Podcasts about loper bright

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

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!

In this final episode of our Year in Review series, Chris Willis is joined by colleagues David Anthony, Stefanie Jackman, and Jonathan Floyd to discuss the year in review and look ahead for debt collection. They provide crucial updates on significant developments in 2024, including the heightened regulatory focus on medical debt at both federal and state levels, and the implications of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) uncertain future. The team also explores the impact of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision on agency interpretations and the increasing trend of debt collection litigation moving to state courts. Gain insights into the current legal landscape, potential future developments, and practical advice for navigating these complex issues in 2025. Don't miss this essential discussion for anyone in the consumer financial services industry.

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.

Send us a textIn this episode of Tank Talk, we explore the implications of the Supreme Court's recent Loper Bright decision with shareholder Andy Leman of Kemppel, Huffman & Ellis, P.C. Andy provides a straightforward overview of how this ruling shifts regulatory authority, its potential impact on industries, and what it means for environmental compliance moving forward. From court interpretations to agency rulemaking, this conversation sheds light on the evolving legal landscape and its broader effects. As an added bonus, Andy shares a few memorable stories about working in Alaska. Support the showintro/outro created with GarageBand

This week, while recognizing that it's far from “business as usual” in California and keeping our friends and clients in mind, we look at a new ruling in California regarding Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) arbitrations. We also examine a federal appeals court decision limiting the authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the flurry of new employment laws taking effect in 2025. PAGA Ruling in California In what's seen as a win for California employers, the California Court of Appeal recently ruled that every PAGA action necessarily includes an individual PAGA action. Third Circuit Limits NLRB's Authority Over the last year, the NLRB expanded its enforcement priorities and tested the limits of its authority. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit finished 2024 with a rebuke of those efforts, curbing the NLRB's authority to order legal relief. New Employment Laws in 2025 A new year brings new laws and regulations, many of which took effect on January 1. Employers can stay up to date on local and state laws and regulations by downloading our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app, which is updated each February. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw374 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/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.

Hello, and welcome back to Bank Nerd Corner, the first Bank Nerd Corner of 2025. I'm Alex Johnson, joined as always by the brilliant Kiah Haslett, Banking and Fintech Editor at Bank Director.  Here's what we're unpacking this week. First up, the CFPB has sued the biggest names in banking—Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase—along with Early Warning Services (EWS), the backbone of Zelle, for allegedly dropping the ball on fraud protections. With over $870M lost to scams since 2017, we're asking: Are banks scapegoats for a bigger mess involving social media and telecoms? Ultimately, how much consumer protection is enough—and who pays the price? Next up, two cases—Loper Bright (aka Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo) and Jarkesy (aka SEC v. Jarkesy)—are shaking up regulatory agencies like the Fed and FDIC. Are we going to see a power shift or a regulatory takedown? If the Fed blinks first, do banks get to rewrite the rules—and does "too big to fail" become DIY? Then there's the disclosure debate. Can companies like Zelle or the FDIC "warn away" liability with fine print? If streamlined experiences make users vulnerable, will regulators demand clearer disclosures? Is it the end of seamless user experience...and trust as we know it? Finally, don't miss our 2025 predictions. Could Capital One acquiring Discover signal a regulatory shift favoring big bank M&A? Will a fintech actually grab a bank charter this year?  Oh hello, New Year; you're going to be wild!

