Podcasts about loper bright

In this final panel from the Gray Center's October conference, moderator Aaron Nielsen (UT Austin) speaks with Judge Naomi Rao (D.C. Circuit) and Judge Steven Menashi (Second Circuit) about their role as judges after Loper Bright ended Chevron deference. Rao and Menashi describe their interpretive approaches—text-first, but attentive to context, structure, statutory purpose, and legal terms […]

In this final panel from the Gray Center's October conference, moderator Aaron Nielsen (UT Austin) speaks with Judge Naomi Rao (D.C. Circuit) and Judge Steven Menashi (Second Circuit) about their role as judges after Loper Bright ended Chevron deference. Rao and Menashi describe their interpretive approaches—text-first, but attentive to context, structure, statutory purpose, and legal terms of art—and emphasize that interpretation involves judgment. They argueLoper Bright largely restores courts' independent duty to decide questions of law under the APA, while still allowing agencies discretion where statutes leave open-textured implementation choices or explicit delegations. The panel discusses D.C. Circuit practices, post–Loper Bright arguments about expertise, “express delegation,” Skidmore, forum shopping, major questions doctrine, scientific complexity, and how the debate may shift toward Article I and nondelegation.Sign up for email updates from the Gray Center here

Guest Ryan Mulvey, Policy Council for Americans for Prosperity, joins to discuss the change in policy enforcement with different government agencies. Discussion of the Loper Bright case, regulatory power of the bureacratic agencies, and more. Are we finally getting government out of the way of the private sector? Secretary of State Marco Rubio sits in as the Press Secretary for the day, discussing the latest issues with conflict in Iran, Project Freedom, and more. Will we see and end to the conflict, and why is it ok for them to continue to break international law?

CannCon and Chris Paul close out the week with a Friday discussion show that earns its runtime. Louisiana delays its house primaries after the Calais decision while Rep. Cleo Fields cries that "people have already voted," which is hilarious given the Virginia Democrats argued the opposite in their own Supreme Court hearing. CannCon and Chris dig into the downstream constitutional implications of ungerrymandering, including whether a GOP-dominant state legislature landscape creates the runway to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, restore state election of senators, and drain money from senate races by taking away the celebrity glamour of running statewide. Trump's whiskey tariff deal with Scotland on behalf of Kentucky opens a conversation about pre-constitutional state sovereignty and whether Trump is optically separating from the British imperial relationship or quietly reasserting it. The fourteenth amendment, the Federal Reserve, and the Creature from Jekyll Island tie it all together. Then CannCon plays the Rosa DeLauro versus Lee Zeldin appropriations hearing where DeLauro claims Zeldin made up Loper Bright, West Virginia v. EPA, and the major questions doctrine. Chris breaks down why this is exactly what institutional delegitimization looks like in real time.

CannCon and Ashe in America are back in their new Tuesday time slot with a loaded show. First up, a full Tina Peters case update: Judge Barrett refuses to disqualify himself, a renewed bond motion is pending, the habeas petition is in the Tenth Circuit, and presidential pardon arguments are heading to SCOTUS. Then the show moves to Texas' mid-decade redistricting maps, upheld by the Supreme Court and driven by what CannCon argues was a deliberately skewed 2020 census. California's voter ID initiative qualifying for the ballot via one million signatures gets a brief, skeptical celebration. A viral Rosa DeLauro clip brings some comic relief as EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin exposes her total ignorance of Loper Bright and West Virginia v. EPA on camera. The back half is dedicated entirely to CannCon's deep-dive breakdown of Virginia Supreme Court oral arguments on the "Restore Fairness" redistricting amendment, including the two-thirds special session shell game, the definition of "election," and why he is confident the court will overturn it.

The latest episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast being released today tackles one of the most consequential developments in bank–fintech litigation in recent years: the Los Angeles Superior Court's tentative decision in Opportunity Financial, LLC v. Hewlett (read more here). This case squarely addresses the long-debated "true lender" doctrine which has for decades bedeviled banks and Fintechs and "bricks and mortar" non-banks that have entered into joint ventures with one another to engage in interstate lending programs which take advantage of interest rate exportation rights afforded to banks. After applying application California and federal law, the Court granted summary judgment to OppFi and against the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) which unsuccessfully maintained that OppFi is the true lender and not OppFi's partner, FinWise Bank. In this episode, host Alan Kaplinsky, founder and former chair of the Consumer Financial Services Group and now Senior Counsel, is joined by two leading voices with sharply contrasting perspectives: Professor Emeritus Arthur Wilmarth, a prominent critic of bank–fintech partnerships, and Ballard Spahr Senior Counsel Ron Vaske, who regularly advises banks and fintech companies on structuring such programs. Their discussion offers a deep and balanced exploration of the court's reasoning and its broader implications.   A Tentative Decision with Significant Implications At the center of the case is a partnership between OppFi, a fintech platform, and FinWise Bank, a Utah-chartered, FDIC-insured institution. The program allowed FinWise to originate consumer loans at interest rates permissible under Utah law and export those rates nationwide under Section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. The DFPI challenged the arrangement, arguing that OppFi—not FinWise—was the "true lender," which would subject the loans to California's 36% interest rate cap. In a tentative ruling, the court rejected the DFPI's position and granted summary judgment in favor of OppFi. The court emphasized traditional indicia of lending authority, including: •           FinWise's role in funding the loans •           Its control over underwriting criteria •           Its retention of a 5% ownership interest •           Its ongoing oversight of compliance and marketing Critically, the court also relied on the longstanding California law principle that usury is determined at the inception of the loan. (See the discussion below.) Because FinWise originated the loans, the court concluded they were not rendered unlawful by OppFi's subsequent purchase of a 95% participation interest giving which gave it a predominant economic interest.   Competing Views on "True Lender" The podcast highlights a fundamental divide in how courts and commentators approach the true lender doctrine. Professor Wilmarth argues that the court failed to meaningfully engage with the "predominant economic interest" test, which focuses on who bears the majority of the economic risk and reward. In his view, OppFi's 95% participation interest suggests that it—not the bank—is the real lender in substance. He also raises broader concerns about whether such arrangements undermine state usury laws and expose consumers to excessively high-cost credit. Ron Vaske, by contrast, emphasizes the legal and structural realities of the transaction. He underscores that FinWise is the named lender, funds the loans, and remains legally responsible to borrowers. From this perspective, the allocation of economic interests after origination should not redefine the identity of the lender or override federal law permitting rate exportation.   The Role of "Valid When Made" Another key related theme explored in the episode is the "valid when made" doctrine—the principle that a loan that is lawful at origination remains lawful after assignment. The court's reliance on this concept reinforces the importance of determining lender status at the moment the loan is made, rather than based on subsequent transfers or participations. The discussion also touches on the interplay between state and federal law, as well as the continuing relevance of regulatory interpretations following the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright, which curtailed Chevron deference.   What Comes Next? It is important to note that the court's ruling is still tentative. In accordance with California procedure, OppFi must submit a proposed final opinion and order to the Court. If adopted, an appeal by the DFPI appears likely—potentially setting the stage for further appellate guidance on the true lender doctrine in California and beyond.   Why This Matters This case is part of a broader and ongoing policy debate: ·                 Supporters of bank–fintech partnerships argue they expand access to credit and operate within well-established federal banking frameworks. ·                 Critics contend they can be used to circumvent state consumer protection laws, particularly interest rate caps. As the regulatory and judicial landscape continues to evolve, OppFi v. Hewlett represents a significant—and closely watched—development. It may be significant to note that, unlike several other states, California does not have a statute stating that the holding of a "predominant economic interest" in a loan makes the holder the true lender  Be sure to listen to the full podcast episode for a deeper dive into the case and the competing legal and policy perspectives shaping the future of bank–fintech partnerships. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference, it promised to restore judicial independence and limit agency overreach. But in Medicare administrative proceedings, that promise remains unfulfilled. Tune in to the next upcoming live edition of Monitor Mondays, when senior healthcare analyst Frank Cohen will report on his surprise when an Administrative Law Judge issued a categorical ruling: Loper Bright simply does not apply to the proceedings of the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA).Broadcast segments will also include these instantly recognizable features:·      Monday Rounds: Dr. Jennifer Weinberg will be making her Monday Rounds. ·      The RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, partner at the law firm of Nelson Mullins, will report the latest news about auditors. ·      Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Byron, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment.·      Legislative Update: Adam Brenman will report on current healthcare legislation.

