in Disorder is an award-winning monograph earning recognition as a Finalist for the 2026 ACLS Open Access Book Prize, Multimodal Category, sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies; winner of the 2025 Ángel David Nieves Book Award for Best Monograph, sponsored by the American Studies Association Digital Humanities Caucus; Honorable Mention for the 2025 Mary L. Dudziak Digital Legal History Prize, sponsored by the American Society for Legal History, and Honorable Mention for the 2025 Open Scholarship Award, sponsored by the Canadian Social Knowledge Institute. Kishauna Soljour is an Assistant Professor of Public Humanities at San Diego State University. Her most recent writing appears in the edited collection: From Rights to Lives: The Evolution of the Black Freedom Struggle. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

The violence that spread across Harlem on the night of March 19, 1935 was the first large-scale racial disorder in the United States in more than a decade and the first occurrence in the nation's leading Black neighborhood. However, as many observers pointed out, the events were “not a race riot” of the kind that had marked the decades after the Civil War. Racial violence took a new form in 1935. Through a granular analysis of those events and the mapping of their locations, Harlem in Disorder: A Spatial History of How Racial Violence Changed in 1935 (Stanford University Press, 2024) reveals that Harlem's residents participated in a complex new mix of violence that was a multifaceted challenge to white economic and political power. Tracing the legal and government investigations that followed, this project highlights how that violence came to be distorted, diminished, and marginalized by the concern of white authorities to maintain the racial order, and by the unwillingness of Harlem's Black leaders and their white allies to embrace fully such direct forms of protest. Focused on capturing rather than simplifying the complexity of the new form of racial violence, Harlem in Disorder is a multi-layered, hyperlinked narrative that connects different scales of analysis: individual events, aggregated patterns, and a chronological narrative. Its structure foregrounds individual events to counter how data can dehumanize the past, and to make transparent the interpretations involved in the creation of data from uncertain and ambiguous sources. Harlem in Disorder is an award-winning monograph earning recognition as a Finalist for the 2026 ACLS Open Access Book Prize, Multimodal Category, sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies; winner of the 2025 Ángel David Nieves Book Award for Best Monograph, sponsored by the American Studies Association Digital Humanities Caucus; Honorable Mention for the 2025 Mary L. Dudziak Digital Legal History Prize, sponsored by the American Society for Legal History, and Honorable Mention for the 2025 Open Scholarship Award, sponsored by the Canadian Social Knowledge Institute. Kishauna Soljour is an Assistant Professor of Public Humanities at San Diego State University. Her most recent writing appears in the edited collection: From Rights to Lives: The Evolution of the Black Freedom Struggle. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The violence that spread across Harlem on the night of March 19, 1935 was the first large-scale racial disorder in the United States in more than a decade and the first occurrence in the nation's leading Black neighborhood. However, as many observers pointed out, the events were “not a race riot” of the kind that had marked the decades after the Civil War. Racial violence took a new form in 1935. Through a granular analysis of those events and the mapping of their locations, Harlem in Disorder: A Spatial History of How Racial Violence Changed in 1935 (Stanford University Press, 2024) reveals that Harlem's residents participated in a complex new mix of violence that was a multifaceted challenge to white economic and political power. Tracing the legal and government investigations that followed, this project highlights how that violence came to be distorted, diminished, and marginalized by the concern of white authorities to maintain the racial order, and by the unwillingness of Harlem's Black leaders and their white allies to embrace fully such direct forms of protest. Focused on capturing rather than simplifying the complexity of the new form of racial violence, Harlem in Disorder is a multi-layered, hyperlinked narrative that connects different scales of analysis: individual events, aggregated patterns, and a chronological narrative. Its structure foregrounds individual events to counter how data can dehumanize the past, and to make transparent the interpretations involved in the creation of data from uncertain and ambiguous sources. Harlem in Disorder is an award-winning monograph earning recognition as a Finalist for the 2026 ACLS Open Access Book Prize, Multimodal Category, sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies; winner of the 2025 Ángel David Nieves Book Award for Best Monograph, sponsored by the American Studies Association Digital Humanities Caucus; Honorable Mention for the 2025 Mary L. Dudziak Digital Legal History Prize, sponsored by the American Society for Legal History, and Honorable Mention for the 2025 Open Scholarship Award, sponsored by the Canadian Social Knowledge Institute. Kishauna Soljour is an Assistant Professor of Public Humanities at San Diego State University. Her most recent writing appears in the edited collection: From Rights to Lives: The Evolution of the Black Freedom Struggle. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The violence that spread across Harlem on the night of March 19, 1935 was the first large-scale racial disorder in the United States in more than a decade and the first occurrence in the nation's leading Black neighborhood. However, as many observers pointed out, the events were “not a race riot” of the kind that had marked the decades after the Civil War. Racial violence took a new form in 1935. Through a granular analysis of those events and the mapping of their locations, Harlem in Disorder: A Spatial History of How Racial Violence Changed in 1935 (Stanford University Press, 2024) reveals that Harlem's residents participated in a complex new mix of violence that was a multifaceted challenge to white economic and political power. Tracing the legal and government investigations that followed, this project highlights how that violence came to be distorted, diminished, and marginalized by the concern of white authorities to maintain the racial order, and by the unwillingness of Harlem's Black leaders and their white allies to embrace fully such direct forms of protest. Focused on capturing rather than simplifying the complexity of the new form of racial violence, Harlem in Disorder is a multi-layered, hyperlinked narrative that connects different scales of analysis: individual events, aggregated patterns, and a chronological narrative. Its structure foregrounds individual events to counter how data can dehumanize the past, and to make transparent the interpretations involved in the creation of data from uncertain and ambiguous sources. Harlem in Disorder is an award-winning monograph earning recognition as a Finalist for the 2026 ACLS Open Access Book Prize, Multimodal Category, sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies; winner of the 2025 Ángel David Nieves Book Award for Best Monograph, sponsored by the American Studies Association Digital Humanities Caucus; Honorable Mention for the 2025 Mary L. Dudziak Digital Legal History Prize, sponsored by the American Society for Legal History, and Honorable Mention for the 2025 Open Scholarship Award, sponsored by the Canadian Social Knowledge Institute. Kishauna Soljour is an Assistant Professor of Public Humanities at San Diego State University. Her most recent writing appears in the edited collection: From Rights to Lives: The Evolution of the Black Freedom Struggle. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The violence that spread across Harlem on the night of March 19, 1935 was the first large-scale racial disorder in the United States in more than a decade and the first occurrence in the nation's leading Black neighborhood. However, as many observers pointed out, the events were “not a race riot” of the kind that had marked the decades after the Civil War. Racial violence took a new form in 1935. Through a granular analysis of those events and the mapping of their locations, Harlem in Disorder: A Spatial History of How Racial Violence Changed in 1935 (Stanford University Press, 2024) reveals that Harlem's residents participated in a complex new mix of violence that was a multifaceted challenge to white economic and political power. Tracing the legal and government investigations that followed, this project highlights how that violence came to be distorted, diminished, and marginalized by the concern of white authorities to maintain the racial order, and by the unwillingness of Harlem's Black leaders and their white allies to embrace fully such direct forms of protest. Focused on capturing rather than simplifying the complexity of the new form of racial violence, Harlem in Disorder is a multi-layered, hyperlinked narrative that connects different scales of analysis: individual events, aggregated patterns, and a chronological narrative. Its structure foregrounds individual events to counter how data can dehumanize the past, and to make transparent the interpretations involved in the creation of data from uncertain and ambiguous sources. Harlem in Disorder is an award-winning monograph earning recognition as a Finalist for the 2026 ACLS Open Access Book Prize, Multimodal Category, sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies; winner of the 2025 Ángel David Nieves Book Award for Best Monograph, sponsored by the American Studies Association Digital Humanities Caucus; Honorable Mention for the 2025 Mary L. Dudziak Digital Legal History Prize, sponsored by the American Society for Legal History, and Honorable Mention for the 2025 Open Scholarship Award, sponsored by the Canadian Social Knowledge Institute. Kishauna Soljour is an Assistant Professor of Public Humanities at San Diego State University. Her most recent writing appears in the edited collection: From Rights to Lives: The Evolution of the Black Freedom Struggle. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/geography