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

This Day in Legal History: Korematsu DecisionOn December 18, 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its controversial decision in Korematsu v. United States, upholding the forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. The case challenged Executive Order 9066, issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942, which authorized the removal of over 120,000 Japanese Americans from their homes to internment camps. Fred Korematsu, a U.S. citizen of Japanese descent, defied the order, arguing that it violated his constitutional rights.In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the internment was a valid exercise of wartime authority, emphasizing the need to protect national security over individual rights during a period of "emergency and peril." Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black stated that the internment was not based on racial prejudice but on military necessity, a justification many have since criticized as a flawed rationale.The dissenting justices, including Justice Murphy, condemned the decision as a blatant violation of constitutional rights and a form of racial discrimination. Justice Murphy called the internment camps "a legalization of racism," while Justice Jackson warned of the dangerous precedent the ruling could set.Though the decision has never been explicitly overturned, Korematsu has been widely discredited. In 1983, Korematsu's conviction was vacated by a federal court, acknowledging government misconduct in the case. In 2018, the Supreme Court criticized the decision in Trump v. Hawaii, stating it "was gravely wrong the day it was decided."The legacy of Korematsu remains a stark reminder of the fragility of civil liberties during times of fear and conflict, prompting ongoing discussions about justice, prejudice, and constitutional protections. It should inspire us to question how firmly we hold our principles when we don't hold fast to them in the face of consequence but instead abandon them entirely; when we preference a temporary assuaging of fear among the skittish masses above the rights of citizens. Korematsu remains a stain on U.S. history and carries continued resonance into the modern day, as we confront the consequences of electing a president, House, and Senate largely on the strength of their promise to intern ethnic minorities. Those that would seek to distance our actions today from 1944 would suggest that interned Japanese-Americans were largely citizens, and detained immigrants today are not – but this raises the question of who controls the bestowing of citizenship, the immigrant or the state?A federal judge, Michael Ponsor, faced ethical violations after criticizing Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in a New York Times essay. Ponsor condemned Alito for displaying controversial flags outside his properties, including an upside-down American flag associated with Trump supporters during the January 6 Capitol riot. The critique spurred a judicial misconduct complaint by the conservative Article III Project, leading to an investigation.Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Albert Diaz ruled that Ponsor's essay undermined public confidence in judicial integrity and violated the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges by commenting on partisan issues. Though the essay did not reference a specific case, it coincided with debates about Alito's potential recusal from cases involving the January 6 riot and Trump's immunity bid. Ponsor apologized in a letter, acknowledging the ethical breach and committing to consulting judicial panels before future public writings.The controversy highlights tensions surrounding judicial impartiality and political commentary, particularly as it intersects with high-profile cases and public scrutiny. Just to check the box score here, that is one judicial misconduct violation for the judge that criticized the justice that flew insurrectionist flags at his home–none for the latter. Judge's criticism of US Supreme Court's Alito over flags is deemed improper | ReutersElon Musk has publicly opposed the Republican plan to temporarily fund the government, adding tension to Speaker Mike Johnson's efforts to secure a deal before Friday's shutdown deadline. The proposed legislation includes billions in disaster relief and agricultural funding, angering fiscal conservatives. Musk, tapped by President-elect Donald Trump to advise on government efficiency, criticized the bill on X, reflecting growing conservative discontent. Johnson acknowledged Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's concerns but stressed the need for bipartisan cooperation given the narrow Republican majority.The funding dispute highlights ongoing GOP divisions that previously ousted Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Johnson faces an even slimmer majority due to recent election losses and Trump's appointment of three Republican representatives to his administration. This leaves the party with a precarious one-vote margin until special elections in April. Conservatives like Marjorie Taylor Greene have criticized the bill's added spending as unnecessary, predicting it will gain more Democratic than Republican support, risking further internal conflict.Johnson remains confident about retaining his position as Speaker despite challenges, emphasizing his focus on immediate legislative priorities, including the budget blueprint and border security measures.Trump Key Adviser Musk Comes Out Against Year-End Funding BillA special master has ordered TikTok Inc. to provide source code, financial data, and usage data for its apps, including CapCut and BytePlus Video Editor, in a trade secrets and copyright infringement case filed by Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co. The Chinese tech company alleges that TikTok misappropriated its video and audio editing source code, accusing a former Meishe engineer of trade theft before joining TikTok.The case, originally filed in Texas in 2021, was transferred to California in 2023. TikTok argued that discovery about its apps, including Faceu and Lemon8, was irrelevant because U.S. laws do not typically apply to conduct outside the country. However, the special master, Hon. Kendall J. Newman (Ret.), ruled that discovery was necessary since Meishe may recover damages for foreign infringement if it can show TikTok copied its code in the U.S. and used it abroad.TikTok has 30 days to comply with the order, which allows Meishe to pursue claims involving extraterritorial damages. Meanwhile, TikTok also faces a potential U.S. government ban unless its parent company, ByteDance Ltd., divests the app by January 19. On the same day, Newman partially granted TikTok's request to compel Meishe to disclose documents about its affiliate XAT, which allegedly developed the disputed source code.TikTok Must Turn Over Code, Financial Data in Trade Secrets SuitDemocratic state attorneys general (AGs) are preparing to defend environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives against expected challenges from the incoming Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress. They plan to leverage the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limits agency regulatory authority, to counter potential anti-ESG actions that lack explicit congressional approval. Minnesota AG Keith Ellison and Nevada AG Aaron Ford emphasized their readiness to use legal frameworks like the Administrative Procedure Act and Loper Bright to protect ESG-related policies.Concerns include possible rollbacks of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules facilitating ESG proposals, restrictions on corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and curtailment of climate-related disclosures. The GOP's Project 2025 agenda calls for sweeping changes, including a task force to challenge ESG/DEI practices and reclassification of DEI as discriminatory. Ellison and Ford argue such measures risk undermining civil rights and shareholder freedoms.Democratic AGs have pledged to challenge these policies in court and defend existing ESG regulations, such as the SEC's climate disclosure rules. Meanwhile, Republican AGs are aligning with Trump's deregulatory agenda, with Tennessee AG Jonathan Skrmetti noting their support through briefs and interventions. Both sides are preparing for extensive legal battles over the regulatory future of ESG and DEI initiatives.Blue State AGs Prepare to Use Loper Bright Ruling to Defend ESG 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

