Podcast appearances and mentions of Neil Gorsuch

On this exciting episode of Fishing the DMV, I have on Susquehanna River fishing guide Chris Gorsuch returns to Fishing the DMV for a detailed look at summer smallmouth bass fishing across one of Pennsylvania's most recognizable river systems. From the main stem near Harrisburg and North Liverpool to the North Branch around Laceyville and the Endless Mountains, Chris explains what he is seeing from the fishery and how anglers can adjust when quality smallmouth are not holding in their usual places.Chris believes the Susquehanna River is still fishing well, especially for anglers looking to catch numbers of smallmouth bass. However, he has seen fewer fish in the 19- to 20-plus-inch range than during the previous several springs. Bigger bass are still available—including two 23-inch smallmouth caught from his boat—but finding them has required more movement, more fuel and a willingness to fish away from the same heavily pressured areas. We discuss how year classes, winter ice, delayed grass growth, floods, low water, high summer temperatures, pollution, predators and changing forage can all influence the Susquehanna River smallmouth population.The conversation also turns toward summer smallmouth fishing techniques and the best baits for different sections of the river. Chris considers a chatterbait essential on the lower Susquehanna and main stem, while crankbaits are a major part of his North Branch fishing from spring through late fall. On the nearby Delaware River, he leans heavily on spinnerbaits, especially white skirts paired with silver, gold or copper blades that resemble young American shad and other baitfish.Chris also breaks down several developments from FITT Lures, including the Flea Flicker swimbait, VIG and Javelin. The Flea Flicker features a keeled body that allows anglers to shorten the bait while maintaining its profile and action. The VIG is a compact, thick-walled tube-style bait that can be fished on a Ned head, screw-lock jig, Carolina rig or other presentations. Chris explains how these baits can be used around grass, deeper holes, current breaks and other productive river smallmouth habitat.Fish care is another important part of this episode. Chris shares why he nets every bass, keeps his camera ready before lifting a fish from the water and releases weak post-spawn fish without taking a picture. He also discusses shortening fight times during warm-water periods and why proper handling matters when catching large Susquehanna River smallmouth.In this episode, we cover:The current state of Susquehanna River smallmouth fishingWhy anglers are seeing fewer 20-inch bass than in recent springsHow to locate bigger smallmouth by covering water and changing areasChatterbait, crankbait and spinnerbait fishing for river smallmouthGrass, current, deeper holes and summertime bass positioningFITT Lures Flea Flicker, VIG and Javelin rigging optionsChoosing lure colors based on depth, water clarity and forageProper summertime smallmouth bass handling and fish carePlease support Fishing the DMV on Patreon: https://patreon.com/FishingtheDMVPodcast If you are interested in being on the show or a sponsorship opportunity, please reach out to me at fishingtheDMV@gmail.com  FITT Lures: https://bit.ly/4w5lgHtLMD Enterprises: http://lmdoil.com/ Jake's bait & Tackle Website: http://www.jakesbaitandtackle.com/  Link to Tactical Fishing Company: https://tacticalfishingco.com/  Fishing Pro Tech: https://www.facebook.com/FishingProTech  Phone Number: (757) 566-1278 Email: lin@fishingprotech.us Fishing Pro Tech Address: 7812-A Richmond Road, Toano, VA, United States, 23168    Max4 Fishing: https://bit.ly/4unuiOs Flint Financial Planning: https://bit.ly/43t8h5N #FishingtheDMV #SmallmouthFishing #FishingReport Support the show

Mark Simone Interviews Author Ann Coulter on Her Latest Article on Birthright Citizenship. The Mark Simone Show July 1, 2026 • 11 min Episode Description They talk about the Supreme Court blocking Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship, which means if you're born in the U.S., you're a citizen, no matter your parents' status. They also get into how college campuses are pushing students to vote for progressive candidates.   Article mentioned- https://anncoulter.com/2026/07/02/dred-scotus/   Dred SCOTUS by Ann Coulter  July 2, 2026  Obviously, the Supreme Court's ruling on anchor babies in Trump v. Barbara is ridiculous. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with the Papist nut and the three witches, has apparently decided the “FREE MONEY” sign on our border was not good enough. We need to give the third world an even bigger incentive to flock here. Henceforth, we will lure illegal aliens with the guarantee of American citizenship for any kids they give birth to on U.S. soil. Welcome Hamas! (And you thought Democratic primaries were already wild!) Inasmuch as no one on TV seems to have bothered reading the opinions, here are a few highlights. 1) Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent is a tour de force. It will go down in history with Justice Benjamin Curtis's dissent in Dred Scott and Justice Frank Murphy's dissent in Korematsu. (It's also a good primer for snowbirds, who plan to avoid state taxes by moving to Florida, on the vital importance and clear legal meaning of “domicile.”) By contrast, Roberts's opinion for the court will go down with Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, finding that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination against transgender employees—a ruling that was so embarrassing it was immediately ignored by everyone, including Gorsuch. That was clear this week, when, for the fourth time since Bostock, the court rejected similar claims by transgenders. 2) I'm sorry to mention that, inasmuch as Gorsuch was on the right side of the anchor baby case. Which reminds me, could the conservatives confidently informing us that anchor babies are required by the constitution (Bill O'Reilly, John Yoo, The Wall Street Journal, etc.) cite a single other case with Roberts on one side and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the other, where Roberts was right? How about that terrific Obamacare ruling, deeply grounded in the text of the constitution? 3) Thomas's central point—appalling to liberals, but true nonetheless—is that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to overrule Dred Scott, which held that black Americans were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Black slaves and freedmen alike, Thomas writes, “were unambiguously Americans. They were not foreigners. They were not aliens. They owed no foreign allegiance.” He quotes Frederick Douglass's plea for the citizenship of blacks: “We address you not as aliens nor as exiles … We are Americans.” In response to Thomas's manifestly obvious point that the Fourteenth Amendment was “enacted … with the one pervading purpose of securing equal citizenship for the freed slaves,” the great legal scholar Justice Ketanji Jackson ripostes: “The teacher who scolds a student for bullying a classmate hopes the student learns the broader lesson of treating everyone with kindness, not just that one kid.” 3) In his 91-page dissent, Thomas cites 42 legal cases, 19 historical letters or diplomatic dispatches, 6 formal Attorney General opinions and 11 statutes, including The Civil Rights Act of 1866, The Expatriation Act of 1868 and the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802. All directly on point. This, Roberts calls “scant evidence.” Whereas he cites a mighty three cases for his majority opinion: an inapposite one from Britain; the opinion of a New York assistant vice chancellor in an 1844 inheritance dispute in New York (BIG, if true); and one, Wong Kim Ark—the “strongest support for today's decision,” as Alito put it—using dubious dicta from a wandering opinion that primarily relied on the parents having been “legally domiciled” in the U.S. when the child was born. Not to be confused with, “living here illegally.” (Or “wintering in Palm Beach.”) It's as if Roberts didn't realize the case was about kids born to illegal aliens. 5) Roberts's weirdest citation is to an 1872 letter from Attorney General George Williams describing Francois Heinrich, a child born to Austrian parents while they were “temporarily residing” in New York City, as having been “originally clothed with American nationality.”

We cover Justice Gorsuch's Concurring Opinion for the Court today Episode 18 of this deep dive as we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Justice Gorsuch's concurring Opinion for the Court. We go from p. 8 letter C of the slip opinion through the entirety of p. 14, Roman Numeral II letter B to the cusp of B.1 starting on page 15 of Gorsuch's concurrence slip opinion. If you want to follow along, there's a link below. This is the 18th Chevron Deference Deep Dive episode we've done on TRP podcast since winter 2024. And here it is Summer 2026. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. This episode includes a Chaplain's corner reading Psalm 5 in the King James Version and Streams in the Desert February 1st (Cowman Publications, Lost Feliz Station Lost Angeles 1925 original non-woke edition). The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-separation-of-powers podcast. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

On today's episode, we discuss how recent legal decisions on birthright citizenship and executive power could reshape U.S. immigration and sovereignty debates. The hosts walk through Justice Gorsuch's opinion on Trump's birthright citizenship executive order, explaining his focus on “domicile” rather than simple geography and how that would exclude tourists, transients, and many people here illegally from automatic citizenship. They address Gorsuch's and Kavanaugh's opinions, emphasizing that together they point to narrowly tailored injunctions, case-by-case domicile hearings, and a larger role for Congress rather than treating the 14th Amendment as a blanket rule. From there, the conversation shifts to economic philosophy, as they critique protectionist “Promethean Action” proposals, defend Milton Friedman's free enterprise ideas with limited national-security exceptions, and argue that overregulation—rather than trade itself—drives U.S. manufacturing overseas. The episode rounds out with updates on Lindsey Graham's sister's appointment to his Senate seat, emerging claims of Georgia election fraud, flock cameras and surveillance, and Rubio's pushback against the International Criminal Court, all framed as examples of how law, politics, and civil liberties intersect. Don't miss it!

“Our Constitution was not designed to erase religion from American life; it was designed to ensure ‘respect and tolerance.'” – Justice Gorsuch, Concurring Opinion in Shurtleff v. City of Boston (2022)Join Ro as she explores and celebrates our Constitutional rights with Hal Shurtleff, founder of Camp Constitution and plaintiff in the Supreme Court case Shurtleff v. City of Boston. In this episode you'll learn the story of how a single act of courage led to a precedent-setting court case that impacts usall. We have rights—and we have a responsibility to stand up for them. Hear Hal's story firsthand about how he went all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for the right to fly the Christian Flag at the Boston City Hall. He also shares aboutCamp Constitution, a camp dedicated to enhancing “understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage, our American heritage of courage and ingenuity, including the genius of our United States Constitution, and the application of free enterprise….” The interview is filled with history, storytelling, wisdom, and hope for our Country's future. This is a Celebrating America episode you don't want to miss! Learn more about Camp Constitution at https://campconstitution.net/Ro's Resource Room is a series of informational podcasts designed to equip and encourage families on their homeschooling journeys. CHAP is the Christian Homeschool Association of Pennsylvania and has provided year-round support to homeschoolers since 1994.  Find valuable resources at https://www.chaponline.comGot PA Homeschool law questions? Check out https://www.homeschoolpennsylvania.org Contact us at https://www.chaponline.com/contact-us with your questions or topics for discussion.Don't miss out on the latest in PA homeschool news! Subscribe to our eNews at https://chaponline.com/subscribe-to-e...Donate to support CHAP in the endeavor to encourage, connect, equip, and protect homeschoolers at https://chaponline.com/donate/

