Podcasts about loper bright

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

This week, we're covering four key employer-focused developments: a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB's) authority, another Fifth Circuit decision restoring pregnant worker protections, the White House's reversal of a key non-compete executive order, and a court ruling against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC's) early right-to-sue policy. NLRB Authority in Jeopardy The Fifth Circuit has ruled that the structure of the NLRB is likely unconstitutional, setting the stage for a potential U.S. Supreme Court review. Epstein Becker Green attorney Erin E. Schaefer tells us more. Fifth Circuit Restores Pregnant Worker Protections The Fifth Circuit also upheld the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), reversing a lower court's preliminary injunction. Employers must now ensure reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions under the PWFA. White House Rescinds Non-Compete Order The current administration has reversed President Biden's 2021 executive order on expansive antitrust enforcement, signaling a return to a more traditional approach to competition reviews. Court Strikes Down EEOC Right-to-Sue Policy A federal court has ruled against the EEOC's policy of automatically issuing early right-to-sue notices in discrimination cases, limiting the practice and its impact on claimants. - Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw402 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

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.  

For Part 4a 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 1 to the top of page 7 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 7 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

Adrienne Frazior, Shareholder, Polsinelli, and Jody Rudman, Office Managing Partner, Husch Blackwell, discuss recent legal developments related to the False Claims Act (FCA) and how the FCA is changing. They cover significant cases (SuperValu, Loper Bright, Polansky, Zafirov), circuit splits involving the FCA and the Anti-Kickback Statute, the overall health of the FCA, DOJ's Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, the renewal of DOJ and HHS' FCA Working Group, and future areas of increased enforcement.Watch this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee3d5-8PhS8Essential Legal Updates, Now in Audio AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast. Stay At the Forefront of Health Legal Education Learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community at https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/.

For Part 3f of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Kagan's dissent continued from her p. 24 (Roman Numeral III) through to the end of that Democrat dissent in the Slip Opinion. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of Kagan's dissent. We will pick up the rest of p.15 of that dissent next time. Footnotes: For the "novice/2 expert problem" I reference Alvin Goldman's "Social Epistemology" entry in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006 version, available here: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2006/entries/epistemology-social/ Be sure to cite your sources early and often. 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

This week, I discuss with my colleague, Kelly N. Garson, a Senior Associate here at B&C and Regulatory Consultant for The Acta Group (Acta®), B&C's consulting affiliate, the implications of the demise of Chevron deference, especially as it relates to Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) litigation. We discuss what Chevron deference is, other types of deference that are still very much a part of judicial review, and how Chevron's elimination could impact the implementation of the 2016 amendments to TSCA given the many issues in dispute now pending before many federal circuit courts. Resources: Lynn L. Bergeson, Kelly N. Garson, “Loper Bright and TSCA: Will the demise of Chevron matter?,” Chemical Watch, July 22, 2024. Environmental Defense Fund v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23-1166 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 20, 2024). ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2025 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

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 […]

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 “Board law.” The judges, he said, could read the statute for themselves. That statement was controversial and thought-provoking. After last term’s blockbuster decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts are no longer supposed to defer to administrative agencies on legal questions. So does that mean Board law is dead? Or is the issue more complicated? Join our panelists as we dissect the issue.Featuring:Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, NYU School of LawAlexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.(Moderator) Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC

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

Federal agencies expanding their power beyond congressional intent? Unelected bureaucrats making policy decisions? Regulatory whiplash?! According to the litigants urging the Supreme Court to strike down the Chevron doctrine in the Loper Bright case, those were the harms Americans would continue to face if Chevron deference were allowed to continue. But striking down the pivotal legal principle that had been in place for 40 years would bring its own risks, defenders of Chevron argued. Scientific and technical decisions would need to be made by judges with no specialized expertise. Regulatory uncertainty would soar, as thousands of existing rules face new challenges. And the Supreme Court itself could be forced to become, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson put it, "uber-legislators." In part two of our episode on Loper Bright, the high court ostensibly considers the plight of the herring fishermen, but actually looks to decide whether to abandon the Chevron doctrine once and for all.Stylebook flag Featured Guests: Ryan Mulvey, counsel with the Cause of Action Institute Jeff Kaelin, director of sustainability and government relations at Lund's Fisheries Wayne Reichle, President of Lund's Fisheries Gillian Metzger, Harlan Fiske Stone Professor of constitutional law at Columbia University Lydia Wheeler, co-host of Cases and Controversies & Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg Law Greg Stohr, co-host of Cases and Controversies & Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg News Kimberly Robinson, co-host of Cases and Controversies & Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg Law *** Hosted and produced by Matthew S. Schwartz Editor/Executive Producer: Josh Block Cover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte Special thanks to Tom Taylor, David Schultz, Paul Detrick, Isabel Gottlieb, and Matt's baby for their vocal performances.

Xia v. Bondi, No. 24-2304 (2d Cir. May 19, 2025)Patel; no jurisdiction to review USCIS denial of adjustment of status United States v. Doe, No. 22-14307 (11th Cir. May 21, 2025)criminal penalties under 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1) for obstructing his removal or not cooperating with the procedures for obtaining travel out of the country; INA § 237(a); no requirement for admission; IIRIRA legislative history; deportation and exclusion  Ramos Goncalves v. Bondi, No. 24-1511 (1st Cir. May 20, 2025)untimely petition for review; post hoc extension; prison mailbox rule Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, No. 21-927 (9th Cir. May 20, 2025)exceptional and extremely unusual hardship; Wilkinson; standard of review; substantial evidence; Loper Bright; hardship in Mexico  Singh-Kar v. Bondi, No. 22-6309 (2d Cir. May 21, 2025)unable or unwilling to protect; ineffective assistance of counsel; Badal Party; Mann party; Sikh asylum claim; India 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!Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me!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

For Part 3e of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Kagan's dissent continued from her p. 15 (Roman Numeral II) to her p. 24 at the top (Roman Numeral III) of that Slip Opinion. We go from p. 15 through to the top of her p. 24 stopping at Roman Numeral III of the Slip Opinion (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of Kagan's dissent. We will pick up the rest of p.15 of that dissent 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

Ozturk v. Hyde, et al., No. 25-1019 (2d Cir. May 7, 2025) and Mahdawi v. Trump, et al., No. 25-1113 (2d Cir. May 9, 2025)habeas; transfer of noncitizens; INA § 241(g); venue; jurisdiction; INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii); INA § 242(g); INA § 242(b)(9); other jurisdiction stripping provisions; government motion for stay; government motion for mandamus  Matter of Choc-Tut, 29 I&N Dec. 48 (BIA 2025)bond; burdens; DUI; criminal court findings Sandoval Argueta v. Bondi, No. 23-60080 (5th Cir. May 9, 2025)crime of child abuse; attempt; Loper Bright; no requirement for actual minor; INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(ii); motion top reconsider from abroad; judicial estoppel; DHS concessions Calvary Albuquerque Inc., et al v. Rubio, et al., No. 24-2066 (10th Cir. May 6, 2025)doctrine of consular nonreviewability; Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); R-1 religious visa; renumeration or payment for B-1 work; fraud or willful misrepresentation; statutory interpretationSponsors 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!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

What's the secret to winning a trade secret trial? Find out in this compelling episode of Spilling Secrets, where Epstein Becker Green attorneys Katherine G. Rigby, James P. Flynn, and Adam Paine break down the art of navigating these high-stakes cases. From designing winning courtroom tactics and leveraging key witnesses to using storytelling as a tool to clarify complex trade secret claims, our panelists offer actionable insights and essential tips for safeguarding confidentiality and determining the right trial format to secure the best outcomes for your business. Visit our site for this week's other highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw389 Spilling Secrets is a special monthly podcast series about the future of non-compete and trade secrets law. We invite you to view Employment Law This Week® – learn about significant developments in employment and labor law and workforce management in a matter of minutes every #WorkforceWednesday®. Watch the series and subscribe for email notifications: http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com. These materials have been provided for informational purposes only and are not intended and should not be construed to constitute legal advice. The content of these materials is copyrighted to Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. EMPLOYMENT LAW THIS WEEK® and #WorkforceWednesday® are registered trademarks of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.