It has been a pivotal year for employers, marked by challenges to federal agency authority, sweeping state-level regulatory changes, and the looming impact of a presidential election poised to reshape labor laws nationwide. In this episode, attorneys from Epstein Becker Green's Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice reflect on these challenges, address key client pain points, and share their insights on what the future may bring. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw372 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/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.

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.

“Administrative burdens” is a term for the frictions people experience when interacting with government—learning how a program works, taking the time to fill out paperwork, and experiencing the frustrations and shame that can come from the process. Sometimes this is accidental—just the result of a bureaucracy failing to think through how it interacts with citizens. But it can also be purposeful—a way for politicians and policymakers to limit or direct programs without openly admitting to it. In this conversation, Donald Moynihan describes how administrative burdens affect how citizens experience government agencies and how interactions between the three branches of federal government can get in the way of efficient and effective public service. Donald Moynihan is a public policy professor at the University of Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy and codirects the Better Government Lab at Georgetown University. He previously served as the McCourt Chair for Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy and as director of the University of Wisconsin-Madison's La Follette School. His work focuses on the administrative burdens citizens encounter during interactions with government. In addition to his research, Moynihan is the president of the Association for Public Policy and Management. https://donmoynihan.substack.com/

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.

In episode 176, Coffey talks with Steve Peglar about recent HR news and Reddit threads including the reversal of DOL overtime thresholds workplace (dis)satisfaction, the “overemployment” phenomenon, and changing employee expectations.They discuss the federal court's overturn of DOL's changes to overtime salary thresholds following the Loper Bright decision and implications for employers; declining employee quit rates despite widespread feelings of being "stuck" in current roles; the growing phenomenon of "overemployed" remote workers secretly holding multiple full-time jobs; and the continued impact of COVID-19 on workforce expectations.Links to stuff they talked about are on our website at https://goodmorninghr.com/EP176 and include the following topics:Federal Court Strikes Down the U.S. Department of Labor's Overtime RuleWhy resentment is sweeping through the American workforceGlassdoor Worklife Trends 2025Basics of OE - How to Freeze TWN, Lexis Nexis, etc.Good Morning, HR is brought to you by Imperative—Bulletproof Background Checks. For more information about our commitment to quality and excellent customer service, visit us at https://imperativeinfo.com. If you are an HRCI or SHRM-certified professional, this episode of Good Morning, HR has been pre-approved for half a recertification credit. To obtain the recertification information for this episode, visit https://goodmorninghr.com. About our Guest:Steve Peglar is a senior HR leader with 30 years of extensive and diverse experience in HR consulting and management.  Steve is the principal at human resources consulting firm HR Strategies of Texas.Throughout his career, Steve has maintained a strategic and tactical focus in a wide variety of human resources areas including HR legal & regulatory compliance, employee relations, policy development, EEO, organizational development, HR best practices, organizational culture, HR audits & reviews, workplace investigations, training & development, onboarding, outplacement, executive coaching, personality/workplace profiles (certified analyst with MBTI, Predictive Index, & True Colors), organizational studies, change management, performance management systems, organizational design, succession planning, workplace surveys, affirmative action plan development, compensation plan design & administration, market-based compensation analysis, total rewards program design, recruiting & executive search, HR technology, workplace benefits, M&A due diligence audits, expert witness testimony & litigation support, strategic planning facilitation, international human resources, employee immigration issues, labor relations, executive compensation, workplace safety, and more.Steve is active in the community and has worked with a variety of nonprofit service organizations, including having served on the boards of directors of Community Healthcare of Texas (Board Chair), the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, Lighthouse for the Blind of Fort Worth (Board Chair & Board of Trustees member), Susan G. Komen Foundation of Greater Fort Worth, Boy Scouts of America Longhorn Council, the YMCA, and Fort Worth HR.  He is also a graduate of the 2014 Leadership Fort Worth Class.  