We picked two immigration decisions from the same day over the transgender-sports case because — Dan's protests notwithstanding — that's where the interesting law is. In Mullin v. Doe the Court lets the administration terminate temporary protected status for Haiti and Syria, holding the statute's no-judicial-review bar swallows the procedural challenges and that the equal-protection claim fails on the merits — with a genuinely odd move: skipping the jurisdictional question the way Steel Co. says you can't. In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado a fight about asylum-metering collapses onto a single preposition — whether a migrant stopped at the border “arrives in” the United States — and the majority says no. Along the way: brown M&Ms and Van Halen riders, whether Congress can strip review of constitutional claims without turning in a circle and sprinkling salt on the ground, Bolling v. Sharpe as a candidate for the worst decision ever, and why there's no White Somalia to run a controlled experiment.Highlights[00:00:28] Opening: hype music, and listening to your own podcast to get in the mood[00:01:42] Building a live-show rider with Claude Code, and the Van Halen brown-M&Ms test as a safety checklist[00:03:18] Blogging origin stories — GeoCities, Movable Type, the death of Google Reader, a ransomed domain[00:06:26] Why we date-stamp episodes; the “too many episodes” complaint[00:07:27] Today's slate: two June 25 immigration decisions, Mullin v. Doe and Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, chosen over the trans-sports case[00:10:37] A digression on the opinion's broken line spacing on page 1[00:12:11] Mullin v. Doe setup: TPS, the consultation-and-review procedures, and the “no judicial review of any determination” bar[00:19:07] Does the bar reach the procedures or just the bottom line? The Court says the whole thing[00:24:32] Can Congress strip review of constitutional claims — or must it first “turn in a circle and sprinkle salt on the ground”?[00:25:01] Dan on his and Alan Trammell's The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping[00:31:42] Steel Co. and jurisdiction-first — and the Court's strange skip of it on the interim docket, which costs it Gorsuch and Barrett on that Part[00:38:54] Why leave a hard jurisdictional question unwritten — the stare-decisis dodge and the “do you write on the shadow docket” dilemma[00:42:17] The multiply-the-probabilities problem (70% × 70%), by way of the Section 3 disqualification argument[00:44:04] The merits: Trump v. Hawaii redux, and Alito's very ginger, sanitized recounting of the President's statements about Haitians[00:48:21] Arlington Heights, race as a motivating factor, and the burden-shift the Court blends into one step[00:52:32] The Thomas concurrence: equal protection doesn't bind the federal government — Bolling v. Sharpe and Primus's Bolling Alone[00:59:27] The Kagan dissent: the review bar reaches only the bottom line, so the failure-to-consult claim survives[01:03:34] Why there's no perfect test case — no White Somalia — so the burden of proof is the ballgame[01:04:42] Mullin v. Al Otro Lado: metering, and whether a migrant stopped at the border “arrives in” the United States[01:08:31] IIRIRA swapped “arrives at” for “arrives in” — did changing the preposition change the meaning?[01:12:16] Dueling everyday-language examples: the running back, the mailbox, and Sotomayor's Penn Station / DCA / Golden Gate / movie-theater hypos[01:15:44] The Chicago Skyway's “Now arriving in Indiana” signs — “we say no thanks”[01:18:28] The dissent's practical stakes: perverse incentives to cross illegally, the SS St. Louis, and the Footnote 5 vs. Footnote 4 spat[01:20:51] Mootness and the voluntary-cessation exception; Jackson's advisory-opinion dissent and the Chatrie citation she just missed[01:24:13] The second Thomas concurrence: the § 1252 injunction bar (Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez) and an inherent Article II power to expel — “milling around”[01:26:18] The “an uniform rule” indefinite-article tangent; Conor Clarke on how we can't pronounce anything[01:28:06] Sign-off: Dan's two-week vacation, and thanks to the Constitutional Law Institute and SCOTUSblogRelevant linksCasesMullin v. Doe — slip opinion (No. 25-1083, consolidated with Trump v. Miot; TPS termination for Haiti and Syria)Mullin v. Al Otro Lado — slip opinion (No. 25-5; asylum metering and “arrives in the United States”)Commentary & articlesDaniel Epps & Alan M. Trammell, “The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping” (Columbia L. Rev. 2023) — the argument that jurisdiction stripping is a far weaker tool than advertisedRichard Primus, “Bolling Alone” (Columbia L. Rev. 2004) — after Bolling v. Sharpe, the Court has never actually invalidated federal discrimination against Black plaintiffs at the CourtHenry Monaghan, “Marbury and the Administrative State” (1983) — how a court “says what the law is” when the law tells it to defer

Hogan Gidley, Former National Press Secretary for the Trump campaign and former White House Deputy Press SecretaryTopic: The death of Lindsey Graham; Latest from the White House Gen. Jack Keane, a retired 4-star general, the chairman of the Institute for the Study of War and Fox News Senior Strategic AnalystTopic: President Trump orders new round of strikes "to hold Iran accountable" Dr. Marc Siegel, physician, Professor of Medicine at the NYU Langone Medical Center, author of "The Miracles Among Us," and contributor to Fox NewsTopic: Lindsey Graham's cause of death; Cyclosporiasis in New York, New Jersey, and beyond Liz Peek, Fox News contributor, columnist for Fox News and The Hill, and former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & CompanyTopic: "Mamdani’s preening arrogance will ultimately prove his downfall" (The Hill op ed) Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryTopic: "One leftist Wisconsin judge lets fellow traveler off with wrist slap" (Fox News op ed) Chad Connelly, Former Chairman of the South Carolina GOPTopic: Remembering his friend Lindsey Graham and his impact on the state of South CarolinaSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

pWotD Episode 3353: Mitch McConnell Welcome to popular Wiki of the Day, spotlighting Wikipedia's most visited pages, giving you a peek into what the world is curious about today.With 461,984 views on Tuesday, 7 July 2026 our article of the day is Mitch McConnell.Addison Mitchell McConnell III ( mə-KON-əl; born February 20, 1942) is an American politician and attorney serving as the senior United States senator from Kentucky, a seat he has held since 1985. A member of the Republican Party, McConnell is in his seventh Senate term, making him the longest-serving senator in Kentucky history. He served from 2007 to 2025 as the leader of the Senate Republican Conference, including two stints as minority leader (2007 to 2015 and 2021 to 2025), and was majority leader from 2015 to 2021, making him the longest-serving Senate party leader in U. S. history.McConnell holds conservative political positions, although he was known as a pragmatist and a moderate Republican early in his political career. He led opposition to stricter campaign finance laws, culminating in the U. S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC, which partially overturned the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) in 2010. McConnell worked to withhold Republican support for major presidential initiatives during the Obama administration, making frequent use of the filibuster, and blocked many of President Barack Obama's judicial nominees, including Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.During the first Trump administration, the Senate Republican majority under McConnell's leadership passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act in 2018, the First Step Act, and the Great American Outdoors Act, and confirmed a record number of federal appeals court judges during a president's first two years. McConnell invoked the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote requirement to end a filibuster for Supreme Court nominations, after his predecessor Harry Reid had eliminated the filibuster for all other presidential nominations; Trump subsequently won Supreme Court confirmation battles over Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. While supportive of most of Trump's domestic and foreign policies, McConnell criticized Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and despite voting to acquit in Trump's second impeachment trial for reasons related to the constitutionality of impeaching a former president, deemed him "practically and morally responsible" for the January 6 United States Capitol attack.In 2015, 2019, and 2023, Time listed McConnell as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. On February 28, 2024, McConnell announced that he would step down as the Senate Republican Conference Leader in January 2025, but would serve the remainder of his Senate term. An internal election to fill the post of Senate Republican Leader was held on November 13, in which South Dakota senator John Thune was selected. On February 20, 2025, McConnell announced he would not run for an eighth Senate term in 2026 and would retire from politics. This came after increasing concerns about his health and ability to continue serving following multiple public episodes and health scares. McConnell has made no appearances or statements since his hospitalization after being found unconscious on June 14, 2026, and very little information has been given about his whereabouts or condition, leading some to question the severity of his condition.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 02:54 UTC on Wednesday, 8 July 2026.For the full current version of the article, see Mitch McConnell on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm generative Aria.

not a surprise in my book, but the SCOTUS recently ruled on Trump's executive order of 2025 denying citizenship by birth in the United States. We look at the arguments, and the two takes by Kavanaugh (on the concurring side) and Gorsuch (on the dissenting side, but not fully with the Trump position). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After a quick check on the Nina Totenberg embargo kerfuffle and one more revelation from Justice Thomas's memoir, we devote the episode to Chatrie v. United States, the Court's first major Fourth Amendment decision in years. We trace how the geofence-warrant ruling builds on — and goes beyond — Katz, United States v. Jones, and Carpenter v. United States, and what's left of the third-party doctrine and the mosaic theory. Will explains the positive law model of the Fourth Amendment; Dan tries to claim Justice Gorsuch's separate opinion for his general-law approach. We close with the dissents, the advisory-opinion objection, and whether the Court should be saying more about the Fourth Amendment or less about everything. Along the way: Venmo heroin deals, smart microwaves, whether Will has genuinely forgotten his passcode, and a field-trip assignment for Chicagoland listeners.Highlights[00:00:21] Cold open: three recording sessions in three days, and the theories swirling around the Nina Totenberg screw-up[00:02:04] Justice Alito's embargo story: the press-room idea he liked until he learned they have to let the journalists out of the room[00:03:04] My Grandfather's Son follow-up: Justice Thomas's over-cautious marijuana confession[00:04:35] Cleanup-order watch: GVRs still owed in light of Slaughter, Landor, and B.P.J.[00:04:57] The main event: Chatrie v. United States, the geofence-warrant case — and why a 5-Justice Fourth Amendment majority is a good get for Justice Kagan[00:06:51] What a geofence actually is (there is no fence) and the three-step Google Location History protocol[00:13:52] General warrants, particularity, the University of Chicago backpacks hypo, and Ybarra v. Illinois — with a field-trip assignment to the Aurora Tap House[00:21:09] Three questions — search, reasonableness, exclusion — and the clever cert grant that fenced out the exclusionary rule[00:25:52] The setup: Jones and the two tracks of Fourth Amendment doctrine, step 0 (the third-party doctrine), then Carpenter[00:33:13] Will's positive law model of the Fourth Amendment, and Justice Gorsuch's Carpenter dissent[00:36:29] Orin Kerr's mosaic theory: "building out the mosaic Byzantine style, it starts to become searchier"[00:39:15] Kagan shuts the mosaic door: where the Fourth Amendment applies, it applies regardless of quantity — a fortiori from Carpenter[00:47:36] What survives of the third-party doctrine: Strava, public Venmo feeds, and the "For heroin" hypo[00:50:53] Why it's a big deal: the anti-mosaic holding, and a majority of Justices revealed as Carpenter people[00:54:48] Tangent: Face ID, the Fifth Amendment, Will's forgotten passcodes, and his enemies[00:56:55] Does the Stored Communications Act make all this academic?[00:58:34] The Jackson concurrence's particularity nudge, en banc remand practice, and Levy & Newman on unwritten circuit rules[01:00:43] The Gorsuch concurrence: papers, effects, property — Will disowns it and gives it to Dan's general-law approach[01:08:36] The Alito dissent: the advisory-opinion objection, footnote 4, the Davis carve-out, and the NRA v. Vullo precedent for a do-over remand[01:18:59] Justice Barrett's à-la-carte joins and her one-paragraph dissent — "we should have more dissents like this"[01:22:31] Two kinds of law professors, "The Supreme Court Flunks Trusts," and whether we're good on law[01:24:15] Sign-off: the rare promise of a schedule — a fourth recording session this weekRelevant linksCasesChatrie v. United States — slip opinionYbarra v. IllinoisUnited States v. JonesKatz v. United StatesSmith v. MarylandCarpenter v. United States — slip opinionFlorida v. JardinesDavis v. United StatesNRA v. VulloCommentary & articlesAmy Howe, "Court rules that law enforcement's use of 'geofence warrant' was a 'search'" (SCOTUSblog)Kate Shaw, Will Baude & Steve Vladeck, end-of-term Supreme Court roundtable (N.Y. Times, July 1, 2026) — the "hosannas" Will mentions on airWilliam Baude & James Y. Stern, "The Positive Law Model of the Fourth Amendment," 129 Harv. L. Rev. 1821 (2016)Danielle D'Onfro & Daniel Epps, "The Fourth Amendment and General Law," 132 Yale L.J. 910 (2023)Orin S. Kerr, "The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment," 111 Mich. L. Rev. 311 (2012)John H. Langbein, "The Supreme Court Flunks Trusts," 1990 Sup. Ct. Rev. 207OtherClarence Thomas, My Grandfather's Son (2007)Jon O. Newman & Marin K. Levy, Written and Unwritten: The Rules, Internal Procedures, and Customs of the United States Courts of Appeals (Cambridge 2024)

