Podcasts about ninth circuit

I began recording this episode with knowledge that Charlie Kirk had been seriously wounded at a college campus. During the recording of the episode, right in the middle thereabouts, I found out he died, and so what was to be just the next in a series on Duncan v. Bonta, a final episode on VanDyke's powerful dissent to that en banc 9th Circuit case in March of this past year became a reaction to his assassination. So, therefore, this episode is in honor of Charlie Kirk. This episode includes a reading from the 1925 edition of "Streams in the Desert", January 3rd. In part D of VanDyke's Republican dissent in our series of dissents in the en banc resolution of Duncan v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, 20 March 2025), we continue and finish covering his reductio ad absurdum form of argument. This episode is part 4 of 4 of Judge VanDyke's epic dissent to that resolution which caught a lot of controversy because part of his dissent was a link to the following website : https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/23-55805/opinion , which, as you'll see, does not go to the Ninth Circuit federal government website but instead goes to YouTube, the Ninth Circuit's YouTube channel. The link for the en banc opinion of the Court as well as the dissents covered here can be found here : https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/20/23-55805.pdf These materials, the text and the video linked within the text of Judge VanDyke's dissent are in the public domain and have no copyright restrictions upon them. I have done the best I could, given the technology, to make a fair use of them with a transformative reading for educational purposes only. The controversy around the video includes not merely that Judge VanDyke, a Trump appointee to the Court, included video as a supplement embedded within his dissent, which he (and the Court) clearly consider to be official parts of his dissent, but what he filmed there in the federal courthouse in Reno, Nevada (probably, since that's where his chambers are according to the US Ninth Circuit's seniority website). He filmed, in his chambers, wearing his black robe, with views on the video to the tune of hundreds of thousands, a tote bag with his own guns, his own handguns, real firearms. He mentioned that the firearms used for the video were rendered inoperable, unloaded, and safe for purposes of the educational part of the dissent. He claimed to be filling in missing background information useful for understanding the record before the court, not for supplementing the record per se with his, the Judge's, testimony -- something that would be not only unusual but inappropriate. I'd love to hear what you think in the comments. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-civil-liberties podcast. Therefore, welcome Judge VanDyke . The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Episode 34: Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. Lourdes LopezMoving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. Lourdes Lopez, argued en banc before Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia and Circuit Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Consuelo M. Callahan, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, John B. Owens, Ryan D. Nelson, Eric D. Miller, Daniel P. Collins, Lawrence VanDyke, Lucy H. Koh, and Jennifer Sung for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 9, 2025. Argued by Chad Morgan (on behalf of Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc.) and Holly Whatley on behalf of Lourdes Lopez. Background of the case [from the Institute for Free Speech case page]:The City of Oxnard in California crafted a campaign finance law aimed at silencing its most vocal critic. That's why the Institute for Free Speech filed an amicus brief in Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. Lourdes Lopez. The brief argues that “the city's deliberate attempt to silence a challenger by eliminating the financing that only he used is an attack on the democratic process, and the First Amendment requires an ‘independent and careful' review under closely drawn scrutiny.” The City of Oxnard targeted Aaron Starr and his nonprofit organization Moving Oxnard Forward through Measure B, a ballot measure that included caps on individual contributions to political campaigns. Starr has been a vocal critic of members of the Oxnard City Council, and Measure B's restrictions would disproportionately affect Starr's primary form of fundraising. Over the years, the Supreme Court has determined that contribution limits must be aimed at “quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.” However, as the panel's opinion in the case notes, “Measure B's campaign finance limits were much more closely drawn to the prohibited objective of stopping Starr rather than remedying corruption concerns.” In addition to challenging the constitutionality of Measure B, the brief also calls on the Ninth Circuit to overturn decisions in Montana Right to Life Ass'n v. Eddleman and Lair v. Motl., stating that the erroneous decisions “bless government abridgement of speech and association with the use of a standard that falls short even of intermediate scrutiny.” Resources:CourtListener page for Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. Lourdes LopezInstitute for Free Speech amicus briefNinth Circuit OpinionCity of Oxnard Measure BThe Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Choreography copyright exists in a fascinating legal gray area where cultural ownership and legal protection often clash. When Alfonso Ribeiro attempted to claim rights to his iconic "Carlton Dance" from Fresh Prince of Bel-Air after Fortnite used it as a purchasable emote, his case was dismissed because the Copyright Office deemed the routine "too simple" - just three basic dance steps without sufficient originality. This ruling sparked crucial conversations about what makes dance protectable.The landscape shifted dramatically when choreographer Kyle Hanagami sued Epic Games over a four-count hook from his registered routine appearing in Fortnite. When the Ninth Circuit reversed an initial dismissal in 2023, they delivered a game-changing perspective: "Reducing choreography to isolated poses is like reducing music to single notes." This recognition that even short sequences could embody original expression opened new possibilities for dancers seeking protection.We explore how this legal evolution continues with Kelly Heyer's ongoing battle against Roblox for monetizing her viral "Apple Dance" without permission. With platforms earning substantial revenue from choreographic content, questions of fair compensation and proper licensing have never been more urgent. Meanwhile, international cases reveal how different jurisdictions approach dance protection - from China's rejection of single-pose copyright to Brazil's emphasis on proving tangible harm.Through these stories, we distill five crucial principles governing choreography copyright: basic movements remain freely available to all; originality exists in arrangement rather than individual steps; even short sequences can qualify for protection if distinctive enough; evidence of harm matters as much as creativity; and courts continually seek balance between creator rights and cultural freedom. As dance moves from stages to avatars in the metaverse, these principles will shape how we value and protect movement in the digital age.Ready to dive deeper into intellectual property's fascinating frontiers? Subscribe to Intangiblia and join our exploration of the ideas that shape our creative landscape.Send us a textSupport the show

In this month's Immigration Lawyers Toolbox® Podcast Federal Court Update, host John Q. Khosravi, Esq. is joined once again by Kevin A. Gregg, Esq. of Kurzban, Kurzban, Tetzeli & Pratt, P.A. Together, they review the most important recent federal court immigration decisions and discuss how these rulings impact practitioners and their clients. From precedent-setting cases to evolving litigation strategies, Kevin brings his expertise to help immigration lawyers understand what these developments mean for day-to-day practice. This recurring series is a must-listen for attorneys who want to stay on top of the latest in immigration-related federal litigation.

The Trump Administration appeals the ruling that said it was illegal to send the National Guard to LA. A Cal State Channel Islands instructor is accused of throwing tear gas at immigration agents. California braces for a fight with the feds over in-state tuition for undocumented students. Plus, more.Support The L.A. Report by donating at LAist.com/join and by visiting https://laist.comVisit www.preppi.com/LAist to receive a FREE Preppi Emergency Kit (with any purchase over $100) and be prepared for the next wildfire, earthquake or emergency! Support the show: https://laist.com

In 2020 and 2021, Idaho and West Virginia passed laws that required public schools and colleges to designate sports by biological sex and to forbid males from competing on women’s sports teams. Two male athletes who identified as females, one a middle school shot-put and discus thrower and the other a collegiate cross-country runner, challenged the laws in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Idaho and Southern District of West Virginia, alleging a right to compete in women’s sports and saying the state laws discriminate on the basis of sex and transgender status in violation of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In Little v. Hecox, the Idaho district court entered a preliminary injunction against the Idaho law for violating the Equal Protection Clause, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the West Virginia district court preliminarily enjoined the West Virginia law for violating Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause and then dissolved that injunction, upholding the law at summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered the district court to enjoin the law for violating Title IX.The Supreme Court accepted certiorari on both of these cases and will consider whether states can designate women’s sports based on biological sex consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss these cases and the broader issues at play, including the scope of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause as they relate to school sports and gender identity.Featuring:Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and the Director for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education

The Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that Washington's redistricting map violated the Voting Rights Act, forcing changes that displaced Senator Nikki Torres and several GOP lawmakers. Bill Bruch argues the map harms Latino representation while boosting Democratic control. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/opinion/opinion-ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals-issues-ruling-in-wa-state-redistricting-case/ #Washington #Redistricting #VotingRights #NikkiTorres #Politics #NinthCircuit #VRA #Elections

Donate (no account necessary) | Subscribe (account required) Join Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA Operations Officer, as he dives into today's top stories shaping America and the world. In this episode of The Wright Report, we cover the growing battle between Trump and the Federal Reserve, new fights over redistricting in California and Texas, major courtroom victories for the president, and breakthrough medical research on autism. From fiery clashes in Washington to hopeful discoveries in science, today's brief delivers the headlines shaping America's future. Trump vs. Powell and the Federal Reserve: Fed Chair Jerome Powell delivers a pivotal speech today as Trump threatens to fire him over high interest rates. Biden appointee Lisa Cook refuses to resign amid a DOJ mortgage fraud investigation, declaring, “I have no intention of being bullied to step down from my position.” Trump pushes to replace Fed governors with his own picks, raising the stakes for the economy and next year's midterms. California and Texas Redistricting Battles: California Governor Gavin Newsom pushes a special election to redraw maps that would flip five GOP districts to Democrats, but polls show 64 percent of Californians want to keep the independent commission's map. Meanwhile, Texas Republicans advance their own redistricting plan to shift five seats from Democrats to Republicans, with Florida and Missouri set to follow. Trump Scores Three Major Court Victories: A New York appeals court strikes down a $500 million civil fraud verdict, calling it “a stinging rebuke” to Attorney General Letitia James. The Supreme Court clears Trump to cut $800 million in DEI grants at the NIH. And the Ninth Circuit rules he can end Biden's Temporary Protected Status protections for 60,000 migrants, overturning what Bryan calls “an egregiously wrong” lower court decision. Immigration Crackdown in Washington DC: Trump personally joins ICE agents targeting illegal immigrants on mopeds working for delivery services. One arrest of a Mexican national sparked outrage until it was revealed he had raped a 13-year-old child, forcing Democrats to quickly delete their criticism. Bryan calls it proof that “facts matter, and sometimes they come out too late.” Economic Data Surprises and Tariff Revenues: Despite gloomy forecasts, Walmart sales hold firm, housing sales tick upward, and factory activity reaches its highest level since 2022. Trump's tariffs generate a record $160 billion in revenue, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirming the funds are reducing U.S. debt. “It's leaving the economic smarties scratching their heads,” Bryan notes, as predictions of collapse keep falling flat. Global Updates — Ukraine, India, and the UK: Trump urges Zelenskyy to strike inside Russia, writing, “It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invader's country.” Russia responds by bombing a U.S.-owned factory in Ukraine. In India, Prime Minister Modi moves closer to China, praising “steady progress guided by respect for each other's interests” while his billionaire allies profit from Russian oil sales. In the UK, PM Keir Starmer faces fury as asylum seekers flood in and crime rises. Breakthroughs in Autism Research: South Korean scientists develop a probiotic treatment that reduces autism symptoms in mice by altering gut bacteria. At Stanford, researchers test an epilepsy drug, Z-944, that reverses autism symptoms including seizures, sensitivity issues, and social impairments. Bryan calls the findings “a wonderful way to start the weekend.”   "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32     Keywords: Trump Powell Federal Reserve fight, Jerome Powell interest rates, Lisa Cook DOJ investigation, California redistricting Newsom, Texas GOP redistricting plan, Trump court victories Letitia James, Supreme Court NIH DEI grants, Ninth Circuit TPS migrants, Trump DC ICE mopeds, Walmart sales tariffs, U.S. factory activity 2025, Trump tariffs debt reduction, Zelenskyy strike inside Russia, Russia bombs U.S. factory Ukraine, Modi Xi China alliance, UK asylum seekers Starmer, South Korea autism probiotic, Stanford epilepsy drug autism reversal

Texas Democrats return to work, and the congressional redistricting bill has been approved. A Florida teacher gives a 6-year-old a “Most Likely to Be a Dictator” certificate. Loudoun County, Virginia, boys suspended after saying they were uncomfortable that a girl was filming them in the boys' locker room. A Texas state representative is applauded for packing bags and sleeping on the Texas House floor. Cracker Barrel announces logo and menu changes with some remodeling, and people are not happy. The Target CEO is stepping down, following a decline in sales. Mark Hamill says his wife talked him out of leaving the U.S. over Donald Trump. The Ninth Circuit court strikes down California's one-gun-per-month rule. A federal judge blocks a new Texas law that requires the Ten Commandments to be posted in every classroom. Joy Reid claims that white people can't invent anything original. An Indian illegal immigrant with a CDL from California does a U-turn on a Florida highway, leading to the deaths of three people. 00:00 Pat Gray UNLEASHED! 04:16 Teacher Labels Six-Year-Old Student as a Dictator?! 07:57 Stone Bridge High School in Trouble 14:52 CNN Concerned about New Litmus Test Given to Teachers 19:38 Nicole Collier Celebrated for Sleeping at the Texas State House 22:39 Nicole Collier Told to Hang Up 25:19 Texas Democrats Hold a Slumber Party for Democracy 31:51 Ron DeSantis' Cheat Code to Being a Great Governor 33:09 Fat Five 48:19 Jake Paul v. Gervonta Davis v. Mike Tyson 53:44 Fact-Checker Admits that He Made Mistakes 58:47 Gavin Newsom on Murder Rates in Red States 1:01:40 Gavin Newsom Joins a Podcast to Defend Democracy 1:02:51 Gavin Newsom's Wife on Illegals in America 1:07:06 Judicial Overreach Continues 1:12:19 More of Racist Joy Reid 1:16:26 Scott Jennings Explains Trump's Vision for the Smithsonian 1:25:11 Stephen A. Smith Says Gavin Newsom is "Presidential" 1:28:58 Realtor Refuses to Work with Trump Supporters 1:30:54 RFK Jr. & Pete Hegseth Exercise Challenge 1:34:08 NYSE Texas Opens Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Administrative Law: May a district court enjoin the Office of Personnel Management from ordering six agencies to fire probationary employees en masse? - Argued: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 19:42:6 EDT

Civil Procedure: Are government documents respecting the plans for mass layoff of federal employees protected by the deliberative process privilege? - Argued: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 19:55:10 EDT

This Day in Legal History: ABA FormedOn August 21, 1878, 75 lawyers convened in Saratoga Springs, New York, and formally established the American Bar Association (ABA). Their shared aim was to advance the “science of jurisprudence,” promote uniform legislation, strengthen justice administration, uphold the profession's honor, and encourage collegial interaction among lawyers. Their organizing document—the original constitution—still shapes the ABA's mission today.Over time, the ABA became the premier professional association for attorneys in the U.S., influencing national legal education, ethics, and law reform. It introduced the first national ethics code in 1908 (the Canons of Professional Ethics), which eventually evolved into today's Model Rules of Professional Conduct.While the ABA once counted about 400,000 dues-paying members, by the low‑point of 2019, it had lost approximately 56,000 members—a symptom of shifting professional norms and changing perceptions of organizational value. Membership has continued to decline, with figures dropping as low as 227,000 by 2024. In response, the ABA has implemented membership reforms and reduced dues tiers to attract and re-engage lawyers, especially those early in their careers.The American Bar Association's recent actions reflect a mixed record in the face of escalating political pressure—particularly from the Trump administration and its allies. On one hand, the ABA has forcefully resisted efforts to erode legal independence: in 2025, it filed a federal lawsuit accusing the administration of intimidating law firms engaged in politically sensitive representation, and it criticized the DOJ's move to exclude the ABA from vetting judicial nominees as a blow to transparency and professionalism. It also defended its longstanding role in law school accreditation amid efforts to strip that authority.On the other hand, the ABA's decision in August 2025 to eliminate five Board of Governors seats historically reserved for women, LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities, and racial minorities marks a notable concession under pressure. The newly adopted policy opens these seats to anyone with a demonstrated commitment to diversity, regardless of their own demographic identity. While proponents framed the shift as a legal safeguard against lawsuits, critics viewed it as a capitulation—especially given the broader political context, including targeted attacks on ABA diversity programs and threats to its accreditation authority. The organization has also paused enforcement of its law school diversity standards until at least 2026.The Justice Department under the Trump administration has dramatically escalated its investigation into gender-affirming care, targeting the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia with a sweeping subpoena demanding detailed records—including names and Social Security numbers—of patients who received such treatments. This move is part of a broader campaign to prosecute medical providers offering care to transgender youth, following a directive from Attorney General Pam Bondi to aggressively pursue these cases.The hospital pushed back against the subpoena, calling it an invasive overreach into a vulnerable population's privacy. In response, DOJ took the unusual step of asking the court to unseal the litigation, a departure from standard practice in sensitive investigations where proceedings are typically kept sealed to protect investigatory integrity. The judge sided with the DOJ, opening the docket earlier this month.The subpoena was signed by Brett Shumate, the newly confirmed head of DOJ's civil division, bypassing career officials who had refused to sign similar subpoenas due to ethical and legal concerns. Internal dissent had already emerged, with former officials warning that collecting such data lacked a strong legal basis, especially since off-label prescriptions like puberty blockers are not illegal under federal law.Critics say the investigation appears more performative than prosecutorial, designed to chill gender-affirming care through public pressure rather than build viable legal cases. The Trump administration has also directed other agencies, including HHS and the FTC, to scrutinize these practices, while states like Pennsylvania have filed lawsuits challenging the administration's actions. The outcome of the Philadelphia case, now in front of a federal judge, could shape how far the administration can go in turning gender-related health care into a legal battleground.Justice Department Expands Gender Care Probe as Hospital FightsA recent ruling in the Epic Games v. Apple case has sparked growing concern among corporate legal teams that the boundaries of attorney-client privilege—especially for in-house counsel—are being narrowed in ways that could harm innovation and compliance. The district court found Apple had improperly claimed privilege over documents that mixed legal advice with business guidance, drawing a sharp rebuke that “adding a lawyer's name to a document does not create a privilege.”That finding is now being appealed, with organizations like TechNet and the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) warning that upholding the decision could upend how legal departments operate—particularly in fast-moving sectors like AI and cybersecurity, where legal and business decisions are tightly intertwined. In-house counsel argue they need the flexibility to weigh legal risks within the real-world context of product development, market pressures, and regulatory uncertainty.At issue is the standard used to define privilege. The Ninth Circuit has previously backed the “primary purpose” test, which protects dual-purpose communications if a significant purpose was legal. But the district court's approach appeared more rigid, raising fears that companies will be discouraged from seeking or documenting legal guidance unless they rely on expensive outside counsel.Legal leaders say this shift would disproportionately impact smaller firms and startups already stretched thin. They also point to a broader ambiguity across federal circuits regarding dual-purpose communications, and argue that only a Supreme Court ruling can definitively resolve the inconsistencies.Oral arguments in the appeal are set for October 21.Apple Ruling Raises Business Fear of Legal Privileges ErodingA federal appeals court has allowed the Trump administration to move forward with ending deportation protections and work permits for over 60,000 immigrants from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unsigned order permitting the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for these groups while legal challenges continue. No legal reasoning was provided in the brief order.The decision lifts an earlier block by a federal district judge, who had ruled that the move was likely driven by racial animus, violating constitutional protections. The new ruling immediately ends protections for Nepali nationals, with protections for Honduran and Nicaraguan immigrants set to expire by September 8.The Department of Homeland Security praised the ruling as a step toward restoring the immigration system's integrity, arguing TPS has been misused as a backdoor form of asylum. Immigrant advocates, meanwhile, condemned the lack of explanation from the court and warned of serious humanitarian consequences for those now facing deportation to unstable regions.The case remains ongoing, but for now, thousands of individuals who have lived and worked legally in the U.S. for years are left in legal limbo.Trump can end deportation protections for 60,000 immigrants, appeals court says | ReutersElon Musk must face a lawsuit alleging he and his political action committee, America PAC, ran an illegal election-year lottery disguised as a $1 million-a-day giveaway. A federal judge in Texas ruled that plaintiff Jacqueline McAferty plausibly claimed Musk misled voters—particularly in battleground states—into signing a petition supporting the U.S. Constitution by offering what appeared to be a random chance at a $1 million prize.McAferty alleges that, in exchange for signing, voters were required to provide personal data—names, addresses, phone numbers, and emails—which she claims was exploited for political targeting. Musk argued that the program was not a lottery because recipients were chosen to “earn” the funds and serve as America PAC spokespeople. But the judge pointed to conflicting language used in promotional materials suggesting the money could be “won,” making it reasonable for voters to think it was a sweepstakes-style contest.Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, also rejected Musk's argument that voters suffered no harm, noting that expert testimony could establish the market value of political data collected during the promotion.The lawsuit, filed on Election Day 2024, underscores growing concerns over the use of high-dollar giveaways in political campaigning and how voter data is gathered and deployed in swing states. Musk and his PAC have not yet commented on the ruling.Elon Musk must face lawsuit claiming he ran illegal $1 million election lottery | ReutersAnd in a piece I wrote for Forbes earlier this week: the new One Big Beautiful Bill Act revives full expensing for U.S.-based research and development, a policy designed to encourage domestic innovation and hiring. At first glance, it seems like a major win for the tech sector and high-skilled job creation. But the labor market response reveals a deeper issue: you can't stimulate demand for talent without also addressing supply. With immigration pathways constrained and no meaningful expansion of domestic training infrastructure, the policy has triggered a spike in labor costs rather than a boom in innovation.In the absence of new talent pipelines, startups and tech firms are now paying steep premiums to hire U.S.-based engineers, effectively converting the R&D tax break into a subsidy for a tight labor market. Meanwhile, immigration policy remains restrictive, and education-focused workforce solutions aren't being scaled fast enough to meet the moment. The result is a bottleneck: jobs going unfilled, innovation slowing, and companies forced to reconsider hiring or delay projects altogether.The piece argues that while R&D expensing is smart fiscal policy, it only works as part of a broader strategy that includes visa reform, immigration support for high-skilled workers, and real investments in talent development. Without those pieces in place, we're left with a politically appealing tax tweak that, in practice, fails to deliver the innovation surge it promises.Turns Out Research Tax Breaks Alone Can't Conjure Developers 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

In this episode, Jordan Grotzinger and Gregory Bombard discuss the Ninth Circuit's recent decision impacting the most litigated issue in trade secret cases – trade secret identification. 

NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford joins Cam to discuss the cert petition just filed with the Supreme Court in Duncan v. Bonta, a case challenging California's ban on "large capacity" magazines where the Ninth Circuit declared magazines are completely unprotected by the Second Amendment.

We Like Shooting Episode 624 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Midwest Industries, Gideon Optics, Die Free Co., XTech Tactical, Blue Alpha, and Rost Martin   Welcome to the We Like Shooting Show, episode 624! Our cast tonight is Jeremy Pozderac, Aaron Krieger, Nick Lynch, and me Shawn Herrin, welcome to the show! https://pew.deals/   Rob Godek, Director of Brand Development - AceTac www.AceTacGear.com https://www.instagram.com/acetacgear/   Gear Chat Shawn - Herrington Arms: Your Source for Quality Firearms and Gear Shawn - AceTac Gear: AceTac Gear Shawn - MK2 Series Overview (no summary available) Nick - Recover 20/20 optic mount Bullet Points Shawn - Trigger Tech's ACE Drama Trigger Tech ACE drama Shawn - Suppressor Specs Simplified SAAMI Suppressor specs Shawn - Exploring the SAAMI Silencer Standard The article discusses the introduction of a new testing standard for silencers from the Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI). This standard aims to provide more consistent and accurate decibel ratings and performance data for suppressors, addressing previous concerns about inflated performance claims. The adoption of these standards across the industry could lead to greater consumer trust and clearer performance benchmarks for suppressor manufacturers within the gun community. Link Shawn - Suppressor Showdown Suppressor testing Gun Fights Step right up for "Gun Fights," the high-octane segment hosted by Nick Lynch, where our cast members go head-to-head in a game show-style showdown! Each contestant tries to prove their gun knowledge dominance. It's a wild ride of bids, bluffs, and banter—who will come out on top? Tune in to find out! WLS is Lifestyle Camping Vibes Only Camping Aaron's Alley Going Ballistic When Gun Control Fails: A NYC Reality Check In yet another example of ineffective gun control measures, a dispute in NYC led to 11 people being shot, highlighting the ongoing challenges in addressing gun violence despite stringent regulations. This incident is likely to further galvanize the gun community's stance against additional restrictions, emphasizing the argument that laws do little to prevent criminal behavior. Gun Violence: The Truth Behind the Numbers and Who's Really Protecting Your Rights The article analyzes gun violence statistics, showing a decline during Trump's presidency compared to an increase in Biden's last year. This data may fuel the ongoing debate within the gun community regarding the effectiveness of gun control measures embraced by opponents. Quick Permits for Patriots: Trump Tames the Bureaucracy The article reports on a significant reduction of the gun permit process in Washington D.C., streamlined to a matter of days as part of the Trump administration's crime crackdown. This change aims to ease restrictions for law-abiding citizens seeking permits, likely invigorating the gun community by making it easier to exercise their Second Amendment rights, while challenging the efforts of gun control advocates who prefer stricter regulations. California's One-Gun-Per-Month Rule Goes Down in Flames The Ninth Circuit Court has ruled against California's 'One-Gun-Per-Month' restriction, effectively expanding gun purchasing rights in the state. This decision is seen as a victory for gun rights advocates, challenging restrictive measures and reinforcing Second Amendment protections. Historic Win for Second Amendment in Ninth Circuit Ruling The Second Amendment Foundation, along with its partners, achieved a significant legal victory in the Ninth Circuit, bolstering gun rights and impacting ongoing debates over gun control. This ruling is likely to energize the gun community and challenge restrictive measures favored by gun control advocates.

On this episode of registry matters… we unpack a major Ninth Circuit ruling that struck down Arizona's unconstitutional burden-shifting in child-molestation prosecutions on due-process grounds; examine California's SB 680, a bid to close a loophole and bring more consistency to mandatory sex-offender registration; look at a recent decision leaving a controversial immigrant registry in place...

Armed American Radio's Mark Walters joins Cam to talk about an historic win in the Ninth Circuit and the Trump administration's success in reducing wait times for D.C. carry permits.

Civil Procedure: In a securities fraud class action, may reliance be presumed only if corrective statements "expressly and specifically negate" the misstatement or "directly render" it false? - Argued: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:23:43 EDT

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics including Trump's federalization of Washington D.C. and the changes in gun permit regulations, the state of crime in the city, and the Democratic response to these issues. The conversation also touches on Joe Rogan's comments regarding immigration and the Ninth Circuit's ruling on California's one gun a month law. Throughout the discussion, Walters emphasizes the importance of Second Amendment rights and critiques the current political landscape. Takeaways Trump has streamlined the gun permit process in D.C. The crime rate in D.C. is a significant concern. Democrats appear to support crime for political gain. California's gun laws are among the strictest in the nation. The Ninth Circuit ruled against California's one gun a month law. Walters criticizes the media's portrayal of crime and gun control. The conversation highlights the disconnect between politicians and citizens. Immigration policies are a contentious topic in the current political climate. Walters advocates for Second Amendment rights and responsible gun ownership. The discussion reflects broader themes of freedom and government control. Armed American Radio, Mark Walters, Trump, Washington D.C., gun permits, crime, immigration, Joe Rogan, Ninth Circuit, California gun laws

In this episode of The Passing Judgment Podcast, host Jessica Levinson unpacks President Trump's decision to deploy federal troops—including the National Guard and Marines—to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Jessica explains the current California v. Trump trial, which centers on whether the administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act—a law barring the military from acting as domestic law enforcement unless certain exceptions apply. She discusses the difference between supporting federal agencies and directly enforcing laws, and outlines legal exceptions like the Insurrection Act. Jessica also details the president's authority over the D.C. National Guard and the special rules for taking over the District's police under the Home Rule Act.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:The Posse Comitatus Act at Center Stage: The ongoing bench trial (California v. Trump) challenges whether deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles crossed the legal line into direct law enforcement, potentially violating the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act.Presidential Authority—A Legal Balancing Act: While the president (any president!) can federalize the National Guard, there are boundaries—like the Insurrection Act—that determine what those troops can actually do once deployed. This nuance will shape legal precedents nationwide.D.C. vs. State Jurisdictions: The president has much more direct control over deploying and directing the National Guard in D.C., versus states like California. Taking control of local police, however, requires navigating additional legal steps under the Home Rule Act.Mentioned In The Episode: National Guard in Los Angeles: Decoding the Law Behind the StandoffThe Legal Battle Over Federalizing California's National Guard: What You Need to KnowFollow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In part C of VanDyke's Republican dissent in our series of dissents in the en banc resolution of Duncan v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, 20 March 2025), we continue covering his reductio ad absurdum form of argument. This episode is part 3 of Judge VanDyke's epic dissent to that resolution which caught a lot of controversy because part of his dissent was a link to the following website : https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/23-55805/opinion , which, as you'll see, does not go to the Ninth Circuit federal government website but instead goes to YouTube, the Ninth Circuit's YouTube channel. The link for the en banc opinion of the Court as well as the dissents covered here can be found here : https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/20/23-55805.pdf These materials, the text and the video linked within the text of Judge VanDyke's dissent are in the public domain and have no copyright restrictions upon them. I have done the best I could, given the technology, to make a fair use of them with a transformative reading for educational purposes only. The controversy around the video includes not merely that Judge VanDyke, a Trump appointee to the Court, included video as a supplement embedded within his dissent, which he (and the Court) clearly consider to be official parts of his dissent, but what he filmed there in the federal courthouse in Reno, Nevada (probably, since that's where his chambers are according to the US Ninth Circuit's seniority website). He filmed, in his chambers, wearing his black robe, with views on the video to the tune of hundreds of thousands, a tote bag with his own guns, his own handguns, real firearms. He mentioned that the firearms used for the video were rendered inoperable, unloaded, and safe for purposes of the educational part of the dissent. He claimed to be filling in missing background information useful for understanding the record before the court, not for supplementing the record per se with his, the Judge's, testimony -- something that would be not only unusual but inappropriate. I'd love to hear what you think in the comments. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-civil-liberties podcast. Therefore, welcome Judge VanDyke . The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

This Day in Legal History: Expansion of US House of RepresentativesOn August 8, 1911, President William Howard Taft signed into law a measure that permanently expanded the size of the U.S. House of Representatives from 391 to 433 members. This change followed the 1910 census, which revealed significant population growth and shifts in where Americans lived. Under the Constitution, House seats are apportioned among the states according to population, and each decade's census can lead to changes in representation. Prior to 1911, Congress often responded to new census data by simply adding seats rather than redistributing them among states. The 1911 legislation reflected both that tradition and the political realities of the time, as expanding the House allowed growing states to gain representation without forcing other states to lose seats. It also set the stage for the modern size of the House—just two years later, New Mexico and Arizona joined the Union, bringing the total to 435 members. That number has remained fixed by law since 1929, despite the nation's continued population growth. The 1911 increase carried implications beyond arithmetic: more members meant more voices, more local interests, and a larger scale for legislative negotiation. It also underscored Congress's role in adapting the machinery of government to the country's evolving demographics. In many ways, the expansion reflected Progressive Era concerns with fair representation and democratic responsiveness. While debates over House size have continued into the 21st century, the 1911 law remains a pivotal moment in the chamber's institutional development. By enlarging the House, Taft and Congress preserved proportionality between population and representation, even if only temporarily.After the 1911 increase under President Taft, the size of the House stayed at 435 members following Arizona and New Mexico's statehood in 1912. The idea at the time was that future census results would continue to trigger changes, either by adding more seats or by redistributing them among the states.But after the 1920 census, Congress ran into a political deadlock. Massive population growth in cities—and significant immigration—meant that urban states stood to gain seats while rural states would lose them. Rural lawmakers, who still held considerable power, resisted any reapportionment that would diminish their influence. For nearly a decade, Congress failed to pass a new apportionment plan, effectively ignoring the 1920 census results.To end the stalemate, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. This law capped the House at 435 seats and created an automatic formula for reapportionment after each census. Instead of adding seats to reflect population growth, the formula reassigns the fixed number of seats among states. This froze the size of the House even as the U.S. population more than tripled over the next century.Critics argue that the 1929 cap dilutes individual representation—today, each representative speaks for about 760,000 constituents on average, compared to roughly 200,000 in 1911. Supporters counter that a larger House would be unwieldy and harder to manage. The debate over whether to expand the House continues, but the 1929 law has held for nearly a hundred years, making Taft's 1911 expansion the last time the chamber permanently grew in size.A fourth federal court blocked President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship, halting its enforcement nationwide. The order, issued on Trump's first day back in office, sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Immigrant rights groups and 22 Democratic state attorneys general challenged the policy as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland sided with the challengers, issuing the latest in a series of nationwide injunctions despite a recent Supreme Court ruling narrowing judges' power to block policies universally. That June decision left a key exception: courts could still halt policies nationwide in certified class actions. Advocates quickly filed two such cases, including the one before Boardman, who had previously ruled in February that Trump's interpretation of the Constitution was one “no court in the country has ever endorsed.”In July, Boardman signaled she would grant national relief once class status was approved, but waited for the Fourth Circuit to return the case after the administration's appeal was dismissed. Her new order covers all affected children born in the U.S., making it the first post–Supreme Court nationwide injunction issued via class action in the birthright fight. The case, Casa Inc. et al v. Trump, continues as part of a broader legal battle over the limits of presidential power in defining citizenship.Fourth court blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order nationwide | ReutersThe Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a lower court order restricting immigration enforcement tactics in much of Southern California. The Justice Department's emergency filing seeks to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who barred federal agents from stopping or detaining individuals based solely on race, ethnicity, language, or similar factors without “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful presence. Her temporary restraining order stemmed from a proposed class action brought by Latino plaintiffs—including U.S. citizens—who alleged they were wrongly targeted, detained, or roughed up during immigration raids in Los Angeles.The plaintiffs argued these tactics violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, describing indiscriminate stops by masked, armed agents. Judge Frimpong agreed, finding the operations likely unconstitutional and blocking the use of race, ethnicity, language, workplace type, or certain locations as stand-alone reasons for suspicion. The Ninth Circuit declined to lift her order earlier this month.The challenge comes amid a major escalation in Trump's immigration enforcement push, which includes aggressive deportation targets, mass raids, and even the deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines in Los Angeles—a move sharply opposed by state officials. The administration contends the restrictions hinder operations in a heavily populated region central to its immigration agenda. The Supreme Court will now decide whether to allow these limits to remain in place while the underlying constitutional challenge proceeds.Trump asks US Supreme Court to lift limits on immigration raids | ReutersMilbank announced it will pay seniority-based “special” bonuses to associates and special counsel worldwide, ranging from $6,000 to $25,000, with payments due by September 30. Milbank, of course, is among the big firms that bent to Trump's strong-arm tactics, cutting a $100 million deal and dropping diversity-based hiring rather than risk becoming his next executive-order target. The New York-founded firm used the same bonus scale last summer, signaling optimism about high activity levels through the rest of the year. Milbank, known for setting the pace in Big Law compensation, is the first major corporate firm to roll out such bonuses this summer—a move that often pressures competitors to follow suit.Special bonuses are not standard annual payouts, and last year rival firms mostly waited until year's end to match Milbank's mid-year scale, adding those amounts to their regular year-end bonuses. Milbank also led the market in November 2024 with annual bonuses up to $115,000. The firm is one of nine that reached agreements with President Trump earlier this year after his executive orders restricted certain law firms' access to federal buildings, officials, and contracting work.In a smaller but notable move, New York boutique Otterbourg recently awarded all full-time associates a $15,000 mid-year bonus, citing strong performance and contributions to the firm's success.Law firm Milbank to pay out 'special' bonuses for associates | ReutersMilbank reaches deal with Trump as divide among law firms deepens | ReutersA federal judge in North Dakota vacated the Federal Reserve's rule capping debit card “swipe fees” at 21 cents per transaction, siding with retailers who have long argued the cap is too high. The decision, which found the Fed exceeded its authority by including certain costs in the fee calculation under Regulation II, will not take effect immediately to allow time for appeal. The case was brought by Corner Post, a convenience store that claimed the Fed ignored Congress's directive to set issuer- and transaction-specific standards under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.Banks, backed by groups like the Bank Policy Institute, defended the cap as compliant with the law, while retailers and small business advocates supported Corner Post's challenge. This is Judge Daniel Traynor's second ruling in the dispute; he initially dismissed the case in 2022 as untimely, but the U.S. Supreme Court revived it in 2024, easing limits on challenges to older regulations. An appeal to the Eighth Circuit is expected, with the losing side likely to seek Supreme Court review. The ruling comes as the Fed separately considers lowering the cap to 14.4 cents, a proposal still pending.US judge vacates Fed's debit card 'swipe fees' rule, but pauses order for appeal | ReutersTexas-based Fintiv sued Apple in federal court, accusing the company of stealing trade secrets to develop Apple Pay. Fintiv claims the mobile wallet's core technology originated with CorFire, a company it acquired in 2014, and that Apple learned of it during 2011–2012 meetings and nondisclosure agreements intended to explore licensing. According to the complaint, Apple instead hired away CorFire employees and used the technology without permission, launching Apple Pay in 2014 and expanding it globally.Fintiv alleges Apple has run an informal racketeering operation, using Apple Pay to collect transaction fees for major banks and credit card networks, generating billions in revenue without compensating Fintiv. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages under federal and Georgia trade secret and anti-racketeering laws, including RICO. Apple is the sole defendant and has not commented.The case follows the recent dismissal of Fintiv's related patent lawsuit against Apple in Texas, which the company plans to appeal. The new lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, where CorFire was originally based.Lawsuit accuses Apple of stealing trade secrets to create Apple Pay | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Antonín DvořákThis week's closing theme comes from a composer who knew how to weave folk spirit into the fabric of high art without losing either warmth or polish. Dvořák, born in 1841 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew from a village-trained violist into one of the most celebrated composers of the late 19th century. His music often married classical forms with the rhythms, turns, and dances of his homeland—an approach that made his work instantly recognizable and deeply human.His Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81, written in 1887, is a prime example. Dvořák had actually written an earlier piano quintet in the same key but was dissatisfied with it; rather than revise, he started fresh. The result is one of the most beloved chamber works in the repertoire. Across its four movements, the quintet blends lyrical sweep with earthy energy—romantic in scope, yet grounded in folk idiom. The opening Allegro bursts forth with an expansive theme, the piano and strings trading lines as if in animated conversation.The second movement, marked Dumka, takes its name from a Slavic song form alternating between melancholy reflection and lively dance. Here, Dvořák's gift for emotional contrast is on full display—wistful cello lines give way to playful rhythms before sinking back into introspection. The third movement is a Furiant, a fiery Czech dance bristling with syncopation and vigor, while the finale spins out buoyant melodies with an almost orchestral fullness.It is music that feels both intimate and vast, as if played in a parlor with the windows thrown open to the countryside. With this quintet, Dvořák shows how local color can speak in a universal voice—how the tunes of a homeland can travel the world without losing their soul. For our purposes, it's a reminder that endings can be celebratory, heartfelt, and just a bit homespun.Without further ado, Antonín Dvořák's Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81 – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This week Ken and Josh discuss the next steps the Trump administration may be considering to deal with the Epstein mess: what to do about the files, what to do about the transcript of Todd Blanche's meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell, who was moved to a much nicer federal prison, has a colorable argument that her conviction should be thrown out because she was supposed to be covered by the sweetheart deal Jeffrey Epstein cut with federal prosecutors back during the Bush administration.Plus: Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl are pleading no-contest to Michigan state crimes relating to their voter-suppression robocalls, the Ninth Circuit has denied the government a stay with regard to the temporary restraining order restricting the grounds on which ICE can detain suspected illegal migrants, and in the Valley, former NBA star Gilbert Arenas has been indicted for running an illegal poker game, updates in the Trump v. Murdoch case and regarding an apparent DOJ investigation into James Comey.Visit serioustrouble.show to sign up for our newsletter and find a transcript of this episode. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.serioustrouble.show/subscribe

In part B of VanDyke's Republican dissent in our series of dissents in the en banc resolution of Duncan v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, 20 March 2025), we continue covering his reductio ad absurdum form of argument. This episode is part 2 of Judge VanDyke's epic dissent to that resolution which caught a lot of controversy because part of his dissent was a link to the following website : https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/23-55805/opinion , which, as you'll see, does not go to the Ninth Circuit federal government website but instead goes to YouTube, the Ninth Circuit's YouTube channel. The link for the en banc opinion of the Court as well as the dissents covered here can be found here : https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/20/23-55805.pdf These materials, the text and the video linked within the text of Judge VanDyke's dissent are in the public domain and have no copyright restrictions upon them. I have done the best I could, given the technology, to make a fair use of them with a transformative reading for educational purposes only. The controversy around the video includes not merely that Judge VanDyke, a Trump appointee to the Court, included video as a supplement embedded within his dissent, which he (and the Court) clearly consider to be official parts of his dissent, but what he filmed there in the federal courthouse in Reno, Nevada (probably, since that's where his chambers are according to the US Ninth Circuit's seniority website). He filmed, in his chambers, wearing his black robe, with views on the video to the tune of hundreds of thousands, a tote bag with his own guns, his own handguns, real firearms. He mentioned that the firearms used for the video were rendered inoperable, unloaded, and safe for purposes of the educational part of the dissent. He claimed to be filling in missing background information useful for understanding the record before the court, not for supplementing the record per se with his, the Judge's, testimony -- something that would be not only unusual but inappropriate. I'd love to hear what you think in the comments. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-civil-liberties podcast. Therefore, welcome Judge VanDyke . The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

In Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., the Ninth Circuit ruled that, in FLSA collective actions, federal courts must evaluate personal jurisdiction before allowing notices to out-of-state employees in nationwide claims—a move that strengthens employers' ability to challenge these cases. Key Takeaways for Employers Jurisdiction matters: Courts must confirm jurisdiction before notifying out-of-state employees. Limited forum shopping: Plaintiffs face limits to filing in unrelated jurisdictions. Stronger grounds for employers: Employers can challenge out-of-state claims with no forum ties. Arbitration implications: Courts may notify employees under arbitration agreements. In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Courtney McFate describes the Harrington ruling and shares insights to help employers adapt and minimize costly lawsuits. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw399 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Administrative Law: May the Trump Administration issue a blanket cancellation of grants to researchers at the University of California? - Argued: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 18:46:23 EDT

This Day in Legal History: Patent Office OpenedOn this day in legal history, July 31, 1790, the United States issued its first patent under the newly created Patent Act of 1790. The inaugural patent was granted to Samuel Hopkins of Vermont for a process of making potash, an essential industrial chemical used in soap and fertilizer production. Signed by President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, this first patent reflected the constitutional mandate to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.”The Patent Act established a system that allowed inventors to secure exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited time, fostering a culture of innovation. Unlike today's process, early patents required a review by a board of Cabinet-level officials and carried no numbering system—Hopkins' patent is only retroactively considered Patent No. 1.This moment marked the beginning of formal intellectual property protection in the U.S., setting the foundation for one of the world's most robust patent systems. The legal infrastructure created that year would evolve into the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, playing a central role in industrial and technological development over the next two centuries. It was a clear sign of the young republic's commitment to innovation through legal means.A White House report released Wednesday by President Trump's crypto working group calls for swift regulatory action on digital assets. The administration urged Congress to pass a comprehensive crypto bill, such as the Clarity Act, while advocating for key additions. These include allowing platforms to both trade and hold crypto, and tailoring disclosure requirements for crypto securities. The report also recommends giving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) authority over crypto spot markets and embracing decentralized finance technologies.In addition to legislative suggestions, the White House wants the SEC and CFTC to act under their current powers to enable federal-level trading of digital assets. The report promotes using tools like safe harbors and regulatory sandboxes to accelerate access to new financial products, including tokenized assets like real estate and stocks. This approach reflects Trump's broader campaign promise to foster crypto innovation, in sharp contrast to the Biden administration's enforcement-heavy stance, which included lawsuits against major exchanges that have since been dropped.Despite concerns over potential conflicts of interest—given Trump's family's crypto ventures and his personal stake in a crypto platform—the administration has denied any impropriety. The report's findings could significantly shape the direction of ongoing legislative negotiations and regulatory frameworks.White House in crypto policy report calls for SEC action, new legislation | ReutersA proposed budget from the U.S. House of Representatives threatens major cuts to the federal public defense system, according to a July 25 memo from Judge Robert Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. If enacted, the judiciary warns it may be forced to eliminate more than 600 positions in the Defender Services program or delay payments to court-appointed defense attorneys by over two months—potentially the longest such delay ever.The $8.9 billion budget plan advanced by the House Appropriations Committee's financial services subcommittee increases overall judiciary funding by 3.5%, but it still falls significantly short of what the courts requested. Specifically, the $1.57 billion allocated to Defender Services is $196 million less than needed, despite being an 8.2% increase from the previous year. This shortfall could impair the judiciary's ability to meet its constitutional obligations under Gideon v. Wainwright, which requires that indigent criminal defendants receive legal representation.The judiciary is also currently experiencing a funding gap that has already caused a three-month delay in payments to Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel attorneys. Without additional funding, the delay could extend to 77 days next year, further weakening the public defense infrastructure. The judiciary has asked for $116 million in supplemental funding to stabilize the program.The full House Appropriations Committee is not expected to take up the bill until September, and the Senate has not yet released its version.US House budget threatens over 600 public defender jobs, judiciary warns | ReutersUber is facing a pivotal legal challenge in California state court over its responsibility to protect riders from sexual assault by its drivers. A hearing before Judge Ethan Schulman will determine whether hundreds of consolidated cases move forward as bellwether jury trials this fall. These cases center on whether Uber should be liable for assaults allegedly committed by drivers who, plaintiffs argue, exploited Uber's lack of mandatory training, in-vehicle cameras, or stricter vetting.Uber defends itself by claiming drivers are independent contractors and that criminal behavior is unforeseeable, not the company's legal responsibility. It points to safety measures like GPS tracking and background checks as fulfilling its obligations. However, plaintiffs argue that Uber promoted itself as a safe alternative for intoxicated riders and should be held to the higher duty of care expected of a “common carrier,” similar to taxi services.A central legal issue is whether Uber's conduct constitutes misfeasance—actively creating risk—or nonfeasance—failing to prevent harm. Under California law, a company with a “special relationship” with its customers, like a common carrier, must exercise “utmost care.” A federal judge has already ruled that Uber qualifies as a common carrier in related litigation.Uber's broader legal strategy has included challenging consolidated suits through the Ninth Circuit and supporting a Nevada ballot measure to limit plaintiffs' attorneys' fees—both of which failed. Legal experts note Uber faces an uphill battle, as courts are increasingly viewing ride-hailing platforms as more than passive intermediaries.Uber's Legal Duty to Riders at Forefront of Mass Assault CasesEric Tung, President Trump's nominee for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, defended controversial past remarks on gender roles during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday. Democratic senators, particularly Alex Padilla and Dick Durbin, pressed Tung over statements he made as a Yale undergraduate in 2004, where he criticized radical feminists and asserted that gender roles support institutions like marriage. Padilla called the comments “reprehensible,” while Durbin challenged Tung's recent views as expressed at a Federalist Society event, where Tung appeared to reject constitutional protections for abortion, same-sex marriage, and private sexual conduct.Tung explained that his undergraduate comments were based on his belief at the time that men and women had complementary roles and that the family should be strengthened. He noted that his wife has had a distinguished professional and political career, arguing she excels in many areas. Though he affirmed that Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, is binding precedent, he declined to discuss his personal views on gender roles, citing potential future cases.Tung, a former clerk for Justices Scalia and Gorsuch and a partner at Jones Day, emphasized his originalist and textualist judicial philosophy. Despite strong backing from Republicans on the panel, Democrats criticized his ideological leanings and questioned his fitness for a lifetime appointment to the influential appellate court.Trump appellate court nominee defends comments on 'gender roles' | 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

Immigration: May the Trump Administration impose arrest quotas on ICE agents if they lead to arbitrary and unlawful arrests? - Argued: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:41:45 EDT

A competitor could trigger a federal investigation against your company, just by filing a whistleblower complaint about your imports. In this episode, Michael Volkov explores how the Trump Administration is reshaping the enforcement landscape by linking trade compliance and the False Claims Act (FCA) in unprecedented ways. With “trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion” now a DOJ national priority, companies engaged in international trade face growing legal and reputational risks. A recent Ninth Circuit ruling has only intensified the stakes.You'll hear him discuss:Why DOJ is combining trade enforcement and FCA cases, and what that means for companies that import goods into the U.S.How “reverse false claims” work in the trade context, and why import misclassification, undervaluation, or incorrect country-of-origin declarations are now high-risk areas.Recent high-dollar settlements - including $45 million in one case - where companies paid the price for customs fraud violations.The significance of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Island Industries v. Sigma Corp., which confirmed DOJ's ability to pursue customs fraud claims under the FCA in federal court.How whistleblowers, including competitors, are using FCA claims as a strategic tool in the marketplace, leading to sealed complaints and increased litigation.What companies should be doing now to evaluate and reinforce their trade compliance programs, from reviewing documentation and broker relationships to training and internal reporting.Why ignoring tariff and duty obligations - or failing to investigate them thoroughly - could be seen as deliberate indifference, exposing companies to both civil and criminal liability.ResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

In This Hour:-- Olympic shooting champion Kim Rhode was the lead on lawsuit challenging Califonia's law restricting the sale of ammunition.  She describes how she just won at the Ninth Circuit.--  The media won't report that it was a man with a gun who stopped the mass stabbing at a store in Michigan.--  He put down his gun, and the dog fired it.  The shot almost hit him.  Gun Talk 07.27.25 Hour 1Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/gun-talk--6185159/support.

Hello everyone and welcome back to This Week in Guns, brought to you by Patriot Patch Company, FFLPayments, and MAF Corporation. This show offers commentary on the latest firearms industry news, information and buzz. I'm your host Matthew Larosiere and I'm joined by the ratman. Congressman tries to add bill amendment to increase NFA Tax Traditional Arms: Fuddbusters and Ratman Large mediocre law funds ammo production and scale-up It ND's today  MAF Corp: Fudbdusterss Kim Rhode & CRPA beat CA's ammo background checks/fees at n9th's circus Nonviolent felons federal rights restoration proposed rule FFL Payments Proposed ATF Budget Cuts Thing that would be cool if it happened but will not happen proposed Patriot patch Co. TWIG10   Timestamps: 1:10 Proposed amendment to HR 3944 and quiet ammo revolution 5:49 Sponsor: Traditional Arms 7:39 Ammo pricing, supply issues, and Air Force M18 pistol update 17:45 Sponsor: MAF Corporation 18:19 Ninth Circuit ruling on California ammo law and its impact 24:46 Proposed rule to restore firearm rights 32:18 Sponsor: FFLPaymentProcessing.com 33:44 ATF budget cuts and the FIRE Act 43:28 Sponsor: Patriot Patch Company 44:26 Closing remarks and support information   Key Points: California's ammunition background check law was struck down as unconstitutional, affirming that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to procure ammunition. The Air Force has paused the use of the M18 pistol after an accidental discharge led to an airman's death, highlighting ongoing concerns about the safety of the SIG P320 series. A proposed federal rule aims to restore firearm rights to individuals previously precluded from possessing firearms, addressing a long-standing gap in the application of the Gun Control Act.

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics surrounding gun control, focusing on Gavin Newsom's recent actions and statements regarding the Second Amendment. The conversation delves into the implications of background checks, the role of public opinion in constitutional rights, and the responsibilities of gun manufacturers in the political landscape. The episode also touches on the campaign against Pam Bondi by March for Our Lives, highlighting the ongoing battle over gun rights in America. Takeaways Gavin Newsom's stance on gun control is contradictory. Background checks for ammunition purchases were struck down by the Ninth Circuit. Public opinion polls should not dictate constitutional rights. The U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Gun manufacturers need to take a stand against tyrannical laws. Pam Bondi's actions have drawn criticism from gun control advocates. The gun industry often fails to support its own rights. Leadership in the gun industry is lacking and needs to be more assertive. The concept of rights versus privileges is crucial in the gun debate. The fight for gun rights is ongoing and requires active participation. Keywords Gavin Newsom, gun control, Second Amendment, background checks, democracy, gun manufacturers, Pam Bondi, March for Our Lives, political landscape, constitutional rights  

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, the National Rifle Association, and the latest updates from the Ninth Circuit Court. The show features a conversation with Tim Roberts from Patriots Relief, where they explore the benefits of CBD products for pain relief and overall wellness. The episode also highlights the importance of gun rights and the ongoing legal battles surrounding them, including insights from Charlie Kirk's campus discussions. Takeaways Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of gun rights and the role of the NRA. Tim Roberts discusses the effectiveness of CBD products for pain relief. The Ninth Circuit Court is showing positive rulings for gun rights advocates. Mark expresses frustration with the slow progress in Washington regarding gun legislation. The conversation touches on the recent losses in the music industry and their cultural impact. Tim shares personal experiences with Patriots Relief products and their benefits. Mark highlights the significance of supporting organizations that fight for gun rights. The episode discusses the challenges faced by gun owners in California. Mark and Mike from Arms Room Radio debate the nature of gun ownership as a right versus a privilege. The show encourages listeners to stay informed and engaged in the fight for their rights. Keywords gun rights, Patriots Relief, NRA, Charlie Kirk, Ninth Circuit, CBD products, self-defense, talk radio, conservative voice, firearms  