For Part 3d of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Kagan's dissent continued from her p. 12 to p. 15 (Roman Numeral II) of that Slip Opinion. We go from p. 12 to most of the way through p. 15 stopping at Roman Numeral II of the Slip Opinion (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of Kagan's dissent. We will pick up the rest of p.15 of that dissent 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

Blanco Contreras v. Bondi, No. 22-1538 (1st Cir. Apr. 9, 2025)exceptional and extremely unusual hardship; Wilkinson; ignoring evidence; failure to consider psychological reportMatter of Iskandarani, 29 I&N Dec. 26 (BIA 2025)notice of appeal deadline; oral decision; written decision; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b); law addendum  Matter of O-A-R-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 30 (BIA 2025)former police officers; immutability; particular social group; nexus; animus, anti-circularity; M-R-M-S-; police officers; FARC; Colombia  Thankarasa v. Att'y Gen. U.S., No. 23-3204 (3d Cir. Apr. 10, 2025)denying asylum as a matter of discretion; entry fraud; Matt of Pula; reconsidering asylum when withholding of removal is granted; Tamil; Sri Lanka Chavez v. Bondi, No. 23-1379 (4th Cir. Apr. 10, 2025)CIMT; petit larceny; Loper Bright; affirmative defense; mens rea; reprehensible conduct; changing societal norms; due respect for Diaz-LizarragaThank you NILA!https://immigrationlitigation.org/ 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"Click me!The Pen & Sword College (formerly The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law) Use Promo Code: ImmReview2025Link to Nonprofit: https://thepen-and-swordkc.org/ Link to books:https://www.rekhasharmacrawford.com/ Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me!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

For Part 3c of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Kagan's dissent continued from p. 9 of the Slip Opinion. We go from p. 9 to most of the way through p. 12 of the Slip Opinion (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of Kagan's dissent. We will pick up the rest of p.12 of that dissent 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

On this episode of A Hard Look, we're discussing the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright; the case that overruled the infamous Chevron Doctrine. Since last summer, there has been meaningful legal developments within lower circuits. Professor of Law and legal scholar, Cary Coglianese, joins us to discuss what—if any—indications these decisions mean for a post-Loper Bright landscape.(*)* Editorial Note: At the time of recording, this episode referred to the article Professor Coglianese wrote with Professor Daniel E. Walters, “The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright,” as “forthcoming.” This article has since been published and is now available online at the adminstrativelawreview.org.The transcript of the episode can be found here or on our website. Show Notes:Listen to our pre-Loper Bright episode, where we interviewed Daniel M. Sullivan to discuss the critiques and weaknesses of Chevron doctrine, potential constitutional problems with judicial review of agency decisions, and what administrative law may look like after the decision. Read more:Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on SCOTUS BlogLoper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the Future of Agency Interpretations of Law by Congressional Research Service (Dec. 31, 2024)The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright by Cary Coglianese & Daniel E. Walters

For Part 3b of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984). We continue with with the Democrat's dissent written by Justice Kagan defending Chevron. We into the first few pages of Roman numeral I, to the top of page 9 of the Slip Opinion 603 U.S. _____ (2024) (Kagan's dissent), which we will continue to cover 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

For Part 3 of this deep dive we begin the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984). We begin with the Democrat's dissent written by Justice Kagan defending Chevron. We get up to Roman numeral I, which we will cover 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

Rosa v. Bondi, No. 24-1240 (1st Cir. Mar. 14, 2025)DHS burden to prove alienage by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence; Woodby standardWilkinson v. Att'y Gen. U.S., No. 21-3166 (3d Cir. Mar. 11, 2025)extreme and exceptionally unusual hardship; substantial evidence standard of review; psychological harm without experts Rahman v. Bondi, No. 23-3608 (6th Cir. Mar. 13, 2025)types of hardship review; Wilkinson; INA § 212(i) waiver; INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(v) waiver; unlawful presence waiver; no adverse credibility review; satisfaction of the Attorney General Dineshkumar Patel v. Bondi, No. 24-3614 (6th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025)fear of loan sharks; extortion; nexus; acquiesce; India Gulomjonov v. Bondi, No. 21-2844 (7th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025)material change exception to one year asylum filing deadline; Loper Bright; satisfaction of the attorney general; heightened deference; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii); reasonable time; Catholic converts; Uzbekistan  Singh v. Bondi, No. 23-9589 (10th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025)unable or unwilling to protect; reporting to police; State Department reports; Mann party asylum claim; Sikh; 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"Click me!The Pen & Sword College (formerly The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law) Use Promo Code: ImmReview2025Link to Nonprofit: https://thepen-and-swordkc.org/ Link to books: https://www.rekhasharmacrawford.com/ Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me!Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesFeatured in San Diego VoyagerAll praise to the pod's wonderful editors!Luana Lima SerraYasmin LimaDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

For Part 2d of this deep dive we finish the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984) decision. Recall, this decision reversed the RB Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. It was itself reversed last year in 2024 by Republicans on the US Supreme Court. This in turn sets us up for Part 6, where we'll begin to look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. 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

This panel will explore the Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright as well as its major questions cases. What impact will overturning Chevron deference have on the major questions doctrine? How do the two doctrinal developments relate? How do they connect to the non-delegation doctrine? These and related questions will be examined.Featuring:Prof. Eric Bolinder, Assisant Professor of Law, Liberty University School of LawProf. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of LawProf. Brian Slocum, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of LawModerator: Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School

Lau v. Bondi, No. 21-6623 (2d Cir. Mar. 4, 2025)LPR as arriving alien applicant for admission; INA § 101(a)(13)(C)(v); CIMT; Matter of Valenzuela-Felix; parole Penaranda v. Bondi, No. 23-6584 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2025)false testimony, good moral character, and INA § 101(f)(6); Loper Bright and star decisis; Matter of Fernandes; timely assertion of claims processing rule violation; deficient NTA; Wilkinson and non-LPR cancellation of removal Mohammed v. Bondi, No. 24-3649 (6th Cir. Mar. 4, 2025)arson in violation of VA Code § 18.2-77; malice; INA § 101(a)(43)(E)(i) arson aggravated felony; federal accomplice liability; 18 U.S.C. § 2 Laguna Rivera v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 23-12398 (11th Cir. Mar. 5, 2025)prior precedent rule; persecution of family members; exhaustion; failure to raise arguments to the BIA; considering support affidavits after adverse credibility; harm in the past; political involvement in Nicaragua Tian v. Bondi, No. 22-6053 (2d Cir. Mar. 5, 2025)political opinion; opposition to China's property confiscation laws; pretextual arrest as persecution; pretextual prosecution; police beating; BIA failure to analyze material evidenceSponsors 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"Click me!The Pen & Sword College (formerly The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law) Use Promo Code: ImmReview2025Link to Nonprofit: https://thepen-and-swordkc.org/ Link to books: https://www.rekhasharmacrawford.com/ Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me!Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesFeatured in San Diego VoyagerAll praise to the pod's wonderful editors!Luana Lima SerraYasmin LimaDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