The violence that spread across Harlem on the night of March 19, 1935 was the first large-scale racial disorder in the United States in more than a decade and the first occurrence in the nation's leading Black neighborhood. However, as many observers pointed out, the events were “not a race riot” of the kind that had marked the decades after the Civil War. Racial violence took a new form in 1935. Through a granular analysis of those events and the mapping of their locations, Harlem in Disorder: A Spatial History of How Racial Violence Changed in 1935 (Stanford University Press, 2024) reveals that Harlem's residents participated in a complex new mix of violence that was a multifaceted challenge to white economic and political power. Tracing the legal and government investigations that followed, this project highlights how that violence came to be distorted, diminished, and marginalized by the concern of white authorities to maintain the racial order, and by the unwillingness of Harlem's Black leaders and their white allies to embrace fully such direct forms of protest. Focused on capturing rather than simplifying the complexity of the new form of racial violence, Harlem in Disorder is a multi-layered, hyperlinked narrative that connects different scales of analysis: individual events, aggregated patterns, and a chronological narrative. Its structure foregrounds individual events to counter how data can dehumanize the past, and to make transparent the interpretations involved in the creation of data from uncertain and ambiguous sources. Harlem in Disorder is an award-winning monograph earning recognition as a Finalist for the 2026 ACLS Open Access Book Prize, Multimodal Category, sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies; winner of the 2025 Ángel David Nieves Book Award for Best Monograph, sponsored by the American Studies Association Digital Humanities Caucus; Honorable Mention for the 2025 Mary L. Dudziak Digital Legal History Prize, sponsored by the American Society for Legal History, and Honorable Mention for the 2025 Open Scholarship Award, sponsored by the Canadian Social Knowledge Institute. Kishauna Soljour is an Assistant Professor of Public Humanities at San Diego State University. Her most recent writing appears in the edited collection: From Rights to Lives: The Evolution of the Black Freedom Struggle. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The violence that spread across Harlem on the night of March 19, 1935 was the first large-scale racial disorder in the United States in more than a decade and the first occurrence in the nation's leading Black neighborhood. However, as many observers pointed out, the events were “not a race riot” of the kind that had marked the decades after the Civil War. Racial violence took a new form in 1935. Through a granular analysis of those events and the mapping of their locations, Harlem in Disorder: A Spatial History of How Racial Violence Changed in 1935 (Stanford University Press, 2024) reveals that Harlem's residents participated in a complex new mix of violence that was a multifaceted challenge to white economic and political power. Tracing the legal and government investigations that followed, this project highlights how that violence came to be distorted, diminished, and marginalized by the concern of white authorities to maintain the racial order, and by the unwillingness of Harlem's Black leaders and their white allies to embrace fully such direct forms of protest. Focused on capturing rather than simplifying the complexity of the new form of racial violence, Harlem in Disorder is a multi-layered, hyperlinked narrative that connects different scales of analysis: individual events, aggregated patterns, and a chronological narrative. Its structure foregrounds individual events to counter how data can dehumanize the past, and to make transparent the interpretations involved in the creation of data from uncertain and ambiguous sources. Harlem in Disorder is an award-winning monograph earning recognition as a Finalist for the 2026 ACLS Open Access Book Prize, Multimodal Category, sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies; winner of the 2025 Ángel David Nieves Book Award for Best Monograph, sponsored by the American Studies Association Digital Humanities Caucus; Honorable Mention for the 2025 Mary L. Dudziak Digital Legal History Prize, sponsored by the American Society for Legal History, and Honorable Mention for the 2025 Open Scholarship Award, sponsored by the Canadian Social Knowledge Institute. Kishauna Soljour is an Assistant Professor of Public Humanities at San Diego State University. Her most recent writing appears in the edited collection: From Rights to Lives: The Evolution of the Black Freedom Struggle. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

00:00 Docket 01:01 Intro 01:46 Ohio Supreme Court Rejects Shirilla's Latest Appeal 05:41 Gilgo Beach Killer's Family Rebuilds 09:27 Ex-Colorado DNA Analyst "Missy" Woods Pleads Guilty 14:42 Teacher Broke House Arrest 85 Times, Prosecutors Say 17:02 Kidnapped Teen Found Inside Dryer 18:32 Father Faces Murder Charges After Shooting Daughter 19:53 U.S. Supreme Court Reinstates Conviction 21:53 Legal History 24:04 Quote of the Day 24:16 Dumb Criminal of the Day: Florida Man Sees the Antichrist Mackenzie Shirilla just lost another shot at challenging her murder conviction. The Ohio Supreme Court declined review after her post-conviction appeal ran into a one-day filing issue. Scott breaks down why a procedure can shut a case down before the evidence is even argued. Watch to the end and tell us: strict deadline, or should the court have heard it? #MackenzieShirilla, #OhioSupremeCourt, #TrueCrime, #LegalAnalysis, #CrimeTalk, #Appeal Crime Talk Store: https://crimetalknetwork.com/shop/

Exclusion of evidence and habeas corpus? Who needs us? It's a Dallin Oaks episode and we go over two law review articles (pub. 1966 & 70) he wrote focusing on the rights of criminals. How we handle evidence consistent with the constitution is a complicated issue and Hoaks has a hot take. Plus, he thinks habeas corpus has gotten a bit out of hand with how many death row convicts it was helping. Then we dive through 2 more chapters from Pure in Heart about Spirituality and Worship. The hot takes here are akin to moldy soup in the back of the fridge. We round out with happy civil engineering news from California!   Show Notes:  Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3650&context=uclrev Search and Seizure laws and SCOTUS rulings https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-fourth-amendment-mean https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/search-and-seizure-rules/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-7-1/ALDE_00000805/ Legal History in the High Court–Habeas Corpus (1966) https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5483&context=mlr Bushel's Case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel%27s_Case   Sword of Laman: Pure In Heart, by Dallin H. Oaks    Happy News: https://www.goodgoodgood.co/articles/california-wildlife-crossing-biggest-annenberg    Email: glassboxpodcast@gmail.com  Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/GlassBoxPod  Patreon page for documentary: https://www.patreon.com/SeerStonedProductions BlueSky: @glassboxpodcast.bsky.social  Other BlueSky: @bryceblankenagel.bsky.social and @shannongrover.bsky.social  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glassboxpodcast/  Merch store: https://www.redbubble.com/people/exmoapparel/shop Or find the merch store by clicking on "Store" here: https://glassboxpodcast.com/index.html One time Paypal donation: bryceblankenagel@gmail.com  Venmo: @Shannon-Grover-10  

Across the country, judges and justices are making decisions that reach back, sometimes centuries, to define what the Constitution means today. Whether it's gun rights, abortion, or voting laws, the Supreme Court increasingly relies on what it calls history and tradition to interpret the nation's founding documents. But what history, exactly? How reliable is it as a guide for a democracy in the 21st century? And should five justices—the least required for a majority decision—have the power to strike down laws passed by hundreds of legislators, elected by millions of citizens? Explore these questions and what they reveal about the court, originalism, and the future of American democracy with Nikolas Bowie, PhD '18, the Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law at Harvard Law School (HLS), a historian of democracy, and a thought leader on how power really works in our constitutional system. His new book with his fellow author Daphna Renan, also an HLS professor, is called Supremacy: How Rule by the Court Replaced Government by the People.

Corporations are people in the eyes of the law. But how did that happen, and why does it hand them rights you don't have?  UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, author of "We the Corporations", traces a 200-year campaign by business to win the constitutional rights of human beings. Bethany McLean and Luigi Zingales press him on what Zingales calls an incredible trick. Corporations insist they're separate from their owners when that shields owners from blame, then argue they're like people when they want to spend on elections or dodge a rule.  Winkler traces how the Fourteenth Amendment, written after the Civil War to protect the newly freed, became a tool for railroads and banks instead. He even describes a lawyer who, by his account, lied to the Supreme Court, producing a journal he claimed proved the amendment was meant for corporations.  Zingales pushes on what comes next: could AI itself qualify for legal personhood, and would that shield big tech from blame? When we ask Winkler for a shred of hope that the long arc doesn't simply keep favoring business, the answer is far shorter and blunter than expected.  Connect with us:

(3) Professor Richard Epstein analyzes the legal history of birthright citizenship and Donald Trump's executive order, arguing that the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted and that the child's status should depend on the parent's.1923 SCOTUS

This Day in Legal History: 27th AmendmentOn May 19, 1992, the 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution was officially published in the Federal Register, ending one of the longest and oddest ratification stories in American legal history. The amendment provides that any law changing the compensation of members of Congress cannot take effect until after an election for the House of Representatives has taken place. Put more simply, Congress may vote to change its own pay, but it cannot make that change immediate. The rule gives voters a chance to respond before the pay change takes effect.What makes the 27th Amendment unusual is not only what it says, but how long it took to become law. It was originally proposed by James Madison in 1789 as part of the same set of amendments that produced the Bill of Rights. Most of those amendments were ratified quickly, but this one lingered for more than two centuries. Because Congress had not set a ratification deadline, the amendment remained legally available for state approval. In the 1980s, a renewed ratification campaign helped bring it back to public attention. Michigan became the 38th state to ratify it in May 1992, giving it the three-fourths approval required by Article V of the Constitution.The amendment's publication in the Federal Register on May 19 marked the formal public recognition that it had become part of the Constitution. Its ratification raised a serious legal question about whether an amendment proposed in the 18th century could still be valid in the 20th century. The answer, at least for amendments without a deadline, was yes. The 27th Amendment stands as a reminder that constitutional change can move slowly, sometimes across generations, and still become binding law.The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about whether Title IX's protections against sex discrimination in federally funded education programs extend to employees, including college professors and coaches. The case was brought by former Augusta University professor Thomas Crowther and former Georgia Tech women's basketball coach MaChelle Joseph, both of whom lost their jobs after workplace-conduct investigations. Crowther claimed Augusta University retaliated against him and discriminated against him based on sex after it suspended him and declined to renew his contract. Joseph argued that Georgia Tech fired her in retaliation for her complaints about unequal treatment of women's athletics and female athletes. Their cases reached the Eleventh Circuit together, where the court ruled that Title IX clearly protects students, but that its application to employees is less certain. That ruling placed the Eleventh Circuit on one side of a broader circuit split.The Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits have taken a narrower view of Title IX employment claims, while the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have allowed employees to bring certain Title IX claims. The solicitor general agreed with the Eleventh Circuit's narrower reading but urged the Supreme Court to take the case because lower courts are divided. The case gives the justices a chance to decide whether professors, coaches, and other school employees can use Title IX directly to sue for workplace sex discrimination or retaliation.High Court To Examine Title IX Protections For Coaches, Profs - Law360A New York state judge partially granted Luigi Mangione's request to keep certain evidence out of his upcoming murder trial. Mangione is accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel in December 2024 and has pleaded not guilty. Justice Gregory Carro ruled that police unlawfully searched Mangione's backpack during his arrest in Pennsylvania without a warrant. Because of that, some items found during the first search, including a loaded handgun magazine, a cellphone, and a computer chip, will be suppressed. But the judge allowed other evidence from a later police-station search of the backpack, including a gun, silencer, USB drive, and red notebook.Carro also rejected Mangione's effort to suppress his initial statements to police, finding that they were not obtained through an illegal interrogation. The ruling gives the defense a partial win, but prosecutors say they still have substantial evidence tying Mangione to the shooting, including DNA, fingerprints, video footage, and other items. Mangione's state trial is scheduled to begin on September 8 and is expected to last about six weeks. He also faces separate federal charges, though earlier rulings in that case removed the possibility of the death penalty.Judge grants accused CEO killer Mangione's bid to suppress evidence due to unlawful search | ReutersState lawmakers have rejected dozens of anti-vaccine bills backed by Make America Healthy Again supporters, showing limits to the movement's influence in state legislatures. The bills sought to roll back or end policies such as school vaccination requirements, but public health groups and medical associations mounted successful opposition campaigns. Groups including American Families for Vaccines and the American Academy of Pediatrics argued that vaccine mandates remain broadly supported and are important for public health. Their strategy focused especially on Republican-controlled states, where advocates used polling and personal appeals to persuade lawmakers that opposing vaccines could be both medically risky and politically unpopular. Anti-vaccine proposals increased this year because MAHA-aligned groups coordinated efforts across multiple states. Still, bills failed in places including Idaho, West Virginia, Tennessee, South Dakota, Florida, and Iowa. The debate is unfolding as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, has taken steps against mandatory immunization policies, though some changes have been paused in litigation. Both sides expect the issue to continue, with anti-vaccine advocates encouraged by hearings and organizing momentum, while public health advocates say more legislation is likely to appear in future sessions.US states reject anti-vaccine bills as public health groups fight MAHA | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that a federal gas tax holiday would be a poor answer to rising gas prices because it would do little for household affordability while further weakening transportation funding. Gas prices are being driven by forces Congress cannot easily fix by statute, including conflict involving Iran and instability around the Strait of Hormuz.Lawmakers are nevertheless showing bipartisan interest in suspending the federal gas tax, including President Donald Trump, Sen. Josh Hawley, and House Speaker Mike Johnson. The political appeal is clear because gas prices are highly visible and give lawmakers a simple way to say they are responding to voters' economic pain. But the federal gas tax has been frozen at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993, even as infrastructure costs have continued to rise. Suspending it would take revenue away from the Highway Trust Fund, which helps pay for highways, roads, bridges, and mass transit.The column argues that Congress should separate the problem of household hardship from the problem of transportation finance. Instead of cutting the gas tax, lawmakers could provide targeted help through refundable credits, direct payments, commuter assistance, or flexible transportation support for low- and moderate-income households.If Congress insists on a gas tax holiday, it should at least pair it with an immediate dedicated backfill and longer-term reforms such as indexing the gas tax to inflation, adopting mileage-based fees, or modernizing road-use charges. The larger point is that high gas prices are real, but a gas tax holiday is a badly targeted discount financed by a transportation system that is already financially strained. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

3. LEGAL HISTORY OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP GUEST: Richard Epstein Richard Epstein analyzes the 14th Amendment and early naturalization acts, emphasizing that citizenship originally required renouncing foreign allegiances,,. He argues that the term "domicile" distorts original statutory intent,. (3)1876

Jane Austen's novels feature a number of characters we might describe as "hypochondriacs" today: Mr. Woodhouse, Mary Musgrove, and Mrs. Churchill, to name a few. Although she never used the word herself, Austen was adept at exploring how the worries and complaints of individuals preoccupied with their health affected the people around them.Professor Sarah Marsh joins us in this episode to discuss health and medicine in the Regency era, the parallels between the health of individuals and the health of the British nation in Sanditon, and Austen's reflections on her own declining health during the final months of her life.Sarah Marsh is an associate professor of English at Seton Hill University and director of the Jane Austen Summer Program. She has presented and published extensively on Austen, literature, and medicine, including the article “‘All the Egotism of an Invalid': Hypochondria as Form in Jane Austen's Sanditon.” Her forthcoming book, Novel Constitutions and the Making of Race: A Literary and Legal History of Slavery in the Anglophone Atlantic, 1688–1818, will be published by Oxford University Press.For an edited transcript and show notes, visit https://jasna.org/austen/podcast/ep34*********Visit our website: www.jasna.orgFollow us on Instagram and FacebookSubscribe to the podcast on our YouTube channelEmail: podcast@jasna.org

Perhaps no religion has had a more contentious or complex relationship with American law than Mormonism: from 19th century debates over polygamy to questions of church affiliated states. So how has Mormonism, particularly the Latter-day Saint tradition, negotiated the Western legal tradition within its own belief systems? And what is the Latter-day Saint legal tradition, whether explicit or implicit, that's emerged from these engagements?These are just a few of the many gripping questions William & Mary Law Schools' Rita Anne Rollins Professor of Law Nathan Oman asks in his 2026 book Living Oracles: Law and the Latter-day Saint Tradition. Professor Oman joins host Nicholas Shrum to kick off the newest season of Scholars & Saints through a comparative analysis and historical engagement of Latter-day Saint legal perspectives. Their conversation explores 19th and 20th century church courts, the evolving view of a divinely inspired U.S. Constitution, religious vs. secular views of marriage, and so much more. To learn more about Professor Nathan Oman, visit his faculty webpage.

On True Crime Today, we're examining the legal and procedural dimensions of the criminal charges now facing Joseph Duggar and Kendra Duggar — and what the documented history of this household establishes as evidentiary context for prosecutors approaching this case.Joseph Duggar faces criminal charges. Kendra Duggar faces separate charges. Josh Duggar is currently serving a federal sentence following conviction on child sexual abuse material offenses, with his appeal exhausted. These are the documented legal facts. Retired FBI behavioral analyst Robin Dreeke examines what an established pattern of internal management of alleged offenses within a family creates for prosecutors — how prior conduct, prior decisions by household adults, and the documented response to Josh Duggar's case may shape the evidentiary theory in the current matter.The alleged victim in this case reportedly experienced the alleged offense at age nine and did not disclose for five years. Under established forensic interview protocol and research on childhood sexual abuse disclosure, delayed reporting is well-documented and carries specific legal significance — both in how it affects the investigative timeline and how prosecutors and defense attorneys address it with juries.Kendra Duggar's documented age at the time of her marriage into this household, her religious upbringing, and the theological framework in which she was raised are legally relevant context when evaluating what prosecutors may allege she knew, when she knew it, and what her legal obligations were.Jim Bob Duggar's documented prior handling of Josh Duggar's alleged conduct — including decisions made prior to law enforcement contact — may form part of the evidentiary backdrop shaping how prosecutors construct the current case.Robin Dreeke walks through each of these legal dimensions and what they mean for how this case is likely to proceed.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#JosephDuggar #DuggarCase #JoshDuggar #KendraDuggar #TrueCrimeToday #TrueCrime #RobinDreeke #CriminalCharges #HiddenKillers #TrueCrimePodcast

