Podcasts about ninth circuit

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I unpack the latest in the growing political fight between gun-rights groups and the House GOP over how much National Firearms Act reform can be included in the President's "big beautiful bill" through budget reconciliation. We also cover recent rulings out of the federal courts, including an en banc Ninth Circuit decision upholding the government's ability to permanently disarm all non-violent felons and a Fourth Circuit ruling ruling the same for those with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. Emily Stanley, aka Princess and the Pistol, also joins the show to discuss becoming a gun meme. Special Guest: Emily Stanley.

Episode 30: Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al.Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al., argued before Circuit Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Patrick J. Bumatay, and Gabriel P. Sanchez in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 15, 2025. Argued by Derek L. Shaffer (on behalf of Americans for Prosperity, et al.) and David Kolker (on behalf of Intervenor-Defendant Voters' Right to Know) and Eric Fraser (on behalf of Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission).Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech amicus brief:Proposition 211 imposes sweeping disclosure rules unlike anything seen before. On every metric, the law expands on its predecessors. It covers more people, more speech, for a longer time. Where other laws narrow, Proposition 211 widens.….Proposition 211 expands on other disclosure rules in virtually every way. It does not limit disclosure to speech about elections, to speech close in time to elections, or to speech by those engaged mainly in election advocacy. It does not limit disclosure to donors who intend to support election advocacy, or even donors who know their dollars might be used for election advocacy. By expanding every part of an ordinary disclosure rule, Proposition 211 “accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree.” See Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 583 (2012) (“NFIB”) (Roberts, C.J., op.). And that shift in kind turns a series of individually problematic provisions into a cataclysmic First Amendment violation.Statement of the Issues, from the Appellants' Opening Brief:Whether the district court erred in concluding that Proposition 211 is facially valid even though its disclosures are untethered to electoral activity, its burdens surpass the strength of the State's asserted interest, and its requirements are not narrowly tailored to the problems it purports to solve.Whether the district court erred in concluding that Proposition 211 is valid as applied to Appellants, even though Appellants alleged a reasonable probability that disclosure of their donors' names will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals.Whether the district court erred in concluding that Proposition 211 does not compel association even though its disclosure requirements tie organizations and their donors to candidates and causes irrespective of their actual beliefs.Resources:CourtListener docket page for Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al.Appellants' Opening BriefDefendant-Appellees' Answering BriefAnswering Brief of Appellee-Intervenor DefendantAppellants' Reply BriefInstitute for Free Speech amicus briefThe 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

President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship has reignited debates over the 14th Amendment and the meaning of citizenship in America. Legal experts Gabriel Chin of the University of California, Davis School of Law; Amanda Frost of the University of Virginia School of Law; Kurt Lash of the University of Richmond School of Law; and Ilan Wurman of the University of Minnesota Law School analyze the legal challenges surrounding birthright citizenship, explore the constitutional and historical arguments on all sides of this debate, and discuss its broader implications for immigration. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources Trump v. CASA, Inc., United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (2025) Trump v. Washington, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2025) Trump v. New Jersey, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2025) Amanda Frost, You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers (2021) Amanda Frost, “The Coming Assault on Birthright Citizenship,” The Atlantic (Jan. 7, 2025) Ilan Wurman and Randy Barnett, “Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship,” The New York Times (Feb. 15, 2025) Ilan Wurman, “Jurisdiction and Citizenship,” Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 25-27 (April 14, 2025) Gabriel “Jack” Chin and Paul Finkelman, “Birthright Citizenship, Slave Trade Legislation, and the Origins of Federal Immigration Regulation,” UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 54 (April 8, 2021) Gabriel J. Chin, “America Has Freaked Out Over Birthright Citizenship For Centuries,” Talking Points Memo (Aug. 2015) Kurt Lash, “Prima Facie Citizenship: Birth, Allegiance and the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause,” SSRN (Feb. 22, 2025) Kurt Lash, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship (2014) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠Sign up⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠live program⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠YouTube⁠. Support our important work. ⁠Donate

In this episode, ACTL Past President Doug Young reflects on how his family, mentors, and love of storytelling helped shape a distinguished career in trial and appellate law. He recounts powerful cases, from defending a troubled stockbroker in a white-collar Ponzi scheme to representing a corporation accused of environmental violations to arguing death penalty sentences – each highlighting the challenge of advocating for unpopular clients. Young shares vivid courtroom stories, including a dramatic Ninth Circuit argument that concluded with a 911 call, all underscoring his belief in professionalism, mentorship, and service.

Wednesday, April 16th, 2025Today, Judge Xinis orders expedited discovery in the contempt proceedings for the Abrego Garcia case; a whistleblower's disclosure details how DOGE may have taken sensitive labor data; a top Kegseth advisor was escorted out of the Pentagon after an investigation into agency leaks; a University of Columbia student was arrested by ICE AT his citizenship appointment; a federal judge has blocked Trump from revoking legal status of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela; Harvard stands up to the Trump regime and is hit with a freeze of $2B in federal funding; the Ninth Circuit appears poised to dismiss Trump's motion to vacate the restraining order preventing trump from defunding lawyers assisting unaccompanied children; dozens of Democrats are seeking to join Senator Van Hollen in a congressional delegation to El Salvador; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, Fast Growing TreesGet 15% off your first purchase.  FastGrowingTrees.com/dailybeansThank You, PiqueGet 20% off on the Radiant Skin Duo, plus a FREE starter kit at Piquelife.com/dailybeansSee Dana Live In Los Angeles Saturday, April 19!Stories:Scoop: Top House Democrats trying to send delegation to El Salvador | AXIOSA whistleblower's disclosure details how DOGE may have taken sensitive labor data | NBCTrump Pauses $2.2 Billion in Funding After Harvard Vows To Resist Demands | The Harvard CrimsonHegseth adviser placed on leave after investigation into Pentagon leaks | US military | The GuardianColumbia Activist Arrested by ICE at His Appointment for Citizenship | The New York TimesTrump can't revoke legal status of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, judge rules | CBS News Good Trouble:HHS wants you to call and snitch on your neighbors for providing gender affirming care for their children, or as the trump regime describes it: use this form to report a tip or complaint related to the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.Please don't use your real details.Whistleblower Tips and Complaints Regarding the Chemical and Surgical Mutilation of Children | HHS.govor call 1-800-HHS-TIPS (1-800-447-8477)Find Upcoming Actions - 50501 MovementFederal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Check out other MSW Media podcastsShows - MSW MediaCleanup On Aisle 45 podSubscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on SubstackThe BreakdownFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaAllison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWroteDana GoldbergBlueSky|@dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, Twitter|@DGComedyShare your Good News or Good Trouble:dailybeanspod.com/goodFrom The Good NewsSurvivor benefits | SSAMADVoters.orgToasted MallowSee Dana Live In Los Angeles Saturday, April 19Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Antitrust: Is there sufficient reason to believe that Invisalign has an illegal monopoly so as to require a jury trial? - Argued: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 15:25:44 EDT

California Rifle & Pistol Association head Chuck Michel joins Cam to discuss the impact of the Ninth Circuit's recent decision upholding the state's ban on "large capacity" magazines and what it means for those who currently possess them.

Technology: May California restrict social media companies' use of algorithms to deliver content to minors? - Argued: Wed, 02 Apr 2025 16:55:30 EDT

On March 31, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission.Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance program provides financial assistance to those who have lost their job through no fault of their own. Under state law, certain nonprofit organizations can opt out of the program, including those operated primarily for religious purposes. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior—a religious ministry that serves people with disabilities, the elderly, and the impoverished—requested an exemption from the state’s program so that it could enroll in the Wisconsin Bishops’ Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP), which provides the same level of unemployment benefits.Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not receive an exemption because its charitable work was not “typical” religious activity. The court said that Catholic Charities could only qualify for an exemption if, for example, it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served. Catholic Charities appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in December 2024.Does a state violate the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior?Featuring: Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties(Moderator) Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Why is the Supreme Court making some of its most impactful decisions behind closed doors? In this episode, Robin Frazer Clark and Lester Tate welcome Professor Stephen Vladeck, author of the bestselling book The Shadow Docket, to discuss the rise of stealth rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. Learn why unsigned and unexplained decisions—affecting everything from immigration to abortion—are becoming more common and why every American should be paying attention.

COVID: Could firefighters be required to get the COVID vaccine during the pandemic? - Argued: Thu, 03 Apr 2025 10:4:47 EDT

National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen leads a special panel discussion with Federal Judges Association President Judge J. Michelle Childs of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and past president of the Federal Judges Association; Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida; and Judge Stephen R. Bough of the U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri. The judges explore threats to the judicial branch and the importance of judicial independence and civic education in maintaining the rule of law. This program was presented in partnership with the Federal Judges Association.  Resources  Michelle Childs, Justice Jackson Lecture: “The Republic is Safe as Long as the Courts Remain Open” (April 1, 2025)  Code of Conduct for United States Judges  John Roberts, 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary (December 2024)  Federal Judges Association Civics Challenge Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

A decade ago, 21 youth plaintiffs in Oregon filed a lawsuit asserting that the government had violated their due process rights of life, liberty, and property by encouraging and permitting the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels such as oil and gas.The plaintiffs were represented by Our Children's Trust, a litigation firm based in Eugene.The case, known as Juliana v. United States, was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2020 for lack of standing and upheld in February 2021. An amended suit was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit in May 2024 again over lack of standing, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in March 2025.The proponents are now attempting to put their hydrocarbon paranoia into the Oregon Constitution. On March 26 the state legislature held a hearing on SJR 28, which would add the following language to the Constitution:"All people, including children and future generations, have the fundamental right to a clean, safe and healthy environment."This is just performative politics. Hydrocarbons power the modern world; but if lawmakers think the public wants to return to the 18th century, they should vote to outlaw fossil fuels right now and run for re-election on that record.

Judge VanDyke made a YouTube video to accompany his dissent in Duncan v. Bonta, the Second Amendment case in which a Ninth Circuit en banc panel upheld California's ban on handgun magazines over 10 bullets. Judge VanDyke's video shows him disassembling a gun, comparing accessories, and using a portion of oral argument to claim his point wasn't being heard. The issue: If a magazine is just an accessory not entitled to Second Amendment protection, then basically the entire gun is just a bunch of unprotected accessories.Jeff and Tim react:Can a federal judge issue a TikTok-style dissent? If so, can lawyers start footnoting their briefs with YouTube links?Does a video “illustration” that relies on props cross the line into new fact-finding? Or is it just illustrative of a legal point about distinguish an “arm” from its “accessories”?Are judges likely to do more of these dissents? Maybe explainer videos would be useful in patent cases (comparing iPhone and Samsung phone designs), or product defects, or police excessive-force cases?And practical questions: Will the video—and transcript—show up in Westlaw searches? How do you cite to something side during a dissent video?We also discuss a California Supreme Court ruling clarifying that malicious prosecution claims, even against lawyers, get the full two-year statute of limitations. Not the shorter one-year.And finally, an update from the J&J v. Trump litigation saga: a judge opens with a warning about the “priceless” nature of attorney integrity. The administration then invoked state secrets. Contempt proceedings now loom. Stay tuned.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Video Dissent: https://bsky.app/profile/rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social/post/3lkt7yftgqc2g

Second Amendment, gun rights, legal battles, privacy concerns, youth engagement, constitutional carry, ATF, FBI, gun control, derangement syndrome, Second Amendment, ATF, FBI, gun rights, Supreme Court, judicial decisions, Wisconsin Supreme Court, gun laws, regulatory changes, firearms enforcement, Armed American Radio, Second Amendment, ATF, Democratic Party, gun rights, political commentary, Mark Walters, AOC, Bernie Sanders, gun control In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics surrounding gun rights, legal battles, and the implications of recent court decisions. The conversation includes insights from guests like Alan Gottlieb and AWR Hawkins, focusing on the Second Amendment, privacy concerns for gun owners, and the shifting dynamics within law enforcement agencies. The episode emphasizes the importance of youth engagement in the conversation about gun rights and the ongoing fight against gun control measures. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various pressing issues surrounding the Second Amendment, including recent developments in the Ninth Circuit, the implications of shifting ATF agents to the FBI, and the ongoing battle for gun rights in state courts. The conversation features insights from experts like Dr. John Lott and Stephen Gutowski, who provide analysis on judicial decisions, regulatory changes, and the political landscape affecting gun ownership rights. In this episode of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses the current state of the Democratic Party, the implications of recent changes within the ATF, and the ongoing challenges surrounding the Second Amendment. The conversation features insights from various guests, highlighting the dynamics of political leadership, the impact of social media on public perception, and the future of gun rights in America. takeaways Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of fighting for gun rights. The legal battles surrounding the Second Amendment are ongoing and complex. Privacy concerns for gun owners are becoming increasingly significant. The concept of 'Second Amendment derangement syndrome' is discussed. Youth engagement in discussions about gun rights is crucial for the future. The Ninth Circuit Court's decisions are pivotal in shaping gun laws. Shifting ATF agents to the FBI raises concerns about enforcement of gun laws. North Carolina is moving towards constitutional carry legislation. Reversing restrictions on gun rights for nonviolent felons is a significant step forward. The left's approach to gun control often leads to unintended consequences for law-abiding citizens. They want to take my guns, they're going to have to bring a station wagon. The Ninth Circuit has been called the most overturned circuit court by SCOTUS. The ATF's zero tolerance policy is likely history now. The FBI has far more resources than the ATF. The appointment of Robert Leiter signals potential regulatory changes. Gun rights restoration is a slow process but moving in the right direction. Everytown is pouring money into state races to influence gun laws. The Wisconsin Supreme Court race is a tipping point for gun rights. Permitting laws can be abusive even if they are technically objective. The political landscape is shifting towards state-level battles for gun rights. The Democratic Party is struggling with leadership and public perception. AOC and Bernie Sanders represent a faction that may not resonate with mainstream voters. The ATF is undergoing significant changes that could affect gun rights enforcement. Public sentiment is shifting against extreme gun control measures. The importance of social media in shaping political narratives cannot be underestimated. There is a growing frustration with the Democratic Party's disconnect from average Americans. The Second Amendment remains a contentious issue in American politics.

Second Amendment, gun rights, legal battles, privacy concerns, youth engagement, constitutional carry, ATF, FBI, gun control, derangement syndrome, Second Amendment, ATF, FBI, gun rights, Supreme Court, judicial decisions, Wisconsin Supreme Court, gun laws, regulatory changes, firearms enforcement, Armed American Radio, Second Amendment, ATF, Democratic Party, gun rights, political commentary, Mark Walters, AOC, Bernie Sanders, gun control In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics surrounding gun rights, legal battles, and the implications of recent court decisions. The conversation includes insights from guests like Alan Gottlieb and AWR Hawkins, focusing on the Second Amendment, privacy concerns for gun owners, and the shifting dynamics within law enforcement agencies. The episode emphasizes the importance of youth engagement in the conversation about gun rights and the ongoing fight against gun control measures. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various pressing issues surrounding the Second Amendment, including recent developments in the Ninth Circuit, the implications of shifting ATF agents to the FBI, and the ongoing battle for gun rights in state courts. The conversation features insights from experts like Dr. John Lott and Stephen Gutowski, who provide analysis on judicial decisions, regulatory changes, and the political landscape affecting gun ownership rights. In this episode of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses the current state of the Democratic Party, the implications of recent changes within the ATF, and the ongoing challenges surrounding the Second Amendment. The conversation features insights from various guests, highlighting the dynamics of political leadership, the impact of social media on public perception, and the future of gun rights in America. takeaways Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of fighting for gun rights. The legal battles surrounding the Second Amendment are ongoing and complex. Privacy concerns for gun owners are becoming increasingly significant. The concept of 'Second Amendment derangement syndrome' is discussed. Youth engagement in discussions about gun rights is crucial for the future. The Ninth Circuit Court's decisions are pivotal in shaping gun laws. Shifting ATF agents to the FBI raises concerns about enforcement of gun laws. North Carolina is moving towards constitutional carry legislation. Reversing restrictions on gun rights for nonviolent felons is a significant step forward. The left's approach to gun control often leads to unintended consequences for law-abiding citizens. They want to take my guns, they're going to have to bring a station wagon. The Ninth Circuit has been called the most overturned circuit court by SCOTUS. The ATF's zero tolerance policy is likely history now. The FBI has far more resources than the ATF. The appointment of Robert Leiter signals potential regulatory changes. Gun rights restoration is a slow process but moving in the right direction. Everytown is pouring money into state races to influence gun laws. The Wisconsin Supreme Court race is a tipping point for gun rights. Permitting laws can be abusive even if they are technically objective. The political landscape is shifting towards state-level battles for gun rights. The Democratic Party is struggling with leadership and public perception. AOC and Bernie Sanders represent a faction that may not resonate with mainstream voters. The ATF is undergoing significant changes that could affect gun rights enforcement. Public sentiment is shifting against extreme gun control measures. The importance of social media in shaping political narratives cannot be underestimated. There is a growing frustration with the Democratic Party's disconnect from average Americans. The Second Amendment remains a contentious issue in American politics.

Second Amendment, gun rights, legal battles, privacy concerns, youth engagement, constitutional carry, ATF, FBI, gun control, derangement syndrome, Second Amendment, ATF, FBI, gun rights, Supreme Court, judicial decisions, Wisconsin Supreme Court, gun laws, regulatory changes, firearms enforcement, Armed American Radio, Second Amendment, ATF, Democratic Party, gun rights, political commentary, Mark Walters, AOC, Bernie Sanders, gun control In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics surrounding gun rights, legal battles, and the implications of recent court decisions. The conversation includes insights from guests like Alan Gottlieb and AWR Hawkins, focusing on the Second Amendment, privacy concerns for gun owners, and the shifting dynamics within law enforcement agencies. The episode emphasizes the importance of youth engagement in the conversation about gun rights and the ongoing fight against gun control measures. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various pressing issues surrounding the Second Amendment, including recent developments in the Ninth Circuit, the implications of shifting ATF agents to the FBI, and the ongoing battle for gun rights in state courts. The conversation features insights from experts like Dr. John Lott and Stephen Gutowski, who provide analysis on judicial decisions, regulatory changes, and the political landscape affecting gun ownership rights. In this episode of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses the current state of the Democratic Party, the implications of recent changes within the ATF, and the ongoing challenges surrounding the Second Amendment. The conversation features insights from various guests, highlighting the dynamics of political leadership, the impact of social media on public perception, and the future of gun rights in America. takeaways Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of fighting for gun rights. The legal battles surrounding the Second Amendment are ongoing and complex. Privacy concerns for gun owners are becoming increasingly significant. The concept of 'Second Amendment derangement syndrome' is discussed. Youth engagement in discussions about gun rights is crucial for the future. The Ninth Circuit Court's decisions are pivotal in shaping gun laws. Shifting ATF agents to the FBI raises concerns about enforcement of gun laws. North Carolina is moving towards constitutional carry legislation. Reversing restrictions on gun rights for nonviolent felons is a significant step forward. The left's approach to gun control often leads to unintended consequences for law-abiding citizens. They want to take my guns, they're going to have to bring a station wagon. The Ninth Circuit has been called the most overturned circuit court by SCOTUS. The ATF's zero tolerance policy is likely history now. The FBI has far more resources than the ATF. The appointment of Robert Leiter signals potential regulatory changes. Gun rights restoration is a slow process but moving in the right direction. Everytown is pouring money into state races to influence gun laws. The Wisconsin Supreme Court race is a tipping point for gun rights. Permitting laws can be abusive even if they are technically objective. The political landscape is shifting towards state-level battles for gun rights. The Democratic Party is struggling with leadership and public perception. AOC and Bernie Sanders represent a faction that may not resonate with mainstream voters. The ATF is undergoing significant changes that could affect gun rights enforcement. Public sentiment is shifting against extreme gun control measures. The importance of social media in shaping political narratives cannot be underestimated. There is a growing frustration with the Democratic Party's disconnect from average Americans. The Second Amendment remains a contentious issue in American politics...

California Rifle & Pistol Association head and 2A attorney Chuck Michel joins Cam to talk about the Ninth Circuit's decision upholding California's magazine ban, as well as silence from SCOTUS on the Snope case.

In This Hour:-- Chuck Michel, from the California Rifle and Pistol Association. explains a terrible decision from the Ninth Circuit and how it could lead to a big win at the Supreme Court.--  A new shotgun made for shooting down drones.--  Guns that carry family memories.Gun Talk 03.23.25 Hour 2

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I recap the en banc Ninth Circuit's newest decision upholding California's ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds and its much-discussed video dissent from Judge Lawrence VanDyke. We also talk about a separate Ninth Circuit panel's ruling striking down Hawaii's unique restrictions on handgun sales. Finally, we cover a long awaited en banc Eleventh Circuit decision dealing with Florida's post-Parkland ban on gun sales to adults under the age of 21. Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utmsource=thereload&utmmedium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0125 Special Guest: Mike Willever.

Devas v. Antrix considers whether foreign governments are protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause in the context of international arbitrations. The Ninth Circuit held that Antrix, an Indian government-owned corporation, lacked sufficient “minimum contacts” to meet the Due Process Clause and therefore dismissed attempts by petitioner Devas to enforce an arbitration award from […]

Devas v. Antrix considers whether foreign governments are protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause in the context of international arbitrations. The Ninth Circuit held that Antrix, an Indian government-owned corporation, lacked sufficient “minimum contacts” to meet the Due Process Clause and therefore dismissed attempts by petitioner Devas to enforce an arbitration award from India. Devas, supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and leading scholars of international arbitration, is asking the Court to reverse arguing that U.S. courts need not consider due process protections for foreign states, and are authorized under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to enforce such awards even without a nexus to the United States.While there are strong originalist and textualist arguments in favor of granting foreign states constitutional due process protections, the Court’s decision to grant such protections could undercut U.S. treaty obligations to enforce foreign arbitral awards and the broader international system for commercial arbitration. It could also affect other litigation against foreign states in U.S. courts, including lawsuits seeking to recover for state-sponsored terrorist attacks. This panel will debate these questions and offer explanations of the ruling’s possible impacts.

This Day in Legal History: Gideon v. WainwrightOn March 18, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, fundamentally reshaping the American legal system. The case began when Clarence Earl Gideon, a Florida man accused of burglary, was denied a court-appointed attorney because state law only provided counsel for capital cases. Forced to represent himself, Gideon was convicted and sentenced to prison. From his jail cell, he handwrote a petition to the Supreme Court, arguing that his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The Court unanimously agreed, ruling that states must provide legal counsel to defendants who cannot afford an attorney. This decision extended the right to legal representation to all criminal defendants, regardless of financial status, reinforcing the principle of a fair trial. The ruling overturned Betts v. Brady (1942), which had allowed states discretion in providing counsel. As a result, public defender systems were expanded nationwide, ensuring that indigent defendants received proper legal representation. Gideon v. Wainwright remains a cornerstone of American criminal law, highlighting the importance of due process and equal justice. Today, the case serves as a reminder of how a single individual's persistence can shape constitutional rights for millions.Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will take senior status, creating a vacancy for President Donald Trump to fill. Ikuta, appointed by George W. Bush, has served on the court for over a decade and is known for her conservative rulings. Her decision to step back adds to Trump's opportunities to shape the judiciary, as he previously appointed 54 appellate judges in his first term. The Ninth Circuit, historically liberal, has seen a shift in balance, with 16 Democratic-appointed and 13 Republican-appointed judges. Ikuta authored key opinions supporting Trump-era immigration and family planning policies. Before her judicial career, she worked as a journalist and later pursued law, clerking for prominent judges. Her transition to senior status will take effect upon the confirmation of her successor.Ninth Circuit's Ikuta to Step Back, Gives Trump Vacancy on CourtA U.S. judge has ordered the Trump administration to clarify whether it violated a court order by deporting hundreds of Venezuelans, potentially setting up a constitutional conflict. The administration defended its actions, arguing that courts lack authority over the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely invoked wartime law. Judge James Boasberg had temporarily blocked the deportations, but flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members still proceeded. El Salvador's president shared footage of deportees arriving, seemingly defying the court's directive. White House officials denied wrongdoing, while Trump's border czar suggested they would continue the deportations regardless of judicial rulings. Legal experts countered that the government must follow court orders, regardless of where deportations occur. The ACLU and civil rights groups raised concerns over due process and the administration's broad use of executive power. Trump has increasingly tested legal limits since taking office, often facing judicial intervention. The outcome of this case could further define the balance of power between the presidency and the courts.US Judge Seeks Answers on Deportation of Venezuelans Despite Court OrderU.S. authorities deported Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Rhode Island doctor, to Lebanon after finding images and videos on her phone that they claimed were sympathetic to Hezbollah. She had also attended the funeral of Hezbollah's former leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and stated her support for him from a religious perspective. The U.S. government classifies Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and officials said they could not determine her true intentions in the country. A federal judge had issued an order requiring 48 hours' notice before her removal, but she was deported the same day. The Justice Department argued that proper notification procedures were followed, defending Customs and Border Protection against claims of violating the court order. Alawieh's legal team withdrew from the case, citing new diligence concerns. The court later sealed documents related to the government's explanation. The situation raises legal questions about immigration enforcement and judicial authority.Doctor deported to Lebanon had photos 'sympathetic' to Hezbollah on phone, US says | 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

In breaking news, a 3rd appellate court has dealt a severe blow to Trump's efforts to rip birthright citizenship out of the US Constitution by executive order, with the 1st Circuit in Boston refusing Trump's emergency application to block a nationwide preliminary injunction to stop Trump‘s destruction of birthright citizenship. Michael Popok explains how this new decision by the First Circuit compares to similar decisions at the Ninth Circuit and Fourth Circuit, and what that means for the next move by the Trump administration at the US Supreme Court. Head to https://manukora.com/legalaf to receive $25 off your starter kit today! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There has been a lot of buzz around psychedelics and particularly their potential usefulness in treating existential suffering at the end of life. Husch Blackwell was the first law firm in the country to establish a Psychedelics & Emerging Therapies practice group devoted to helping clinicians, researchers, and investors navigate the complex and difficult legal and regulatory issues involved in developing new therapies in this space.In this episode, host Meg Pekarske is joined by the leaders of Husch Blackwell's Psychedelics & Emerging Therapies practice group, Kimberly Chew, Karen Luong, and Natasha Sumner, who provide an overview of what psychedelics are, their legal status under federal and state laws, and liability considerations for clinicians. We also discuss the recent amicus brief they filed on behalf of nearly 30 end of life and palliative care providers in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While there is a lot to digest here, we hope it is a helpful starting point for learning about this complex and evolving area.

This week, Bob discusses a recent Ninth Circuit decision that could greatly affect insurance suits resulting from the LA wildfires. Learn why insureds might be in trouble if their cases get removed to federal court. Have a topic you'd like Bob to cover? Submit it to questions@gpsllp.com, or connect with Bob directly on LinkedIn.And if you'd like to know more about GPSL, check out our website.You can also find us on LinkedIn, X, and Facebook.

Hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders welcome Adam Shniderman of Alexander Dubose & Jefferson to discuss his unique journey through academia, clerkships, and private practice. Adam shares how his academic background in criminology and forensic evidence provided a solid foundation for his legal career. He compares clerking at the Texas Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit, and he suggests that young lawyers should consider clerking as a way to enhance their skills. “It is a bit of drinking from a fire hose and learning a lot that you wouldn't necessarily learn as a first-year associate,” he says.Adam's insights about Texas appellate law are available on his Substack, named “14th & Colorado” after the intersection where the Supreme Court of Texas is located. Click here to subscribe.Connect and Learn More☑️ Adam Shniderman | LinkedIn | X | 14th & Colorado ☑️ Alexander Dubose & Jefferson | LinkedIn☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC ☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicProduced

In this episode, Jim Garrity spotlights a new ruling on a little-known but powerful tool: the use of depositions as affidavits. As Garrity discusses, a deposition does not need to meet the requirements of trial-oriented Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 (which requires a showing that the party against whom the deposition is offered had notice and a chance to examine the deposition) when it is offered in proceedings that allow testimony by affidavit, such as at summary judgment.SHOW NOTESSurety v. Co. v. Dwight A. Herald, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00086-GNS-HBB, 2025 WL 627523 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 26, 2025) (deposition/examination under oath of witness taken in underlying state-court personal injury could be used in federal declaratory judgment actions at summary judgment time, as deposition meets form of affidavit)Diamonds Plus, Inc. v. Kolber, et al., 960 F. 2d 765 (8th Cir. 1992) (deposition need not be admissible at trial to be properly considered in opposition to motions for summary judgment; deposition inadmissible at trial because one of the defendants did not receive proper notice and did not attend the deposition was properly used to create issues of fact justifying denial of summary judgment)Hoover v. Switlik Parachute Co., 663 F.2d 964, 966-67 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Rule 56 ... plainly allows consideration of “affidavits” and we find nothing which requires that term to be construed within the limitations of Rule 32(a).”).First Gaston Bank of North Carolina v. City of Hickory, 691 S.E.2d 715 (Ct. App. N.C. 2010) (citing cases rejecting proposition that FRCP 32 limits use of depositions in proceedings where evidence in affidavit form is admissible; pointing out that to the extent a party objects that they didn't have an opportunity to cross-examine a witness whose deposition from some other cases being offered, “the same objection can frequently be made as to affidavits filed in connection with motions for summary judgment”)Tingey v. Radionics, 193 F. App'x 747, 765–66 (10th Cir. 2006) (reversing summary judgment where trial court, relying on FRCP 32, excluded from consideration in opposition to summary judgment a deposition that plaintiff took of physician in separate state proceeding, where defendant was not party to that proceeding and had not been given notice of deposition; depositions can be used as affidavits in proceedings where affidavits are admissible; to illustrate, “[p]arties may file affidavits in support of summary judgment without providing notice or an opportunity to cross-examine the affiant. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The “remedy” for this non-confronted affidavit testimony is to file an opposing affidavit, not to complain that one was not present and permitted to cross-examine when the affidavit was signed. For this reason, the Ninth Circuit has permitted a party to introduce deposition testimony for summary judgment purposes against a party who was not present at the deposition, by construing the deposition as an affidavit. Hoover v. Switlik Parachute Co., 663 F.2d 964, 966–67 (9th Cir.1981)”)Nippon Credit Bank, Ltd. v. Matthews, 291 F.3d 738, 751 (11th Cir. 2002) (without analyzing scope and extent of application of FRCP 32, court broadly said that “Depositions are generally admissible provided that the party against whom they are admitted was present, represented, or reasonably noticed, Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a), and are specifically allowed in consideration of summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A deposition taken in a different proceeding is admissible if the party against whom it is offered was provided with an opportunity to examine the deponent. Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(1).”)Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) (explicitly allowing citation to depositions for or against summary judgment)8 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2142 (1970))) (as are at least as good as affidavits and should be usable whenever an affidavit would be permissible, even where the conditions or requirements for use at trial under rule 32 are not met) 

Free Speech: Does the SEC's gag rule, which prevents settling parties from disputing liability, violate the First Amendment? - Argued: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:20:35 EDT

Civil Rights: Do zoning regulations governing group-living facilities comply with federal and state fair-housing laws when applied to sober living homes? - Argued: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:17:16 EDT

Episode 25: Powell, et al. v. United States Securities and Exchange CommissionPowell, et al. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, argued before Circuit Judges Sidney R. Thomas, Daniel A. Bress, and Ana de Alba in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 13, 2025. Argued by Margaret A. Little of the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) (on behalf of Powell, et al.) and Archith Ramkumar (on behalf of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission).Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech amicus brief:For more than fifty years, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has used the threat of debilitatingly expensive litigation to coerce defendants into accepting a lifetime ban on speech. The SEC's Gag Rule commands that, once defendants have settled, they can never publicly challenge—or even permit others to undermine—the truth of the SEC's factual allegations, even if those allegations are indisputably false.The SEC's Gag Rule is a ban not just on speech but a ban on true political speech. It imposes an eternal, viewpoint-discriminatory prior restraint on speech critical of the SEC's enforcement regime. For a country with “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials,” the unconstitutionality of this policy is clear. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). Nonetheless, the SEC refuses to initiate a rulemaking to amend its Gag Rule.Statement of Issues Presented, from the Petitioner's Opening Brief:Whether the Commission acted contrary to constitutional right by refusing to amend 17 C.F.R. § 202.5(e) because the rule violates First Amendment and due process rights and is against public policy.Whether the Commission acted in excess of statutory authority and without observance of procedure required by law by refusing to amend 17 C.F.R. § 202.5(e), which improperly binds individuals outside of SEC.Whether the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it failed to provide a reasoned explanation for denying the petition to amend 17 C.F.R. § 202.5(e).Resources:CourtListener docket page for Powell, et al. v. SECNCLA case pagePetitioners' Opening BriefBrief for RespondentPetitioners' Reply BriefInstitute for Free Speech amicus briefThe 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

On our episode about fairness — "Fairness with Vella Lovell and Meredith Holzman" — three kids (Bodhi, Aubrey, and Will) helped two arguing Qook-a-lackas through a process of “qook-a-lation.” They listened to both sides of the argument, asked some questions, and then shared some ideas to help the Qook-a-lackas find a fair solution.Today, Little Kids, Big Hearts is thrilled to share an interview diving into fairness with someone who knows A LOT about qook-a-lation: Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, who has served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since 2022.Our host, Todd Loyd chats with Judge Sanchez about what fairness is and moments in his life when he's learned about fairness. He shares tips for little kids with big hearts who want to follow in his footsteps and become real-life judges — and also tips on how we can bring more fairness to our classrooms and playgrounds today. Judge Sanchez was nominated by President Biden and confirmed by the Senate in 2022 — an exciting first for our podcast! He's based in San Francisco, but hears cases across California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Judge Sanchez has had a remarkable career advocating for criminal justice reform, public safety, and civil rights, while also serving as a pro bono supporter of farm workers' rights. 

Discover how youth shooting sports are shaping the next generation of leaders! In this episode, we talk with Anna Cannon, State Director of the California High School Clay Target League, about the importance of bringing trap, skeet, and other shooting disciplines back to schools. From promoting firearm safety to breaking down stereotypes, this conversation highlights the lasting impact of these programs. If you care about youth empowerment and preserving Second Amendment traditions, this episode is for you! Learn more at: CAClayTarget.com on how you can get involved and start a league at your school! Also in this episode: CCW Application Tips: What you need to know before applying in California. Legal Victories: Updates on the Ninth Circuit's butterfly knife ruling and non-resident CCWs. Defensive Gun Use: A Kent, WA homeowner defends his family during a late-night break-in. ATF Policy Changes: What the rollback of the zero-tolerance FFL policy means for gun owners. The Dual threat of TikTok: Why the app's censorship of gun-related content isn't the only danger—it's also a powerful tool for espionage and propaganda, according to guest Paul Benfield. SEAL1's Stump My Nephew: What were gunpowder's earliest medical uses? Gear Spotlight: The best gun cases and survival tools from Cargo in El Cajon. Sign up for Massad Ayoob's MAG20 Armed Citizen's Rules of Engagement class! https://gunownersradio.ticketspice.com/mastering-self-defense-week - Like, subscribe, and share to help restore the Second Amendment in California! Make sure Big Tech can't censor your access to our content and subscribe to our email list: https://gunownersradio.com/subscribe #2a #guns #gunowners #2ndAmendment #2ACA #ca42a #gunownersradio #gunrights #gunownersrights #rkba #shallnotbeinfringed #pewpew -- The right to self-defense is a basic human right. Gun ownership is an integral part of that right. If you want to keep your Second Amendment rights, defend them by joining San Diego County Gun Owners (SDCGO), Orange County Gun Owners (OCGO), or Inland Empire Gun Owners (IEGO). https://www.sandiegocountygunowners.com https://orangecountygunowners.com http://inlandempiregunowners.com Support the cause by listening to Gun Owners Radio live on Sunday afternoon or on any podcast app at your leisure. Together we will win. SUPPORT THE BUSINESSES THAT SUPPORT YOUR SELF DEFENSE RIGHTS! Get expert legal advice on any firearm-related issues: https://dillonlawgp.com Smarter web development and digital marketing help: https://www.sagetree.com Clean your guns easier, faster, and safer! https://seal1.com Get your cases & outdoor gear at C.A.R.G.O in El Cajon or visit them at https://cargostores.com Stay cool this summer with Straight Shooter Heating & Cooling! https://straightshooter.ac

Glyphosate is an herbicide that’s widely used in agriculture in the U.S. and around the world. It’s the active ingredient in Roundup, which is commonly applied to crops like soy, cotton and corn that have been genetically modified to withstand the weed killer. The Environmental Protection Agency maintains that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” although a ruling in 2022 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has prompted the agency to review the chemical’s risks to human health and the environment.  A new study by economists at the University of Oregon examined how glyphosate may also be impacting the health of infants. It looked at millions of birth records from 1990 to 2013 to see if there were differences in birth weight and gestational length after Roundup use intensified in rural counties that grew genetically modified corn, soy and cotton compared to rural counties that weren’t suitable for growing those GM crops. It found that exposure to glyphosate was associated with lower birth weights and shorter gestations, with those effects being greater for some babies more than others. Joining us to talk about the findings is Ed Rubin, an assistant professor of economics at the University of Oregon.

In this chilling episode of Almost Fiction, we explore the violent crime spree of Mitchell Sims and Ruby Padgett, a couple whose anger and desperation led to a series of horrifying murders. From the Domino's Pizza murders in South Carolina to the shocking double homicide in California, their story reveals how personal grievances and greed spiraled into a nationwide killing spree.Join us as we dissect the motives behind their actions, the details of their crimes, and the legacy of fear they left behind. Was this a case of workplace rage taken too far, or something even darker?Sources:No. S004783. Jun 28, 1993. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MITCHELL CARLTON SIMS, Defendant and Appellant. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. A 591707, Jack B. Tso, Judge.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 425 F.3d 560. Mitchell Carlton Sims, Petitioner-appellant, v. Jill Brown, Warden,* Respondent-appellee. 2 Sought in Deaths of Pizza Workers Arrested in Vegas. By David Freed - Los Angeles Times. December 26, 1985.‘Lessons learned as the son of a serial killer'. By The Baptist Courier. Published on October 1, 2008. Snapped: Killer Couples. Season 7 Episode 3: Ruby Padgette and Mitchell Sims. Aired June 23, 2012.Access ad-free episodes, bonus content, and get all of the 11:59 Media Podcast library!Access hours of extra content each week, exclusive merch, and early access to new podcasts.Visit https://1159plus.com or https://www.patreon.com/1159media 

Here is our 2024 roundup, and in exchange we have a request for suggestions for 2025 content. If you are an attorney, what content do you prefer? Check out the poll.Now here's the roundup of updates for 2025:

BOI updates continue throughout the week, Ninth Circuit rules on all events test issue and Tax Court again imposes functional test on state law limited partners

Abortion: May Idaho ban all abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother? - Argued: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 8:26:42 EDT

Second Amendment: May the federal government permanently bar non-violent felons from possessing firearms? - Argued: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 8:25:36 EDT

Technology: Can Meta be held liable for the genocide of the Rohingya people in Myanmar? - Argued: Wed, 04 Dec 2024 13:0:47 EDT

Technology: Can Grindr be held liable for matching a minor with sexual predators? - Argued: Tue, 03 Dec 2024 12:58:41 EDT

Securities: Did Snapchat fraudulently downplay the economic costs it would suffer when Apple enhanced its app privacy settings? - Argued: Thu, 05 Dec 2024 12:55:54 EDT

A massive budget deficit might just be the best thing that could happen to our state. Should previous support for police defunding be disqualifying? Ninth Circuit says King County can't interfere with federal deportations. Trump says maybe Canada should become our 51st state, eh? 

This week on The Learning Curve, co-hosts Alisha Searcy of DFER and U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng interview Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Mr. Rassbach discusses the Loffman v. California Department of Education case, where Becket successfully secured a unanimous Ninth Circuit decision ensuring equal access to […]

Civil Rights: May a sex-segregated nude spa bar transgender patrons who present as the opposite sex? - Argued: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 9:48:43 EDT

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

In 2022, the ABA updated its Standard 303, Curriculum which relates to “cross-cultural competency” and “professional identity.” Because the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is responsible for law school accreditation through an appointment from the U.S. Department of Education (and the agreement of State Bars), this change and the ways it can be implemented could have widespread implications.This panel will discuss the nature of the obligations the revised Standard places on law schools and the scope of such terms as "cross-cultural competency" and "racism." Do these new standards require new courses or course changes? Will the new courses displace any of the old ones? Will the implementation turn out to be education or training? Does this standard create any tension with later developments in law including Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC (2023)? What role does the Department of Education and State Bars have in scrutinizing and altering the effects of this new standard?Featuring:Dean Michael F. Barry, Professor of Law and Former President and Dean, South Texas College of Law HoustonDr. Dayna Bowen Matthew, Dean & Harold H. Greene Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law SchoolMs. Jennifer L. Rosato Perea, Managing Director, Accreditation and Legal Education, ABAHon. Nels Peterson, Justice, Supreme Court of GeorgiaModerator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

In recent years, the legal profession has increasingly prioritized diversity in law firm hiring and litigation leadership, driven by demands from corporate clients, alumni, and judges. Efforts to increase the representation of women and non-white lawyers have become so integral that they are now reflected in proposed formal rules, such as the FRCP 16.1, which would require judges to consider identity characteristics when selecting leadership teams for multidistrict litigation (MDL). This potential codification raises important questions about the legality and implications of identity-based preferences in the legal profession. How should client preferences for diversity be balanced with Title VII commitments, and what role should diversity of background play in law firm hiring and the selection of MDL legal teams? This panel will explore these issues, examining both the legal and policy arguments surrounding identity-based preferencing in legal employment.Featuring:Dean andré douglas pond cummings, Dean and Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law SchoolProf. Darrell D. Jackson, Winston Howard Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of LawMr. Roger Severino, Vice President, Domestic Policy & The Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow, The Heritage FoundationMs. Tobi Young, Senior Vice President Legal & Chief Corporate Affairs Officer, Cognizant; Board of Directors, HalliburtonModerator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

My other channel: https://www.youtube.com/@SteveLehtoVault

This week, we're talking about EMTALA—yes, again. The Ninth Circuit will hear arguments over Idaho not wanting to abide by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in December, and the case is sure to make it back to the Supreme Court.This time, though, conservatives have a new weapon: the Spending Clause. Much to Jess' chagrin, she and Imani get into how Amy Coney Barrett pulled an Alito-esque move to tee anti-choicers up to use the Spending Clause to upend EMTALA for good.Rewire News Group is a nonprofit media organization, which means that episodes like this one are only made possible with the support of listeners like you! If you can, please join our team by donating here.And sign up for The Fallout, a weekly newsletter written by Jess that's exclusively dedicated to covering every aspect of this unprecedented moment.