Is presidential power out of control, or are we witnessing a necessary correction to decades of bureaucratic overreach? When Trump fired Wilcox from the NLRB, it sparked a constitutional showdown about who really controls the executive branch - and the implications could reshape American governance. Studio Sponsor: Cardio Miracle - "Unlock the secret to a healthier heart, increased energy levels, and transform your cardiovascular fitness like never before.": https://www.briannicholsshow.com/heart Ryan Silverstein, JD candidate at Villanova University, breaks down the explosive battle between President Trump and the administrative state. This isn't just about one firing - it's about whether unelected bureaucrats can create policy without accountability to voters. As Silverstein explains, independent agencies have operated with unprecedented autonomy for decades, making rules that affect millions of Americans without direct oversight. The conversation dives deep into constitutional principles, exploring how the "unitary executive theory" challenges a century of precedent established since Humphrey's Executor in 1935. With the conservative Supreme Court already chipping away at administrative power through recent cases like Loper Bright and SEC v. Jarkesy, this confrontation could be the tipping point that fundamentally restructures government. Brian and Ryan examine the troubling delegation of congressional authority to unelected experts - a trend dramatically accelerated during COVID when "trust the science" became a mandate rather than guidance. The discussion highlights how both parties have abdicated their responsibilities, preferring to pass accountability to faceless bureaucracies rather than face voters with difficult policy choices. The stakes couldn't be higher: will this case return policy-making to elected officials, or will the administrative state continue growing unchecked? As Silverstein concludes, the founders envisioned citizens actively involved in governance, not passively accepting expert rule. This episode offers a master class in constitutional principles and a wake-up call about the future of American democracy. ❤️ Order Cardio Miracle (https://www.briannicholsshow.com/heart) with code TBNS at checkout for 15% off and take a step towards better heart health and overall well-being!

Congress often passes major legislation setting out broad principles, and then lets the federal agencies sort out the details. But what should an agency do if Congress's instructions are ambiguous or silent? That was the question facing the Supreme Court 40 years ago, when the Reagan administration's Environmental Protection Agency adopted a business-friendly interpretation of key provisions of the Clean Air Act. After the Natural Resources Defense Council sued, the Supreme Court set out a principle that would define the extent of agency power for decades – until last year, when Loper Bright upended the way courts evaluate agency actions. This season on Uncommon Law, we'll explore the rise and fall of agency power, and what that could mean for the future of regulation in America. Plus: Will President Trump and his advisor Elon Musk be able to use the new legal landscape to eliminate the regulations they find too burdensome? Featuring: David Doniger, Senior Attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council Jennifer Hijazi, environment reporter for Bloomberg Industry Group

Lapadat, et al. v. Bondi, No. 23-1745 (9th Cir. Feb. 12, 2025)past persecution; being shot; attempted kidnapping; death & rape threats; IJ mischaracterizing testimony; Roma; “gypsies”; pernicious maltreatment; no requirement for lasting injuries; disfavored group analysis for well founded fear; relevance of EU policy Perez-Perez, et al. v. Bondi, No. 23-4240 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2025)FRAP 15(a)(2)(A); listing names of petitioners in case caption Murillo-Chavez v. Bondi, No. 23-1997 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2025)firearms offense; INA § 237(a)(2)(C); antique firearms exception; divisibility; O.R.S. § 166.250; admitted in any status for LPR cancellation; stop-time rule; SIJ status; Supreme Court effectively overruling precedent; criminal mistreatment in violation of O.R.S. § 163.205; CIMT definition & analysis post-Loper Bright Ikome v. Bondi, No. 22-60606 (5th Cir. Feb. 12, 2025)continuance; motion to remand; Patel &Wilkinson; jurisdiction to consider adjustment of status continuance; motion to remand where I-130 approved; due diligence   Porter v. Bondi, No. 24-3125 (6th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025)possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-248; no need for renumeration; CSA felony; methamphetamine isomers; drug divisibility Sanches Alves v. Bondi, No. 24-1258 (1st Cir. Feb. 12, 2025)domestic violence-type asylum claim; nexus; personal dispute Phimmady v. Bondi, No. 24-1330 (1st Cir. Feb. 10, 2025)sua sponte motion to reopen due to vacated conviction; BIA settled course of adjudication; using unpublished BIA decisions; diligence Ferchichi v. Bondi, No. 23-1123 (8th Cir. Feb. 14, 2025)inadequate medical care; nexus; spina bifida; mixed motive; future persecution; AlgeriaSponsors 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"Click me!The Pen & Sword College (formerly The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law) Use Promo Code: ImmReview2025Link to firm: https://sharma-crawford.com/ Link to Nonprofit: https://thepen-and-swordkc.org/ Link to books: https://www.rekhasharmacrawford.com/ Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!All praise to the pod's wonderful editors!Luana Lima SerraYasmin LimaDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