As part of our series devoted to the pasts and futures of higher education in the United States, this conversation, hosted by LCHP Director David Myers, features Princeton sociologist Kim Lane Scheppele alongside legal scholars Ariela Gross from UCLA and Nomi Stolzenberg from USC to discuss an escalating war on universities by the Trump administration. Scheppele frames the assault as a distinctly modern autocratic strategy: not bullets, but budgets that target elite institutions to seek ideological conformity, weaken leadership, and force anticipatory compliance. Drawing on her experience living in Hungary under Viktor Orbán, she identifies an authoritarian playbook that pairs fiscal strangulation with autocratic legalism, the repurposing of law to anti-democratic ends, while leveraging accusations to mask or legitimize discriminatory and coercive governance.Gross emphasizes how long-standing right-wing projects, especially attacks on DEI, are being accelerated through institutional bargaining (for example, over withheld scientific funding) while trading away racial and gender justice infrastructure. Stolzenberg adds a longue durée account of U.S. conservative opposition to the modern university, highlighting theological currents that cast universities as battlegrounds in a moral struggle over national identity. Kim Lane Scheppele is the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs in the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. She is also a faculty fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Her book, Legal Secrets,won Special Recognition in the Distinguished Scholarly Publication competition of the American Sociological Association as well as the Corwin Prize of the American Political Science Association.Ariela Gross is a Distinguished Professor of Law and History at UCLA and teaches Contract Law, Constitutional Law, Enslavement and Racialization in U.S. Legal History, as well as other courses on race and legal history. Gross is the author of Becoming Free, Becoming Black: Race, Freedom, and Law in Cuba, Virginia, and Louisiana, with Alejandro de la Fuente (Cambridge UP 2020) and What Blood Won't Tell: A History of Race on Trial in America (Harvard UP 2008).Nomi M. Stolzenberg is the Nathan and Lilly Shapell Chair in Law at the USC Gould School of Law. Her research spans a range of interdisciplinary interests, including law and religion, law and liberalism, law and psychoanalysis, and law and literature. Stolzenberg's scholarly publications include the frequently cited “The Profanity of Law”. With David N. Myers, she has published American Shtetl: The Making of Kiryas Joel, a Hasidic Village in Upstate New Yo

This Day in Legal History: 25th AmendmentOn February 10, 1967, the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, formally addressing presidential succession and disability for the first time in constitutional text. The need for such clarity had become urgent after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and President Dwight D. Eisenhower's repeated illnesses during his terms. Prior to this amendment, there was no definitive constitutional mechanism for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency or for managing presidential incapacity. The 25th Amendment established four key sections, each designed to ensure governmental stability during times of crisis.Section 1 confirmed that if a president dies, resigns, or is removed, the vice president becomes president—not just acting president. Section 2 allowed for the appointment of a new vice president, with confirmation by both the House and Senate, in the event of a vacancy. This provision was put to use shortly after its ratification when Gerald Ford was appointed vice president in 1973 following Spiro Agnew's resignation. Section 3 allowed a president to voluntarily transfer power to the vice president by submitting a written declaration to Congress—used during temporary medical procedures like surgeries.Most controversial and significant is Section 4, which allows the vice president and a majority of the cabinet (or another body designated by Congress) to declare the president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” This provision has never been fully invoked but has been a topic of discussion during times of perceived presidential instability. It establishes a legal mechanism for removing a president against their will, albeit temporarily, with congressional oversight. The amendment reflects a post-World War II concern for continuity of leadership in a nuclear age. Its ratification marks a critical evolution in constitutional law, ensuring the executive branch remains functional even under extraordinary circumstances.A federal lawsuit filed in Texas alleges that an 18‑month‑old girl detained by U.S. immigration authorities was sent back into U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody after being hospitalized for a life‑threatening respiratory illness and then denied the medications doctors prescribed.According to the filing, Amalia and her parents were held at the family detention center in Dilley, Texas after a routine immigration check‑in in December. The toddler became severely ill in January with extremely high fever and breathing problems, and a hospital diagnosed her with multiple serious infections including COVID‑19, pneumonia and RSV. After about 10 days in the hospital, she was discharged with a nebulizer, respiratory medication and nutritional supplements—but those were confiscated when she was returned to the detention facility.The lawsuit says her parents repeatedly tried to obtain prescribed treatment from detention staff but were forced to wait in long lines and often were denied, contributing to the child's health deterioration. Legal advocacy led to the family's release after the emergency court filing; attorneys contend the case reflects broader problems with medical care, conditions and protections for children and families in immigration custody.Toddler was returned to ICE custody and denied medication after hospitalization, lawsuit says | ReutersThe Trump administration is proposing a significant change to federal employment law that would restrict fired federal workers from appealing their terminations to the independent Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Under the plan, workers would instead have to appeal to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)—a shift critics say would compromise impartiality, as the OPM director reports directly to the president.The MSPB, historically tasked with mediating disputes between federal employees and agencies, experienced a 266% spike in appeals cases during Trump's second term, likely due to a surge in federal job cuts. In 2025, the federal workforce shrank by 317,000 employees, though OPM claims most departures were voluntary through buyouts rather than firings—an assertion not independently verified.This latest proposal would further President Trump's second-term agenda to reduce the size of the federal workforce while also narrowing employees' legal options for challenging dismissals. Trump has also weakened job protection enforcement by removing officials from agencies that safeguard civil service rights. Critics argue the proposal consolidates power over personnel disputes within the executive branch, potentially eroding longstanding civil service protections.Trump seeks to limit legal options for fired federal workers | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg Tax this week is about tax holidays for data centers–or the folly in offering them. India's bold new play to become the backbone of global digital infrastructure isn't just about its headline-grabbing 20-year tax holiday for data centers. The real shift is happening in the fine print—a 15% safe harbor for transfer pricing that removes much of the risk multinationals face when operating across borders. If a company like Microsoft India applies a simple 15% markup on services sold to its U.S. parent, the Indian government agrees not to challenge the pricing. That's not just a tax break—it's operational certainty, and it makes India's offer much more attractive than anything U.S. states currently have on the table.In contrast, American states are still offering scattered subsidies—property tax breaks, zoning perks, utility discounts—without any unified vision or reliable regulatory structure. There's no equivalent to India's safe harbor. No clarity on transfer pricing. No coordination across state lines. The result is what I see as economic development policy by improv, where officials hand out incentives like they're bidding on a sports arena rather than negotiating infrastructure strategy.And what do U.S. taxpayers get in return? A burst of construction, a few permanent jobs, and a long-term commitment to expensive infrastructure upgrades for data centers that don't meaningfully plug into the local economy. Meanwhile, India is making an offer that fits squarely onto a multinational's balance sheet—pre-agreed pricing, national alignment, and a clear path to long-term cost savings.I don't think the solution is to try to beat India at its own game. But if states are going to offer incentives, they need to extract something real in return: energy infrastructure, broadband expansion, or compute resources that benefit the public. Otherwise, they're just footing the bill for someone else's global expansion. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: 20th AmendmentOn February 6, 1933, the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution officially went into effect, reshaping the timeline of federal political power transitions in the United States. Commonly known as the “Lame Duck Amendment,” it was ratified just weeks earlier, on January 23, 1933, but became operative on this day. The amendment moved the inauguration dates of the president and vice president from March 4 to January 20 and newly elected members of Congress from March 4 to January 3.This was a significant reform. Previously, there had been a long delay—about four months—between election and inauguration. The result was a period where outgoing officials retained power despite potentially losing their mandates, often leading to inaction and political stagnation. This was particularly problematic during times of crisis. For example, after Franklin D. Roosevelt won the 1932 election, he had to wait until March to take office while the nation was deep in the throes of the Great Depression, and President Hoover remained largely inactive.The 20th Amendment also clarified procedures for what should happen if the president-elect dies before taking office, a scenario not fully accounted for in earlier constitutional provisions. Section 3 addresses this contingency, while Section 4 gives Congress the authority to legislate procedures for succession and emergencies.By speeding up the transfer of power, the amendment reduced the influence of “lame duck” sessions, promoting a more responsive and democratic governance structure. It also underscored a constitutional shift toward greater efficiency in the federal system.The Trump administration has appointed 33 new immigration judges, 27 of whom are temporary, following the dismissal or departure of over 100 judges since Trump's return to office in January 2025. This reshaping of the immigration court system is part of a broader push to increase deportations and speed up case processing. The newly sworn-in judges will serve in courts across 15 states, including Texas, California, and New York.A significant number of the appointees have military experience—half of the permanent judges and all of the temporary ones—reflecting a Pentagon-supported effort to deploy Defense Department lawyers into immigration roles. Critics, including the American Immigration Lawyers Association, argue that the mass firings have severely depleted judicial capacity, especially amid a record backlog of 3.2 million pending immigration cases.The administration is also set to introduce a regulation reducing the time migrants have to appeal deportation rulings from 30 to 10 days. This fast-track process would give the Board of Immigration Appeals greater authority to summarily dismiss appeals, a move likely to draw legal challenges given prior rulings against similar reinterpretations of immigration law.Trump administration names 33 new immigration judges, most with military backgrounds | ReutersBrad Karp has stepped down as chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP following revelations of his extensive correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein. The emails, released by the Department of Justice, revealed years of personal and professional interaction between Karp and Epstein, including Karp's praise of legal arguments dismissing victims' claims and discussions about sensitive financial matters involving Epstein's associates. Though Karp has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing, the disclosures created internal and public pressure leading to his resignation.Karp will remain at the firm in a non-leadership role, while corporate department head Scott Barshay has assumed the chairmanship. Barshay is known for high-profile mergers, including deals involving Chevron and Anheuser-Busch. Karp had led the firm since 2008, building its revenue significantly and taking on both corporate defense and progressive political causes.The fallout also reignited criticism over Paul Weiss' controversial 2025 deal with the Trump administration. In that arrangement, Karp brokered pro bono legal commitments in exchange for the rescission of an executive order that limited the firm's federal work—an effort that involved direct lobbying by Robert Kraft and a meeting with Donald Trump.Epstein emails lead Brad Karp to resign as Paul Weiss law firm chairman | ReutersA federal jury in Phoenix has ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million to Jaylynn Dean, who said she was assaulted by a driver at age 19. The trial, the first of over 3,000 consolidated cases, served as a bellwether to assess the legal strength and settlement value of similar claims. The jury found the driver acted as an agent of Uber, making the company liable, but declined to award punitive damages.Dean's lawyers argued Uber knowingly failed to implement safety improvements despite rising reports of assaults. The case highlighted Uber's marketing to women as a safe option, which attorneys said misled passengers about real risks. Dean was intoxicated when she ordered a ride in Arizona in 2023 and was allegedly attacked after the driver stopped the vehicle.Uber denied liability, stating the driver had no criminal record and that the incident was unforeseeable. The company emphasized that it passed background checks and claimed the jury's decision supported its broader safety efforts, though it plans to appeal.The trial has implications for both Uber and Lyft, whose shares dipped following the verdict. Analysts believe the case may lead to enhanced background screening across the ride-hailing industry.Uber ordered to pay $8.5 million in trial over driver sex assault claims | ReutersA legal fight has emerged between a group of U.S. states and pharmacist T.J. Novak, a whistleblower seeking a portion of the $4.7 billion opioid settlement the states reached with Walgreens. Novak previously filed a federal False Claims Act case accusing Walgreens of unlawfully filling opioid prescriptions and billing government health programs. The U.S. government settled with Walgreens for $300 million, including $150 million tied to Novak's claims—earning him a whistleblower payout of over $25 million.Novak now argues that the states' massive 2022 settlement with Walgreens also resolved his state-level claims under their respective false claims statutes, entitling him to additional compensation. The states dispute this, saying their deal addressed public nuisance concerns, not false claims violations. They warn that granting Novak a cut would force courts into a complex and inconsistent analysis across 28 different state laws and could open the door to broad whistleblower entitlements in future state actions.Key states like Rhode Island, North Carolina, and Virginia filed briefs opposing Novak's claim, stressing the differences in statutory frameworks and the nature of the claims resolved. The outcome could impact future whistleblower litigation involving parallel state and federal claims tied to nationwide corporate settlements.States square off with opioids whistleblower over payout from $4.7 billion Walgreens settlement | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Felix Mendelssohn.This week's closing theme is Lied ohne Worte, Op. 109, by Mendelssohn, a composer whose refined lyricism shaped the early Romantic era. Born in 1809, Mendelssohn was a prodigy who bridged Classical form and Romantic expression with grace and clarity. His Lieder ohne Worte—or “Songs Without Words”—are brief piano pieces that aim to convey the emotional depth of a song, but without lyrics. Op. 109, one of the last in the series, is especially introspective and serene, a quiet farewell rendered in music alone.Today, February 6, holds subtle resonance in Mendelssohn's legacy. Though his death is commonly dated to November 4, 1847, some historical sources using the Julian calendar recorded it as February 6, making this date a quiet point of remembrance in certain circles. In that light, Lied ohne Worte, Op. 109, feels like a particularly appropriate selection—a final musical gesture from a composer who believed some feelings transcend words.It's also a fitting close to a week of heavy stories—legal struggles, political reshuffling, and institutional reckonings. Mendelssohn offers no commentary, just clarity and calm. In the hush of his music, we're reminded that reflection doesn't always need a headline.Without further ado, Lied ohne Worte, Op. 109, by Felix Mendelssohn – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: 18th Amendment to the US ConstitutionOn January 16, 1919, the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, marking a pivotal moment in American legal history by establishing the prohibition of alcoholic beverages. The amendment prohibited “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” for consumption in the United States and its territories. It was the culmination of decades of temperance activism, led by organizations such as the Women's Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League, which argued that alcohol was responsible for societal problems including crime, poverty, and domestic violence.The amendment passed Congress in December 1917, but ratification by the states was required for it to take effect. That threshold was reached on January 16, 1919, when Nebraska became the 36th state to ratify it. One year later, on January 17, 1920, the Volstead Act—the federal statute enforcing the amendment—went into effect, ushering in the Prohibition era.However, the law led to unintended consequences. Rather than curbing alcohol consumption, it fueled the rise of organized crime, as bootleggers and speakeasies flourished across the country. Enforcement proved difficult and inconsistent, and public support for prohibition waned through the 1920s.Ultimately, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment on December 5, 1933, making it the only constitutional amendment ever to be entirely repealed. The legacy of the 18th Amendment remains significant as a historical experiment in moral legislation and the limits of constitutional power.A federal judge in Virginia will soon decide whether Dominion Energy can resume construction on its $11.2 billion Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, which was halted by the Trump administration last month. The Interior Department paused five offshore wind projects on December 22, citing classified concerns about radar interference and national security. Dominion is now challenging that pause in court, arguing that it violated procedural and due process laws and is causing the company significant financial harm—around $5 million in daily losses. Dominion has already invested nearly $9 billion in the project, which began construction in 2023 and is planned to power 600,000 homes.Similar legal challenges from other developers, including Orsted and Equinor, have already succeeded in federal courts in Washington, allowing their Northeast offshore wind projects to proceed. Those decisions raise the stakes for Dominion's case, which could influence the broader offshore wind industry amid continued hostility from the Trump administration toward the sector. Trump has long criticized wind energy as costly and inefficient. While the outcomes of these lawsuits may let projects move forward, industry uncertainty remains due to ongoing legal battles and political opposition.US judge to weigh Dominion request to restart Virginia offshore wind project stopped by Trump | ReutersA federal judge in Boston, William Young, said he will issue an order to protect non-citizen academics involved in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's deportation of pro-Palestinian student activists. The upcoming order would block the government from altering the immigration status of the scholars who are parties to the case, absent court approval. Young emphasized that any such action would be presumed retaliatory and would require the administration to prove it had a legitimate basis.The lawsuit stems from Trump's executive orders in early 2025 directing agencies to crack down on antisemitism, which led to arrests and visa cancellations for several students, including Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk. These moves targeted those expressing pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel views on campus. Young previously ruled that these actions violated the First Amendment by chilling free speech rights of non-citizen academics.In his comments, Young described Trump as “authoritarian” and sharply criticized what he called the administration's “fearful approach to freedom.” He limited his forthcoming order to members of academic groups like the AAUP and Middle East Studies Association, rejecting a broader nationwide block as too expansive. Meanwhile, the administration, which plans to appeal Young's earlier ruling, accused the judge of political bias.US judge to shield scholars who challenged deporting of pro-Palestinian campus activists | ReutersA federal judge in California has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department seeking access to the state's full, unredacted voter registration list. Judge David Carter ruled that the department's claims were not strong enough under existing civil rights and voting laws, and that turning over detailed voter data—such as names, birth dates, driver's license numbers, and parts of Social Security numbers—would violate privacy protections.Carter emphasized that centralizing such sensitive information at the federal level could intimidate voters and suppress turnout by making people fear misuse of their personal data. The lawsuit, filed in September by the Trump administration, targeted California and other Democrat-led states for allegedly failing to properly maintain voter rolls, citing federal law as justification for demanding the data.California Secretary of State Shirley Weber welcomed the decision, stating her commitment to defending voting rights and opposing the administration's actions. The DOJ had reportedly been in discussions with the Department of Homeland Security to use voter data in criminal and immigration probes. Critics argue the push was driven by baseless claims from Trump and his allies that non-citizens are voting in large numbers.US judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit seeking California voter details | ReutersWhy can't people harmed by ICE just sue the agents themselves?U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal agency under the Department of Homeland Security, created in 2003. It enforces immigration laws and investigates criminal activities involving border control, customs, and immigration. ICE derives its authority from various federal statutes, including the Immigration and Nationality Act, and its agents operate with broad discretion during enforcement actions.Suing ICE agents or the agency itself is legally difficult. Individuals cannot usually sue federal agents directly because of sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that protects the government and its employees from lawsuits unless explicitly allowed by law. One such exception is the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) of 1946, which permits lawsuits against the federal government when its employees cause injury or damage while acting within the scope of their employment. Under the FTCA, victims can bring wrongful death or negligence claims, as Renee Good's family is now considering.However, FTCA claims are limited. Plaintiffs cannot seek punitive damages or a jury trial, and compensation is capped based on state law where the incident occurred. The government is also shielded from liability for discretionary decisions made by its employees—meaning if the ICE agent used judgment during the incident and it's deemed reasonable, the claim can be dismissed. In Good's case, the government will likely argue self-defense.Suing ICE agents personally is even harder. The Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents case in 1971 created a narrow legal path for suing federal officials for constitutional violations, but courts have since restricted its use. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that Bivens does not apply to border agents conducting immigration enforcement, further insulating ICE officers from personal liability.Criminal prosecution of federal agents is also rare. State prosecutors may bring charges, but only if they can prove the agent acted clearly outside the scope of their duties and in an objectively unlawful way—a high bar that is seldom met.This week's closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven. Beethoven, one of the most influential composers in Western music history, revolutionized the classical tradition with works that bridged the Classical and Romantic eras.This week's theme is Franz Liszt's transcription of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67 — specifically, the first movement, Allegro con brio, catalogued as S.464/5. As one of the most iconic works in classical music, Beethoven's Fifth needs little introduction, but hearing it through Liszt's fingers offers a fresh perspective on its brilliance. In this solo piano version, Liszt doesn't simply condense Beethoven's orchestral power—he reimagines it, capturing the storm, structure, and spirit of the original with astonishing fidelity and virtuosity.The movement begins with the unforgettable four-note “fate” motif, its rhythmic insistence rendered on the piano with punch and precision. From there, Liszt unfolds Beethoven's dramatic argument, demanding the pianist conjure the textures of a full orchestra with nothing but ten fingers and a well-calibrated pedal. Every surging crescendo, sudden silence, and harmonic twist remains intact, though filtered through Liszt's Romantic sensibility and pianistic imagination.It's a piece that asks as much of the performer as it does of the listener—requiring clarity, power, and emotional depth. As a transcription, it's both a tribute and a transformation, placing Beethoven's revolutionary energy in the hands of a single interpreter. We chose this movement not just for its fame, but for how it exemplifies two musical giants in dialogue—Beethoven, the architect of modern symphonic form, and Liszt, the artist who made the orchestra speak through the piano.Without further ado, Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67 — the first movement, Allegro con brio. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The people of Palm Beach County are fighting a proposed data center.Learn more about data centers by subscribing to our weekly "Florida Conservation Newsletter."Clarence Earl Gideon was tried and found guilty of burglary in 1961 in a circuit court near Panama City. He was poor, and despite asking for legal counsel, was denied that request. At the time, Florida was one of 13 states that did not guarantee legal counsel for all defendants in state court proceedings regardless of their ability to pay. The right was guaranteed in federal court.Gideon petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court that he had been unfairly treated in violation of his 14th Amendment rights. The Court picked up his case, ultimately ruling in his favor and requiring that defendants in all U.S courtrooms, including state courts, have access to counsel.Bruce Jacob represented the State of Florida before the Supreme Court in the Gideon case and joins us to discuss his upcoming book on the proceedings, "The Gideon Case: Inside the Supreme Court's Historic Right to Counsel Decision." 

Some criminals plead innocent.Some plead insanity.And some… blame the dead.In this Late Night Legends episode, Tim drags us through the most unhinged chapter of legal history: real court cases where defendants tried to escape justice by blaming ghosts, demons, possessions, curses, and unseen forces.From murder suspects claiming they were possessed, to defendants insisting spirits committed the crime, to full-blown paranormal alibis that made judges and juries question reality itself — we count down the Top 10 most outrageous supernatural defenses ever recorded.Did any of them work?Did any judge actually buy it?And how far will someone go to avoid prison?The answers are darker — and funnier — than you'd expect.Here at the Late Night Legends, we think spooky season should last all year long!Join our spooky community to ask the Legends questions, and keep the conversation going!https://discord.gg/kESdgRH47U

My guest on the show today is Justin Driver, the Robert R. Slaughter Professor of Law at Yale Law School and, more importantly, an old friend of mine.Among his many recognitions, he was appointed by President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. to serve on the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, and is also a recipient of the American Society for Legal History's William Nelson Cromwell Article Prize.He's the author of two books, the first of which was The Schoolhouse Gate: Public Education, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for the American Mind, and the second of which is his new one, and the reason I had him on the show, The Fall of Affirmative Action: Race, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Higher Education.The first time I met Justin, knowing only that he was a law school professor and not what topics he worked on, I said to him, a propos of I'm not sure what, that it felt like the conversation on race in America was kind of passé. It didn't feel, I said, like there was much going on in the intellectual space around race that was very interesting.This was 2009 or 2010, not long before the death of Trayvon Martin and then the birth of BLM, so it was a comically anti-prophetic thing to say. It was also rather insensitive, given that Justin was a young academic planting his flag, in part, in that space. But I don't think it was wrong, precisely. Given Obama's election, there was certainly a ton of words that people were writing about race, and an older generation of important race-focused intellectuals—the Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates types— still working steadily. What there wasn't, and hadn't been for some years, was a figure able to bend the political intellectual discourse around his or her gravitational force on the topic of race. It would soon be Ta-Nehisi Coates, of course, and then a whole explosion of important intellectuals writing about race, including Justin himself. And so it's been my good fortune to have him as a conversation partner these last 15 or so years, and a pleasure to have the chance to talk to him in the context of his new book, which was a surprising reading experience for me, given that I thought, incorrectly, that I had such a good handle on the debate around affirmative action that even reading an expert on the topic might feel gratuitous. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit danieloppenheimer.substack.com/subscribe

This is a short excerpt from an upcoming episode of Flint Justice.In this preview, Arthur Busch explores the real Michigan homicide case that inspired Anatomy of a Murder and the lawyer behind it, John D. Voelker—prosecutor, defense attorney, Supreme Court justice, and writer.The full episode examines what this case still teaches us about jury trials, reasonable doubt, and the uneasy line between truth and proof. Full episode coming soon."Photography by Jim Hansen, LOOK Magazine Photograph Collection, Library of Congress."We would like to hear from you! Send us a Text.

This Day in Legal History: 21st Amendment RatifiedOn December 5, 1933, the United States ratified the Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution, officially ending the era of national Prohibition. This amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, which had banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors since 1920. Prohibition, championed by temperance movements and moral reformers, was initially seen as a solution to social problems such as crime and poverty. However, over the following decade, it led instead to a surge in organized crime, illegal speakeasies, and widespread disregard for the law.The Twenty-first Amendment is unique in American legal history—it is the only amendment to repeal a previous amendment. It is also the only amendment ratified through state conventions rather than by state legislatures, a strategic move to bypass potential legislative gridlock. Utah became the 36th state to ratify the amendment, securing the three-fourths majority needed for adoption.The repeal of Prohibition returned control over alcohol regulation to the states, many of which continued restrictions at the local level. The amendment's passage marked a shift toward a more pragmatic and less moralistic approach to federal lawmaking. It also highlighted the limits of federal power to regulate personal behavior and underscored the complexities of enforcing unpopular laws.In the broader context of constitutional law, the Twenty-first Amendment demonstrated the capacity of the Constitution to adapt and self-correct. It remains a pivotal example of how constitutional amendments can respond to changing public sentiment and unintended legal consequences.A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump to continue deploying National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., halting a lower court ruling that would have required the troops to withdraw by December 11. The temporary order from the D.C. Circuit Court does not address the underlying legality of the deployment but permits it to proceed while litigation continues. The deployment, which began in August, intensified after a November 26 shooting near the White House left two National Guard members injured—one fatally. Trump responded by sending 500 additional troops and renewing his call to halt immigration from what he called “third-world countries,” after a 29-year-old Afghan national was charged in the attack.D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued the administration in September, arguing Trump unlawfully took over local policing authority and violated federal restrictions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. A federal judge initially sided with Schwalb, calling the deployment likely unlawful, but delayed enforcement of her ruling to allow time for appeal. The Trump administration maintains it can deploy troops to D.C. without local approval, citing the city's unique federal status. Meanwhile, similar deployments in other Democratic-led cities have sparked lawsuits and accusations that Trump is using federal force for political purposes. Lower courts have largely ruled against these moves, and the Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on the legality of the Chicago deployment soon.Appeals court allows Trump National Guard deployment in DC to continue | ReutersTom Goldstein, a prominent Washington attorney and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, is fighting to sell his $3 million home in D.C.'s Wesley Heights to fund his defense against 22 financial crime charges, including tax evasion. Prosecutors allege that Goldstein, who has made millions as a poker player, misrepresented his financial situation to obtain loans, including one used to purchase the property. A Maryland federal judge barred the sale, ruling the house is likely connected to the alleged crimes. Goldstein has appealed, arguing that blocking the sale violates his Sixth Amendment right to use untainted assets for legal defense, and insists the home is not tied to the alleged misconduct.The appeal is before the 4th Circuit, where Goldstein—representing himself—says he's accumulated millions in legal fees. Prosecutors maintain the house is tainted because Goldstein omitted over $15 million in debt from the mortgage application. The home is also collateral for Goldstein's appearance bond, due to his being labeled a flight risk. One of Goldstein's key financial backers, litigation funder Parabellum Capital, is a witness in the case but not accused of wrongdoing. Legal experts say his effort to sell the house faces steep odds given the property's legal entanglements and standard federal practices regarding tainted assets.Tom Goldstein fights to sell home as tax trial looms | ReutersA federal grand jury has declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, rejecting prosecutors' second attempt to bring criminal charges against her, according to sources familiar with the matter. The Justice Department had sought to revive a case involving allegations of bank fraud and false statements related to a mortgage, after the initial indictment was dismissed in November due to the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan. Despite the setback, prosecutors reportedly plan to seek a new indictment.James, a Democrat and prominent critic of Donald Trump, was accused of misrepresenting financial information to obtain favorable mortgage terms on a Virginia property. She pleaded not guilty to the original charges. The failed indictment effort comes amid broader DOJ efforts targeting Trump critics, including former FBI Director James Comey and ex-national security adviser John Bolton—cases that have also faced legal hurdles.Grand jury rejections are rare, as prosecutors usually face a low threshold of probable cause to proceed. James is now the highest-profile figure to have such a case rejected during Trump's second term. The president has publicly attacked James for leading a civil fraud lawsuit against him, which resulted in a massive financial penalty, later reduced on appeal but with Trump still found liable for fraud.Grand jury rejects second criminal case against New York Attorney General Letitia James, sources say | ReutersLawyers representing authors and publishers in a $1.5 billion copyright settlement with AI company Anthropic have requested $300 million in legal fees, amounting to 20% of the total settlement. Filed in federal court in San Francisco, the fee request comes after Anthropic agreed in October to settle claims it used pirated books to train its AI models, including its commercial product Claude. As part of the agreement, Anthropic will pay over $3,000 per infringed work, destroy the infringing datasets, and certify they are not part of its commercial systems.The legal team, led by Susman Godfrey and Lieff Cabraser, argued that the fee is “conservative” by class action standards, citing more than 26,000 hours of high-risk work. The settlement, which received preliminary approval in September, is being described as the largest reported copyright class action resolution to date. Anthropic has denied wrongdoing and retains the right to contest the fee amount.Authors have until January 15 to opt out of the class action and pursue individual claims. A final fairness hearing before U.S. District Judge William Alsup is scheduled for April, where objections from class members and fee disputes will be reviewed.Authors' lawyers in $1.5 billion Anthropic settlement seek $300 million | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a composer of some note.On December 5, 1791, the world lost one of its greatest musical minds: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Just 35 years old at the time of his death, Mozart left behind an astonishing body of work that shaped the course of Western classical music. His death, shrouded in speculation and mystery, came while he was in the midst of composing what would become one of his most profound and haunting works—the Requiem in D minor, K. 626. The Lacrymosa movement, in particular, captures the emotional gravity of that moment, as if echoing his own impending end.Although Mozart did not live to finish the Requiem, the fragments he left behind were completed by his student Franz Xaver Süssmayr, guided by sketches and oral instruction. The Lacrymosa, with its solemn melodies and aching harmonies, stands as one of the most emotionally resonant sections of the work. Franz Liszt later transcribed it for solo piano, creating a version that retains its choral intensity while adding a layer of intimate, virtuosic expressiveness.Listening to Liszt's transcription of the Lacrymosa is like hearing Mozart's farewell whispered through the keys of a piano—stark, mournful, and deeply human. December 5, then, is not only the date of Mozart's passing but also a reminder of the enduring beauty he left behind, etched into every phrase of the Requiem. His music, especially in this piece, speaks across centuries to the depths of loss and the hope of transcendence.Without further ado, Mozart's Requiem in D. minor – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Tonight's episode is one long reminder that reality doesn't need writers. Judges tossing fraud verdicts, murders wrapped in "explanations," and a pee-soaked crime career. We break down the Minnesota Medicaid acquittal, the latest in the Brian Walshe trial, brutal family and domestic cases, and the OnlyFans stunt that ended in county jail. Plus, a "This Day in Legal History" segment on how our courts got here and where the Eighth Amendment fits in. Stick around, hit subscribe, and let's try to make sense of the nonsense together.

Staying Safe During the Holidays & A Murder Trial That Changed Legal HistorySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This Day in Legal History: 2000 Presidential ElectionOn November 7, 2000, the United States held a presidential election that would evolve into one of the most significant legal showdowns in American history. The race between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore came down to a razor-thin margin in Florida, where just hundreds of votes separated the two candidates. Under state law, the closeness of the vote triggered an automatic machine recount. What followed was a legal and political firestorm involving punch-card ballots, partially detached chads, and controversial ballot designs like the “butterfly ballot,” which some argued led to voter confusion.Litigation quickly erupted in Florida state courts, with both campaigns fighting over recount procedures and ballot validity. Central to the legal debate was whether Florida counties could use different standards in determining voter intent during manual recounts. The legal issues raised tested interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause and the boundaries of state versus federal authority in managing elections. Amid national uncertainty and media frenzy, the dispute reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.On December 12, 2000, the Court issued a 5–4 decision halting the Florida recount, citing equal protection concerns due to inconsistent recount standards across counties. The ruling effectively secured Florida's 25 electoral votes for Bush, granting him the presidency despite losing the national popular vote. The decision was criticized by many for its perceived partisanship and for explicitly stating it should not be viewed as precedent. It remains one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases in modern history.The legal battles following the November 7 election exposed deep vulnerabilities in U.S. election infrastructure and prompted calls for reform, including updating voting technology and clarifying recount laws. The case continues to shape discussions around judicial involvement in elections, federalism, and democratic legitimacy.A federal judge is expected to rule on whether President Donald Trump violated the law by deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon to suppress protests. The case, brought by Oregon's attorney general and the City of Portland, challenges the legality of Trump's domestic military deployment under emergency powers, with broader implications for similar plans in other Democrat-led cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington D.C.U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who already issued a temporary order blocking the deployment, will now decide if that block should become permanent. The central legal question is whether the Portland protests legally constituted a rebellion, which is one of the few conditions under which federal troops may be used domestically.The Justice Department argued the deployment was justified, citing violence at a federal immigration facility and describing Portland as “war-ravaged.” Defense attorneys for Oregon and Portland countered that most protests were peaceful and that any violence was limited and contained by local authorities.A Reuters review revealed 32 federal charges tied to the protests, mostly for assaulting federal officers. Only a few resulted in serious charges or potential prison time.This case marks a significant test of civil-military boundaries and the limits of presidential emergency powers, and may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.Judge to rule on Trump's Portland troop deployment | ReutersSean Charles Dunn, a former Justice Department employee, was acquitted of misdemeanor assault by a federal jury in Washington, D.C., after a high-profile trial over an incident in which he threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer during a 2025 protest. The case, which gained viral attention, stemmed from an August 10 altercation during President Trump's law enforcement surge in the capital. Video footage showed Dunn yelling at officers and then throwing the sandwich, which reportedly splattered mustard and left onion on the officer's equipment.The jury deliberated for about seven hours over two days before finding Dunn not guilty under a statute that criminalizes assaulting or interfering with federal officers. Prosecutors argued the sandwich throw interfered with official duties, while Dunn's defense contended it caused no injury and was symbolic, intended to divert law enforcement from what Dunn feared was an impending immigration raid at a nearby LGBTQ+ nightclub. The CBP officer testified the sandwich left minor messes but no harm, and later received humorous gifts from coworkers related to the incident, which the defense used to downplay its seriousness.The verdict is another setback for the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office, which has struggled to secure convictions in protest-related cases stemming from Trump enforcement policies. Dunn, who had been fired from the DOJ shortly after the incident, expressed relief and said he believed his actions defended immigrant rights. The presiding judge denied a defense motion to dismiss the case mid-trial but ultimately left the decision to the jury, which rejected the prosecution's claim that the act met the legal threshold for assault.Sandwich Hurler Acquitted of Assault Charge in Viral DC Case (2)U.S. District Judge John McConnell ordered the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits (food aid) for 42 million low-income Americans by Friday, rejecting the administration's plan to issue reduced payments during the ongoing government shutdown. McConnell sharply criticized the administration for what he described as using food aid as a political weapon, and warned of irreparable harm if full benefits were not provided, including hunger and overwhelmed food pantries.The USDA had initially planned to suspend benefits entirely in November due to a lack of congressional funding. It later proposed covering only 65% of benefits using limited contingency funds—an option McConnell said was inadequate and failed to address administrative challenges, such as outdated state computer systems unable to process reduced payments. Some states estimated it would take days to weeks to reconfigure their systems for partial payouts.McConnell said the administration should instead use a $23.35 billion tariff fund—previously used for child nutrition—to fully fund November benefits. His ruling followed a related case in Boston, where another judge also found that the government was legally obligated to use available emergency funds to keep food aid flowing.The Trump administration appealed the ruling and blamed Senate Democrats for blocking a funding bill that would end the shutdown. Vice President J.D. Vance criticized the court's decision as “absurd,” framing it as interference in a political stalemate.Trump administration must fully fund food aid benefits by Friday, US judge rules | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.This week marks the anniversary of the death of Tchaikovsky, who passed away on November 6, 1893 according to the Gregorian calendar—November 7 on the Julian calendar still used in Russia at the time. His death, just days after the premiere of his Sixth Symphony (Pathétique), remains a subject of speculation and sorrow in classical music history. In honor of that date, we're closing the week with one of his earlier and more intimate works: the String Quartet No. 1 in D Major, Op. 11.Composed in 1871, the quartet was Tchaikovsky's first major chamber piece and reflects his growing confidence outside the orchestral realm. Though best known for sweeping ballets and symphonies, here Tchaikovsky demonstrates a delicate sense of form and emotional restraint. The second movement, “Andante cantabile,” became especially beloved—Leo Tolstoy reportedly wept when he heard it performed.Unlike his dramatic orchestral works, this quartet offers a quiet depth, full of folk-inspired melodies and lyrical interplay between the instruments. It balances elegance with melancholy, a quality that would come to define much of his later music. Tchaikovsky himself cherished the piece, often arranging and revisiting it throughout his career. The “Andante cantabile” was even played at his own memorial.As we mark November 7, it's fitting to reflect on the more introspective side of a composer whose life and death still stir emotion more than a century later. Tchaikovsky's String Quartet No. 1 doesn't shout—it speaks gently, as if in conversation, and in that quiet voice, it endures.Without further ado, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's String Quartet No. 1 in D Major, Op. 11 – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Few scandals have shaken Australia's justice system like the Lawyer X affair. At the center was a prominent barrister who secretly worked as a police informant, all while representing some of the country's most notorious criminals. Her name was tied to dozens of figures on both sides of the law, leaving behind a trail of questions about loyalty, ethics, and justice.By living a double life, she jeopardised the very foundation of the courts. Convictions were thrown into doubt, appeals were launched, and the credibility of the entire legal system was called into question. The scandal not only exposed corruption and desperation in law enforcement, but also highlighted the dangers of blurred boundaries between lawyers and their clients.In this series, we dig into how one lawyer's choices spiraled into one of the biggest legal crises in Australian history. From the underworld connections to the Royal Commission, we explore how the Lawyer X scandal redefined trust, justice, and the rule of law in Victoria.***Linked Episodes:- 309-312 - L'Onorata Societa, the Calabrian Mafia- 188 & 189 - The Death of the Vampire Gigolo- 351-358 - The Gangland Wars- 76 & 77 - The Walsh St Shooting- 61 & 62 - Old Melbourne GaolBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/weird-crap-in-australia--2968350/support.