We cover Justice Gorsuch's Concurring Opinion for the Court today for Episode 17 of this deep dive as we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Justice Gorsuch's concurring Opinion for the Court. This is the 17th Chevron Deference Deep Dive episode we've done on TRP podcast since winter 2024. And here it is Spirng 2026. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-separation-of-powers podcast. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative powerhouses like the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, a 900-page manifesto unveiled in April 2023, now thrusting into reality under President Trump's second term. According to the Heritage Foundation's “Mandate for Leadership,” it aims to “dismantle the administrative state”—those federal agencies seen as bloated and unaccountable—by consolidating power in the White House.The plan kicks off with a radical workforce overhaul. It revives Schedule F, reclassifying up to 500,000 career civil servants in policy roles as at-will employees, stripping job protections to install political loyalists on day one. The AFGE warns this could eliminate up to a million federal jobs through cuts, freezes, and privatization. Already, Trump's Executive Order has begun remaking the workforce, as noted in a White House fact sheet, while Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency—DOGE—has fired thousands, shuttering agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a Project 2025 target that returned $21 billion to scam victims, per Government Executive reporting.Agency by agency, the ambition unfolds. The Department of Homeland Security and TSA face elimination or privatization, risking post-9/11 security gains, says the AFGE. The Department of Education would vanish, shifting funds to states and gutting anti-discrimination rules on gender and sexual orientation. FEMA moves to Interior or Transportation, offloading disaster costs to locals. The ACLU highlights plans to abuse warrantless surveillance, dismantling DOJ and FBI independence under unitary executive theory.Proponents, like those in the Mandate, declare, “The unelected administrative state is antithetical to our constitutional system of divided powers.” Critics, including the Brennan Center, see threats to democracy, civil rights, and impartial justice. The Supreme Court's Loper Bright ruling, overturning Chevron deference, bolsters this by curbing agency rulemaking, aligning perfectly with the project's vision.These changes ripple through taxes—pushing a flat rate and corporate cuts—Medicare trims, and reversed Biden policies, illustrating a sweeping bid to shrink government and amplify presidential control.Looking ahead, court battles over DOGE firings loom, with judges reinstating some workers, and midterm elections could test this overhaul. As implementation accelerates, America watches a high-stakes experiment in governance.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative powerhouses like the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, a 900-plus-page manifesto unveiled in 2023 to consolidate presidential power and dismantle what its authors call the “unelected administrative state.” According to the Heritage Foundation's document, “The unelected administrative state is antithetical to our constitutional system of divided powers and checks and balances.”Fast forward to early 2026, and the Trump administration has embraced much of it. The Center for Progressive Reform's February 2026 update reveals that 53 percent of Project 2025's domestic policy agenda across 20 agencies has been initiated or completed. President Trump's February 2025 fact sheet boasts of an executive order “reforming the federal workforce to better serve Americans,” echoing the plan's core.Key proposals target federal agencies head-on. The Heritage Foundation blueprint calls for eliminating the Department of Education, shifting oversight to states, and gutting the Department of Homeland Security, privatizing the Transportation Security Administration—agencies born from 9/11 to safeguard the nation. FEMA faces dissolution, pushing disaster costs to local governments. The AFGE warns this could axe up to a million federal jobs through budget cuts, hiring freezes, and Schedule F—a reclassification stripping protections from over 500,000 policy-related civil servants, turning career experts into political pawns.Reforms extend to unions and equity: stripping rights from TSA, DOJ, and FEMA workers, banning DEI efforts at the VA and Labor Department, and ending data collection on racial disparities. The National Federation of Federal Employees describes it as a “radical blueprint for government political corruption,” with a 180-day playbook of executive orders ready for Day One.Experts see sweeping implications. The Brennan Center cautions it prioritizes political agendas over law enforcement independence, while Government Executive reports Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency has fired tens of thousands, targeted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—which returned $21 billion to scam victims—and hit Voice of America, though courts have pushed back some moves.This ambition connects to unitary executive theory, centralizing control in the White House, curbing agencies like the FBI and FTC. The Supreme Court's Loper Bright ruling, overturning Chevron deference, aligns perfectly, shifting regulatory power to judges.As midterms loom, battles over Schedule F and agency fates will define governance. Will checks and balances hold, or yield to this vision? Tune in next week for more. Thanks for listening.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Can states hold pesticide companies accountable — or does federal law preempt? In this episode of People, Places, Planet, host Sebastian Duque Rios sits down with Patti Goldman, Senior Attorney at Earthjustice, and Cecilia Diedrich, Staff Attorney at ELI, to unpack one of the most consequential environmental law cases of the Supreme Court's current session: Monsanto v. Darnell. At its core, this case asks whether federal pesticide law — the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) — preempts state-based failure-to-warn claims, potentially shielding pesticide manufacturers like Monsanto from liability for harms caused by products like Roundup (glyphosate). With oral arguments scheduled for April 27, 2026, the stakes couldn't be higher — not just for pesticide litigation, but for the future of toxics accountability across the board. We break down the science behind pesticide risks, the role of tort litigation in driving corporate accountability and regulatory reform, and why the Court's ruling could have far-reaching implications for PFAS litigation, microplastics liability, and chemical safety regulation more broadly. We also explore how recent Supreme Court decisions, including Loper Bright, are reshaping the landscape of federal agency deference and what that means for environmental and public health protections. If you're interested in learning about toxics litigation more broadly, ELI's Toxics Litigation Project recently published a landscape analysis of toxics litigation and how scientific advancement and uncertainty, state and federal law, and judicial doctrine intersect in the ongoing effort to address the risks and consequences of toxic exposures in the United States and abroad titled, "Current Trends in Toxics Litigation." Additionally, for more information on FIFRA, check out our FIFRA, Explained episode. Introduction: Pesticides & FIFRA (3:17)Role of Tort Litigation in Accountability (13:44)The Roundup Litigation: Failure to Warn, Glyphosate, and the Road to the Supreme Court (19:07)Monsanto v. Durnell: Preemption and the Circuit Split (25:13)Beyond Roundup: Implications for the Future of Toxics Litigation (40:15)Concluding Thoughts: Science, Oral Arguments, and How to Protect Communities Going Forward (48:55) ★ Support this podcast ★

United States v. Aguayo-Montes, No. 24-4072 (10th Cir. Mar. 17, 2026)Padilla; ineffective assistance of counsel; affirmative misadvice; duty to inform of near certain removal; prima facie prejudice; insufficiency of plea warnings; affidavits;  Matter of Arevalo-Vargas, 29 I&N Dec. 519 (BIA 2026)qualifying relative child ageing out during appeal; exceptional and extremely unusual hardship; children forced to pay for schooling Matter of Z-R-C-N-, 29 I&N Dec. 523 (BIA 2026)ineffective assistance of counsel against non-attorney; prima facie; domestic violence, family group, and asylum nexus; social distinction; approved SIJ; reopening Hodzic v. Bondi, No. 24-1204 (1st Cir. Mar. 19, 2026)sua sponte reopening; Niz Chavez; fundamental change in law; exceptional situation different from exceptional circumstances; BIA failure to explain; Loper Bright inapplicable; procedural due process; substantive due process right to remain with family Hassan v. Bondi, No. 25-1049 (7th Cir. Mar. 16, 2026)receipt of stolen property aggravated felony; Kentucky mens rea; constructive knowledge; ostrich defense; K.R.S. §§ 514.110, 506.010; certified questionKurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.eimmigration"Immigration law software you'll love to use."get.eimmigration.com/IRP Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com  EB-5 Support"EB-5 Support is an ongoing mentorship and resource platform created specifically for immigration attorneys."Contact: info@eb-5support.comWebsite: https://eb-5support.com/Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Click me!The Pen and SwordClick me!Discount code: ImmigrationReview26 Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATION:Email: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerSupport the show

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Consumer Financial Services Partners Stefanie Jackman and Nicholas O'Conner to dissect the shifting risk landscape for servicers, collectors, and debt buyers as federal scrutiny eases and state regulators surge to the forefront. As a segment of the Year in Review and Look Ahead series, the trio talks about Reg F's post-Loper Bright staying power, the explosive growth of state medical debt restrictions and FCRA preemption battles, and the rapid spread of coerced debt/economic abuse statutes reshaping account handling. They also explore the evolving role of debt settlement companies and their use of AI, in addition to offering practical tips on building national policies and procedures to prepare for the next wave of litigation and enforcement. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode, John Q. Khosravi, Esq. sits down with Brian Green to discuss his major federal court win in Nebraska striking down USCIS's two-step Kazarian framework for EB-1A adjudications. The court found the policy was unlawfully adopted and ordered USCIS to reopen and approve the I-140 petition. They break down the legal reasoning, the impact of Loper Bright, where future lawsuits may succeed, and what this means for EB-1A (and possibly O-1) cases moving forward. Spotify | iTunes | YouTube Music | YouTube   Follow eimmigration by Cerenade: Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Start your Business Immigration Practice! (US LAWYERS ONLY - SCREENING REQUIRED): E-2 Course EB-1A Course Get the Toolbox Magazine!  Join our community (Lawyers Only) Get Started in Immigration Law! The Marriage/Family-Based Green Card course is for you Our Website: ImmigrationLawyersToolbox.com Not legal advice. Consult with an Attorney. Attorney Advertisement. #podcaster #Lawyer #ImmigrationLawyer #Interview #Immigration #ImmigrationAttorney #USImmigration #ImmigrationLaw #ImmigrationLawyersToolbox  