What hath Individual Liberty to do with proper and correct, univocal definitions of terms ? For Part 4 of this deep dive where we will go through the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984) Roman Numerals III through V. Recall, this decision reversed the Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. This in turn sets us up for Part 3, where we'll look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. This could be called Gorsuch v. Gorsuch, like Kramer v. Kramer but son v. Mother instead of spouses. 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

Matter of Baeza-Galindo, 29 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 2025)single scheme of criminal conduct; two or more CIMTs; temporal limitation; INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii); criminal intent   Turner v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 22-11207 (11th Cir. Jan. 30, 2025)former INA 321(a)(3); derivative naturalization; present-perfect tense; legal separation; Loper Bright; Skidmore deferenceSponsors 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"Click me!Immigration Lawyer's Toolboxhttps://immigrationlawyerstoolbox.com/immigration-reviewWant 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 VoyagerAll praise to the pod's wonderful editors!Luana Lima SerraDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

Are you ready to get your Separation of Powers on ? For Part 3 of this deep dive where we will go through the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984) Roman Numerals III through V. Recall, this decision reversed the Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. This in turn sets us up for Part 3, where we'll look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. This could be called Gorsuch v. Gorsuch, like Kramer v. Kramer but son v. Mother instead of spouses. Epiphany 2025 Luke, for TRP Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor

Are you ready to get your Separation of Powers on ? For Part 2 of this deep dive where we will go through the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984), which reversed the Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. This in turn sets us up for Part 3, where we'll look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. This could be called Gorsuch v. Gorsuch, like Kramer v. Kramer but son v. Mother instead of spouses. Epiphany 2025 Luke, for TRP Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor

Based on AHLA's annual Health Law Connections article, this special series brings together thought leaders from across the health law field to discuss the top ten issues of 2025. In the first episode, Hilary Isacson, Assistant General Counsel, Sutter Health, speaks with Daniel J. Hettich, Partner, King & Spalding LLP, about the impact that the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision is having on Medicare reimbursement. They discuss the impact on CMS’ approach to rulemaking and whether providers will have more opportunities to challenge CMS actions, how providers should navigate this new environment, and important cases to follow. From AHLA's Regulation, Accreditation, and Payment Practice Group.Watch the conversation here.AHLA's Health Law Daily Podcast Is Here! AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this new podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast.

What do a dirt bike, a taillight, and the Supreme Court have in common? In this fascinating episode of American Potential, Jeff Crank and new host David From delve into the groundbreaking case United States vs. Pheasant—a seemingly small dispute over a $100 fine that could reshape the boundaries of government power. Joined by Casey Maddox, Vice President for Legal Strategies, they explore the constitutional principles at stake, including the non-delegation doctrine, and how this case challenges the unchecked power of federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management. They also discuss the broader implications of other pivotal cases, such as Loper Bright, and the Supreme Court's role in right-sizing government to align with the founders' vision. Hear how ordinary citizens like Mr. Pheasant are making extraordinary contributions to defending liberty and holding government accountable. This episode is a must-listen for anyone who values freedom, opportunity, and the principles of constitutional government.