In addition, he is a member of Austin SHRM (where he has served as a professional mentor) and the Austin Association for Talent Development.Steve Peglar can be reached athttps://www.linkedin.com/in/stevepeglar https://www.hrstrategiestx.com About Mike Coffey:Mike Coffey is an entrepreneur, licensed private investigator, business strategist, HR consultant, and registered yoga teacher.In 1999, he founded Imperative, a background investigations and due diligence firm helping risk-averse clients make well-informed decisions about the people they involve in their business.Imperative delivers in-depth employment background investigations, know-your-customer and anti-money laundering compliance, and due diligence investigations to more than 300 risk-averse corporate clients across the US, and, through its PFC Caregiver & Household Screening brand, many more private estates, family offices, and personal service agencies.Imperative has been named the Texas Association of Business' small business of the year and is accredited by the Professional Background Screening Association. Mike shares his insight from 25 years of HR-entrepreneurship on the Good Morning, HR podcast, where each week he talks to business leaders about bringing people together to create value for customers, shareholders, and community.Mike has been recognized as an Entrepreneur of Excellence by FW, Inc. and has twice been recognized as the North Texas HR Professional of the Year. Mike is a member of the Fort Worth chapter of the Entrepreneurs' Organization and is a volunteer leader with the SHRM Texas State Council and the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce.Mike is a certified Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) through the HR Certification Institute and a SHRM Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP). He is also a Yoga Alliance registered yoga teacher (RYT-200).Mike and his very patient wife of 27 years are empty nesters in Fort Worth.Learning Objectives:Evaluate strategic approaches to employee classification and compensation in light of changing DOL regulations while maintaining positive employee relations.Identify and address signs of employee disengagement and feelings of career stagnation through improved management practices and growth opportunities.Implement stronger employment verification and performance monitoring practices to prevent unauthorized multiple job holding among remote workers.

The Supreme Court’s most recent term was one of significance with respect to the separation of powers. The Court held that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for most official acts. The Court also overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and determined that administrative agencies typically cannot impose civil penalties against individuals without a jury trial in SEC v. Jarkesy. These cases followed not long after the Supreme Court’s express recognition of the major-questions doctrine in West Virginia v. EPA. Yet the Supreme Court also upheld the CFPB’s novel funding method in the face of an Appropriation Clause challenge, issued an important opinion bearing on facial challenges in Moody v. NetChoice, and rejected a petition asking that it reconsider the nondelegation doctrine. What is driving these decisions—originalism, history, or pragmatic concerns? What issues might be ripe for further development or reexamination—nondelegation, removal restrictions on officers, the major questions doctrine, or something else? And how should advocates think about separation of powers challenges moving forward, in the context of both strategic and corporate litigation?FeaturingMr. Russell Balikian, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPMs. Zhonette Brown, General Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceMr. Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLPMr. Luke McCloud, Partner, Williams & ConnollyModerator: Hon. Daniel Bress, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

This year, in a pair of decisions known as Loper Bright, the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine. As courts begin to apply the principles announced in Loper Bright, important changes are expected to occur within the federal government and its relationship to the states. For example, Congress may begin to write federal statutes with increasing specificity, courts may begin to apply their own reasoned judgment instead of deferring to agency experts in litigation involving the Administrative Procedure Act, and the states may have greater success in asserting their authority over important legal matters within their domain.These developments in administrative law will likely have a large effect on the realm of environmental and energy regulation. If courts can no longer presume that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations by Congress to the Executive Branch, how ought Congress, federal agencies, and the states respond to a post-Chevron world?Featuring:Prof. Todd Aagaard, Professor of Law, Charles Widger School Of Law, Villanova UniversityHon. Lindsay See, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionHon. Andrew Wheeler, Partner and Head of Federal Affairs, Holland & Hart; Former EPA AdministratorModerator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Legal experts break down the tax planning take aways from recent Supreme Court rulings Loper Bright and Corner Post, explaining that Chevron deference is gone. The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, ACTEC, is a professional society of peer-elected trust and estate lawyers in the United States and around the globe. This series offers professionals best practice advice, insights and commentary on subjects that affect the profession and clients. Learn more in this podcast.