In 17th century France a group of nuns described some unsettling visitations at their convent, which developed into a story of possession, political intrigue, and a moment in time that was rife with social tensions. Research: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Wars of Religion". Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 Mar. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/event/Wars-of-Religion “Hawthorn.” National Institute of Health. https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/hawthorn Cameron, Teagan. “A Diabolical Martyrdom: Urbain Grandier, the Transgressive Outsider, and the Surrogate Victim in The Possession at Loudun.” Constellations. Vol. 13, no. 2. Aug. 2022, doi:10.29173/cons29475 deCerteau, Michel. “The Possession at Loudun.” University of Chicago Press. 2000. Dumas, Alexandre, Pere. “Urbain Grandier – 1634.” 1910. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2746/2746-h/2746-h.html Ferber, Sarah. “Demonic Possession and Exorcism in Early Modern France.” Routledge. 2013. Hunter, Mary Kate. “Loudun Possessions: Witchcraft Trials at The Jacob Burns Law Library.” Newsletter of the Legal History & Rare Books Special Interest Section of the American Association of Law Libraries. Volume 16 Number 3. Hallowe’en 2010. https://www.aallnet.org/lhrbsis/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/01/lhrb-16-3.pdf Huxley, Aldous. “The Devils of Loudun.” London. Chatto & Windus. 1952. Accessed online: https://ia601400.us.archive.org/3/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.469712/2015.469712.The-Devils_text.pdf Niau, Des and Edmund Goldsmith (tr.) “The history of the devils of Loudun; the alleged possession of the Ursuline nuns, and the trial and execution of Urbain Grandier, told by an eye-witness.” Edinburgh. Private Printing. 1887. Accessed online: https://archive.org/details/historyofdevilso00desn/page/n31/mode/2up Sluhovsky, Moshe. “The Devil in the Convent.” The American Historical Review , Vol. 107, No. 5 (December 2002), pp. 1379-1411. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical Association. https://.www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/532851 Soth, Amelia. “A Mother Superior’s Demons.” JSTOR Daily. Oct. 31, 2024. https://daily.jstor.org/a-mother-superiors-demons/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Few scandals have shaken Australia's justice system like the Lawyer X affair. At the center was a prominent barrister who secretly worked as a police informant, all while representing some of the country's most notorious criminals. Her name was tied to dozens of figures on both sides of the law, leaving behind a trail of questions about loyalty, ethics, and justice.By living a double life, she jeopardised the very foundation of the courts. Convictions were thrown into doubt, appeals were launched, and the credibility of the entire legal system was called into question. The scandal not only exposed corruption and desperation in law enforcement, but also highlighted the dangers of blurred boundaries between lawyers and their clients.In this series, we dig into how one lawyer's choices spiraled into one of the biggest legal crises in Australian history. From the underworld connections to the Royal Commission, we explore how the Lawyer X scandal redefined trust, justice, and the rule of law in Victoria.***Linked Episodes:- 309-312 - L'Onorata Societa, the Calabrian Mafia- 188 & 189 - The Death of the Vampire Gigolo- 351-358 - The Gangland Wars- 76 & 77 - The Walsh St Shooting- 61 & 62 - Old Melbourne GaolBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/weird-crap-in-australia--2968350/support.

Few scandals have shaken Australia's justice system like the Lawyer X affair. At the center was a prominent barrister who secretly worked as a police informant, all while representing some of the country's most notorious criminals. Her name was tied to dozens of figures on both sides of the law, leaving behind a trail of questions about loyalty, ethics, and justice.By living a double life, she jeopardised the very foundation of the courts. Convictions were thrown into doubt, appeals were launched, and the credibility of the entire legal system was called into question. The scandal not only exposed corruption and desperation in law enforcement, but also highlighted the dangers of blurred boundaries between lawyers and their clients.In this series, we dig into how one lawyer's choices spiraled into one of the biggest legal crises in Australian history. From the underworld connections to the Royal Commission, we explore how the Lawyer X scandal redefined trust, justice, and the rule of law in Victoria.***Linked Episodes:- 309-312 - L'Onorata Societa, the Calabrian Mafia- 188 & 189 - The Death of the Vampire Gigolo- 351-358 - The Gangland Wars- 76 & 77 - The Walsh St Shooting- 61 & 62 - Old Melbourne GaolBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/weird-crap-in-australia--2968350/support.

Looking ahead to the 250th anniversary of the U.S., Jill Lepore, professor of American history at Harvard University, staff writer at The New Yorker, and the author of several books, including We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution (Liveright, 2025), digs into the history of the country's founding document and what it means for the country that it is so difficult, but still possible, to change.

Chinese immigrants helped establish America's foothold on the western coast, yet few of us know what life looked like for those Chinese people who came to live in the US. In this episode, Beth Lew-Williams joins us to discuss her new book, John Doe Chinaman: A Forgotten History of Chinese Life Under American Racial Law, which blends extensive archival research with new technologies to illuminate stories that have long been buried in our history. Beth Lew-Williams is Professor of History at Princeton University and a recipient of the 2025 Dan David Prize. If you enjoy this episode make sure to check out our conversations with previous Dan David Prize winners: Women and American Slavery w/ Stephanie E. Jones Rogers (#270) and The Archaeology of Dust w/ Anita Radini (#269). This episode was edited by Ben Sawyer. 

This week on The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Ret. MN Supreme Court Justice Barry Anderson interview Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and Pepperdine Law's, Prof. Edward Larson. Prof. Larson marks the 100th anniversary of the Scopes “Monkey Trial,” a landmark case in America's long-running debate over science, religion, and public education. Drawing on his acclaimed book Summer for the Gods, Prof. Larson provides historical context for the trial, which centered on high school teacher John Scopes, charged with violating Tennessee's Butler Act against teaching evolution. Larson explores the cultural tensions of the 1920s—religious fundamentalism, immigration, and rapid social change—that set the stage for the courtroom showdown between famed attorneys Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan. He describes the media frenzy, the dramatic legal arguments, and the trial's verdict, offering insights into how the case became a defining moment in American civic life. He highlights the ongoing role of public schools, the enduring clash between modern science and religious belief, and the trial's lasting legacy. Prof. Larson closes the interview with a reading from Summer for the Gods.

America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Mary Talley Bowden – The stakes are immense. Mendenhall estimates the vaccine may have caused approximately 3 million disabilities and 500,000–600,000 deaths in the U.S. The trial's data integrity is further questioned, as only 170 participants' data, out of an initial 43,000, were used for approval, suggesting possible manipulation...

The federal case against Sean Combs begins this week, and historic context matters. The Mann Act, of 1910, is central to the charges he faces. We cover the law's origins and its application in notable cases. Plus what to watch for next.  ~~~~ 00:00 Introduction to the Case Against Sean Combs 01:30 Understanding the Mann Act and Its Historical Context 02:51 The Application of the Mann Act in Notable Cases 06:10 Racial Dynamics and Legal Arguments in Combs's Case 08:33 Trial Expectations and Future Developments ~~~~ Love nonpartisan news? Want a bigger serving of the serious headlines?  Here's how you can become a SCOOP insider: https://www.scoop.smarthernews.com/get-the-inside-scoop/    Shop our gear!  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/smarthernews/  Website: https://smarthernews.com/  YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/smarthernews