Caleb Barlow is joining Ben and Dave to discuss executive protection and the intersection with cybersecurity. They dive into the recent killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and how it has alarmed corporate America, prompting companies to reassess security measures and protect executives amid concerns of copycat attacks. Security firms report a surge in requests for protection, as experts warn of increased risks tied to public outrage over "corporate greed" and the attention the crime has generated. While many firms are investing in extensive security measures, the costs and logistical challenges are significant, leaving smaller companies and less prominent executives particularly vulnerable. While this show covers legal topics, and Ben is a lawyer, the views expressed do not constitute legal advice. For official legal advice on any of the topics we cover, please contact your attorney.  Please take a moment to fill out an audience survey! Let us know how we are doing! Links to the stories: Fear in the C-Suite after UnitedHealthcare CEO gunned down Get the weekly Caveat Briefing delivered to your inbox. Like what you heard? Be sure to check out and subscribe to our Caveat Briefing, a weekly newsletter available exclusively to N2K Pro members on N2K CyberWire's website. N2K Pro members receive our Thursday wrap-up covering the latest in privacy, policy, and research news, including incidents, techniques, compliance, trends, and more. This week's Caveat Briefing covers the story of the U.S. Court of Appeals' striking down of the FCC's net neutrality rules, ending a nearly two-decade battle over regulating broadband providers as utilities. The court ruled that the FCC lacked authority to reinstate these rules, citing a recent Supreme Court decision, Loper Bright, which limits agency powers. While the decision concludes a contentious chapter in tech policy, it leaves state-level net neutrality laws intact and signals a potential call for federal legislative action. Curious about the details? Head over to the Caveat Briefing for the full scoop and additional compelling stories. Got a question you'd like us to answer on our show? You can send your audio file to caveat@thecyberwire.com. Hope to hear from you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Singh v. Garland, No. 23-2065 (9th Cir. Dec. 24, 2024)prior adverse credibility & motion to reopen; disregarding affidavits; corroborating evidence; falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus; Mann party; Sikh; Badal Party Chmukh v. Garland, No. 21-1096 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2024)RCW § 69.50.4013; possession of stolen property aggravated felony; INA § 101(a)(43)(G); particularly serious crime; aggravated felony satisfying N-A-M- first step; dangerousness; issue exhaustion; Ukraine Magana-Magana v. Garland, No. 23-1887 (9th Cir. Dec. 26, 2024)VAWA motion to reopen; jurisdiction; mixed question of law and fact; extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship to children; exhaustion; sua sponte Rodrigues v. Garland, No. 23-1776 (1st Cir. Dec. 27, 2024)well-founded fear; objective reasonableness; drug dealers in Brazil; political opinion opposition to powerful family Chacon-Ruiz v. Garland, No. 21-3694 (8th Cir. Dec. 24, 2024)motion to reopen for exceptional and extremely unusual hardship; motion to reconsider; children in foster care Mateo-Mateo v. Garland, No. 23-2694 (7th Cir. Dec. 24, 2024)family-related violence-type asylum; harm by family member Moctezuma-Reyes v. Garland, No. 24-0274 (6th Cir. Dec. 23, 2024)legal definition of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship; agency deference post-Loper Bright; star decisis post-Loper Bright; rare hardshipNational Immigration Project links:Trial Skills for Immigration CourtJ.O.P. v. DHS Settlement Agreement 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.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Click me!Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: stafi2024Get Started! Promo Code: FREECONTACT 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

This is not for the faint of heart. It's a deep dive into Chevron deference doctrine starting with Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg's DC Circuit opinion in 1982 against Anne Gorsuch, Neil Gorsuch's mother, who was at the time appointed by Republican Ronald Reagan to run the Environmental Protection Agency. We cover Ginsburg's 1982 decision here in Part 1. This sets us up for Part 2 of this deep dive where we will go through the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984), which reversed the Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. This in turn sets us up for Part 3, where we'll look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. This could be called Gorsuch v. Gorsuch, like Kramer v. Kramer but son v. Mother instead of spouses. Merry Christmas season to you from Trp. Luke, for TRP Donate on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor

Bonnie Treichel, founder and chief solutions officer of Endeavor Retirement, joins hosts Jennifer Doss and Pete Ruffell for an in-depth analysis of key litigation trends affecting the retirement industry. The discussion focuses on the complexities and implications of ERISA lawsuits, including the surge of copycat lawsuits targeting similar fiduciary breaches. Also addressed are emerging risks such as cybersecurity and managed accounts, alongside potential impacts from the Supreme Court's Loper Bright case on agency interpretations. Plus, delve into the evolving Department of Labor regulations under the current administration and their potential effects on industry compliance and fiduciary responsibilities.