Federal regulations shape the workplace environment daily. With the Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine, the Court's ruling in the Jarkesy decision, and the anticipated return of the Trump administration in January 2025, businesses face a dynamic regulatory landscape. These developments and ongoing challenges to federal agency authority could significantly impact employers.  Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Workplace Law and Recent Supreme Court Decisions 02:04 Impact of Loper Bright on Workplace Regulations 05:50 Ongoing Legal Challenges and Agency Authority 12:03 The Jarkesy Decision and Its Implications 18:05 Future of Administrative Agencies and Regulatory Landscape

This Day in Legal History: Jay Treaty SignedOn November 19, 1794, the United States and Great Britain signed the Jay Treaty, formally titled the “Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation.” Negotiated by U.S. Chief Justice John Jay and British Foreign Secretary Lord Grenville, the treaty sought to resolve lingering tensions between the two nations following the American Revolutionary War. At its core, the agreement facilitated the withdrawal of British troops from forts in the Northwest Territory, a region that was still contested despite American sovereignty being recognized in the Treaty of Paris (1783).The treaty also addressed contentious issues such as British seizure of American ships and the debts owed by American citizens to British creditors. While the agreement provided for limited American trade rights in the British West Indies and a framework for resolving disputes over the U.S.-Canada border, it failed to stop British impressment of American sailors or guarantee broader trading rights. Domestically, the treaty sparked fierce political debate, with Federalists supporting it as a means of preserving peace and economic stability, while Jeffersonian Republicans decried it as overly conciliatory to British interests.The Jay Treaty is historically significant for establishing a precedent for diplomatic negotiation and emphasizing the importance of peaceful dispute resolution. While controversial at the time, it ultimately helped avert war with Britain and allowed the young United States to stabilize its economy and focus on internal growth. Its ratification in 1795 marked an important step in shaping U.S. foreign policy during its formative years. The treaty's mixed reception underscored the deepening political divisions in the United States, foreshadowing the partisan struggles that would define early American governance.Big Law firms are poised to see significant lobbying revenue gains under anticipated Republican control of the White House and Congress, as the GOP aims to advance a pro-business, “America First” agenda. Key areas of focus for lobbyists include revisiting elements of the 2017 tax law, reversing restrictions on fossil fuel development imposed by the Biden administration, and assisting with the confirmation of cabinet nominees. The Supreme Court's recent Loper Bright decision, which limits federal agencies' ability to interpret vague laws, adds another layer of legislative complexity, increasing demand for legal expertise in technical drafting.The potential uptick in lobbying activity echoes patterns seen in prior shifts of political power. Lobbying revenue rose sharply in 2017 and 2021 during transitions to unified party control. Firms like Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Akin Gump, Squire Patton Boggs, and K&L Gates are particularly well-positioned, with some deriving significant portions of their income from federal lobbying efforts. Brownstein Hyatt leads the pack, earning $50.9 million in lobbying revenue through the first three quarters of 2024.Major firms are already representing high-profile clients. For instance, Brownstein Hyatt has advocated for Apollo Global Management on portfolio-related issues, while Squire Patton Boggs has worked on food regulation for Mars Inc. Energy-related lobbying, such as advocating for liquefied natural gas export permits, is also expected to surge as Republicans aim to repeal Biden-era restrictions. Appropriations negotiations may further boost lobbying opportunities, as delayed bills give the GOP more leverage.Big Law Lobbyists See GOP Trifecta Haul Including Tax, EnergyThe State Bar of California has approved a proposal to expunge attorney discipline records from public view after