Rene Lopez v. Bondi, No. 24-1208 (4th Cir. Feb. 13, 2026) derivative citizenship; former INA § 321(a); establishing paternity through legitimation; Loper Bright; statutory interpretation; affirmative acts to establish paternity; Riley; petition for review despite CAT remand  Matter of Jin, 29 I&N Dec. 441 (BIA 2026) marriage fraud; annulment; revoking I-130 petition; BIA appeal two-years late; deposition transcripts; two-year untimely appeal Buenrostro-Mendez, et al. v. Bondi, et al., No. 25-20496 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) mandatory detention for all EWIs; redundant and superfluous statutory interpretation; Hurtado; seeking admission; INA § 235(a)(2)(B); Laken Riley Act Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years. Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com  EB-5 Support"EB-5 Support is an ongoing mentorship and resource platform created specifically for immigration attorneys."Contact: info@eb-5support.comWebsite: https://eb-5support.com/Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Click me!The Pen and SwordClick me!Discount code: ImmigrationReview26 Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATION:Email: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerSupport the show

Rob is joined by Jody Freeman, the director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard Law School, to discuss the Trump administration's war on the endangerment finding. They chat about how the Trump administration has already changed its argument since last summer, whether the Supreme Court will buy what it's selling, and what it all means for the future of climate law.They also talk about whether the Clean Air Act has ever been an effective tool to fight greenhouse gas pollution — and whether the repeal could bring any upside for states and cities.Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.You can find a full transcript of the episode here.Mentioned:From Heatmap: The 3 Arguments Trump Used to Gut Greenhouse Gas RegulationsPreviously on Shift Key: Trump's Move to Kill the Clean Air Act's Climate Authority ForeverRob on the Loper Bright case and other Supreme Court attacks on the EPAThis episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...--This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...Accelerate your clean energy career with Yale's online certificate programs. Explore the 10-month Financing and Deploying Clean Energy program or the 5-month Clean and Equitable Energy Development program. Use referral code HeatMap26 and get your application in by the priority deadline for $500 off tuition to one of Yale's online certificate programs in clean energy. Learn more at cbey.yale.edu/online-learning-opportunities.Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We cover Justice Thomas' Concurring Opinion for the Court today for Part 5 (Episode 16) of this deep dive as we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Justice Thomas' concurring Opinion for the Court. We have one more part in this Deep Dive after this one to do the concurrence by Gorsuch. This is the 16th Chevron Deference Deep Dive episode we've done on TRP podcast since winter 2024. And here it is winter 2026. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. We will pick up with the Gorsuch's Republican concurrence in Loper Bright next time. Today's episode includes readings from Psalm 104 (RSV) and 25 January in Streams in the Desert (Cowman Publications Lost Feliz Station Lost Angeles, California 1925 non-woke original edition). The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-separation-of-powers podcast. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

The panel will discuss the questions left open—or raised—by the Supreme Court’s decisions in FCC v. Consumers' Research and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, about the proper approach to statutory construction and the role that the nondelegation doctrine should play as a background principle in statutory analysis in cases where an agency has claimed broad authority to weigh competing public values when promulgating legislative rules. The discussion might address such subtopics as:Whether the Supreme Court’s rejection of an “extravagant” interpretation of FCC’s statutory authority in Consumers’ Research tells us anything about how courts should approach statutory cases where an agency is asserting an expansive view of its statutory authorities—given that the Court appeared to say that the dissent’s (supposedly “extravagant”) interpretation would present a nondelegation problem.What role nondelegation concerns should play under the avoidance canon in cases where an agency seeks to stretch nebulous or expressly open-ended delegations to achieve whatever policy objective the Executive Branch deems fit from one administration to the next.Whether these kinds of concerns can be dealt with by expanding clear statement rules—like that the Court has begun to develop with the major questions doctrine.Whether and to what extent legitimate nondelegation concerns arise in cases where Congress has expressly said that an issue is vested to agency discretion—as was contemplated in Loper Bright for certain kinds of rules for which the Court said the agency gets to decide.Featuring:Prof. Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law and William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School; Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research CenterProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State

In an unprecedented action, the SEC in July dismissed with prejudice a pending enforcement case concerning an alleged violation of a rule promulgated under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA). In 2023, the SEC had charged the defendants (a mutual fund, its investment advisor, and independent directors of the fund) with violating its 2016 “liquidity rule,” which limits the percentage of assets investment companies may hold in "illiquid" investments. The independent directors argued that the ICA did not authorize the SEC to make rules concerning fund liquidity and that its decision to do so based on a protection of investors rationale was owed no deference under the 2024 Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright.The district court ordered supplemental briefing on Loper Bright implications, but before the SEC filed its supplemental response, it dismissed the case against all defendants, citing “policy reasons”, without more explanation. Our panelists will discuss the numerous legal and policy issues and questions raised by this sequence of events. Featuring:Jan Folena, Partner and Co-Chair of Securities & Regulatory Enforcement, Stradley RononMargaret Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Michael Piwowar, Executive Vice President, Milken Institute Finance

United States v. Ferguson, No. 24-2178 (8th Cir. Jan. 6, 2026)cocaine isomers; divisibility; modified categorical approach; realistic probability test; Arkansas; Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401(a)(1)(A)(i)Fofana v. Noem, et al., No. 24-2485 (8th Cir. Jan. 9, 2026)jurisdiction; Patel; INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii); asylee adjustment; “any decision” Aguilar-Hernandez v. Bondi, No. 24-2427 (8th Cir. Jan. 6, 2026)domestic violence-type asylum; one central reason; women; acquiescence; Guatemala Gutierrez-Mikan, et al v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 24-13788 (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2026)ineffective assistance of counsel; Loper Bright & Lozada; substantial compliance; CAT; acquiescence; FARC; Colombia Savane v. DHS, et al., No. 24-3286 (3d Cir. Jan. 7, 2026)material misrepresentation; naturalization; willful; diversity visa lottery; DS-230 omissions; omitting children from application; public charge; 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2); lawfully admitted for permanent residence  Matter of E-M-F-S-, 29 I&N Dec. 379 (BIA 2026)death threats; past persecution; journalists; Peru Liz's email: emontano@kktplaw.comKurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years. Eimmigration "Simplifies immigration casework. Legal professionals use it to advance cases faster, delight clients, and grow their practices."Special Link! Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com  EB-5 Support"EB-5 Support is an ongoing mentorship and resource platform created specifically for immigration attorneys."Contact: info@eb-5support.comWebsite: https://eb-5support.com/Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Click me!Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATION:Email: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerSupport the show

We finish Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court today for Part 4d of this deep dive as we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court starting from from his page 23 Roman Numeral III, letter B number 2 in the Slip Opinion through to the end of the Opinion of the Court on the bottom of page 35. We have one more episode in this Deep Dive after this one to do the concurrences by Thomas and Gorsuch. This is the 15th Chevron Deference Deep Dive episode we've done on TRP podcast since winter 2024. And here it is winter 2025. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. We will pick up with the Republican concurrences in Loper Bright next time. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-separation-of-powers podcast. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

In this episode of our Safety Perspectives From the Dallas Region podcast series, shareholders John Surma (Houston) and Frank Davis (Dallas) break down a new Amarillo federal lawsuit that challenges OSHA's authority to issue safety standards as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The speakers analyze how the case intersects with recent Supreme Court trends post-Loper Bright, discuss potential outcomes and risks for employers (including reliance on the General Duty Clause), and consider what this could mean for federal OSHA versus state-plan states and ongoing enforcement strategy.

This Day in Legal History: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr's Kid Sworn in as JusticeOn December 8, 1902, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was sworn in as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, beginning one of the most storied judicial careers in American history. Appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt, Holmes brought not just legal brilliance but a fierce sense of independence to the bench—qualities that would define his nearly 30-year tenure. He would become known as “The Great Dissenter,” not because he loved conflict, but because he saw the Constitution as a living document that demanded humility, skepticism of dogma, and above all, respect for democratic governance.Holmes shaped modern constitutional law, particularly in his groundbreaking First Amendment opinions. In Schenck v. United States (1919), he famously coined the “clear and present danger” test, establishing a foundational limit on government power to suppress speech. Though that decision upheld a conviction, Holmes's dissent later that year in Abrams v. United States marked his turn toward a much broader vision of free expression—one that laid the groundwork for modern civil liberties jurisprudence.A Civil War veteran wounded at Antietam, Holmes served with the Massachusetts Volunteers and carried shrapnel in his body for the rest of his life. His long memory gave him historical depth: legend holds he met both Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy—Lincoln as a young Union officer in Washington, and JFK decades later when the future president visited the aged Holmes on his 90th birthday. While the Lincoln meeting is plausible and widely accepted, the Kennedy encounter is well documented—photos exist of JFK visiting Holmes in 1932, shortly before the justice's death.Holmes's legal philosophy emphasized restraint, often reminding fellow jurists that the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” He resisted turning the judiciary into a super-legislature, warning against confusing personal preference with constitutional mandate. His opinions, dissents, and aphorisms—“taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” among them—still echo in courtrooms and classrooms today.By the time he retired in 1932 at age 90, Holmes had become an icon: not just a jurist, but a symbol of intellectual honesty and constitutional humility. His December 8 appointment wasn't just another judicial swearing-in—it was the beginning of a philosophical legacy that still defines the boundaries of American legal thought.Amit Agarwal, a former clerk to Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, will soon find himself arguing against the very ideology he once clerked under—defending limits on presidential power in a case that could gut a nearly century-old precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935). He'll be representing former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who sued after President Trump gave her the boot, and whose case now tees up a potentially seismic shift in how presidents control independent agencies.At issue is whether the president can remove members of independent commissions—like the FTC—at will, or whether statutory “for cause” protections, created by Congress and upheld since the New Deal, still mean anything. If the Supreme Court overturns Humphrey's Executor, it would blow a hole in the legal framework that has shielded multi-member agencies from raw political interference since Roosevelt tried—and failed—to remake the FTC in his own image.Let's pause here: Humphrey's Executor isn't just some dusty New Deal relic. It drew a sharp line between executive officers who serve the president directly and independent regulators who are supposed to be immune from daily political whims. The Court in 1935 said: no, FDR, you can't just fire an FTC commissioner because he's not singing from your hymnbook. That ruling became the backbone of modern agency independence—from the Fed to the SEC to the NLRB. Without it, the next president could dismiss any regulatory head who doesn't toe the party line. You want crypto rules to mean something? Food safety? Banking supervision? Say goodbye to all that if we pretend these agencies are just White House interns with better titles.But here's where it gets interesting: Agarwal is making the conservative case for restraint. Now working at Protect Democracy, he's arguing that letting presidents fire independent commissioners at will isn't a win for constitutional governance—it's a power grab that warps the original design. He's invoked Burkean conservatism—the idea that practical experience should trump theoretical purity—and warns that blind devotion to the “unitary executive theory” threatens institutional integrity more than it protects separation of powers.And Agarwal isn't alone. A collection of conservative legal scholars, former judges, and ex-White House lawyers—some with deep Federalist Society credentials—have filed briefs supporting his position. Their argument? That Humphrey's Executor is an “originalist” decision, faithful to the Founders' ambivalence about concentrated executive power, especially in domestic administration.Still, let's be honest: the Court is unlikely to be swayed by this internal dissent. The Roberts Court has already chipped away at agency independence in decisions like Seila Law (2020) and Loper Bright (2024), where it let Trump fire the CFPB director and overturned Chevron deference respectively. With a solid conservative majority, and multiple justices openly embracing a muscular vision of presidential control, the writing may already be on the wall.Which is precisely what makes Agarwal's stand so notable. This isn't some progressive legal activist parachuting in from the ACLU (though his wife did work there). This is someone who backed Kavanaugh publicly, donated to Nikki Haley, and spent years rising through the conservative legal pipeline—only to conclude that this version of executive power isn't conservative at all. It's reactionary.So what happens if Humphrey's goes down? Beyond the short-term question of whether Slaughter gets her job back, the bigger issue is how much power presidents will wield over what were supposed to be politically insulated regulatory bodies. Will a ruling in Trump's favor mean future presidents can purge the Fed board? Fire NLRB members mid-term? Flatten the independence of enforcement agencies? The Court may claim it's just restoring “constitutional structure,” but don't be surprised if that structure starts to look a lot like one-man rule.Agarwal, to his credit, is saying: not so fast. Sometimes conserving means preserving. And sometimes defending the Constitution means restraining the people who claim to speak for it the loudest.Ex-Alito, Kavanaugh Clerk Defends Limits on Trump's Firing PowerFight over Trump's power to fire FTC member heads to US Supreme Court | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily barred the Justice Department from using evidence seized from Daniel Richman, a former legal adviser to ex-FBI Director James Comey, in any future attempts to revive criminal charges against Comey. The move comes just weeks after the original case was dismissed due to the lead prosecutor's unlawful appointment.At issue is whether federal prosecutors violated Richman's Fourth Amendment rights by searching his personal computer without a warrant during earlier investigations into media leaks tied to Comey's 2020 congressional testimony. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sided with Richman—for now—saying he's likely to succeed on the merits and ordering the government to isolate and secure the data until at least December 12.The contested materials had been used to support now-dropped charges that Comey made false statements and obstructed Congress regarding FBI leaks about the Clinton and Trump investigations. But Richman, once a special FBI employee himself, argues the search was illegal and wants the files deleted or returned.The Justice Department, undeterred, is reportedly considering a second indictment of Comey. But between shaky prosecutorial appointments and constitutional challenges like this one, their case is rapidly sliding into legally questionable territory.US federal judge temporarily blocks evidence use in dismissed Comey case | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a controversial book removal case out of Llano County, Texas, effectively allowing local officials to keep 17 books off public library shelves—titles that deal with race, LGBTQ+ identity, puberty, and even flatulence.The justices let stand a divided 5th Circuit ruling that found no First Amendment violation in the county's decision to pull the books. That decision reversed a lower court order requiring the books be returned and rejected the plaintiffs' argument that library patrons have a constitutional “right to receive information.” The 5th Circuit held that libraries have wide discretion to curate collections, and that removing titles doesn't equate to banning them altogether—people can still buy them online, the court reasoned.The dispute began in 2021 when local officials responded to complaints by residents, ultimately purging books including Maurice Sendak's In the Night Kitchen (due to nude illustrations), as well as works on slavery and gender identity. Opponents of the removal sued, citing free speech violations. But the case now stands as a significant blow to that theory—at least in the 5th Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene leaves unresolved a key question: does the First Amendment protect not just the right to speak, but the right to access certain information in public institutions? For now, in parts of the South, the answer appears to be no.US Supreme Court turns away appeal of Texas library book ban | Reuters 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

For Part 4c of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court starting from from his page 13 Roman Numeral II.C in the Slip Opinion through Roman Numeral III, letter B number 1, stopping at number 2 on the bottom of page 23. We have one more episode after this one. This is the 14th Chevron Deference Deep Dive episode we've done on TRP podcast since winter 2024. And here it is fall 2025. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. We will pick up with Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court at the top of his page 23 bottom, Roman Numeral III.B no.2 next time. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-separation-of-powers podcast. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Perez-Perez v. Bondi, No. 25-0315 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025)qualifying relative age-out for non LPR cancellation of removal purposes; meaning of the phrase “would result”; Loper Bright; freezing age at time of IJ adjudication Sarkisov v. Bondi, No. 25-0316 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025)extraordinary circumstances for VAWA-based motions to reopen; mixed question of law and fact review; definition of extraordinary circumstances; psychological harm Labrador Gutierrez v. Bondi, No. 25-60646 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2025)stay of removal; Nken B.G.S. v. Bondi, No. 23-6862 (2d Cir. Nov. 24, 2025)government acquiesce; MS-13; Guatemala; former gang members; tattoos; prison conditions; Green Light order; prison guard consent; speculation expected with CAT Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years. Eimmigration "Simplifies immigration casework. Legal professionals use it to advance cases faster, delight clients, and grow their practices."Special Link! Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com  EB-5 Support"EB-5 Support is an ongoing mentorship and resource platform created specifically for immigration attorneys."Contact: info@eb-5support.comWebsite: https://eb-5support.com/Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page! CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego Voyager DISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

【聊了什么】 特朗普总统的第二任期已经过去了一年，在这一年之中，美国政治是一如既往的精彩。特别是特朗普本人，不管是在内政还是外交上，都以一种不可置疑的方式，不停地发出各种指令，改变着美国。更重要的是这一系列的操作似乎并没有受到太大的阻力。如今他看起来并不是民选国家的领导人，更像是一个专制独裁国家的君主，不受到任何的约束。 为什么会出现这样的情况？这是只会发生在特朗普身上的个例，还是背后有着更深层次的原因。为什么美国总统们的权力会越来越大，民主党和共和党对于总统制的理解有何不同。为什么对于特朗普的反制措施都没有取得效果。本期节目，我们从小阿瑟•M.施莱辛格《帝王总统》出发，来试图给这一系列的问题作出解答。 本期节目为talich在《以读攻读》的串台，欢迎在各平台关注《以读攻读》。 【支持我们】 如果喜欢这期节目并希望支持我们将节目继续做下去： 也欢迎加入我们的会员计划： https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ 会员可以收到每周2-5封newsletter，可以加入会员社群，参加会员活动，并享受更多福利。 合作投稿邮箱：american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【时间轴】 04:39 今天有多少美国人觉得特朗普的权力过大了 05:59 美国国父们设计总统制的初衷 09:37 总统制与当时其他国家领袖制度的对比 13:14 美国制宪会议上如何划分总统的权力 19:03 美国总统为什么想要扩张自己的权力 22:20 为什么外交领域成为了总统扩权的突破口 26:54 20世纪，美国成为行政国家的过程 33:18 行政国家的形成为什么给了总统更大的权力 37:32 总统竞选模式的改变导致了总统候选人有了更大的话语权 42:08 罗斯福和尼克松是如何扩张总统的权力 54:15 总统如何通过任命政务官加强自己权力 58:12 美国各界对于总统扩权的态度 1:01:05 Loper 案推翻 Chevron Deference 1:02:00 政治科学家对于总统权力的看法 1:11:45 70年代开始，共和党开始推行的“单一行政权理论” 1:16:33 法律上的原教旨主义如何支持“单一行政权理论” 1:30:19 美国政治中的总统周期理论 1:36:36 特朗普政府如何通过实践扩大自己的权力（针对法院的策略等） 1:40:05 “帝王总统制”的未来走向 1:51:01 选民认知对未来美国政治走势的影响 【我们是谁】 美轮美换是一档深入探讨当今美国政治的中文播客。 我们的主播和嘉宾： Talich：美国政治和文化历史爱好者 《以读攻读》主播： 黄哲成：《现代主义文学百年》《深焦 DeepFocus Radio》《以读攻读》主播 【 What We Talked About】 It has been one year since the start of President Trump's second term, and American politics has been as dramatic as ever. Trump himself, in particular, has been reshaping the United States—both domestically and internationally—by issuing directives with an air of absolute authority. More importantly, these actions seem to have met with little significant resistance. Today, he appears less like the leader of a democracy and more like the monarch of an autocratic regime, operating without restraint. Why is this happening? Is this a phenomenon unique to Trump, or are there deeper underlying causes? Why has the power of the U.S. presidency continued to expand? How do Democrats and Republicans differ in their understanding of the presidential system? And why have all attempts to check Trump's power failed to result in any change? In this episode, taking Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s The Imperial Presidency as our starting point, we attempt to answer these questions. Note: This is a crossover episode featuring talich on Yi Du Gong Du. Please follow "Yi Du Gong Du" on your favorite podcast platforms. 【Support Us】 If you like our show and want to support us, please consider the following: Join our membership program: https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/americanroulette Business Inquiries and fan mail: american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【Timeline】 04:39 How many Americans today believe Trump has too much power? 05:59 The Founding Fathers' original intent in designing the presidency. 09:37 Comparing the presidency to other leadership systems of that era. 13:14 How presidential powers were defined at the Constitutional Convention. 19:03 Why U.S. presidents seek to expand their power. 22:20 Why foreign policy became the gateway for expanding presidential authority. 26:54 The 20th Century: The process of America becoming an "Administrative State." 33:18 Why the rise of the Administrative State empowered the presidency. 37:32 How changes in campaigning increased the influence of presidential candidates. 42:08 How Roosevelt and Nixon expanded presidential power. 54:15 Strengthening power through political appointments. 58:12 Reactions across various sectors to the expansion of executive power. 1:01:05 Loper Bright and the overturning of Chevron deference. 1:02:00 Political scientists' views on presidential power. 1:11:45 The "Unitary Executive Theory" pushed by the Republican Party since the 1970s. 1:16:33 How legal Originalism supports the "Unitary Executive Theory." 1:30:19 The theory of presidential cycles in American politics. 1:36:36 How the Trump administration expanded power through practice (strategies against the courts, etc.). 1:40:05 The future trajectory of the "Imperial Presidency." 1:51:01 The impact of voter perception on the future of U.S. politics. 【Who We Are】 The American Roulette is a podcast dedicated to helping the Chinese-speaking community understand fast-changing U.S. politics. Our Hosts and Guests: Talich：Aficionado of American politics, culture, and history Host of Yi Du Gong Du: Huang Zhecheng: An interesting but useless person, doing interesting but useless things. (Douban: @hzcneo)

Jace Lington and Bennett Nuss discuss the implications of the Loper Bright decision on administrative law with guest Eli Nachmany. Eli's forthcoming paper, “Deference Undisturbed,” examines the effects of theLoper Bright decision on prior cases decided under the Chevron framework. They discuss the open legal questions that remain after the end of Chevron, the role of Congress in shaping administrative law, and the future of various deference doctrines.  Notes:Vacatur as Complete Relief, Eli Nachmany, Cato Supreme Court Review Chevron Deference Was Fun While It Lasted, Eugene Scalia, Wall Street Journal 

Matter of Cahuec Tzalam, 29 I&N Dec. 300 (BIA 2025)Special Immigration Juvenile Status; administrative closure; requirement to establish prima facie eligibility; some foreseeable resolution; visa bulletin; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(c)(3)  Solis-Flores v. Bondi, No. 22-1147 (4th Cir. Nov. 13, 2025)receipt of stolen property CIMT; VA Code § 18.2-108; realistic probability test; Loper Bright; CIMT definition in the Fourth CircuitKurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years. Eimmigration "Simplifies immigration casework. Legal professionals use it to advance cases faster, delight clients, and grow their practices."Homepage!Demo Link!Get the Guide! Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me! Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com  EB-5 Support"EB-5 Support is an ongoing mentorship and resource platform created specifically for immigration attorneys."Contact: info@eb-5support.comWebsite: https://eb-5support.com/ Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page! CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

Daley v. Choate, et al., No. 24-1191 (10th Cir. Nov. 3, 2025)EAJA; habeas; sovereign immunity canon; Loper Bright; civil action; importance of habeas Martinez-Martinez v. Bondi, No. 241464 (4th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025)false testimony; INA § 101(f)(6); BIA review of missed questions of law and fact; Wilkinson; Patel; jurisdiction; failure to disclose alias Rosa Arevalo v. Bondi, Nos. 24-60349, 24-60620 (5th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025)Illinois law vacating criminal conviction for procedural or substantive defect; motion to reopen; due diligence; equitable tolling Dominguez Reyes v. Bondi,  No. 25-60016 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 2025)INA § 101(a)(43)(D) aggravated felony; circumstance specific approach; Matter of Babaisakov; tethered to offense; contesting forfeiture; profit not material Calderon-Uresti v. Bondi, No. 24-60445 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 2025)VAWA cancellation of removal; extreme cruelty; failure to corroborate credible testimony; exhaustion  United States v. Miller, 23-13069 (11th Cir. Nov. 6, 2025)sentence enhancement; ACCA; Florida cocaine derivative; categorical approach point of comparison Iuflopane; drug definition at point of committing the offenseKurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years. Eimmigration "Simplifies immigration casework. Legal professionals use it to advance cases faster, delight clients, and grow their practices."Homepage!Demo Link!Get the Guide! Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me! Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com  EB-5 Support"EB-5 Support is an ongoing mentorship and resource platform created specifically for immigration attorneys."Contact: info@eb-5support.comWebsite: https://eb-5support.com/ Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page! CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

United States v. Ford aka Caveman, No. 23-1400 (10th Cir. Oct. 28, 2025)crime of violence; kidnapping; inveigling; federal definition despite no cross reference to federal statute Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 291 (BIA 2025)third country removal; ACA with Honduras; Immigration Judge authority; 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(h)Chen, et al. v. Rubio, et al., No. 25-521 (2d Cir. Oct. 29, 2025)doctrine of consular nonreviewability; no constitutional right to live with parent or sibling; Munoz Alfaro-Zelaya v. Bondi, No. 23-2069 (4th Cir. Oct. 31, 2025)failure to consider country condition evidence; femicide; gender-based claims in Honduras Bastias v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 21-11416 (11th Cir. Oct. 30, 2025)INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(i) crime of child abuse, abandonment, or neglect; Fla. Stat. § 827.03(2)(d); Loper Bright and views of Judges Newsom, Marcus, and Middlebrooks Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Click here to check out Former IJ David Koelsch and AMDG Law LLC, here: Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years. Eimmigration "Simplifies immigration casework. Legal professionals use it to advance cases faster, delight clients, and grow their practices."Homepage!Demo Link!Get the Guide! Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me! Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com   Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page! CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreview About your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

In Episode 427 of the Immigration Lawyers Toolbox® Podcast, host John Q. Khosravi, Esq. welcomes back Kevin A. Gregg, Esq. for the monthly federal court and BIA decision roundup. Together, they dive into the September 2025 cases shaping U.S. immigration law — from the Fourth Circuit's major ruling redefining “material support” for terrorism, to the impact of Loper Bright on Chevron deference, and what these shifts mean for practitioners handling removal defense, asylum, and appellate work. They also explore key developments in CAT protection, vacated convictions, and the importance of Article I immigration judges in a time of judicial upheaval.

Uc Encarnacion v. Bondi, No. 22-1601 (9th Cir. Sept. 30, 2025)fugitive disentitlement doctrine; adverse credibility; demeanor not reliable; omissions; experts to use in Mexico CAT claims; OIL abandoning issue in vague footnote; Mexican mental health facilities; particularized risk of torture not overly burdensome  Maurice v. Bondi, No. 21-1395 (1st Cir. Oct. 2, 2025)adjustment of status; uncorroborated police reports; failure to follow BIA precedent; uncorroborated police reports to deny discretionary relief; Arreguin; unique stop time rule arguments; Rosa; fundamental fairness Amos v. Att'y Gen. U.S., No. 22-2095 (3d Cir. Oct. 1, 2025)due process; right to interpreter; credibility; particularly serious crime — no step two without meeting the step one elements analysis, and conspiracy; N-A-M-; exhaustion; error to deny CAT claim based on speculation; failure to identify attackers not fatal; CAT corroboration requirements; flight to Canada and return as applicant for admission; stand alone § 212(h) waiver United States v. Campbell, No. 23-6186 (10th Cir. Sept. 30, 2025)Oklahoma armed robbery; Borden; realistic probability test satisfied by the text; looking to similar out-of-state statutes and decisions; recklessness Rangel-Fuentes v. Bondi, No. 23-9511 (10th Cir. Sept. 29, 2025)no deference; Loper Bright; qualifying relative; non-LPR cancellation of removal; age out; 4,000 cap; BIA notice of appeal requirements; nexusSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.  Eimmigration "Simplifies immigration casework. Legal professionals use it to advance cases faster, delight clients, and grow their practices."Homepage!Demo Link!eimmigration and Visalaw! Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me! Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com   Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page! CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreview About your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego Voyager DISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

In President Trump's second term, federal agencies are navigating uncharted territory. Two Supreme Court cases from June 2024 fundamentally changed how agencies can operate: Loper Bright ended Chevron deference—meaning courts no longer automatically defer to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws—and Jarkesy limited agencies' ability to impose civil penalties without jury trials.At the same time, President Trump is consolidating control over agencies that were traditionally seen as independent from the executive branch. He's fired commissioners from the FTC, NLRB, and other agencies as part of his push for a "unitary executive." Former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter is fighting her dismissal, and the Supreme Court recently allowed the firing to stand while it reviews the case.The fundamental tension? Courts are stripping power from agencies just as Trump is trying to bring those agencies under tighter presidential control. Will Loper Bright and Jarkesy make these agencies less useful tools for implementing Trump's agenda, even if he wins the fight to end their independence? And how will these cases impact the FCC's authority looks to reform its broadband subsidy programs while fighting illegal robocalls?Evan is joined by Tom Johnson, former general counsel of the FCC under Chairman Pai and now a partner at Wiley Rein. He is the author of a new paper for Digital Progress Institute on ways to reform the Universal Service Fund.

In the second of a two part series on the impact of administrative law in the health care industry, hosts Payal Nanavati and Savanna Williams talk to Dan Wolff about the practicalities of seeking judicial review to challenge agency actions, the impact of Loper Bright, and the major questions doctrine. This podcast episode features the following speakers: Dan Wolff is a partner in Crowell & Moring's Washington, D.C. office and leads the firm's administrative law litigation practice. Dan's practice encompasses litigation arising under the Administrative Procedure Act or as a result of government enforcement actions or commercial disputes. He regularly appears in federal district and appellate courts around the country and before a host of agency tribunals, and counsels clients on their rights and obligations under a number of federal regulatory programs. Payers, Providers, and Patients – Oh My! is Crowell & Moring's health care podcast, discussing legal and regulatory issues that affect health care entities' in-house counsel, executives, and investors.

CONTINUED HEADLINE: Trump EPA Faces Uphill Battle to Reverse Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding GUEST NAME: Jonathan Adler SUMMARY: The Trump administration's EPA attempts to reverse the 2009 "endangerment finding" for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Recent Supreme Court rulings, including Loper Bright, ironically make reversal more difficult by eliminating Chevron deference. Courts will focus on statutory language and prior decisions, requiring the EPA to justify reversing decades of statements. 1953

CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW SCHEDULE 9-18-25. GOOD EVENING. THE SHOW BEGINS IN THE HALLS OF PARLIAMENT. FIRST HOUR 9-915 HEADLINE: UK Labour Party Faces Crisis as Starmer's Leadership Falters GUEST NAME: Anatol Lieven SUMMARY: Sir Keir Starmer faces "extremely unusual" unpopularity despite Labour's large majority. Potential replacements include Andy Burnham and Lucy Powell. Discontent stems from poor judgment, lack of progressive vision, and resentment over Jeremy Corbyn's removal. Labour risks massive defections to Corbyn's new radical left-wing party if Starmer's leadership continues. 915-930 CONTINUED HEADLINE: UK Labour Party Faces Crisis as Starmer's Leadership Falters GUEST NAME: Anatol Lieven SUMMARY: Sir Keir Starmer faces "extremely unusual" unpopularity despite Labour's large majority. Potential replacements include Andy Burnham and Lucy Powell. Discontent stems from poor judgment, lack of progressive vision, and resentment over Jeremy Corbyn's removal. Labour risks massive defections to Corbyn's new radical left-wing party if Starmer's leadership continues. 930-945 HEADLINE: Nvidia's Strategic $5 Billion Investment in Intel Reshapes US Chip Industry GUEST NAME: Chris Riegel SUMMARY: Nvidia, led by Jensen Huang, invests $5 billion in Intel, gaining access to manufacturing capabilities while Intel gets crucial funding. This partnership reduces Nvidia's reliance on TSMC and aligns with President Trump's "national champion strategy." The deal comes amid China's ban on Nvidia chips and China's struggle for technological self-sufficiency. 945-1000 HEADLINE: India-China-Russia Axis Dismissed as Propaganda Despite Modi-Xi Handshake GUEST NAME: Sadanand Dhume SUMMARY: Sadanand Dhume dismisses speculation of an India-China-Russia "Eurasian axis" following Modi-Xihandshake at SCO summit as "nonsense." Relations remain hostile due to border disputes with tens of thousands of troops deployed. China's ties with Pakistan, supplying 80% of arms and investing through CPEC, further strain India relations. SECOND HOUR 10-1015 HEADLINE: FBI Closes Investigation Despite Massive Chinese Casino Corruption in US Territory GUEST NAME: Grant Newsham SUMMARY: Former CNMI Governor Arnold Palacios requested FBI investigation into $1.6 billion missing COVID funds and Chinese casino corruption. Imperial Pacific International (IPI) allegedly facilitated money laundering "hundreds of billions," influenced politicians including Governor Torres. CNMI remains only US territory granting visa-free access to Chinese visitors, raising national security concerns. 1015-1030 CONTINUED HEADLINE: FBI Closes Investigation Despite Massive Chinese Casino Corruption in US Territory GUEST NAME: Grant Newsham SUMMARY: Former CNMI Governor Arnold Palacios requested FBI investigation into $1.6 billion missing COVID funds and Chinese casino corruption. Imperial Pacific International (IPI) allegedly facilitated money laundering "hundreds of billions," influenced politicians including Governor Torres. CNMI remains only US territory granting visa-free access to Chinese visitors, raising national security concerns. 1030-1045 HEADLINE: James Webb Telescope Probes Potentially Habitable Exoplanet TRAPPIST-1e GUEST NAME: Néstor Espinoza SUMMARY: Dr. Néstor Espinoza's team uses the James Webb Space Telescope to study TRAPPIST-1e, 40 light-years away in the habitable zone. Using transit method analysis, they've excluded certain atmospheric compositions like cloudless Venus-like atmospheres. The team employs TRAPPIST-1b as a "stellar anchor" to correct distortions, keeping alive hopes of finding atmospheres on red dwarf planets.1045-1100 CONTINUED HEADLINE: James Webb Telescope Probes Potentially Habitable Exoplanet TRAPPIST-1e GUEST NAME: Néstor Espinoza SUMMARY: Dr. Néstor Espinoza's team uses the James Webb Space Telescope to study TRAPPIST-1e, 40 light-years away in the habitable zone. Using transit method analysis, they've excluded certain atmospheric compositions like cloudless Venus-like atmospheres. The team employs TRAPPIST-1b as a "stellar anchor" to correct distortions, keeping alive hopes of finding atmospheres on red dwarf planets. THIRD HOUR 1100-1115 HEADLINE: US Industrial Policy Criticized as Ad-Hoc State Capitalism GUEST NAME: Veronique de Rugy SUMMARY: Veronique de Rugy analyzes government support for Intel and Nvidia's investment as state capitalism, distinct from cronyism. She criticizes government intervention, predicting poor outcomes when businesses operate under political pressure. The Trump administration's industrial policy lacks clear philosophy, creating uncertainty that could "kill investments" through unpredictable, reversible decisions. 1115-1130 HEADLINE: King Charles III Hosts Magnificent State Dinner at Windsor Castle GUEST NAME: Conrad Black SUMMARY: King Charles III and Queen Camilla hosted the President and First Lady at Windsor Castle in a "magnificently done" state dinner. The King demonstrated graciousness and dignified conduct. The President's speech acknowledged America's origins from the British Empire and highlighted Anglo-American cooperation, referencing partnerships like Churchill-Roosevelt and Reagan-Thatcher. 1130-1145 HEADLINE: Trump EPA Faces Uphill Battle to Reverse Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding GUEST NAME: Jonathan Adler SUMMARY: The Trump administration's EPA attempts to reverse the 2009 "endangerment finding" for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Recent Supreme Court rulings, including Loper Bright, ironically make reversal more difficult by eliminating Chevron deference. Courts will focus on statutory language and prior decisions, requiring the EPA to justify reversing decades of statements. 1145-1200 CONTINUED HEADLINE: Trump EPA Faces Uphill Battle to Reverse Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding GUEST NAME: Jonathan Adler SUMMARY: The Trump administration's EPA attempts to reverse the 2009 "endangerment finding" for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Recent Supreme Court rulings, including Loper Bright, ironically make reversal more difficult by eliminating Chevron deference. Courts will focus on statutory language and prior decisions, requiring the EPA to justify reversing decades of statements. FOURTH HOUR 12-1215 HEADLINE: Peru's Political Crisis Deepens as President's Approval Hits 2% GUEST NAME: Evan Ellis SUMMARY: Peru's President Dina Boluarte faces 2-3% approval amid crime and corruption. The 2026 election features candidates including Keiko Fujimori. China dominates Peru's economy through mining investments and the Chancay port. Brazil's Bolsonaro received 27-year sentence for alleged assassination plot against Lula, polarizing society and pushing Brazil toward BRICS nations. 1215-1230 CONTINUED HEADLINE: Peru's Political Crisis Deepens as President's Approval Hits 2% GUEST NAME: Evan Ellis SUMMARY: Peru's President Dina Boluarte faces 2-3% approval amid crime and corruption. The 2026 election features candidates including Keiko Fujimori. China dominates Peru's economy through mining investments and the Chancay port. Brazil's Bolsonaro received 27-year sentence for alleged assassination plot against Lula, polarizing society and pushing Brazil toward BRICS nations. 1230-1245 CONTINUED HEADLINE: Peru's Political Crisis Deepens as President's Approval Hits 2% GUEST NAME: Evan Ellis SUMMARY: Peru's President Dina Boluarte faces 2-3% approval amid crime and corruption. The 2026 election features candidates including Keiko Fujimori. China dominates Peru's economy through mining investments and the Chancay port. Brazil's Bolsonaro received 27-year sentence for alleged assassination plot against Lula, polarizing society and pushing Brazil toward BRICS nations.1245-100 AM CONTINUED HEADLINE: Peru's Political Crisis Deepens as President's Approval Hits 2% GUEST NAME: Evan Ellis SUMMARY: Peru's President Dina Boluarte faces 2-3% approval amid crime and corruption. The 2026 election features candidates including Keiko Fujimori. China dominates Peru's economy through mining investments and the Chancay port. Brazil's Bolsonaro received 27-year sentence for alleged assassination plot against Lula, polarizing society and pushing Brazil toward BRICS nations.

HEADLINE: Trump EPA Faces Uphill Battle to Reverse Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding GUEST NAME: Jonathan Adler SUMMARY: The Trump administration's EPA attempts to reverse the 2009 "endangerment finding" for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Recent Supreme Court rulings, including Loper Bright, ironically make reversal more difficult by eliminating Chevron deference. Courts will focus on statutory language and prior decisions, requiring the EPA to justify reversing decades of statements. 1955

Ozurumba v. Bondi, No. 24-2070 (4th Cir. Sept. 2, 2025)material support of terrorism; duress exception; de minimis; Loper Bright; star decisis; facilitating return of noncitizen; Nigeria Matter of R-E-R-M- & J-D-R-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 202 (A.G. 2025)family based particular social group; L-E-A-; rulemaking; social distinction Matter of S-S-F-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 207 (A.G. 2025)domestic violence; gender; particular social group; unable or unwilling to protect; A-B-; rulemaking  Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025)mandatory detention for all EWIs; redundant and superfluous statutory interpretation  Matter of Dobrotvorskii, 29 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 2025).bond; flight risk; sponsor; DHS bond burden not really a burden McDougall v. Bondi, No. 231722 (4th Cir. Sept. 5, 2025)CAT; ignoring evidence; ignoring claim in cumulative analysis' mental health; race; physical disability; GuyanaSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.  Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Demo Link!Click me too!get.eimmigration.com/events Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me! Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com   Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page! CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreview About your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego Voyager DISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

In April, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to rescind a regulation defining the Endangered Species Act’s prohibition against “harm” to an endangered species to include destruction and modification of habitat. That regulation was previously upheld by the Supreme Court under Chevron in Sweet Home v. Babbitt, over a sharp dissent by Justice Scalia accusing the agency of imposing “unfairness to the point of financial ruin—not just upon the rich, but upon the simplest farmer who finds his land conscripted to national zoological use.” Citing Loper Bright’s overturning of Chevron, the Service proposes to rescind this regulation and adopt Justice Scalia’s opinion as the best reading of the statute. This would substantially curtail regulation of habitat, the loss of which is purportedly the leading threat to endangered species. Join this FedSoc Forum in discussing this proposal, its interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, and the effect of Loper Bright on agencies’ modification of regulations previously upheld under Chevron. Featuring: Karrigan Börk, Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law; Senior Fellow, California Environmental Law and Policy Center; and Director, UC Davis Center for Watershed SciencesWill Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation(Moderator) Jonathan Wood, Vice President of Law & Policy, Property and Environment Research Center

For Part 4b of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court starting from from his page 7 Roman Numeral II.A and B to the top of page 13 through to Roman Numeral II.C in the Slip Opinion. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. We will pick up with Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court at the top of his page 13, Roman Numeral II.C next time. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

O.C.V., et al. v. Bondi, No. 23-9609 (10th Cir. Aug. 26, 2025)family-based particular social group; nexus; Matter of M-R-M-S-; Zombie precedent; vacatur of precedential BIA decision; overcoming animus Sarabia v. Noem, No. 24-50750 (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 2025)certificate of citizenship; dicta; 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(7); 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a); jurisdictional statement; claims processing rule; timely AAO motion to reopen or reconsider; five-year lawsuit deadline Matter of J-A-F-S-, 29 I&N Dec. 195 (BIA 2025)continuance of individual hearing; new forms of relief; prima facie eligibility; dilatory tactics; diligence Lopez Cano v. Bondi, No. 22-1941 (1st Cir. Aug. 28, 2025)cancellation; economic hardship; anxiety; nexus Ortiz Trejo v. Bondi, No. 23-1412 (1st Cir. Aug. 29, 2025)hardship; allergies; “evaluated all evidence of record”; boilerplate language Abdulla v. Att'y Gen. U.S., No. 19-1167 (3d Cir. Aug. 27, 2025)derivative citizenship; Loper Bright; untimely BIA appeal and self-certification; exhaustion; definition of the term “when”; prior panel rule Ibarra-Perez v. United States, No. 24-631 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2025)FTCA; jurisdiction; illegal third-country removal; INA § 242(g) Lopez v. Bondi, No. 23-870 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2025) (denial of en banc rehearing)Loper Bright; star decisis; CIMT definition; invalidating prior precedentSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.  Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Demo Link!Click me too!get.eimmigration.com/resources Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me! Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com   Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page! CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreview About your hostCase notes DISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

In this inaugural episode of our EEOC Exclusive podcast series, Adam Dougherty (shareholder, Dallas) sits down with Jim Paul (shareholder, St. Louis and Tampa), D'Ontae Sylvertooth (shareholder, Washington) and Sean Oliveira (associate, St. Louis) to discuss the intricacies and processes of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The conversation focuses on the impact of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision on EEOC regulations following the dismantling of Chevron deference, particularly in relation to the Prichard v. Long Island University case.

For decades, generations of schoolchildren linked to the video on the Schoolhouse Rock YouTube channellearned from Schoolhouse Rock that bills become laws through careful committee work, open debate, and thoughtful compromise. But as today's episode of UnCommon Law makes clear, that tidy version of lawmaking no longer reflects reality. Instead, leaders often craft omnibus bills in back rooms and create deliberately vague laws that punt hard decisions to federal agencies. But with the Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision ending 40 years of judicial deference to agencies, critics say Congress can no longer hide behind this broken system. In this season finale, we hear from a current and a former senator on opposite sides of the aisle who both argue that Congress must reclaim its constitutional role. They agree that decades of delegating authority to agencies has weakened the legislature, but they diverge on what should happen next. Should lawmakers strip out vague catchall words to limit agency discretion? Or should Congress work more closely with agencies to ensure workable, expert-informed legislation? But can a deeply polarized institution actually change? While both senators agree on some solutions, they differ sharply on whether a different approach is even possible in today's political climate. On today's episode, we explore whether Congress can reclaim its constitutional role. Featuring: Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo. Former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D.

In this episode, we explore the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine through the Loper Bright case, examining its impact on the regulatory landscape in America. In just the first six months after Loper Bright was decided, courts cited the case more than 400 times, leading to the invalidation of new agency rules 84% of the time. This has affected policies ranging from net neutrality to labor regulations to environmental protections. We delve into how Loper Bright has already reshaped American regulatory policy. We also look into how the Trump administration's strategic use of Loper Bright to dismantle Biden-era rules, directing agencies to identify regulations that may be vulnerable under this new legal framework. But is the celebration over Chevron's demise premature? Some legal experts describe Loper Bright as “a Rorschach test inside a crystal ball” suggesting theat its impact might be more complex than anticipated, with different interpretations emerging. Featuring: Helgi Walker, partner at Gibson Dunn and co-chair of their administrative law and regulatory practice group Rebecca Rainey, senior labor department reporter for Bloomberg Law Cary Coglianese, professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and director of the Penn Program on Regulation

Hernandez Guardado v. Bondi, No. 23-92286 (4th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025) particular social group; women; anti-circularity not determinative; El Salvador  Matter of Akhmedov, 29 I&N Dec. 166 (BIA 2025) bond; flight risk; failure to timely file change of address EOIR-33 Matter of Garcia Martinez, 29 I&N Dec. 169 (BIA 2025) filing fees; fee waiver; presumptions Garcia Pinach v. Bondi, No. 22-6421 (2d Cir. Aug. 4, 2025) misdemeanor sexual contact with a minor; NYPL § 130.60(2); aggravated felony; Loper Bright & star decisis; standard of review for equitable tolling Wassily v. Bondi; Velasquez Arreaga v. Bondi, Nos. 22-6247_23-6289 (2d Cir. Aug. 7, 2025) adjustment of status for asylees; INA § 209; T-C-A-; statutory interpretation; definition of granted & status; termination of asylum status Fiddler v. Bondi, No. 24-2604 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2025) CAT purpose; specific intent to torture; mental health; police shootings; Jamaica Cortez, et al. v. Bondi, No. 24-9551 (10th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025)  failure to sign certificate of service; ECAS; BIA rules; form instructions Chavez-Govea v. Bondi, No. 24-9551 (10th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025) IJ asylum filing deadline; continuance; diligence; abuse of discretion; due process; motion to remand Lopez-Martinez v. Bondi, No. 23-10105 (11th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025) substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious standards of review; exceptional and extremely unusual hardship; Wilkinson; overview of standards of review; ADHD, denial of schooling, and whether medications are reasonably available Click me for psych survey!Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.  Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Demo Link!Click me too!get.eimmigration.com/resources  Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me! Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com  CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreview DISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

Our podcast show being released today commemorates the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises - the opinion in which the Court overturned the Chevron Deference Doctrine. The Chevron Deference Doctrine stems from the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The decision basically held that if federal legislation is ambiguous the courts must defer to the regulatory agency's interpretation if the regulation is reasonable. My primary goal was to identify a person who would be universally considered one of the country's leading experts on administrative law and, specifically the Chevron Deference Doctrine and how the courts have applied the Roper opinion. I was very fortunate to recruit Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law at Penn Law School and Director of the Penn Program on Regulation. In this episode we explore two of his recent and widely discussed papers, titled “Loper Bright's Disingenuity” and “The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright” Here are the questions that we discussed with Professor Coglianese: Let's start at the beginning. What is the Chevron case all about? How did the Court in Loper Bright explain why it was overruling Chevron? You have a new article coming out later this year in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review called “Loper Bright's Disingenuity,” co-authored with David Froomkin of the University of Houston. What do you and Professor Froomkin mean by the title of your article?  In your article, you critique what you call the Court's “facile formalism.” What do you mean by that? You also criticize the way the Court based its decision in Loper Bright on the Administrative Procedure Act or APA. What exactly was problematic about the Court's APA analysis?  Let's shift gears from your analysis of the logic of the Loper Bright opinion to talk about what the decision's effects have been so far and what its effects ultimately might be on the future of administrative government in the United States. You have another article on Loper Bright that was recently published in the Administrative Law Review and coauthored with Dan Walters of Texas A&M Law School. It has another provocative title: “The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright.”  What do you mean by the “Great Unsettling”?  Although you say that it is hard to predict exactly what impact Loper Bright will have on the future of administrative government, you also acknowledge that the decision has created a “symbolic shock” and is likely to “punctuate the equilibrium of the administrative governance game as we have come to know it.”  Can we see any effects so far in terms of how Loper Bright is affecting court decisions?  For example, let's start with the Supreme Court itself. Has it had anything more to say about Loper Bright in decisions it's handed down this past year? If we look at the lower courts, what can we discern about how Loper Bright has been received in federal district courts or courts of appeals?  Are there any trends that can be observed? I'd like to bring things full circle by raising a metaphor you and Professor Walters use in your article, “The Great Unsettling.” You say there that the Loper Bright “decision might best be thought of as something of a Rorschach test inside a crystal ball.” What do you mean? Can you tell us what you see inside your crystal ball? Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and former chair and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group hosted the podcast show.  

Administrative law is in flux, nowhere more so than at the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has long made labor law (or “policy”) by issuing decisions and applying its own precedent. But in a recent oral argument at the Seventh Circuit, one member of the panel suggested that he didn't want to hear about […]

Trump, et al. v. Casa, Inc., et al., No. 24-884 (U.S. June 27, 2025)  injunctive relief in immigration cases Riley v. Bondi, No. 23-1270 (U.S. June 26, 2025) withholding of removal review; claims processing rule; 30-day petition for review deadline; FARO; final order of removal Lainez v. Bondi, No. 21-6386 (2d Cir. June 23, 2025) derivative citizenship; former INA § 321(a); establishing paternity through legitimation; Loper Bright; statutory interpretation; affirmative acts to establish paternity Matter of Mayorga Ipina, 29 I&N Dec. 110 (BIA 2025) CIMT; mandatory detention; bond; lewd and lascivious conduct; indecent exposure Matter of C-I-R-H- & H-S-V-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 2025) nexus; identity of persecutors unknown; motive Zalaya Orellana v. Bondi, No. 24-1111 (4th Cir. June 24, 2025) reserved cancellation of removal grant; 4,000 cap; OPPM 17-04; Accardi Doctrine; 8 C.F.R. § 1240.21 Xiquin Xirum v. Bondi, No. 24-1413 (1st Cir. June 25, 2025) cancellation of removal; exceptional and extremely unusual hardship; normal hardship to childrenImmigrants' List Mejia Ponce, et al. v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 23-14124 (11th Cir. June 23, 2025) particular social group definition post-Loper Bright; prior panel's alternative holding; limiting principles Gurkirat Singh v. Bondi, No. 24-3091 (7th Cir. June 24, 2025) low-level Mann party Sikh asylum claim; reasonable relocation as mixed question of law and fact; Matter of Burbano; IndiaSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Demo Link!Click me too!Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me!Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

Divided Argument hosts Daniel Epps and William Baude join Sarah Isgur to unpack the Supreme Court's decision (ahem, non-decision) on birthright citizenship. Plus: a little showdown between two justices. The Agenda:—What the Supreme Court did NOT decide—What the Court DID decide—Similarities to Marbury v. Madison,Loper Bright, and Chevron—Justice Amy Coney Barrett v. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—Judicial supremacy?—Sir, this is not a Denny's—Injunction influx—The future of forum shopping—A big July for Advisory Opinion Show Notes:—SCOTUSblog on the 6-3 decision itself This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Gonzalez Castillo v. Bondi, No. 24-3631 (6th Cir. June 18, 2025)crime of child abuse, abandonment, or neglect; conviction after naturalization; denaturalization; statutory interpretation; rule of lenity; “is convicted” Matter of Roque-Izada, 29 I&N Dec. 106 (BIA 2025)termination of removal proceedings; parole; Cuban Adjustment Act; C.F.R. § 1003.18(d); Cabrera Fernandez; parole Lemus-Escobar v. Bondi, No. 18-73423 (9th Cir. June 16, 2025)mental health; attorney not necessarily adequate safeguard; CIMT; NACARA; Loper Bright; shooting a firearm at an inhabited dwelling in violation of Cal. Pen. Code § 246; attorney withdrawal of asylum application; motion to reopen and discretion; withholding, CAT, and mental health facilities in GuatemalaSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Demo Link!Click me too!Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me!Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show