This week, Scott was joined by his Lawfare colleagues Benjamin Wittes, Eugenia Lostri, and Tyler McBrien to break down the week's big national security news, including:“The Long Road to Damascus.” Syria's Assad regime collapsed suddenly last week in the face of a rebel offensive, ending thirteen years of revolution. What comes next, however, is anyone's guess. How will this shift impact regional security? And how is the incoming Trump administration likely to respond?“Pardonez-Moi.” President-elect Donald Trump's decision to nominate unabashed loyalist Kash Patel—a person who has published a book listing political enemies he thinks should be prosecuted by the Justice Department—for the soon-to-be-vacant position of FBI Director has renewed concerns that the incoming Trump administration will use the Justice Department to prosecute his political enemies. President Biden may have responded in part by pardoning his son Hunter for a wide range of conduct—and some are arguing he should extend similar protections to others the Trump administration may target. How real is the threat of such targeted prosecution? And are preemptive pardons the right protection?“Not in Kansas Anymore.” The Fifth Circuit recently issued what may prove to be a landmark sanctions decision, holding that certain Tornado Cash automated cryptocurrency contractual mechanisms sanctioned by the Treasury Department do not constitute “property” within the meaning of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and thus cannot be sanctioned. It's also one of the first appellate court decisions to apply the Supreme Court's recent Loper Bright decision, which ended Chevron deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, in the national security context. How persuasive is the court's opinion? And what impact will it have on U.S. policy in this area?For object lessons, Ben endorsed(?) Kash Patel's three childrens' books as confirmation must-reads. Eugenia amped up everyones' holiday parties with a surefire recipe for maple cookies. Scott recommended the Lion's Tail as a surprisingly seasonal tiki-ish cocktail. And Tyler celebrated transition season with three recommended political profiles, specifically of Kash Patel, Ron Desantis, and Donald Trump circa 1997.Also, Rational Security will be saying goodbye to 2024 in its traditional fashion: by discussing listener-submitted topics and object lessons! To submit yours, call in to (202) 743-5831 to leave a voicemail or email rationalsecurity@lawfaremedia.org. Just do it by COB on December 18!To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott was joined by his Lawfare colleagues Benjamin Wittes, Eugenia Lostri, and Tyler McBrien to break down the week's big national security news, including:“The Long Road to Damascus.” Syria's Assad regime collapsed suddenly last week in the face of a rebel offensive, ending thirteen years of revolution. What comes next, however, is anyone's guess. How will this shift impact regional security? And how is the incoming Trump administration likely to respond?“Pardonez-Moi.” President-elect Donald Trump's decision to nominate unabashed loyalist Kash Patel—a person who has published a book listing political enemies he thinks should be prosecuted by the Justice Department—for the soon-to-be-vacant position of FBI Director has renewed concerns that the incoming Trump administration will use the Justice Department to prosecute his political enemies. President Biden may have responded in part by pardoning his son Hunter for a wide range of conduct—and some are arguing he should extend similar protections to others the Trump administration may target. How real is the threat of such targeted prosecution? And are preemptive pardons the right protection?“Not in Kansas Anymore.” The Fifth Circuit recently issued what may prove to be a landmark sanctions decision, holding that certain Tornado Cash automated cryptocurrency contractual mechanisms sanctioned by the Treasury Department do not constitute “property” within the meaning of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and thus cannot be sanctioned. It's also one of the first appellate court decisions to apply the Supreme Court's recent Loper Bright decision, which ended Chevron deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, in the national security context. How persuasive is the court's opinion? And what impact will it have on U.S. policy in this area?For object lessons, Ben endorsed(?) Kash Patel's three childrens' books as confirmation must-reads. Eugenia amped up everyones' holiday parties with a surefire recipe for maple cookies. Scott recommended the Lion's Tail as a surprisingly seasonal tiki-ish cocktail. And Tyler celebrated transition season with three recommended political profiles, specifically of Kash Patel, Ron Desantis, and Donald Trump circa 1997.Also, Rational Security will be saying goodbye to 2024 in its traditional fashion: by discussing listener-submitted topics and object lessons! To submit yours, call in to (202) 743-5831 to leave a voicemail or email rationalsecurity@lawfaremedia.org. Just do it by COB on December 18!To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and Senior Editor at Lawfare, and Molly Reynolds, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and Senior Editor at Lawfare, spoke with Bridget Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, and Nick Bednar, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, about the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled the decades-long Chevron doctrine that required courts to defer to reasonable interpretations of their statutes.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.