eight years, provided the attorney has not faced subsequent disciplinary action during that time. This measure, which excludes cases of disbarment, aims to address racial disparities in the attorney discipline system. A 2019 study revealed that Black male attorneys in California were over three times more likely than their white counterparts to face probation, prompting a 2023 review committee to recommend changes to the system. The proposal now awaits approval from the California Supreme Court.The expungement policy is intended to balance accountability, transparency, and redemption opportunities, aligning California's attorney discipline practices with those in other states and professions like medicine and real estate. Critics, however, argue it could undermine transparency and public trust, with 74% of public comments opposing the plan. In contrast, a majority of attorney comments—69%—supported the change, noting it incentivizes maintaining clean records. If implemented, an estimated 2,353 attorneys would be immediately eligible for expungement. California, the second-largest state bar by membership, projects that this policy will reduce the long-term stigma attached to past disciplinary actions.California Bar aims to expunge attorney discipline records after 8 years | ReutersThe losing bidder for Alex Jones' bankrupt Infowars empire is challenging The Onion's winning bid, arguing it offered less cash and relied on questionable claim waivers. First United American Companies LLC (FUAC), which bid $3.5 million in cash, claims its offer was superior to The Onion parent company Global Tetrahedron LLC's $1.75 million bid. FUAC accuses The Onion of colluding with Sandy Hook families who supported the bid by waiving part of their claims against Jones.The bankruptcy trustee overseeing the sale, Christopher Murray, defended the auction as transparent and noted that the Sandy Hook families' waiver improved the overall value of The Onion's bid. The waiver was key in positioning The Onion's bid as the best-value offer, despite its lower cash amount. FUAC countered that these waivers are speculative and provide no real value to the bankruptcy estate, calling them akin to “monopoly” money.Judge Christopher M. Lopez, who previously raised concerns about the auction's transparency, is now considering the motion to disqualify The Onion's bid. The sale is part of an effort to liquidate Jones' estate and pay down the $1.5 billion in defamation judgments against him for spreading false claims about the Sandy Hook shooting. The trustee dismissed FUAC's accusations as baseless and an attempt to mislead the court.In case you haven't figured it out already, FUAC is a company affiliated with Alex Jones' snake oil sales. Obviously, Jones has an interest in seeing his assets purchased by a friendly company rather than The Onion which … is not friendly to Jones' interests. Infowars Bidder Moves to Disqualify The Onion's Winning OfferThe 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared likely to dismiss appeals by Amazon and SpaceX challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), arguing the companies acted prematurely. Both companies sought to block NLRB cases alleging labor violations, with Amazon opposing a unionization case and SpaceX contesting claims of retaliatory firings. However, the appeals panel suggested that Amazon and SpaceX did not give lower court judges enough time to rule before filing their appeals.  Amazon's case, initially in Texas, was transferred to Washington, D.C., and SpaceX's to California, though these transfers are on hold pending appeals. The judges questioned whether the delays cited by Amazon and SpaceX constituted "effective denials," a standard necessary for appeals. Judge James Graves noted Amazon's unrealistic deadline demands, while Judge Irma Ramirez questioned SpaceX's assertion of deliberate judicial delay.  The NLRB argued that the companies imposed arbitrary deadlines to expedite decisions and delayed proceedings by resisting case transfers. Both companies face significant underlying NLRB cases, with Amazon fighting unionization at a New York warehouse and SpaceX denying allegations of retaliatory firings. If the appeals are dismissed, the companies could request a review by the full 5th Circuit, known for its conservative leanings.Amazon, SpaceX challenges to NLRB may be thrown out of appeals court | 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