Today's HeadlinesEthereum is climbing. It's reached it's highest percentage against BTC dominance since 2023 and for the first time in two years, there is more perps trading volume on ETH than BTC.BitMine Immersion has doubled its total of Ethereum, bringing its ETH Treasury Total past $2 BillionSolana devs have confirmed a 66% block limit increase to 100M compute units to further boost network capacity. This follows Tuesdays 20% jump to 60M at epoch 822.The Ninth Circuit ruled that NFTs qualify for trademark protection, sending Yuga Labs' case against Ryder Ripps back to trial to decide if buyers were misled by his copycat collection.Lastly, Hacken released their First Half of 2025 Hack report. As we've been saying on this show, social engineering hacks are on the rise. The problem is always the people.Friends of the ShowC3The C3 team has more than 20 years of experience in journalism, including leading the editorial and content side of a major Web3 news publication. They are also experienced AI and Web3 PR professionals, regularly placing content in leading web3 and AI publications. C3's members previously co-founded the PR department at SCRIB3, and have experience with clients such as EigenLayer, VanEck, Monad, SKALE Network, LEVR Bet, Symmio, Camp Network, Evmos, Avail, Moonbeam, and others.WHERE TO FIND DCNdailycryptonews.nethttps://twitter.com/DCNDailyCryptoEMAIL or FOLLOW the HostEmail: kyle@dailycryptonews.netX: @CryptoQuile Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A federal court in LA has stopped ICE from detaining people for deportation because they look Latino – that's racial discrimination, and it's unconstitutional, the court said. Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel will explain what's next as he government appeals the case to the Ninth Circuit.Also: How does a movement build support when large parts of the country are opposed to its goals? How do you connect with people who disagree with you? For some answers we'll turn to long-time organizer Michael Ansara -- his new book is “The Hard Work of Hope.”Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

A federal court in LA has stopped ICE from detaining people for deportation because they look Latino – that's racial discrimination, and it's unconstitutional, the court said. Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel will explain what's next as he government appeals the case to the Ninth Circuit.Also: How does a movement build support when large parts of the country are opposed to its goals? How do you connect with people who disagree with you? For some answers we'll turn to long-time organizer Michael Ansara -- his new book is “The Hard Work of Hope.”Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Labor: When may the President terminate a federal employee union contract on grounds of "national security"? - Argued: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 11:28:57 EDT

Intellectual Property: When is it copyright infringement to base a tattoo on a photograph? - Argued: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 11:21:33 EDT

Immigration: Does the DHS Secretary have absolute discretion to terminate the temporary protected status of a class of immigrants? - Argued: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:26:33 EDT

This is the next episode in our series of dissents in the en banc resolution of Duncan v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, 20 March 2025). This episode is part 1 of Judge VanDyke's epic dissent in that resolution which caught a lot of controversy because part of his dissent was a link to the following website : https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/23-55805/opinion , which, as you'll see, does not go to the Ninth Circuit federal government website but instead goes to YouTube, the Ninth Circuit's YouTube channel. The link for the en banc opinion of the Court as well as the dissents covered here can be found here : https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/20/23-55805.pdf These materials, the text and the video linked within the text of Judge VanDyke's dissent are in the public domain and have no copyright restrictions upon them. I have done the best I could, given the technology, to make a fair use of them with a transformative reading for educational purposes only. The controversy around the video includes not merely that Judge VanDyke, a Trump appointee to the Court, included video as a supplement embedded within his dissent, which he (and the Court) clearly consider to be official parts of his dissent, but what he filmed there in the federal courthouse in Reno, Nevada (probably, since that's where his chambers are according to the US Ninth Circuit's seniority website. He filmed, in his chambers, wearing his black robe, with views on the video to the tune of hundreds of thousands, a tote bag with his own guns, his own handguns, real firearms. He mentioned that the firearms used for the video were rendered inoperable, unloaded, and safe for purposes of the educational part of the dissent. He claimed to be filling in missing background information useful for understanding the record before the court, not for supplementing the record per se with his, the Judge's, testimony -- something that would be not only unusual but inappropriate. I'd love to hear what you think in the comments. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-civil-liberties podcast. Therefore, welcome Judge VanDyke . The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

In This Hour:-- Another win for gun rights, and also for free speech. The Ninth Circuit strikes down a California law banning gun advertising to minors. Chuck Michel of the California Rifle and Pistol Association explains how important this 9th Circuit decsion really is.--  Frank Brownell ran the iconic mail order and now online gun parts supplier for years.  His son, Pete Brownell, talks about his Dad's passing, the transition of the company, and then he and Tom discover the meaning behind one of Frank's strange wishes on spreading his ashes.--  Is a folding stock pistol caliber carbine a viable option for a vehicle defensive gun?Gun Talk 07.13.25  Hour 2Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/gun-talk--6185159/support.

Tort: Did Amazon defraud consumers by rescinding Prime Member's entitlement to free delivery of groceries from Whole Foods? - Argued: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 14:10:58 EDT

On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show, the Texas flood has caused immense heartbreak, with over 100 dead and more than 160 missing. Among the tragic stories are two young sisters, aged 13 and 11, found drowned but holding hands. Mother Nature can be a monster. Also, President Trump has had enough of Putin. Putin is a genocidal maniac responsible for slaughtering Ukrainian civilians, but there are some in Fake MAGA who root for Russia. Trump has stated bluntly that he won't tolerate Putin's actions any longer. Later, there's been a lot of buzz about Jeffrey Epstein and an alleged "list" of people tied to his crimes, but it's all speculation. The FBI has investigated, but no major new revelations have been confirmed. Social media keeps the topic alive with conspiracy theories. In addition, the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, upheld Trump's plan to reduce the federal workforce, overturning a Ninth Circuit ruling. The order affirmed the president's authority to manage the executive branch without congressional approval, citing separation of powers.  Afterward, the welfare state's growth, seen as new constitutional rights, obscures increasing control and regulation, failing to deliver promised equity. This strengthens the ruling class, diminishes individual and societal rights, and erodes compromise, unlike the Founders' positive power approach, which supports liberty and peaceful resolution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Summary The conversation covers significant developments in the Second Amendment landscape, including legislative actions, judicial victories, and the role of organizations like the NRA and Women for Gun Rights. The discussion highlights the challenges faced in gun rights advocacy, the importance of political engagement, and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights in the face of opposition. In this conversation, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, the empowerment of women in the firearms community, the resilience of American-made knives, and the importance of legal representation for gun owners. The discussion also touches on the implications of recent rulings from the Fourth Circuit Court regarding gun regulations, the ongoing violence in Chicago, and the political responsibility of leaders in addressing these issues. The conversation emphasizes the need for unity and action within the gun rights community. Takeaways The Second Amendment landscape is constantly evolving with new legislative actions. The Senate parliamentarian plays a crucial role in shaping gun legislation outcomes. Judicial victories, such as the Ninth Circuit's ruling, are significant for gun rights advocates. The NRA's legislative action is vital in the fight for gun rights. Women for Gun Rights is actively engaging in political advocacy in D.C. Building relationships with lawmakers is essential for effective advocacy. The fight for gun rights is a long-term commitment that requires persistence. Engaging with both sides of the political spectrum can lead to productive conversations. Grassroots movements are crucial in influencing public policy. The importance of education and awareness in changing perceptions about gun rights. Women are making significant strides in advocating for gun rights. American-made knives are known for their durability and reliability. The legacy of historical figures like George Washington can be honored through craftsmanship. Legal representation is crucial for gun owners in self-defense situations. The Fourth Circuit ruling highlights the ongoing debate over gun regulations. Chicago's violence is a reflection of political leadership and policy failures. The importance of community support for organizations fighting for gun rights. The gun industry is thriving despite political challenges. Empowerment and education are key in the fight for gun rights. The chaos in urban areas often serves political agendas. Keywords Second Amendment, gun rights, NRA, legislation, parliamentarian, judicial wins, Women for Gun Rights, gun control, legislative action, political advocacy, gun rights, women empowerment, American knives, legal representation, Fourth Circuit ruling, Chicago violence, political responsibility, NRA, self-defense, firearms  

Summary The conversation covers significant developments in the Second Amendment landscape, including legislative actions, judicial victories, and the role of organizations like the NRA and Women for Gun Rights. The discussion highlights the challenges faced in gun rights advocacy, the importance of political engagement, and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights in the face of opposition. In this conversation, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, the empowerment of women in the firearms community, the resilience of American-made knives, and the importance of legal representation for gun owners. The discussion also touches on the implications of recent rulings from the Fourth Circuit Court regarding gun regulations, the ongoing violence in Chicago, and the political responsibility of leaders in addressing these issues. The conversation emphasizes the need for unity and action within the gun rights community. Takeaways The Second Amendment landscape is constantly evolving with new legislative actions. The Senate parliamentarian plays a crucial role in shaping gun legislation outcomes. Judicial victories, such as the Ninth Circuit's ruling, are significant for gun rights advocates. The NRA's legislative action is vital in the fight for gun rights. Women for Gun Rights is actively engaging in political advocacy in D.C. Building relationships with lawmakers is essential for effective advocacy. The fight for gun rights is a long-term commitment that requires persistence. Engaging with both sides of the political spectrum can lead to productive conversations. Grassroots movements are crucial in influencing public policy. The importance of education and awareness in changing perceptions about gun rights. Women are making significant strides in advocating for gun rights. American-made knives are known for their durability and reliability. The legacy of historical figures like George Washington can be honored through craftsmanship. Legal representation is crucial for gun owners in self-defense situations. The Fourth Circuit ruling highlights the ongoing debate over gun regulations. Chicago's violence is a reflection of political leadership and policy failures. The importance of community support for organizations fighting for gun rights. The gun industry is thriving despite political challenges. Empowerment and education are key in the fight for gun rights. The chaos in urban areas often serves political agendas. Keywords Second Amendment, gun rights, NRA, legislation, parliamentarian, judicial wins, Women for Gun Rights, gun control, legislative action, political advocacy, gun rights, women empowerment, American knives, legal representation, Fourth Circuit ruling, Chicago violence, political responsibility, NRA, self-defense, firearms  

Summary The conversation covers significant developments in the Second Amendment landscape, including legislative actions, judicial victories, and the role of organizations like the NRA and Women for Gun Rights. The discussion highlights the challenges faced in gun rights advocacy, the importance of political engagement, and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights in the face of opposition. In this conversation, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, the empowerment of women in the firearms community, the resilience of American-made knives, and the importance of legal representation for gun owners. The discussion also touches on the implications of recent rulings from the Fourth Circuit Court regarding gun regulations, the ongoing violence in Chicago, and the political responsibility of leaders in addressing these issues. The conversation emphasizes the need for unity and action within the gun rights community. Takeaways The Second Amendment landscape is constantly evolving with new legislative actions. The Senate parliamentarian plays a crucial role in shaping gun legislation outcomes. Judicial victories, such as the Ninth Circuit's ruling, are significant for gun rights advocates. The NRA's legislative action is vital in the fight for gun rights. Women for Gun Rights is actively engaging in political advocacy in D.C. Building relationships with lawmakers is essential for effective advocacy. The fight for gun rights is a long-term commitment that requires persistence. Engaging with both sides of the political spectrum can lead to productive conversations. Grassroots movements are crucial in influencing public policy. The importance of education and awareness in changing perceptions about gun rights. Women are making significant strides in advocating for gun rights. American-made knives are known for their durability and reliability. The legacy of historical figures like George Washington can be honored through craftsmanship. Legal representation is crucial for gun owners in self-defense situations. The Fourth Circuit ruling highlights the ongoing debate over gun regulations. Chicago's violence is a reflection of political leadership and policy failures. The importance of community support for organizations fighting for gun rights. The gun industry is thriving despite political challenges. Empowerment and education are key in the fight for gun rights. The chaos in urban areas often serves political agendas. Keywords Second Amendment, gun rights, NRA, legislation, parliamentarian, judicial wins, Women for Gun Rights, gun control, legislative action, political advocacy, gun rights, women empowerment, American knives, legal representation, Fourth Circuit ruling, Chicago violence, political responsibility, NRA, self-defense, firearms  

The Los Angeles Dodgers will donate $1 million to supporters of illegal immigration. The Ninth Circuit halts Attorney General Rob Bonta's effort to limit gun purchases to one per month. California can't kick its foreign-oil addiction. Bonus! Dr. Kurt Miceli explains Do No Harm's lawsuit alleging that UCLA's medical school rejects highly qualified Asian and white students in favor of less-qualified applicants. Music by Metalachi.Email Us:dbahnsen@thebahnsengroup.comwill@calpolicycenter.orgFollow Us:@DavidBahnsen@WillSwaim@TheRadioFreeCAShow Notes:On War Powers, Nancy Pelosi Is a Ridiculous HackVice President JD Vance rips Newsom, Bass and mocks Padilla during visit to Los AngelesCalifornia Gov. Gavin Newsom challenges Vice President JD Vance to debate: 'How about saying it to my face?'The Dodgers were about to break their silence on Trump's immigration crackdown. Then federal agents showed upTrump suggests farmers may get to keep undocumented workers after all9th Circuit affirms San Diego judge's ruling that California's ‘one-gun-a-month' law is unconstitutionalCalifornia is to examine its Amazon oil ties following pleas from Indigenous leaders from EcuadorTurlock story (under headline on Iranian reaction to Israel war) LAUSD agrees to fund $500 million to settle sexual assault lawsuitsLong Beach City Council votes to mandate more staffing at self-checkout lanesKurt Miceli, Do No Harm: UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine: Lawsuit: UCLA used race in rejecting highly qualified Asian, white students over less-qualified applicants

SHOW SCHEDULE FRIDAY 20 JUNE 2025: Good evening. The show begins in California and Nevada, a diamond heist from Brink's and a baseball diamond in the rough. 1948 HOLLYWOOD PLAZA HOTEL CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR FIRST HOUR 9:00-9:15 #PacificWatch: Jewel heist pursuit. #VegasReport: Stirring at the ballpark grounds. @jcbliss 9:15-9:30 Lancaster Report: Quiet central market. Busy diners of grayheads. Jim McTague, former Washington editor, Barron's. @mctaguej. Author of the "Martin and Twyla Boundary Series." #FriendsofHistoryDebatingSociety 9:30-9:45 #SmallBusinessAmerica: All is right for hiring Gen Z. @genemarks @guardian @phillyinquirer 9:45-10:00 #SmallBusinessAmerica: Boomers reluctant to sell the small business to millennials. @genemarks @guardian @phillyinquirer SECOND HOUR 10:00-10:15 Iran: Is this the end of the NPT? Henry Sokolski, NPEC. 10:15-10:30 Italy: Responsible tourism: The broken chair of Verona. Lorenzo Fiori 10:30-10:45 SCOTUS. Ninth Circuit rules that POTUS does have authority of the National Guard in an emergency. Richard Epstein, Civitas Institute. 10:45-11:00 Iran: Israel's choices. Richard Epstein, Civitas Institute. THIRD HOUR 11:00-11:15 1/4: Rogue Allies: The Strategic Partnership between Iran and North Korea Paperback – April 29, 2025 by Bruce Bechtol (Author), Anthony N. Celso https://www.amazon.com/Rogue-Allies-Strategic-Partnership-between/dp/1985902176 In Rogue Allies: The Strategic Partnership between Iran and North Korea, Bruce E. Bechtol Jr. and Anthony N. Celso examine the influence of two rogue states whose rebellion against the United States and US-backed countries has serious consequences for international relations. Iran and North Korea have profited from illegal activities, such as the arming of terrorist organizations, in attempts to disrupt peace efforts in the Middle East and East Asia and to destabilize the rules-based order of the world. Bechtol and Celso uncover the origins of this decades-long alliance, consider elements that these two nation-states have in common, and explain how their relationship undermines neighboring regions. The authors draw from revealing interviews with Iranian and North Korean defectors as well as firsthand accounts from other sources, providing crucial additions to this body of research. While some scholars have compared and contrasted Iran and North Korea, few have delved into how this partnership works to achieve its far-reaching impact. By assessing key aspects of the Iran–North Korea nexus—including military, ideological, economic, and environmental forces—Rogue Allies investigates the link between two volatile states and the ensuing implications for global security. 11:15-11:30 2/4: Rogue Allies: The Strategic Partnership between Iran and North Korea Paperback – April 29, 2025 by Bruce Bechtol (Author), Anthony N. Celso 11:30-11:45 3/4: Rogue Allies: The Strategic Partnership between Iran and North Korea Paperback – April 29, 2025 by Bruce Bechtol (Author), Anthony N. Celso 11:45-12:00 4/4: Rogue Allies: The Strategic Partnership between Iran and North Korea Paperback – April 29, 2025 by Bruce Bechtol (Author), Anthony N. Celso FOURTH HOUR 12:00-12:15 Colombia: Surging violence. Mary Anastasia O'Grady 12:15-12:30 Russia: Falling oil falling Kremlin. Michael Bernstam, Hoover 12:30-12:45 SpaceX: No 10 unscheduled end. Bob Zimmerman behindtheblack.com 12:45-1:00 AM Mars: Missing matter found? Mars mysteries.

SCOTUS.  NINTH CIRCUIT RULES THAT POTUS SOES HAVE AUTHORITY OF THE NATIONAL GUARD IN AN EMERGENCY RICHARD EPSTEIN, CIVITAS INSTITUTE..  1888