Stanford's Fred Smith examines the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship decision, its historical roots in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the questions the Court leaves unresolved. --- The Fourteenth Amendment opens with a simple constitutional promise: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. In a closely divided Supreme Court decision, that understanding of birthright citizenship is once again tested through competing readings of text, history, and precedent. In this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Fred Smith, a leading scholar of the federal courts, joins Pam Karlan to examine the Court's ruling in Trump v. Barbara and the history behind the Citizenship Clause. The discussion traces the Clause to Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to Black Americans, and to the Reconstruction-era effort to overturn it, as well as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood to affirm birthright citizenship for those born on U.S. soil. The discussion highlights deeper disagreements over how that history should shape constitutional meaning today. Smith and Karlan explore tensions between originalist approaches, reliance on precedent, and questions about congressional authority over citizenship. At stake is not only the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the broader question of who the Constitution recognizes as part of the American political community—and who gets to decide. Links: Fred Smith  >>> Stanford Law School Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Last week the Supreme Court ruled seven to two in favor of Bayer-Monsanto, and it changes the rules for anyone who gardens, farms, or eats food grown in this country. Notice they did not go to the highest court in the land to prove Roundup is safe. They went to argue that even if it causes cancer, you are no longer allowed to sue them in your own state for failing to warn you. In this episode I walk you all the way through it. Not the headline, the whole thing. What the ruling actually says and why the legal logic is so slippery. The real story of who Bayer even is and why a drug company bought a pesticide company. The billions already paid out in cancer settlements, and the trap door that just closed. And then, because despair is just laziness in a nicer outfit, exactly what you and I do about it, starting today, with our hands and our habits and our dollars. You have more power here than you have been told. Let's use it. What We Cover Who John Durnell is, and the twenty-plus years of Roundup use behind this case What the ruling actually says, in plain English: FIFRA, the EPA, and the "Uniformity" clause that decided everything Why the legal reasoning is so slippery, and what the bipartisan dissent from Justices Jackson and Gorsuch warned about The honest version of the science fight: what the World Health Organization said versus what the EPA says Three branches of government, one year, moving in the same direction, and the one piece the people actually stopped Why a pharmaceutical company bought a pesticide company, and the structure underneath "create the problem, sell the cure" The settlement numbers, and the question they cannot answer: why pay billions for a product you swear is safe? What this precedent means for every other industry going forward What practical steps you can take right away The Receipts A few of the numbers and facts from this episode, so you have them: The case is Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, decided seven to two on June 25, 2026. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. The ruling reversed a Missouri jury's verdict that had awarded John Durnell one point two five million dollars on a failure-to-warn claim. In 2015, the World Health Organization's cancer research arm classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans. The EPA has concluded it is not likely to cause cancer when used as directed, and never required a warning label. In 2020, Bayer agreed to pay nearly eleven billion dollars to settle around a hundred thousand cancer claims. The company has spent well over ten billion total, and proposed another settlement of seven and a quarter billion in February 2026. In February, the President signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to boost glyphosate production, though experts question whether it even reaches these lawsuits. A push to shield pesticide companies from these lawsuits in the Farm Bill was stripped out in late April by a bipartisan vote of two hundred eighty to one hundred forty two. The people stopped that one. What You Can Do Lower your toxic load where you can. Start with personal care products, the things you put on your skin every day. Skip drinking from, storing food in, and especially microwaving plastic when you have a glass or steel option. Know where your food comes from. Rinse and soak your produce before you eat it. This is the produce wash/soak product I use.  Grow some of your own, even a little. One tomato plant on a balcony is more food sovereignty than most Americans have. Start absurdly small. Just start. Support local farms, and then ask the question. Find a farm you trust, and kindly ask them about their spraying practices. Give your money on purpose to the people who opt out. Support your body's own systems. Sweat regularly, move consistently, and give your gut real breaks between meals. Move, sweat, rest, repeat. None of this is medical advice or a substitute for your doctor, it is everyday support for a body built to handle a tough world. Resources and Links The produce wash and soak method I use:  https://amzn.to/4xWl2DI Want to read the ruling yourself? Look up Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, decided June 25, 2026. Find a local farm or market near you and start the conversation about how your food is grown.  

It's Friday, July 3rd, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Ethiopian Christian convert from Islam attacked and forced to flee As a child in Gawo Kebe, Ethiopia, Taha Dinka faithfully attended the mosque and adhered to his community's Islamic beliefs. He never imagined his life would ever take a different direction, reports International Christian Concern. In 2019, Dinka heard the Gospel and decided to follow Jesus. He said, “When I accepted Christ, I felt peace in my life. I believed God had rescued me from darkness.”   However, the decision that brought him hope also opened the door for rejection, threats, and persecution. Soon after his conversion, Dinka began facing strong opposition from those closest to him because of his faith in Christ.    Dinka said, “People I loved turned against me, and some even told me I had betrayed my family and my religion. Others warned me that I would suffer or die if I continued following Christ.”   Christian converts from Islam in Muslim-majority areas often face violence and even death threats. In August 2025, Dinka said, “I was violently attacked and forcefully removed from my home because I had refused to renounce Christianity. The attacks left me injured and traumatized. I was beaten because I would not deny Jesus. At that moment, I realized my life was truly in danger.”  He was forced to flee in search of safety. In Matthew 10:22, Jesus said, "You will be hated by everyone because of Me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” House Speaker Johnson puts SAVE Act in budget reconciliation bill Here in the United States, On Wednesday. House Speaker Mike Johnson said he is aiming to push the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE America Act, through a third budget reconciliation bill, reports NewsNation. Johnson's remarks came shortly after President Trump canceled a signing ceremony for a sweeping bipartisan housing package, saying he will not sign the legislation until the Senate passes the voter ID bill. The SAVE America Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and the presentation of an ID to cast a ballot. The bill passed the House, but has stalled in the Senate, where Democrats have vowed to oppose it, leaving it short of the votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has repeatedly dismissed Trump's calls to eliminate or reform the filibuster in order to pass the bill. Johnson talked to the president about adding the SAVE America Act to the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA so that the entire bill including the funding of the troops and the SAVE America Act would only need a simple majority vote.  Here's Speaker Johnson at the Wednesday press conference. JOHNSON: “The SAVE America Act, as passed in February unanimously by all Republicans -- and that's components of the proof of citizenship to register to vote and voter ID when you show up to vote, that will be merged onto the [National Defense Authorization Act] and transmitted to the Senate as one bill. That's the most efficient, effective way to do it.” Call your two Senators at 202-224-3121 and urge them, whether they are Democrat or Republican, to support the National Defense Authorization Act which has the SAVE America Act added to it. Clarence Thomas: Birthright citizenship devalues what it means to be American citizen In a lengthy dissent, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took the majority to task for interpreting the Constitution to mean that citizenship is automatically conferred on anyone born in the United States, regardless of the legal status of the parents, Thomas argued that the ruling “devalues” what it means to be an American citizen. In the 6-3 decision on June 30th, the majority held that an executive order President Donald Trump issued on the first day of his second term violated the Constitution. The order directed that only children born on American soil to legal residents are automatically citizens of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment states, in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” In his dissent, Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, noted as Trump previously argued, that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. It was in direct response to the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision of 1857, which held that blacks were not citizens. Thomas wrote, “Both the Civil Rights Act [of 1866] and the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race. Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States.” He added, “Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority,” Under Trump's proposal, birthright citizenship would be limited to those with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Babies born to temporary visitors or people who entered the country illegally would not be citizens at birth, reports NBC News. Young Washington movie in theaters tonight On the cusp of America's 250th birthday tomorrow, Angel Studios* and Wonder Project release the movie “Young Washington” nationwide tonight. Watch the trailer. It follows the early life of George Washington as he transforms from an ambitious, awkward youth into a military commander. Facing class barriers, he secures a job surveying the Ohio Valley, only to stumble into the bloody triggers of the French and Indian War. Directed by Jon Erwin, who also produced the House of David TV series, the historical drama explores Washington's steep climb into Virginia's upper crust. William Franklyn-Miller, the 22-year-old British actor, portrays George Washington, Ben Kingsley portrays Robert Dinwiddie, and Kelsey Grammer portrays Thomas Fairfax. When setbacks shake George's faith in a kind, loving God, he gets angry. He tells his mother, “Providence placed me here. Why? For me to fail?” Focus on the Family says that Mary Washington, George's mother, serves up one of the movie's best lines. She says, “Failure is the tutor sent by God. If you don't learn from it, you fail twice. If you do learn from it, you've earned wisdom.” After George improbably survives a disastrous battle, a Native American chief—one who fought alongside the French—demands to meet George. His own warriors had George in their sights repeatedly. He claims they “never miss.” And yet, somehow, George stands before him, uninjured. The Indian chief tells him, “The Creator chose you. You have been shielded by the Spirit.” (Get the booklet entitled The Bulletproof George Washington by David Barton) Shortly thereafter, George shows up in Virginia Lt. Gov. Robert Dinwiddie's office with a bullet hole in his hat and a well-earned reputation for surviving impossible situations. Listen to the scene from the “Young Washington” movie. DINWIDDIE: “What happened, Washington? All those bullet holes in your jacket? How are you alive?” WASHINGTON: “I don't know.” Proverbs 16:9 says, "A man's heart plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps". The movie, Young Washington, dramatizes the events leading up to the French and Indian War, including the war's initial bloody triggers. PluggedIn.com warns that the film is not suitable for young children because there's plenty of fighting, shooting and chopping. And while none of it is particularly bloody or gory, it may come as a shock for those expecting a gentler “Christian” film. *Note: Angel Studios is owned by the Mormons also known as the “Church” of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Worldview cautions our listeners to remember that Mormons teach a false gospel and an unbiblical worldview. So, please be discerning in the viewing of any Angel Studios productions. 15-year-old listener from Eswatini, Africa sounds off Yesterday, 21 Worldview listeners took the time to send me an email about what they enjoy about this newscast. I'll be sharing their emails throughout this month. If you are one of the 21 people who wrote me, thank you! Eli McSeveney, a 15-year-old in Eswatini, Africa, bordered by South Africa and Mozambique, wrote me at Adam@TheWorldview.com. He said, “We listen to The Worldview in 5 Minutes every day, mid-morning, when we take a break from our homeschool over a cup of tea.  I love that I can trust the facts you give, unlike CNN. But my favorite part is right at the end, when you urge us to ‘Seize the day for Jesus Christ!' “Quinn, age 13, said, ‘I love how Mr. Adam McManus addresses the transgender issue.  He says a man, who is ‘pretending to be woman.'  And the regular updates on the persecution of Christians throughout the world is eye opening.' “And Bianca, my mom, said, ‘Thank you for your team's faithfulness in bringing us truth. We find that you help us make sense of the news, and we feel hopeful instead of distraught. And thank you for the Bible verses that shed light on how to interpret what is going on.'” 7 Worldview listeners gave $800 yesterday Yesterday, 7 Worldview listeners stepped up to the plate and invested their treasure to ensure that The Worldview stays on the air for another 365 days. Our thanks to Jason in Fairbanks, Alaska and Steven in Jacksonville, Florida – both of whom gave $50. We're grateful to God for Janice in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Susan in Hoyt, Kansas – both of whom gave $100. And we appreciate the generosity of Samuel in Fellsmere, Florida and Jeremy in Swansea, Wales -- both of whom gave $150 as well as Linda in Hanahan, South Carolina who gave $200. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please. (drum roll sound effect) $2,562. (sound effect of people cheering) In the first three days of our month-long fundraiser, we are seriously behind!  We need to raise $9,888 by 12 midnight tonight, Friday, July 3rd – when a lot of people are on vacation -- to get back on track toward our $123,500 finish line come July 31st. I've got 2 brainstorms. First, would you consider being one of 30 listeners to make a donation, no matter how small?  Whether it's $5 or $500, give what you feel the Lord has placed on your heart.  Second, if the Lord has blessed you financially, would you be open to being one of 5 people to give a one-time gift of $1,000? Go to TheWorldview.com, click on Give, select the dollar amount, and make sure to click on the “recurring” button if that's your wish.  This Christian newscast does not bow to our politically correct culture. We champion the truth and a Biblical worldview. That is why you love it!  Invest in it today so that this newscast can continue. Again, go to TheWorldview.com, click on Give. Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, July 3rd, in the year of our Lord 2026. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Today is the last workday before our July 4th holiday. Our show today is a one-hour show in which we give you the latest of the most important issues for Americans headed into our holiday weekend.Among today's topics, we discuss some travesties occurring at the local, state, and federal levels. Each story we cover reveals specific places, people, and institutions that are trying to somehow obliterate our Representative Republic form of government and replace it with a "new" government. They call it "Democratic Socialism." We give you the specifics of what they want and how they plan to implement and use it. However, we also explain exactly "what" each idea really is, "what" they want it to be, and how they portray it. One very important piece you'll hear today is an interview with Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, who explains exactly what the Constitution says about the role of religion as it pertains to the U.S. Constitution. You don't want to miss that!HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!

On this special edition of the Federalist Radio Hour, Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway and Federalist Staff Writer Shawn Fleetwood analyze the Supreme Court's birthplace citizenship decision, dissect the nuances in the dissenting justices' responses to the ruling, and reflect on the problems with "judicial supremacy."Order and review Mollie's book Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution here.The Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.

It's the last opinion day of the term, and the big one landed: Trump v. Barbara, the birthright-citizenship case. We read the majority as the rare easy case and spend most of the episode on why the four dissents each end up somewhere different — and trying to figure out exactly where they actually land. Along the way: a bogus Nina Totenberg story, a Landor GVR that might quietly unsettle a chunk of Spending Clause criminal law, and whether the professors who defended the order deserve the "legal scholarship police." Highlights[00:00:27] The bogus Nina Totenberg wire story that Justice Alito was retiring — "Fake news, Dan."[00:02:03] The Justice Alito / Justice Sotomayor bench-dissent dust-up from the immigration hand-downs[00:03:11] Last opinion day — 3 opinions, 4 cases; NRSC v. FEC and West Virginia v. B.P.J. / Little v. Hecox flagged for later[00:05:27] A significant new grant teed up on possession of semi-automatic rifles (AR-15s)[00:06:43] A GVR in light of Landor in a federal arson case, and the narrow-vs-broad theory of what a GVR means[00:09:34] Whether Landor's narrowing of Sabri could upend a swath of Spending Clause federal criminal law[00:10:58] Why RLUIPA reaches prisoners — Chuck Colson's post-Watergate lobbying (courtesy of a listener, Emma Kaufman)[00:12:55] Trump v. Barbara — Trump loses, but closer than predicted: "Trump beats the spread"[00:15:25] Should professors who defended the order be punished? — "we don't need legal scholarship police"[00:19:58] The majority's walk: common law → Dred Scott → the 14th Amendment → Wong Kim Ark[00:26:21] Wong Kim Ark as linchpin, and whether its "domiciled here" language was doing any work[00:36:48] Justice Kavanaugh concurs in the judgment on the statute, then dispatches the constitutional question breezily[00:42:05] New states, Hawaii, and Living Originalism — when may you add new exceptions? "Weird islands you can't drive to"[00:48:33] The 91-page Justice Thomas dissent, the facial-challenge pivot, and the reserved domicile question[00:56:40] Justice Alito's Civil Rights Act / "not subject to any foreign power" reading, and the statelessness caveat[01:00:11] Justice Gorsuch's 3-page solo dissent: if not domiciled here, then where? — a jab Thomas may not share[01:05:33] Justice Jackson's anti-subordination concurrence, and whether it lands against Thomas[01:10:24] "I feel proud to be an American, Dan" — hail to the Chief, and to Justice Barrett; sign-offRelevant linksCasesTrump v. Barbara — slip opinionLandor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections — slip opinionSabri v. United States (2004)United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)NRSC v. FEC — slip opinionWest Virginia v. B.P.J. / Little v. Hecox — slip opinionCommentary & articlesSCOTUSblog opinion recap: "Supreme Court strikes down Trump's order ending birthright citizenship"Ilan Wurman & Randy Barnett's NYT essay defending the order (Minnesota Law summary)

SCOTUS FUMBLED BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP This morning we start with the Daughters of the American Revolution, an organization founded because women were once shut out by the Sons of the American Revolution, now refusing to define the word woman inside its own rulebook. We break down the 1,481 to 984 vote, the leadership warnings about D.C. law, the Biden-era legal memo behind the fear campaign, and the women inside the DAR who say this fight is not over. Then we go straight to the Supreme Court, where a 6-3 ruling against Trump's birthright citizenship order left conservatives furious, Thomas and Gorsuch dissenting, and Congress holding the next real move. We explain the “subject to the jurisdiction” fight, the birth tourism loophole, and the bills already sitting in Washington that could force the clean test case the Court refused to give Trump. In hour two, Nick Cooper joins to talk about the future of libertarians, MAGA, and the right: one movement has the engine, the other has the rudder, and the next decade may come down to whether libertarians want to steer or keep yelling from the sidelines.

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show delivers a wide-ranging, politically charged discussion centered on a major Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship, which dominates the hour and drives broader debates on immigration policy, constitutional law, and American identity. Hosting solo, Buck Sexton frames the 6–3 ruling as one of the most consequential—and controversial—judicial decisions in modern history, emphasizing that the Court upheld the interpretation that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen (with limited exceptions such as diplomats), including children of undocumented immigrants and so-called “birth tourism.” The conversation repeatedly highlights concerns about immigration loopholes, anchor babies, and national security risks, arguing that the ruling could incentivize foreign nationals to exploit U.S. laws, particularly citing China as a geopolitical rival. Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio calls in and analyzes dissenting opinions from Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, portraying the ruling as an example of judicial overreach versus originalist constitutional interpretation, while also drawing comparisons to historically controversial Supreme Court cases like Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade. The discussion expands into immigration enforcement policy, including critiques of sanctuary cities, catch-and-release practices, and the broader political divide between Republicans and Democrats on border security. There is also a significant focus on how birthright citizenship could influence future political eligibility, chain migration, and even hypothetical national security threats, such as foreign-born individuals returning to the U.S. as citizens after being raised abroad. Buck welcomes guest Rafael Mangual, author of Criminal Injustice. This third hour emphasizes a deep dive into crime policy, policing debates, and the real-world consequences of progressive reforms, alongside culturally charged conversations about gender identity issues, free speech, and American political identity. Mangual’s expert analysis of criminal justice reform and the push for decarceration and depolicing, arguing that these policies—widely supported after the 2020 protests—have had harmful effects, particularly in urban communities and among Black Americans. The discussion frames rising crime trends and the subsequent reversal of some reforms as evidence that reduced policing and leniency in prosecution increased violence, with hosts emphasizing that effective policing historically correlates with lower homicide rates and improved public safety outcomes. Mangual underscores that incarceration serves a critical role in crime prevention through incapacitation, challenging progressive narratives that prioritize rehabilitation over deterrence. A major legal and political focus of Hour 3 is the Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship, sparking a detailed constitutional debate. Mangual aligns more closely with the dissenting justices, questioning whether the 14th Amendment’s original intent supports granting automatic citizenship to children of non-citizens or temporary visitors, including so-called “birth tourism” cases. The conversation highlights competing interpretations among justices such as Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, and critiques the use of executive action instead of legislative authority. The hosts and guest ultimately argue that any meaningful change would require congressional action or a constitutional amendment—an extremely unlikely outcome, reinforcing the political stalemate around immigration reform. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuckYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The big opinions are coming fast and furious as the Term ends. This episode, we take on two related cases from the penultimate opinion drop day: Trump v. Slaughter, which overrules Humphrey's Executor and clears away for-cause protection for the independent agencies, alongside its interim-docket companion Trump v. Cook, where the very same logic somehow spares the Federal Reserve. The big question: if the President can fire an FTC commissioner at will, what actually makes the Fed different — is "history" doing the work, or is the Court just saving the bond markets? Along the way: Heidegger's "always already," whether the metaphor of a living tree is consistent with originalism, a Goldilocks definition of "cause," the Chief leaning on his own unworkable precedents, the Ex parte Young mystery that keeps escaping the Court's grasp, and the first appearance of "the interim docket" in the U.S. Reports.Highlights[00:00:18] The penultimate opinion day — four down, four to go[00:00:50] The last-day pileup, and the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance case still pending[00:03:25] A confession: staircase wit, and the metaphor Will wishes he'd used[00:04:27] The living tree as an originalist — and the petrified-tree rejoinder[00:06:01] The new custom-cover workflow, and what Claude still isn't allowed to write[00:07:00] The day's four opinions: Cook, Slaughter, Chatrie, and Watson v. RNC[00:09:50] Is the Court strategic about opinion timing? A walk back through OT21's last days[00:13:55] Slaughter before Cook: the general rule before the exception[00:15:08] "Humphrey's Executor has always already been overruled" — by way of continental philosophy[00:17:36] Slaughter: the question, Humphrey's Executor, and the road from Morrison v. Olson through Seila Law[00:22:12] Why presidents mostly haven't tested removal — and whether this shifts the equilibrium[00:25:29] Walking the opinion: Roberts for the Court, the Thomas non-join, a Sotomayor (not Kagan) dissent[00:27:30] The Decision of 1789, the history fight, and the "good arguments on both sides" that made Will a "witless hack"[00:33:19] Part III-B's reserved questions and the Gorsuch concurrence's non-delegation wish list[00:43:06] Cook: procedurally on the interim docket, and why it comes out the other way[00:46:00] The Chief's history tour — the Bank of North America, Hamilton, and an accomplished yachtsman[00:49:00] The Fed as the "third bank"; Bamzai & Nielson and the monetary-vs-regulatory problem[00:50:25] The chain of moves: reviewability, a Goldilocks "cause," and the equity remedy[00:53:11] Footnote 2 and the Ex parte Young mystery — Armstrong, CASA, and Bivens[00:58:41] Process not received: a Truth Social post isn't enough, and what Cook gets next[01:00:54] "The interim docket" enters the U.S. Reports[01:01:52] The separate writings: Kavanaugh (save the economy), Jackson (equities), Thomas's solo dissent[01:04:45] Alito-Gorsuch and Barrett: hard questions, and skepticism of a carve-out defended "for secret reasons"[01:11:26] Sign-off: if there's a long delay before the next episode, it's because we've lost removal protectionRelevant linksCasesTrump v. Slaughter — slip opinion · SCOTUSblog analysisTrump v. Cook — slip opinion · SCOTUSblog analysisChatrie v. United States — slip opinion · SCOTUSblog analysisWatson v. Republican National Committee — slip opinion · SCOTUSblog analysisCommentary & articlesAditya Bamzai & Aaron L. Nielson, "Article II and the Federal Reserve" — the leading qualified defense of Fed independence (Cornell L. Rev.)Samuel L. Bray, "Remedies in the Officer Removal Cases" — relied on by the Cook majority on the equity-remedy question (Journal of Legal Analysis); draft/announcement on the Divided Argument blogWilliam Baude, "How To Save The Federal Reserve" — Will's prior take on preserving Fed independence under the removal cases

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, ruling 6–3 in Trump v. Barbara that the order is unlawful. Three Republican-appointed and three Democratic-appointed justices comprised the majority, though Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented in part. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch each authored dissents. Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up! Click HERE to get 20% off your first year of ad-free episodes, exclusive interviews, and deep dives with Tangle's podcast membership.What's up with Britain?Last week, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced his resignation. If it feels like the country's leaders are always coming and going, that's because… they are. With Starmer's departure, Britain will have had six prime ministers in 10 years. Each entered office promising stability; each left amid deep public dissatisfaction. In our newest YouTube video, Associate Producer Aidan Gorman explores what's going on across the pond. Watch it here.You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠ and today's “Under the radar” story ⁠here⁠ and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: What do you think of the Court's decision? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast written by: Isaac Saul and audio engineered and edited by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hogan Gidley, Former National Press Secretary for the Trump campaign and former White House Deputy Press SecretaryTopic: Democratic socialist candidates; House conservatives block rule advancing National Defense Authorization Act Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow in the new Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law at Advancing American FreedomTopic: SCOTUS rulings Matt Rooney, Founder and Editor-in-Chief of SaveJersey.comTopic: Tom Kean Jr's return Stephen Moore, "Joe Piscopo Show" Resident Scholar of Economics, Chairman of FreedomWorks Task Force on Economic Revival, former Trump economic adviser and the author of "The Trump Economic Miracle: And the Plan to Unleash Prosperity Again"Topic: U.S. entering the single greatest productivity resolution in history Assemblywoman Dawn Fantasia, Republican representing New Jersey's 24th legislative districtTopic: $60.7 billion budget passes out of the Assembly Christina Farrell, Commissioner of the NYC Office of Emergency Management Topic: Extreme heat in New York City Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryTopic: SCOTUS rulings Marc Morano, Former Senior Staff Member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, publisher of ClimateDepot.com, and the author of "The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown"Topic: Experiencing the heatwave in EuropeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Revenue Act of 1862On this day in legal history, July 1, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Revenue Act of 1862, one of the most important financing measures of the Civil War. The Union war effort required enormous amounts of money, and Congress could no longer rely only on tariffs, loans, and traditional sources of federal revenue. The act created the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the direct predecessor of today's Internal Revenue Service.This new office gave the federal government an administrative structure for assessing and collecting taxes across the country. The law also expanded the federal government's role in the financial lives of ordinary Americans. It imposed a 3% tax on annual incomes between $600 and $10,000 and a 5% tax on incomes above $10,000. Although modest by modern standards, this was a major shift in American tax law because it treated income itself as a source of federal revenue.The act also included taxes on goods, licenses, businesses, and other transactions, helping create a broader national tax system. Its purpose was practical and urgent: to raise the money needed to preserve the Union. But its legal significance went beyond the battlefield. The Revenue Act of 1862 helped normalize the idea that the federal government could collect taxes directly from individuals. The Civil War income tax was later allowed to expire, but the machinery of federal tax administration had been built.Decades later, the Sixteenth Amendment would give Congress clearer constitutional authority to impose a national income tax. July 1, 1862, therefore marks a turning point in the legal history of federal taxation and the growth of national administrative power.The Supreme Court ruled that President Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship is invalid. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or only temporarily present still meet the requirements of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Roberts wrote that the Constitution makes those children citizens at birth because they are born on U.S. soil and are subject to U.S. law.The executive order, signed on January 20, 2025, never took effect because federal courts blocked it while lawsuits moved forward. Earlier, the Supreme Court had limited the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, but the legal challenges to the order continued through class-based and case-specific proceedings.The Court's majority relied heavily on the history of birthright citizenship, including English common law, the purpose of the 14th Amendment after Dred Scott, and the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Roberts rejected the administration's argument that citizenship should depend on whether a child's parents had permanent allegiance or domicile in the United States.Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the order was invalid, but he based his reasoning on federal statute rather than the Constitution. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented in different ways, arguing that the majority misread the 14th Amendment's history or failed to address important limits on birthright citizenship.Supreme Court strikes down Trump's order ending birthright citizenship | SCOTUSblogThe Supreme Court ruled that Idaho and West Virginia may enforce laws limiting girls' and women's school sports teams to athletes the states classify as biologically female. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the main opinion, saying the laws do not violate Title IX or the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.The Court was unanimous that the challenged laws do not violate Title IX, but the justices split over the constitutional issue, especially as applied to Becky Pepper-Jackson, the West Virginia student at the center of one case. Kavanaugh reasoned that Title IX permits schools to have separate teams based on sex and that, when the law was enacted, “sex” referred to biological sex. He also said states have important interests in safety and competitive fairness, and that courts should not be required to create individualized exceptions for athletes who have taken puberty blockers or hormones. The decision reversed lower-court rulings that had blocked Idaho and West Virginia from enforcing their bans.Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority and wrote separately to emphasize his view that sex is binary and biological. Justice Neil Gorsuch also wrote separately, focusing on the idea that Title IX, as a funding statute, must give schools clear notice of any conditions attached to federal money. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, agreed that West Virginia's law did not violate Title IX but dissented on the constitutional question. Sotomayor argued that the Court should have allowed more factual development on whether Pepper-Jackson, who had not gone through male puberty, was actually similarly situated to cisgender girls for athletic purposes.Court rules that states can exclude transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports teams | SCOTUSblogThe Supreme Court declined to hear Cathy Harris's appeal after lower courts allowed President Trump to remove her from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. Harris, a Democratic member and former chair of the board, had challenged her firing under a law that limited removal of board members to cases of inefficiency, neglect, or misconduct. The Court's refusal came one day after it ruled 6-3 that similar removal protections for Federal Trade Commission members were unconstitutional. Because Merit Systems Protection Board members had nearly identical protections, Harris's case was strongly affected by that new ruling.The same appeals court decision that rejected Harris's claim also upheld Trump's firing of Gwynne Wilcox, a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board. The Merit Systems Protection Board is especially important because it hears appeals from federal employees who have been disciplined or fired. Harris warned that the decision weakens the board and threatens the independence of the civil service system. Her removal had temporarily left the three-member board without enough members to decide certain cases, though a later Senate confirmation restored a quorum. The ruling may also affect other lawsuits brought by officials Trump removed from independent agencies. More broadly, the decision gives the White House greater authority over agencies that were originally designed to have some protection from direct political control.After FTC ruling, US Supreme Court turns away labor board member fired by Trump | 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

This episode was previously broadcast Live on YouTube and DailyWire. Ben Shapiro analyzes this morning's SCOTUS decisions on birthright citizenship, trans athletes, and campaign finance law. Ep. 2456 "Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence" by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Janie Nitze is available here: https://a.co/d/0ad6AurJ - - - Today's Sponsors: Supersure - Go to https://Supersure.com/shapiro. One SuperAgency. One powerful platform. All your policies in one place. Paid for by Supersure Insurance Agency, LLC, a licensed insurance agency. Balance of Nature - Visit https://BalanceofNature.com today and subscribe to the Whole Health System to get an additional 10% off your subscription with promo code SHAPIRO. - - - Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://dwplus.watch/BenShapiroMemberExclusive - - - DailyWire+: Become a Daily Wire Member and watch all of our content ad-free: https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe

It was a weird and wild ride as the Supreme Court handed down the last decisions of the term that started all the way back in October of 2025. We were so much younger then. After 58 argued cases and a steady, sneaky stream of shadow docket orders, the court issued its final four decisions Tuesday, and one justice was retired and unretired in short, confusing order. The headline win: The court upheld birthright citizenship, but only by a 5-4 vote on the constitutional question, far closer than expected, and a sign of just how willing four justices are to rewrite the 14th Amendment to suit Donald Trump's wishes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh tried to split the baby, and Dahlia and Mark explain why his approach is more alarming than it first appears.The news doesn't get better from there. The court ruled against transgender student athletes in cases out of Idaho and West Virginia, with Kavanaugh writing for the majority and Justice Neil Gorsuch offering an unconvincing retreat from his brief moment, post-Bostock, as an LGBTQ rights ally. The court also gutted limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, opening new doors for even more big money in elections.Plus: the strange saga of Justice Alito's accidentally announced "retirement," what it reveals about the court's obsession with secrecy, and a first look at next term's blockbuster Second Amendment case on assault weapons.Don't miss the Amicus Plus Breakfast Table on July 10th at noon EDT with Steve Vladeck, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Niko Bowie. Slate Plus members can sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business. You can be part of a live taping of the show, go to slate.com/breakfasttable to sign up for online access. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In breaking news, a 6-3 Majority of the US Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts, has rejected Trump's efforts to rip away birthright citizenship from children born in this country to parents who are here in violation of immigration law or here temporarily. Popok explains that fireworks broke out in the opinion between Roberts and the Majority and Clarence Thomas (joined by Gorsuch and Alito) in the dissent. Select Quote: Save more than 50% at https://SelectQuote.com/legalaf today! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It was a weird and wild ride as the Supreme Court handed down the last decisions of the term that started all the way back in October of 2025. We were so much younger then. After 58 argued cases and a steady, sneaky stream of shadow docket orders, the court issued its final four decisions Tuesday, and one justice was retired and unretired in short, confusing order. The headline win: The court upheld birthright citizenship, but only by a 5-4 vote on the constitutional question, far closer than expected, and a sign of just how willing four justices are to rewrite the 14th Amendment to suit Donald Trump's wishes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh tried to split the baby, and Dahlia and Mark explain why his approach is more alarming than it first appears.The news doesn't get better from there. The court ruled against transgender student athletes in cases out of Idaho and West Virginia, with Kavanaugh writing for the majority and Justice Neil Gorsuch offering an unconvincing retreat from his brief moment, post-Bostock, as an LGBTQ rights ally. The court also gutted limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, opening new doors for even more big money in elections.Plus: the strange saga of Justice Alito's accidentally announced "retirement," what it reveals about the court's obsession with secrecy, and a first look at next term's blockbuster Second Amendment case on assault weapons.Don't miss the Amicus Plus Breakfast Table on July 10th at noon EDT with Steve Vladeck, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Niko Bowie. Slate Plus members can sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business. You can be part of a live taping of the show, go to slate.com/breakfasttable to sign up for online access. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It was a weird and wild ride as the Supreme Court handed down the last decisions of the term that started all the way back in October of 2025. We were so much younger then. After 58 argued cases and a steady, sneaky stream of shadow docket orders, the court issued its final four decisions Tuesday, and one justice was retired and unretired in short, confusing order. The headline win: The court upheld birthright citizenship, but only by a 5-4 vote on the constitutional question, far closer than expected, and a sign of just how willing four justices are to rewrite the 14th Amendment to suit Donald Trump's wishes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh tried to split the baby, and Dahlia and Mark explain why his approach is more alarming than it first appears.The news doesn't get better from there. The court ruled against transgender student athletes in cases out of Idaho and West Virginia, with Kavanaugh writing for the majority and Justice Neil Gorsuch offering an unconvincing retreat from his brief moment, post-Bostock, as an LGBTQ rights ally. The court also gutted limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, opening new doors for even more big money in elections.Plus: the strange saga of Justice Alito's accidentally announced "retirement," what it reveals about the court's obsession with secrecy, and a first look at next term's blockbuster Second Amendment case on assault weapons.Don't miss the Amicus Plus Breakfast Table on July 10th at noon EDT with Steve Vladeck, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Niko Bowie. Slate Plus members can sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business. You can be part of a live taping of the show, go to slate.com/breakfasttable to sign up for online access. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Question: How many legs does a dog have if you count the tail as a leg? Answer: Four – calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one.Likewise, calling a small group of partisan lawyers a “supreme” court doesn't make it one. There's nothing supreme about the six-pack of far-right-wing political activists who are presently soiling our people's ideals of justice by proclaiming their own anti-democratic biases to be the law of the land. On issues of economic fairness, women's rights, racial justice, corporate supremacy, environmental protection, theocratic rule, and other fundamentals, these unelected, black-robed extremists are imposing an illegitimate elitist agenda on America that the people do not want and ultimately will not tolerate.Indeed, the imperiousness of the six ruling judges has already caused the court's public approval rating to plummet, to a mere 38 percent, an historic low that ranks down there with Trump, and threatens to go as low as Congress.This has led to a flurry of officials attesting to the honesty and political impartiality of the reigning supremes. Unfortunately for the court, these ardent defenders were the six culprits themselves.The “integrity of the judiciary is in my bones,” pontificated Neil Gorsuch, who now stands accused of having lied to senators to win his lifetime appointment.“[We are not] a bunch of partisan hacks,” wailed Amy Coney Barrett, a partisan extremist jammed onto the court in a partisan ploy by Trump in the last few hours of his presidency.“Judges are not politicians,” protested John Roberts, who became Chief Justice because he was a rabid political lawyer who pushed the Supreme Court in 2000 to reject the rights of voters and install George W. Bush as president.Remember, in America, The People are supreme! We don't have to accept rule by an illegitimate court. For reform, go to FixTheCourt.com.PS— The most recent season of Slate's Slow Burn podcast traces the rise of Neil Gorsuch. Recommended!Jim Hightower's Lowdown is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jimhightower.substack.com/subscribe

Hugh Hewitt praises the ruling while pivoting quickly to celebrating Kavanaugh's concurrence encouraging Congress to pass a law restricting birthright citizenship. Hawk responds by noting that Congress cannot even get all Republican votes for the Save Act, let alone pass a constitutional amendment. Lisa Rubin analyzes Kavanaugh's partial dissent in detail, with Hawk describing Kavanaugh as the kid in class who always needs to be different for attention. Mike Johnson responds to the ruling live on air, with Hawk pointing out that the plain language of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause leaves no wiggle room for the executive order Trump signed on day one. Hawk reads from Clarence Thomas's dissent, which refers to the subjects of the 14th Amendment as the freed blacks, a phrase Hawk finds telling given that Thomas cannot bring himself to write the words Black Americans. Hawk also addresses Stephen Miller's public statement calling this the worst Supreme Court decision ever made, and fact-checks Trump's immediate claim that the United States is the only country in the world with birthright citizenship by noting that 33 countries on every continent have it. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett. Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment while dissenting in part. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Neil Gorsuch. The court grounded its decision in the historical context of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, tracing the language back to English common law, the Dred Scott decision and its widespread condemnation, Attorney General Edward Bates' wartime opinion on citizenship, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the court's prior precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Hawk connects the executive order directly to Stephen Miller's documented stated goal of an America populated almost entirely by people who look like him, and explains why birthright citizenship was the primary legal mechanism the administration intended to use to strip citizenship from Black and brown Americans descended from earlier generations born in the United States. He closes by noting that Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito remain on the court, and what that means for the 2026 midterm Senate races in Texas and Maine if either justice resigns under a Republican-controlled Senate. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

On the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it's worth asking: What was the American Revolution actually about? We all remember the broad strokes we learned in school: Independence from the British crown. Taxes on tea. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But on a deeper level, the American Revolution was—and is—a revolution in political theory, reimagining what a legitimate government is and what its relationship to its citizens should be. Washington's troops won the ground war 245 years ago at Yorktown, but the ideological battle continues against forces on both the left and the right who are pursuing a ruthless assault on America's core values. The American Revolution isn't over. Inscribed inside the dome of the Jefferson Memorial are the words: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson wrote that in an 1800 letter, but that feeling of hostility toward the tyranny of a distant monarch is what drove him and his fellow revolutionaries in 1776. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch summarized the Declaration's core ideas in an interview with Reason: "The Declaration of Independence had three great ideas in it. That all of us are equal. That each of us has inalienable rights given to us by God, not government. And that we have the right to rule ourselves." That's why Jefferson declared that a legitimate government requires the "consent of the governed." Thomas Paine put it more scathingly in his 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, writing that "government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens." Monarchy was the Devil's most effective and enduring form of "idolatry." We don't fret over tyrannical kings in today's America. Only ceremonial vestiges of hereditary monarchy remain in the modern world. The Revolution achieved a complete victory in that sense. Yet a counterrevolution is underway, one that views the American Revolution and the republic it birthed as a failed liberal regime that has outlived its usefulness. And these counterrevolutionaries sit remarkably close to the levers of power. Self-Rule Under Threat Three years before he became vice president, J.D. Vance told podcaster Jack Murphy that America had reached a point of no return. "We are in the late republican period," he said. "If we're going to push back against it we have to get pretty wild and pretty far out there and go in directions that a lot of conservatives right now are uncomfortable with. Indeed, among some of my circle the phrase 'extra-constitutional' has come up quite a bit." Vance regularly cites and associates with a group of so-called "postliberals." He appeared on a panel with one of this movement's leading intellectuals, Patrick Deneen, a Notre Dame political science professor and the author of Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future, in 2023. Deneen believes there is an unbridgeable divide between the "elite" and "ordinary" people. "What is needed," he writes in the book, "in short, is regime change—the peaceful but vigorous overthrow of a corrupt and corrupting liberal ruling class," which will be replaced by a more virtuous one. He envisions the kind of aristocratic government favored by the ancients like Plato and Aristotle, endorsing "aristopopulism," where an elite class works to further the interests of the masses. "The replacement of the current elites in our society ought to be more closely aligned to the interests of ordinary people," Deneen said at the panel. He invokes a "premodern conception of liberty—expressed in the pages of Plato, Aristotle, the Bible," where institutions like the family, the church, and the state worked together to impose "guardrails" protecting individuals from becoming "slaves" to their own desires. My colleague Stephanie Slade writes about the postliberal right for Reason magazine. "He says people like [himself] should just be in charge of our government. That's what he means by regime change," Slade says. "[That] we should replace the current elites." She notes that postliberals are willing to frame the entire American Founding as a mistake: "They might say, yeah, America did have a liberal founding and that's why it was a mistake. Actually, this whole experiment was a mistake, and it maybe took a couple hundred years for that mistake to play out….We now can see that it doesn't lead to good conservative outcomes." In his book Common Good Constitutionalism, Adrian Vermeule, a postliberal Harvard Law professor and appointee to President Donald Trump's Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States, wrote that "the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to 'protect liberty' as an end in itself." That's a rejection of the spirit of 1776. Paine saw the existence of government as a necessary evil because of "the inability of moral virtue to govern the world." A minimal state, in his view, should be restricted to supplying "freedom and security." As Gorsuch put it in the same Reason interview: "If you think of the Declaration as kind of our mission statement, our ideals, and the Constitution is the how-to manual—well, the Constitution is all about dividing power. Madison realized men are not angels and that their aspirations for power need to be checked and checked and checked again." The "regime change" Deneen and Vermeule call for isn't explicitly violent. Deneen describes "Machiavellian means to achieve Aristotelian ends." The strategy manifests as a steady expansion of presidential authority, as we've seen under Donald Trump's second term: the 143 executive orders he signed in just his first 100 days, more than any other president in history; his decision to send troops to American cities without permission from local authorities; his declaring of 21 national emergencies while in office; and his decision to send illegal immigrants to overseas prisons in defiance of the judicial branch. Incidentally, one of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence was King George III's penchant for shipping the accused "beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses." Before he became vice president, Vance encouraged Trump to emulate Andrew Jackson and dare the Supreme Court to try enforcing its rulings against him. "If I was giving him one piece of advice," Vance said, "fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people, and when the courts—because you will get taken to court—and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, 'The chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.'" "That's a really dangerous idea to be even casually trotting out there, let alone for somebody who is now the sitting vice president to be on the record," Slade says. "He said it a number of years ago when he was just a candidate for office, but I've never seen anything from him since he's been in office that makes me think that he doesn't ultimately believe in that sort of approach to politics." Some postliberals call for measures far more dramatic than the steady erosion of constitutional restraints currently underway. Michael Anton, who worked in Trump's State Department over two terms, wrote in his book The Stakes about the prospect of a "Red Caesar"—a right-wing dictator who would rise from the ashes of the fallen republic. "Caesar's word replaces constitutionalism and even, in the final analysis, law," he wrote. In a podcast conversation with pro-monarchist blogger Curtis Yarvin, Anton discussed what that might look like. "Caesarism is a form of monarchy, but that follows a nonfunctioning republic, a republic that doesn't work anymore," Anton said. Yarvin proposed that the path to power would begin with declaring a state of emergency in an inaugural address, "taking direct control over all law enforcement authorities….Basically like Caesar, you're using all of the force available to you."  "There is just clearly much more of a sense that government power is meant to be used to advance our side in the face of our enemies," Slade says. "And the enemies are the left, the political left, and anyone on the right who isn't going to line up with [them]. [They believe] political power should be used to reward our friends and punish our enemies, and that to me is a clear violation of one of the core principles of rule of law, which is equal treatment for everyone under law." In the COVID era, President Joe Biden imposed national mandates by executive fiat, and his administration tried to suppress dissent by pressuring tech companies to censor critics. The Democratic Party has also flirted with the idea of packing the Supreme Court to get its way, which is not a new impulse for the party. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the Court in 1937, it cost him the support of progressives who had previously backed the New Deal. FDR is revered by progressives and cited by Yarvin as a prototype for an American Caesar. "Was FDR a dictator? What does it mean to be a dictator? What does this pejorative word mean?" Yarvin asks. "A dictator is somebody who rules alone. And that, I think, is a beautiful thing." The Revolution was, first and foremost, about self-rule: We would no longer abide by a diktat from an overseas king. From the very beginning of the republic, power-seeking men have tried to undermine that vision. In its earliest days, there was a plot to install a Prussian prince as king of a new American monarchy. Jefferson accused John Adams and Alexander Hamilton of being monarchists, recounting in horror a dinner conversation in which Hamilton told him "the greatest man…that ever lived was Julius Caesar." But monarchy is seductive because strongmen promise order in chaotic times. In the wake of Shays' Rebellion, a post-Revolution farmer's uprising, Jefferson worried the Constitution's drafters were overreacting by creating a powerful presidency that would devolve into a monarchy. "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" he wrote. And then, famously: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Hopefully, patriots won't be shedding blood anytime soon. But Jefferson's point stands: Preserving the promises of the Revolution will always be an ongoing battle. Self-rule was one of those promises. Another was self-ownership, which includes the right to do what you want with your own property. The Rise of 'Right-Wing Progressivism' The Declaration accused the king of "cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world." The American colonies experienced unprecedented economic growth, a topic of keen interest to the laissez faire economist Adam Smith, whose book The Wealth of Nations also turns 250 this year. Smith was fascinated by the American colonies, observing that their "progress has been more rapid than that of the English in North America. Plenty of good land, and liberty to manage their own affairs their own way, seem to be the two great causes of the prosperity." Other imperial powers, such as the Spanish and Portuguese, mandated that their colonists trade only through state-created monopolies. Smith pointed out that because American colonists could export lumber to the wider European market, they were incentivized to clear and improve land. Low taxes enabled them to reinvest their profits. Smith criticized England's Navigation Acts for prohibiting colonists from buying from other countries and for discouraging manufacturing to protect domestic competitors. Although England's "mercantile spirit" hampered the economy, Smith believed that in virtually every other respect the liberty of the English colonists "to manage their own affairs their own way is complete," concluding that both England and the colonies would be better off with an independent America that traded freely with England. Like the American revolutionaries, Smith described economic freedom as not just smart policy, but as a natural right. "To prohibit a great people…from making all that they can of every part of their own produce," he wrote, "is a manifest violation of the most sacred rights of mankind." That revolutionary understanding is still under attack today from both the left and the right. Socialists like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani talk about individual profits as if they are the property of the collective. And Trump has the same mercantilist instincts toward trade that Smith argued against 250 years ago. "I love tariffs. Most beautiful word," Trump said in September 2025. "I said my favorite word in the English dictionary is the word tariff."  The postliberal right argues that laissez faire economics has undermined the working class. "Conservatives have outsourced our economic and domestic policy thinking to libertarians," Vance said at a 2019 National Conservatism Conference. "Do we serve pure unfettered commercial freedom, do we serve commerce at the expense of the public good, or do we serve something higher? And are we willing to use political power to actually accomplish those things?" "It is really important to recognize that what the postliberal right is pushing in terms of economics is progressivism," Slade says. "It's not conservatism." Tucker Carlson made the point in 2019 when he praised Elizabeth Warren's "economic patriotism" platform, noting it "sounds like Donald Trump at his best." What the so-called "economic patriots" of the left and right are converging on is a rejection of the spirit of 1776 and an embrace of monarchy. In the 18th century, many colonists could trade only through state-licensed monopolies. Warren has proposed remarrying corporations and the state through "stakeholder capitalism," in which political appointees sit on corporate boards to steer them in the right direction. Trump took a major step toward the corporatist approach in 2025 when directing the federal government to take a 10 percent stake in Intel. Before him, President Barack Obama took stakes in GM and Chrysler as part of a bailout package. "I don't think it's really a sustainable political equilibrium to have two parties that are both economically leftist," Slade says. "The American people are not on board with that. That is the horseshoe in action. And it's part of why I think there is an opportunity for old-school Reagan-style free-market conservatism to make a comeback." The slow abandonment of the revolutionary ideas of self-rule and private property that American patriots fought for in the late 18th century is downstream of a third, fundamental aspect of the American Revolution that is also under attack: freedom of conscience. Remarrying Church and State The postliberal right wants to tear down the wall between church and state. "They want to integrate church and state instead of separating them," Slade says. In some cases, it's Catholic integralists like Harvard's Vermeule, who has described a strategy of turning the government Catholic by "strategically locat[ing]" integralists "within liberal institutions…to undo the liberalism of the state from within." Deneen has suggested passing "blue laws" that would ban pornography, online gambling, and operating businesses on Sundays. A Protestant variety of Christian nationalism is embodied by pastor Doug Wilson—a spiritual mentor to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who invited Wilson to lead a prayer at the Pentagon. In a recent interview, Wilson said the "governing authorities should recognize formally that Jesus rose from the dead" and that "the basis of law would have to be Christian, and I would want it to be Protestant." Most of the revolutionaries were Christian Protestants, but they insisted on separating church and state to avoid the horrific religious wars that had ravaged Europe. "Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world" to end religious discord by establishing state churches, wrote James Madison in opposition to taxes that would have funded an official church of Virginia. An even deeper problem for these devout believers in divine providence was that marrying religion to the state removed the very freedom to choose faith that God desires. In his opposition to the Virginia law, Jefferson wrote that "Almighty God hath created the mind free" and that "all attempts" to force religious belief "are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion." Madison argued historically that Christianity reached its "greatest lustre" in the times before it incorporated with the state, and that religious laws would counterproductively discourage nonbelievers from entering a region he hoped would become a beacon of Christianity. "Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man." Slade draws on her own Catholic faith in making the case. "I am a libertarian because I'm a Catholic, because I believe that every person was created in the image of God," she says. "I just think it's morally wrong from a Catholic or Christian perspective to try to use the coercive, violent power of the state to make people live a certain way. Even if the way that these guys would like to make people live—going to church on Sunday, praying, investing in your community and your family, self-sacrifice—all these good Christian values. They're good Christian values, but they can't be coerced or imposed from the top down. It's wrong and morally offensive from a Christian perspective." Slade says she understands the despair postliberals feel about the collapse of faith and virtue in contemporary America and that they have a point about the progressive capture of institutions. "What they're channeling is a really influential belief, which isn't totally wrong, that the left made a very concerted effort to make what is often referred to as a 'long march through the institutions' and to capture so many of our elite institutions—both at the governmental level but also at the cultural level: higher education, Hollywood, the mainstream media." Critics of the progressive agenda—or "wokeness"—often describe it as its own kind of religion. Linguist and social critic John McWhorter has argued that it has "slowly transmogrified into a kind of replacement for Protestant Christianity" among its adherents. Whether religious or not, progressives have imposed their social values on Americans through public school curricula, federal policy, and civil rights law. They have violated the freedom of conscience that Jefferson and Madison wrote about in a way very similar to how mandating religion would. Postliberalism is part of the political backlash. A poll conducted in early 2021 of people who voted for Trump in 2020 didn't find agreement on nationalist economic policies—tariffs, industrial policy, any of that—but found near-universal agreement on a sense of cultural siege. About 90 percent agreed with statements like "the mainstream media has become just an arm of the Democratic Party" or "Christianity is under attack today." "This sense that the culture has been captured by people who are hostile to people like me and who hate me and want to drive me out of the public square has created so much resentment and so much of a backlash that's driving this postliberal right-wing politics," Slade says. "I don't think it's possible to understand what's going on on the right without looking at what's been going on on the left, definitely ramping up during the period referred to as the great awakening." Slade's new book argues that the remedy to this postliberal moment is a rediscovery of "fusionism"—the reintegration of liberty and virtue. "A good society needs to be both free and virtuous. And the Founders certainly believed this," she says. John Adams wrote just 13 days before the signing of the Declaration that "the only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People…they will not obtain a lasting Liberty." "What he's saying is, we can have a limited government in a free society, but if the people aren't naturally virtuous, if they don't trust each other, if they aren't good to each other—that [the Republic] is going to end up succumbing to tyranny and to a strongman government," Slade says. His fellow revolutionary and intellectual adversary Jefferson flipped the equation by writing that liberty "is the great parent…of virtue." Balancing liberty and virtue means reconstructing some of the civic "guardrails" that Deneen laments having lost in modernity—but not handing the power to regulate our conscience to the government. "What we're seeing a lot is people who are focused either on liberty but don't spend a lot of time thinking about how do we cultivate virtue, or who say, forget your liberty, we want virtue at the point of a gun," Slade says. "Government's job is to protect our basic rights and liberties. It should be prioritizing the protection of liberty." "That doesn't mean that virtue isn't important. In fact, it's the highest, most important thing in life—to pursue a virtuous life," Slade continues. "But it's not OK to expect government to do that for us. Government protects our freedom and we use that freedom to pursue virtue." The solution, Slade argues, has to be ground-up. She invokes Alexis de Tocqueville, who observed when he came to America in the 1830s that Americans excel at coming together and creating voluntary community solutions to social problems. "We should have some muscle memory here. We should be able to get back to that idea of thinking of ourselves as being on the front lines of solving problems, building new civil society institutions, nongovernmental institutions that can try to solve the problems we see in our society," Slade says. "Good policy can make this easier. And bad policy can crowd it out and make it a lot harder." The Declaration of Independence is 250 years old, but the Revolution it started is as vital as ever. During the final days of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked what kind of government they were in the process of designing. "A Republic," he said, "if you can keep it." Photo Credits: Horst Galuschka/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom/ Dennis Flaherty / Jaynes Gallery / DanitaDelimont.com / Danita Delimont/ Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom/ TIA DUFOUR/UPI/Newscom/Antonio Perez/TNS/Newscom/ Aaron Schwartz - Pool via CNP/picture alliance / Consolidated News Photos/Newscom/ Ron Adar / SOPA/ Images/Sipa USA/Newscom/ JT Vintage/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom/ AdMedia/SIPA/Newscom/ Hugh Rooney / Eye Ubiquitous/Newscom/ Bonnie Cash - Pool via CNP/CNP / Polaris/Newscom/AdMedia/Newscom/ Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Newscom/ Polaris/Newscom; Eric Lee - Pool via CNP/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Department of Defense The post The American Revolution Isn't Over appeared first on Reason.com.

We're in triage mode as the Court clears its end-of-term backlog. We run through the week's opinion dump before focusing on two cases that look unrelated but turn on the same question: when may a state rewrite background property law to limit a constitutional right? In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court strikes down Hawaii's rule requiring a property owner's express consent before a firearm may be carried onto otherwise-public premises. Then to Pung v. Isabella County, a takings case asking whether a homeowner whose property is sold for back taxes is owed only the sale proceeds or full fair-market value. Along the way: a theory about a Landor v. Louisiana flip, the week's run of 6-3 conservative wins, and a short detour into the perils of teaching Federal Courts.Key Topics[00:00:00] - Triage mode: recording June 25 amid the end-of-term opinion dump[00:01:29] - What's still outstanding — and the campaign-finance case's standing problem[00:03:56] - The Landor "flip" theory: did Justice Jackson lose the majority to Justice Gorsuch?[00:06:40] - Thursday's decisions: Monsanto v. Durnell (FIFRA), two immigration wins, Wolford v. Lopez[00:08:58] - Counting the week's seven 6-3 conservative wins; the Hemani surprise[00:12:57] - The throughline: when may a state redefine property to evade a constitutional right?[00:18:35] - Wolford v. Lopez: Hawaii's "express consent" gun rule after Bruen[00:20:42] - The Bruen framework — step one vs. step two, and the free-speech analogy[00:26:57] - The change vs. the outlier: uniformity and Hawaii's sensitive-places list[00:30:49] - Alito's historical analogues: poaching laws and the Black Codes[00:33:34] - Jackson's dissent: race, Equal Protection, and how non-mechanical Bruen really is[00:38:59] - Caetano, the Ramos v. Louisiana callback, and Alito on racist origins[00:41:21] - Barrett's concurrence, Kagan's narrower path, and the rejected "spirit of aloha"[00:48:23] - Pung v. Isabella County: tax sales, takings, and "just compensation"[00:51:45] - Thomas's historical turn on tax-sale rules, and the fairness backstop[00:55:45] - Sign-offRelevant LinksSupreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Divided Argument podcast: https://www.dividedargument.com/Transcripts: https://www.dividedargument.com/transcriptsCommentary blog: https://blog.dividedargument.com/Merchandise: https://store.dividedargument.com/New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdfTyler v. Hennepin County: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_q86b.pdfRamos v. Louisiana: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_j4el.pdf

As America marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Margaret Hoover speaks to a Supreme Court justice, a swing state governor, and a retired four-star general about the state of American democracy and the nation's progress toward fulfilling its founding ideals.Justice Neil Gorsuch, co-author of the new children's book “Heroes of 1776,” reflects on America's founders and the lesser-known figures who helped shape the Revolution. He comments on the role of the Supreme Court in sustaining democracy, his view of America as a creedal nation, and the need for better civics education.Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan assesses the impact of deepening political polarization and a troubling rise in support for political violence. She speaks about obstacles to the American dream, the ongoing pursuit of greater equality, and her hopes for the next generation of Americans.Retired Army General Stanley McChrystal discusses the role of the military in preserving democracy and the sacrifices America's troops have borne since the nation's founding. He underscores the importance of character in leaders and presidents, and he explains why he is both proud to be an American and leery of unquestioning patriotism.America at 250: A Firing Line Special with Margaret Hoover was made possible by contributions to your PBS Stations from viewers like you. Thank you.

The Joe Piscopo Show 6-26-26 47:38- Hogan Gidley, Former National Press Secretary for the Trump campaign and former White House Deputy Press Secretary Topic: President Trump's Supreme Court immigration wins; Senate voting to check President Trump's war powers 55:42- Matthew "Whiz" Buckley, decorated former U.S. Navy F/A-18 Hornet pilot, TOP GUN graduate, and now the founder of the No Fallen Heroes Foundation Topic: Iran strikes vessel in Strait of Hormuz 1:05:58- Stephen Moore, "Joe Piscopo Show" Resident Scholar of Economics, Chairman of FreedomWorks Task Force on Economic Revival, former Trump economic adviser and the author of "The Trump Economic Miracle: And the Plan to Unleash Prosperity Again" Topic: School choice 1:21:01- Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow in the new Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law at Advancing American Freedom Topic: Supreme Court rulings 1:28:38- Art Del Cueto, Border Security Advisor for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and a 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol Topic: Ending deportation protections for Haitians and Syrians 1:54:22- Dr. Wendy Bohon, Earthquake geologist and science communications specialist Topic: Venezuela earthquakes 2:02:05- Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Topic: SCOTUS rulings See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On Iran, Hawk recaps the collapse of the Switzerland talks with JD Vance after Trump threatened the Iranian delegation on social media, and raises the point that Lebanon and Israel are not signatories to any negotiations despite being central parties to the ongoing conflict. He also covers the Supreme Court's new gun ruling tied to marijuana use, referencing commentary from Michael Popok, Lisa Graves, and Slate's Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern on Neil Gorsuch's reasoning. Hawk addresses the UFC fighter's remarks about Kamala Harris made at a White House event alongside Joe Rogan, and closes with election analyst Larry Sabato's outlook on 2026 Republican turnout, including Trump's successful primary purges of Thomas Massey, John Cornyn, Bill Cassidy, and Tom Tillis. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous ruling this week in United States v. Hemani, holding that a marijuana user cannot be stripped of his Second Amendment right to own a firearm simply because he sometimes uses cannabis. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, leaning heavily on the founders' own well-documented love of alcohol to argue that responsible substance use has never historically disqualified Americans from bearing arms. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern unpack the ruling, note what it does not settle about the still-murky Bruen test, and reflect on how dramatically the justices' posture toward marijuana has shifted since the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case they decided less than two decades ago.Then, Dahlia sits down with David Gans, director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center, to discuss his forthcoming Stanford Law Review article, Forgotten Framers: Black Conventions and the Second Founding. Between 1864 and 1869, Black Americans gathered in more than fifty conventions in packed churches and meeting halls across the country to demand equal citizenship, voting rights, bodily autonomy, protection from racial violence, and access to education. These conventions molded the Reconstruction amendments in ways that originalist jurisprudence ignores.Gans explains how the Roberts court's colorblind reading of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments distorts this history by ignoring the explicitly race-conscious vision the conventions—and the amendments themselves—championed. He also explains how the Guarantee Clause, long a "sleeping giant," could still offer a constitutional path to combat partisan and racial gerrymandering after Calais and Milligan. Gans wrote about this facet of the history recently in Slate.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. 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? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous ruling this week in United States v. Hemani, holding that a marijuana user cannot be stripped of his Second Amendment right to own a firearm simply because he sometimes uses cannabis. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, leaning heavily on the founders' own well-documented love of alcohol to argue that responsible substance use has never historically disqualified Americans from bearing arms. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern unpack the ruling, note what it does not settle about the still-murky Bruen test, and reflect on how dramatically the justices' posture toward marijuana has shifted since the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case they decided less than two decades ago.Then, Dahlia sits down with David Gans, director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center, to discuss his forthcoming Stanford Law Review article, Forgotten Framers: Black Conventions and the Second Founding. Between 1864 and 1869, Black Americans gathered in more than fifty conventions in packed churches and meeting halls across the country to demand equal citizenship, voting rights, bodily autonomy, protection from racial violence, and access to education. These conventions molded the Reconstruction amendments in ways that originalist jurisprudence ignores.Gans explains how the Roberts court's colorblind reading of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments distorts this history by ignoring the explicitly race-conscious vision the conventions—and the amendments themselves—championed. He also explains how the Guarantee Clause, long a "sleeping giant," could still offer a constitutional path to combat partisan and racial gerrymandering after Calais and Milligan. Gans wrote about this facet of the history recently in Slate.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. 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? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous ruling this week in United States v. Hemani, holding that a marijuana user cannot be stripped of his Second Amendment right to own a firearm simply because he sometimes uses cannabis. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, leaning heavily on the founders' own well-documented love of alcohol to argue that responsible substance use has never historically disqualified Americans from bearing arms. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern unpack the ruling, note what it does not settle about the still-murky Bruen test, and reflect on how dramatically the justices' posture toward marijuana has shifted since the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case they decided less than two decades ago.Then, Dahlia sits down with David Gans, director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center, to discuss his forthcoming Stanford Law Review article, Forgotten Framers: Black Conventions and the Second Founding. Between 1864 and 1869, Black Americans gathered in more than fifty conventions in packed churches and meeting halls across the country to demand equal citizenship, voting rights, bodily autonomy, protection from racial violence, and access to education. These conventions molded the Reconstruction amendments in ways that originalist jurisprudence ignores.Gans explains how the Roberts court's colorblind reading of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments distorts this history by ignoring the explicitly race-conscious vision the conventions—and the amendments themselves—championed. He also explains how the Guarantee Clause, long a "sleeping giant," could still offer a constitutional path to combat partisan and racial gerrymandering after Calais and Milligan. Gans wrote about this facet of the history recently in Slate.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. 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? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

New York is the latest state to legalize medical aid in dying. Stephen Dubner speaks with the governor who signed the law, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, a death doula — and an ethicist who thinks the very idea is wrong.   SOURCES: Kathy Hochul, governor of New York. Suzanne O'Brien, death doula, founder of Doulagivers Institute. Al Roth, economist at Stanford University. Daniel Sulmasy, physician, philosopher, director of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University.   RESOURCES: Moral Economics: From Prostitution to Organ Sales, What Controversial Transactions Reveal About How Markets Work, by Al Roth (2026). "New York Moves to Allow Terminally Ill People to Die on Their Own Terms," by Grace Ashford (New York Times, 2025). The Good Death: A Guide for Supporting Your Loved One through the End of Life, by Suzanne O'Brien (2025). The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, by Neil Gorsuch (2009).   EXTRAS: "Make Me a Match (Update)," by Freakonomics Radio (2023). Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss what the U.S. is getting and what it is giving up with the deal to end Trump's Iran war, how Trump's UFC fight at the White House intentionally used the symbols of the presidency to divide rather than unite Americans, and the intensifying conflict between the government and powerful AI companies.For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily, John, and David discuss today's narrow Supreme Court ruling in the case of United States v. Hemani. The hosts talk about the court's decision on guns and marijuana use, but also, thanks to Justice Gorsuch's focus on the Founding Fathers as "habitual drunkards," veer in a surprisingly philosophical discussion about history and its role in modern legal reasoning. In the latest Gabfest Reads, John Dickerson talks with Bloomberg columnist Adrian Wooldridge about his new book The Revolutionary Center: The Lost Genius of Liberalism. In a moment when American democracy is under assault from authoritarian populists and dogmatic progressives, Wooldridge argues that liberalism itself offers the most resilient framework for pluralistic, self-correcting societies. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Nina Porzucki Research by Emily DittoYou can find the full Political Gabfest show pages here. Want more Political Gabfest? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Political Gabfest show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or visit slate.com/gabfestplus to get access wherever you listen. Find out more about David Plotz's monthly tours of Ft. DeRussy, the secret Civil War fort hidden in Rock Creek Park. Follow@SlateGabfest on X / https://twitter.com/SlateGabfestSlate Political Gabfest on Facebook / https://www.facebook.com/Gabfest/Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss what the U.S. is getting and what it is giving up with the deal to end Trump's Iran war, how Trump's UFC fight at the White House intentionally used the symbols of the presidency to divide rather than unite Americans, and the intensifying conflict between the government and powerful AI companies.For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily, John, and David discuss today's narrow Supreme Court ruling in the case of United States v. Hemani. The hosts talk about the court's decision on guns and marijuana use, but also, thanks to Justice Gorsuch's focus on the Founding Fathers as "habitual drunkards," veer in a surprisingly philosophical discussion about history and its role in modern legal reasoning. In the latest Gabfest Reads, John Dickerson talks with Bloomberg columnist Adrian Wooldridge about his new book The Revolutionary Center: The Lost Genius of Liberalism. In a moment when American democracy is under assault from authoritarian populists and dogmatic progressives, Wooldridge argues that liberalism itself offers the most resilient framework for pluralistic, self-correcting societies. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Nina Porzucki Research by Emily DittoYou can find the full Political Gabfest show pages here. Want more Political Gabfest? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Political Gabfest show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or visit slate.com/gabfestplus to get access wherever you listen. Find out more about David Plotz's monthly tours of Ft. DeRussy, the secret Civil War fort hidden in Rock Creek Park. Follow@SlateGabfest on X / https://twitter.com/SlateGabfestSlate Political Gabfest on Facebook / https://www.facebook.com/Gabfest/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss what the U.S. is getting and what it is giving up with the deal to end Trump's Iran war, how Trump's UFC fight at the White House intentionally used the symbols of the presidency to divide rather than unite Americans, and the intensifying conflict between the government and powerful AI companies.For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily, John, and David discuss today's narrow Supreme Court ruling in the case of United States v. Hemani. The hosts talk about the court's decision on guns and marijuana use, but also, thanks to Justice Gorsuch's focus on the Founding Fathers as "habitual drunkards," veer in a surprisingly philosophical discussion about history and its role in modern legal reasoning. In the latest Gabfest Reads, John Dickerson talks with Bloomberg columnist Adrian Wooldridge about his new book The Revolutionary Center: The Lost Genius of Liberalism. In a moment when American democracy is under assault from authoritarian populists and dogmatic progressives, Wooldridge argues that liberalism itself offers the most resilient framework for pluralistic, self-correcting societies. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Nina Porzucki Research by Emily DittoYou can find the full Political Gabfest show pages here. Want more Political Gabfest? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Political Gabfest show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or visit slate.com/gabfestplus to get access wherever you listen. Find out more about David Plotz's monthly tours of Ft. DeRussy, the secret Civil War fort hidden in Rock Creek Park. Follow@SlateGabfest on X / https://twitter.com/SlateGabfestSlate Political Gabfest on Facebook / https://www.facebook.com/Gabfest/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week's episode, which finds Steve over in Japan but still with a hoarse voice, ranges widely from exonerating John Yoo from being implicated in a major whiskey heist, to what the prodigious drinking habits of the Founding Fathers has to say about constitutional law today. Justice Neil Gorsuch reminds us that “John Adams took […]

This week's episode, which finds Steve over in Japan but still with a hoarse voice, ranges widely from exonerating John Yoo from being implicated in a major whiskey heist, to what the prodigious drinking habits of the Founding Fathers has to say about constitutional law today. Justice Neil Gorsuch reminds us that “John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day. James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day. Thomas Jefferson said he wasn't much of a user of alcohol—he only had three or four glasses of wine a night.” Ah, the great ones.Speaking of the Founders, we make a nod to the tragic passing of Gordon Wood, and naturally manage to get into an argument about history and historians.But the central topic of today is considering John's foray into grand strategy in his Civitas Outlook article this week on "America Doesn't Need to Fear a 'Thucydides Trap'," , and while Admiral Ackbar needed to fear a trap, John doesn't think so. But what was Chinese premier Xi trying to do in bringing up the subject in a public session at the recent summit with Trump? One doesn't imagine Trump being a reader of Thucydides, though one can easily see him liking the outcome of the Melian debate. In fact, maybe that's what he's up to with Iran? Who can tell. 

In this episode, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, honorary co-chair of the National Constitution Center, and his co-author and former law clerk Janie Nitze join the Center to discuss their new children's book, Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence (HarperCollins; May 5, 2026). Designed for families and learners of all ages, this Civic Story Hour program invites audiences into the human stories behind the Declaration of Independence. Heroes of 1776 introduces readers to both familiar figures such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Paul Revere, as well as lesser-known participants in the American story, including Caesar Rodney, Thomas Paine, and Mary Katharine Goddard. Together, their stories highlight the risks, choices, and debates that shaped the nation's founding. Blending vivid storytelling with historical detail, the book centers the lived experiences behind the founding era and invites young readers to consider the enduring ideals of the Declaration. Julie Silverbrook, chief content and learning officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources  Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr Explore the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support our important work ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

Trans healthcare is an evolving discussion, and the implications greatly affect those in the LGBTQ+ community. At its heart, this is a conversation about the science meant to inform transition-related healthcare care, and what happens when politics deliberately distorts it. On March 31, 2026, The Supreme Court handed down an 8-to-1 ruling that conversion therapy, a practice every major medical and mental health organization has condemned as harmful and without scientific basis, now qualifies as “protected speech” under the First Amendment. The case, Chiles v. Salazar, centered on a Christian counselor in Colorado who argued that a state ban on the practice violated her right to speak freely with her clients. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, declared that the First Amendment “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.” Only Justice Jackson dissented, warning that the ruling “misreads our precedents, is unprincipled and unworkable.” This decision puts laws in 23 states and the District of Columbia at serious risk. It tells LGBTQ+ young people that any licensed therapist with a personal ideological or religious agenda now has the constitutional right to try to change who they are. It arrived on a day meant to celebrate trans lives. This ruling lands in the same moment that Professor Kinnon Ross MacKinnon, a trans researcher whose work I deeply respect, published in the New York Times that the Trump administration has been weaponizing detransition research to justify bans on gender-affirming care. At the same time, his guest essay outlines the complexities of gender fluidity that can occur after accessing medical treatments for gender dysphoria. Early studies from the 1970s through the 2000s found detransition rates of roughly 1 to 6 percent, primarily among adult transgender women who had full surgical transitions. New research focusing on younger populations, though, identifies that between 2-17% [GU1] of young LGBTQ+ people may experience a detransition process. The field of pediatric gender-affirming healthcare, when it was rapidly scaled up in the United States and Canada over the last 10-15 years, was not prepared for the question of detransition and how to care for these experiences. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, retired, honorary co-chair of the National Constitution Center, joins to discuss The Promise of America: Reflections on Our Enduring Ideals, a new keepsake volume from the National Constitution Center. Justice Breyer, who wrote the book's foreword, reflects on the enduring constitutional ideals explored in the volume and their continued relevance today. He is joined by the Honorable Cheryl Ann Krause, judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and member of the National Constitution Center Board of Trustees.  This conversation was streamed live from Philadelphia as part of the NCC's America's Town Hall series on May 16, 2026.  Resources   The Promise of America: Reflections on Our Enduring Ideals  Justice Stephen G. Breyer, “It's up to us whether the American experiment succeeds,” (USA Today, May 11, 2026)  Justice Neil Gorsuch, “How Imperfect People Form a More Perfect Union,” (Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2026)  Reflections on Our Enduring Ideals: A Conversation with Justice Stephen Breyer , National Constitution Center, America's Town Hall  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr Explore the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support our important work ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

In our final episode, it's time to talk about Neil Gorsuch and the future of SCOTUS. Host Susan Matthews enlists Slate's jurisprudence team—Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern—to discuss Gorsuch's key rulings to date, his unpredictability, and how this textualist will shape this court (and our country) for decades to come.Want more Slow Burn? Join Slate Plus to binge every episode of Becoming Justice Gorsuch—and every season of Slow Burn, including Becoming Justice Thomas. You'll also enjoy ad-free listening to all of your favorite Slate podcasts. Visit slate.com/slowburnplus to get access wherever you listen.Season 11 of Slow Burn was written and reported by Susan Matthews. It was produced by Sophie Summergrad and Joel Meyer. It was edited by Mia Lobel, Hillary Frey, and Evan Chung. Original music by Hannis Brown. Merritt Jacob mixed this episode. Mia Lobel is the executive producer of Slate Podcasts.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, the Supreme Court appeared to be headed for a 5-4 liberal majority. Instead, a staggering blockade by Senate Republicans and a shocking electoral upset helped steal a seat and clear the way for today's conservative supermajority. In our second episode, we examine Neil Gorsuch's politically fraught path to power and his time on the bench so far, including the unpredictability that has made him the high court's wild card.Want more Slow Burn? Join Slate Plus to binge every episode of Becoming Justice Gorsuch—and every season of Slow Burn, including Becoming Justice Thomas. You'll also enjoy ad-free listening to all of your favorite Slate podcasts. Visit slate.com/slowburnplus to get access wherever you listen. Season 11 of Slow Burn was written and reported by Susan Matthews. It was produced by Sophie Summergrad and Joel Meyer. It was edited by Mia Lobel, Hillary Frey, and Evan Chung. Original music and sound design by Hannis Brown. Mia Lobel is the executive producer of Slate Podcasts.Our legal editor is Mark Joseph Stern. Special thanks to Dahlia Lithwick, Sara Burningham, and Patrick Fort. Episode artwork by Natalie Matthews-Ramo.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Neil Gorsuch may not be the most well-known justice on the Supreme Court, but he might just be the key to understanding how and why the current court has come to wield so much power over our day-to-day lives. In our first episode, host Susan Matthews examines Gorsuch's early years, what he took away from his iconoclastic mother's rocky tenure in the Reagan administration, and how his worldview was shaped by his time on a liberal college campus and in 1980s conservative circles. Plus: the controversial court case that might have gotten Gorsuch noticed by just the right people at just the right time.Want more Slow Burn? Join Slate Plus to binge every episode of Becoming Justice Gorsuch—and every season of Slow Burn, including Becoming Justice Thomas. You'll also enjoy ad-free listening to all of your favorite Slate podcasts. Visit slate.com/slowburnplus to get access wherever you listen. Season 11 of Slow Burn was written and reported by Susan Matthews. It was produced by Sophie Summergrad and Joel Meyer. It was edited by Mia Lobel, Hillary Frey, and Evan Chung. Original music and sound design by Hannis Brown. Mia Lobel is the executive producer of Slate Podcasts.Our legal editor is Mark Joseph Stern. Special thanks to Dahlia Lithwick, Sara Burningham, and Patrick Fort. Episode artwork by Natalie Matthews-Ramo. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.