Last term, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This watershed ruling included the notable line, “Chevron is overruled.” The federal judiciary is now to review agencies’ interpretations of statutes that are “silent or ambiguous” without affording an agency deference.This decision is already affecting administrative law and the review of agency rulemaking. It is being widely cited by both litigants and courts. For example, in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit recently held that the EPA misinterpreted the term “new” when it classified certain sources of hazardous air pollutants as “new” rather than “existing.” EPA’s determination to make those “existing” sources accountable for the rule’s stricter regulations for “new” sources was vacated. Join us for a discussion of how Loper Bright has already impacted this and other agency actions, and what else we might expect in a post-Chevron world. Featuring:Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of LawProf. Andrew Mergen, Emmett Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law in Environmental Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Rob Percival, Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law, University of Maryland Carey School of LawModerator: Jonathan Brightbill, Former Acting Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP--To register, click the link above.

Farhane v. United States, No. 20-1666 (2d Cir. Oct. 31, 2024) (en banc)denaturalization; ineffective assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings; Strickland; collateral consequences; Padilla Matter of Khan, 28 I&N Dec. 850 (BIA 2024)CIMT; categorical approach; consideration elements of sentence enhancement; gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated; Cal. Pen. Code § 191.5(b); sentencing enhancement for fleeing the scene of an accident Cal. Veh. Code § 20001(c); combining mens rea and actus reas; standalone § 212(h) waiver; continuous residence for LPR cancellation  Diaz-Arellano v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 22-12446 (11th Cir. Oct. 29, 2024)aging out qualifying relatives; non-LPR cancellation of removal; Loper Bright Sustaita-Cordova v. Garland, No. 23-60095 (5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2024)hardship review; Wilkinson and good moral character; contested facts; U visa waiver; deficient NTA claims processing rule Seldon v. Garland, No. 24-0246 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2024)fraud; § 237(a)(1)(H) waiver & joint I-751 petition; Loper Bright; Kisor deference; Bador; failure to inform about asylum or other relief; refusal to answer questions at interview 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: FREEImmigration 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 VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

The impact of the Loper Bright and Jarkesy decisions could be widely felt including in increased immigration litigation and challenges. Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Workplace Law and Recent Supreme Court Decisions 02:51 Impact of Loper Brighton Immigration Compliance 05:46 Understanding the Jarkesy Decision and Its Implications 09:02 Case Studies: Walmart and SpaceX Decisions 11:45 Challenges to Administrative Authority and Future Litigation 15:09 The Future of Immigration Policies and Employer Leverage 18:01 Conclusion and Future Outlook on Workplace Law

Tanner Jones and Jonathan Wolfson from the Cicero Institute discuss their co-authored paper titled "Restoring Legislative Authority: A Balanced Approach to Agency Deference." They explore the implications of the Chevron deference decision and the Loper Bright case. The conversation addresses the impact of these decisions on administrative law, regulation, and specifically on the states.

The Loper Bright decision could challenge Congress in passing particular and forward-thinking data privacy and security laws.

Over the last few years, the United States has led the world in the fight against climate change by passing some of the most impactful and largest investments in infrastructure and related regulatory reforms ever. Together, the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law seek to deploy nearly $1 trillion in climate positive infrastructure investment over the next decade. At the same time, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions that together significantly curtail the authority of executive agencies charged with implementing and defending legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. In its most recent term, the Court issued four such decisions including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturns a 40-year precedent and ensures the courts will have a commanding voice over climate policy and regulation for the foreseeable future.In this episode, Chad Reed unpacks the details and implications of Loper Bright and related Court decisions with Kevin Poloncarz, a partner with Covington & Burling and one of the top climate change attorneys in the United States. Links:Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies (SCOTUSblog, July 2024)CleanLaw – Suite of Supreme Court Decisions Undermine Administrative LawPalmaz VineyardsEpisode recorded September 12, 2024 Email your feedback to Chad, Gil, and Hilary at climatepositive@hasi.com or tweet them to @ClimatePosiPod.

The Chevron Doctrine, or Chevron Deference, was an established judicial principle. When the law was ambiguous, the courts would let the agency experts interpret it. After a Supreme Court case called Loper Bright v Raimondo, that is no longer the case. So what does that mean? What exactly has gone away? What happens next?Our guides to the wonkiest of  the wonk are Robin Kundis Craig and Mustafa Santiago Ali. CLICK HERE: Visit our website to donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more!

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.

What's this? A bonus Opinionpalooza episode for one and all? That's right! The hits just keep coming from SCOTUS this week, and two big decisions landed Thursday that might easily get lost in the mix: Ohio v EPA and SEC v Jarkesy. Both cases shine a light on the conservative legal movement (and their billionaire funders') long game against administrative agencies. In Ohio v EPA, the Court struck down the EPA's Good Neighbor Rule, making it harder for the agency to regulate interstate ozone pollution. This decision split along ideological lines, and is part of a stealthy dismantling of the administrative state. SEC v Jarkesy severely hinders the agency's ability to enforce actions against securities fraud without federal court involvement, and the decision will affect many other agencies. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out how this power grab by the court disrupts Congress's ability to delegate authority effectively. Project 2025 just got a jump start at SCOTUS, and we have two more big administrative cases yet to come, the so-called Chevron cases: Loper Bright v Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v Department of Commerce. This is shaping up to be a good term for billionaires and a court apparently hungry to expand its power. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate's own Mark Joseph Stern (of course) and they are saved from any regulatory confusion by environmental and administrative law all-star, Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, who served in the EPA under President Obama.  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices