Podcasts about ninth circuit

George and Sarah dig into Donald Trump's legal circus—his sociopathic impulses, his warped view of presidential power, and his team's nonstop efforts to delay accountability. From a Ninth Circuit procedural win on National Guard deployment, to recycled immunity claims, to the latest twists in the E. Jean Carroll case, Conway and Longwell explain why Trump's ego—not the law—drives it all.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks the legal battle between California and the Trump administration over the federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. She explains the statutes at play, including the limits of the Posse Comitatus Act and the potential use of the Insurrection Act. Jessica details Judge Breyer's ruling in favor of California, outlines the key legal questions for the upcoming Ninth Circuit hearing, and gives insight into the judges involved in this high-profile case.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss: Presidential Power to Federalize the National Guard: Jessica Levinson opens by explaining the legal mechanisms the president attempted to use to federalize the National Guard and send them, along with Marines, into Los Angeles. She breaks down the relevant federal statute (Title 10, Section 12406), which gives the president limited power to federalize the National Guard under specific conditions, such as responding to rebellion or when federal law can't be enforced with regular forces.The Scope and Limits of Military Involvement – The Posse Comitatus Act: Jessica addresses the significance of the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. Even if the National Guard is federalized, their direct involvement in law enforcement (like making arrests) is limited unless a separate statute (the Insurrection Act) is invoked.The Insurrection Act as an Exception: She describes how the Insurrection Act is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, allowing the military to more directly handle law enforcement under certain conditions (such as widespread unlawful conduct or when state authorities can't protect federal rights). She provides historical examples, such as federal intervention during desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s, and the Rodney King riots in 1992.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

Governor Newsom sued to enjoin President Trump's deployment of the National Guard to quell the ongoing LA riots without Newsom's consent. But first, we disclose our biases—about Trump, opportunistic political labeling of “rebellions” or “insurrections,” and how easily the thin veneer of civilization is pierced by masked cowards throwing rocks.Also:Beach yoga is free speech, says the Ninth Circuit striking down San Diego's ban.A study on televised oral arguments reveals that camera angles—and flags—can change the court's perception with the public as “legitimate.”Lawyers must comply with the evidence code—but the court can also consider mere “information.” We discuss why appellate courts seem so cavalier about the rules of evidence.“Citation modified” enters the Bluebook—but Tim and Jeff agree: “cleaned up” still reigns.Appellate fees ≠ judgment enforcement fees.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:Is “evidence” different from “information”?The “(cleaned up)” origin story, with Jack MetzlerStudy on televising oral arguments and judicial legitimacyCALP cited in a law review about (cleaned up)! Craighead, Burke, The Bluebook: An Insider's Perspective (May 12, 2025). Michigan Law Review, Volume 124 (forthcoming 2026), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5271305 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5271305.Judgment enforcement fees reminder: EDWARD H. BONIN, v. LINCOLN CHAYES et al., (D2d2, May 29, 2025, No. B340106) (non-pub. opn.)Not enough time for the CCP 128.5 21-day date harbor? Nothing prevents asking for a continuance of the underlying motion. JUNKERS2JEWELS, LLC, et al., v. LA-DORIS MCCLANEY, (Cal. Ct. App., May 28, 2025, No. B339900) (non-pub. opn.)

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia, striking down state laws that banned interracial marriage. The case arose when Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Loving, a Black and Indigenous woman, were sentenced to a year in prison for marrying each other in Washington, D.C., then returning to their home in Virginia, which criminalized interracial unions under its Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The couple's challenge to their conviction eventually reached the nation's highest court.In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the Court, stated that the freedom to marry is a “vital personal right,” and restricting that freedom on the basis of race was “directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The Court emphasized that classifications based solely on race are “odious to a free people” and cannot stand.The decision invalidated laws in 16 states that still prohibited interracial marriage at the time, cementing Loving v. Virginia as a major victory in the civil rights movement. It not only reinforced the constitutional commitment to racial equality but also laid critical groundwork for later decisions involving personal liberty, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2015.A U.S. federal judge ruled that the Trump administration cannot detain Columbia University student and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil based on U.S. foreign policy concerns. The decision, issued by Judge Michael Farbiarz in Newark, found that using a rarely applied immigration law to justify Khalil's detention violated his free speech rights. Khalil, whose green card was revoked in March, has been in detention since then and was the first foreign student arrested amid the pro-Palestinian campus protests following the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel.The court found that Khalil was suffering irreparable harm due to the damage to his career and the chilling effect on his speech. While the ruling bars Khalil's deportation under the foreign policy provision, it does not require his immediate release, allowing the administration until Friday to appeal. Khalil's wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, urged his immediate return to their home in New York, where she cares for their newborn son.Neither the State Department nor the Justice Department commented. The case reflects tensions over U.S. responses to student activism amid global political conflicts, particularly as Trump-era policies are used to target protesters. The foreign policy provision invoked allows deportation of non-citizens if their presence is seen as harmful to U.S. interests, but the court found it unconstitutional in this case.US foreign policy no basis to detain Columbia protester Khalil, judge rules | ReutersCalifornia is taking the Trump administration to court over the deployment of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles amid escalating protests against President Donald Trump's immigration policies. Approximately 700 Marines are set to join 4,000 National Guard troops to support federal agents and protect government property, sparking backlash from state officials who argue the move is illegal and inflammatory. California Governor Gavin Newsom, along with other state and local leaders, contends the deployment violates the state's rights and unnecessarily escalates tensions.The protests, which began in response to a wave of immigration raids, have spread to cities including New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., and are expected to intensify with over 1,800 demonstrations planned for the weekend. Demonstrators in Los Angeles have largely remained peaceful, though incidents of violence and aggressive police responses have been reported. A federal judge in San Francisco will hear arguments Thursday as California seeks a restraining order to halt the military's law enforcement involvement.The Marines have completed crowd control and de-escalation training but are operating under Title 10 of U.S. law, which authorizes limited military involvement in civilian matters. They are permitted to detain individuals interfering with federal duties but are not supposed to engage in regular policing. Trump defended the deployment, calling it essential to maintaining order, while critics, including national Democrats, have called it a dangerous overreach.Marines prepare for Los Angeles deployment as protests spread across USA group of current and former female athletes is appealing the NCAA's $2.8 billion antitrust settlement, arguing that the deal violates Title IX by disproportionately compensating male athletes. Approved by a federal judge on June 6, the settlement allocates 90% of back pay damages to men, largely benefiting football and basketball players. The objectors, represented by attorney John Clune, argue this breakdown reflects a $1.1 billion miscalculation and discriminates against women in violation of federal law.The appeal, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is the first formal challenge to a settlement touted as a major victory for student-athletes. Clune said the agreement lacks meaningful support for women's sports, including basketball and Olympic disciplines, and warned that schools are already discussing cutting programs as a result of the deal's financial structure.Critics of the appeal, including settlement attorney Jeffrey Kessler, claim the Title IX objection is misplaced in an antitrust case and will delay compensation for over 100,000 athletes. Still, the challenge raises questions about gender equity in how the NCAA compensates athletes for past name, image, and likeness (NIL) restrictions.While the total settlement amount isn't being disputed, the appeal could impact future policies around compensation, roster limits, and salary caps. The NCAA says it's continuing with implementation, but the appeal introduces legal uncertainty into an already complex shift in college athletics.NCAA $2.8 Billion Deal Gets Appealed Over Title IX Issues (1)Donald Trump's legal team is attempting to fast-track an appeal of his New York felony conviction by moving the case toward the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump was convicted in Manhattan on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, marking the first time a former or current president has been found guilty of a felony. His attorneys returned to court this week to argue the state case should be shifted to federal jurisdiction.They contend that Trump's actions were connected to his official duties as president and thus should be handled in federal court, where they believe he might receive a more favorable legal environment. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is currently weighing the request, which Trump hopes will pave the way for a rapid review by the Supreme Court.The legal maneuvering is part of a broader strategy to challenge the legitimacy of the New York state trial and delay sentencing or any other consequences. Trump maintains that the case is politically motivated and that the charges are being used to interfere with his political agenda.Trump Seeks Quick Path to Supreme Court in Hush Money Appeal (1) 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

Commerce Clause: Do Washington State's cannabis industry licensing requirements violate the dormant commerce clause? - Argued: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 14:23:49 EDT

Technology: Do California's privacy and anti-wiretapping laws bar websites from tracking visitors web browsing activity? - Argued: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 14:30:27 EDT

Federalism: Does federal law preempt State's efforts to block mergers to prevent consolidation in the health care industry? - Argued: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 14:28:37 EDT

04:21 Ninth Circuit judges at odds in ruling of the case of Officer Toni McBride21:57 NPA calls to protect public safety during the chaos of LA37:19 Homeowner fatally shot after pointing firearm at officerLEO Round Table (law enforcement talk show)Season 10, Episode 116 (2,455) filmed on 06/10/20251. http://www.metnews.com/articles/2025/lethalforce_060325.htmhttps://www.aol.com/news/9th-circuit-deals-blow-qualified-010024445.html2. https://nationalpolice.org/the-national-police-association-to-california-leaders-call-for-an-end-to-highway-blockades-and-protect-public-safety-now/https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/president-trump-sends-national-guard-as-violent-anti-ice-riots-erupt-in-los-angeleshttps://www.lawofficer.com/national-guard-deployed-amid-unrest-following-immigration-raids-in-los-angeles/3. https://rumble.com/v6u3s6l-casper-police-release-footage-of-fatal-shooting-of-homeowner-during-respons.html?e9s=src_v1_uppShow Panelists and Personalities:Chip DeBlock (Host and retired police detective)Rich Staropoli (former Secret Service agent)Jamie McBride (police detective and director of the LAPPL)Betsy Brantner Smith (retired sergeant and owner of The Winning Mind LLC)Jeff Wenninger (retired lieutenant and Founder & CEO of Law Enforcement Consultants, LLC)Related Events, Organizations and Books:Retired DEA Agent Robert Mazur's works:Interview of Bryan Cranston about him playing Agent Robert Mazur in THE INFILTRATOR filmhttps://vimeo.com/channels/1021727Trailer for the new book, THE BETRAYALhttps://www.robertmazur.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/The-Betrayal-trailer-reMix2.mp4Everything on Robert Mazurhttps://www.robertmazur.com/The Wounded Blue - Lt. Randy Sutton's charityhttps://thewoundedblue.org/Rescuing 911: The Fight For America's Safety - by Lt. Randy Sutton (Pre-Order)https://rescuing911.org/Books by panelist and retired Lt. Randy Sutton:https://www.amazon.com/Randy-Sutton/e/B001IR1MQU%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_shareThey're Lying: The Media, The Left, and The Death of George Floyd - by Liz Collin (Lt. Bob Kroll's wife)https://thelieexposed.com/Lt. Col. Dave Grossman - Books, Newsletter, Presentations, Shop, Sheepdogshttps://grossmanontruth.com/Sheriff David Clarke - Videos, Commentary, Podcast, Shop, Newsletterhttps://americassheriff.com/Content Partners:Red Voice Media - Real News, Real Reportinghttps://www.redvoicemedia.com/shows/leo/ThisIsButter - One of the BEST law enforcement video channelshttps://rumble.com/user/ThisIsButterThe Free Press - LEO Round Table is in their Cops and Crimes section 5 days a weekhttps://www.tampafp.com/https://www.tampafp.com/category/cops-and-crime/Video Show Schedule On All Outlets:http://leoroundtable.com/home/syndication/Syndicated Radio Schedule:http://leoroundtable.com/radio/syndicated-radio-stations/Sponsors:Galls - Proud to serve America's public safety professionalshttps://www.galls.com/leoCompliant Technologies - Cutting-edge non-lethal tools to empower and protect those who servehttps://www.complianttechnologies.net/Blue To Gold - training that is relevant and relatable to every street officerhttps://bluetogold.com/The International Firearm Specialist Academy - The New Standard for Firearm Knowledgehttps://www.gunlearn.com/MyMedicare.live - save money in Medicare insurance options from the expertshttp://www.mymedicare.live/

The issue involved FREE sessions in a public park. https://www.lehtoslaw.com

Ninth Circuit looks at the (lack of) a connection between a cancelled debt for a debtor and a bad deduction for a (related) debtor, Supreme Court decides a Constitutional SUTA/FUTA issue and more.

Immigration: May the President abolish birth-right citizenship for the children of non-citizens? - Argued: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 11:9:4 EDT

On May 7, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit challenging Microsoft's $69 billion purchase of “Call of Duty” maker Activision Blizzard, affirming the lower judge's order finding that the FTC was not entitled to a preliminary injunction blocking the deal, which closed in 2023. Hear from former agency officials and amici filers for the Business Roundtable, Communications Workers of America, and TechFreedom as they discuss the various views presented in the briefing and the ramifications of this decision on future merger enforcement at the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice.Featuring:Allen P. Grunes, Shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber SchreckHon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Antitrust and Competition, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & RosatiRahul Rao, Antitrust Partner, White & CaseBilal Sayyed, Senior Competition Counsel, TechFreedom Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies--To register, click the link above.

Michael Freedman joins Nathan on Thinking LSAT to share his story as a trial lawyer in some of the nation's most high-profile criminal cases. Along the way, he shares candid advice for law students about finding their path, building experience, and starting a firm. Michael emphasizes the importance of treating law school like a job, embracing trial work, and nurturing every professional relationship.4:00 – UC HastingsMichael recalls feeling bored during his 1L year but loving 2L because he finally began interacting with real lawyers. Nathan encourages students to approach law school the way Michael did. Michael offers two practical tips for success: treat law school like a 9-to-5 job and intentionally build life balance outside of school.27:10 – Federal Clerkship and Government PositionDespite participating in OCI, Michael didn't land a Big Law job. Instead, he worked during law school for a trial lawyer focused on white-collar defense, which helped him confirm his passion for criminal trial work. The client relationship aspect deeply appealed to him, influencing his decision to clerk after graduation. He landed a prestigious clerkship on the Ninth Circuit. While many of his peers moved into Big Law after clerking, Michael opted for a government role to gain more courtroom experience. When he eventually reached the typical endpoint for federal positions, he chose to start his firm rather than join another existing one.27:23 – Starting the Freedman FirmTo build his practice, Michael accepted every case, no matter the size, emphasizing that no case was too small in those early days. He believes that founding a firm requires an entrepreneurial mindset—one must enjoy thinking about how to acquire clients, how to handle hiring, and how to manage payroll. He later brought on another partner to help handle larger, more demanding cases.33:41 – Big Profile CasesMichael's work eventually led to invitations to co-counsel on major white-collar criminal cases, including representing Bill Cosby, working on R. Kelly's trial, and participating in Harvey Weinstein's appeal. Much of this work was in collaboration with Jennifer Bonjean, a highly respected trial attorney based in Chicago. These opportunities didn't happen by accident. They stemmed from years of deliberate effort in building strong professional relationships. Michael treats his referral sources like clients themselves, ensuring they're proud to be associated with his work and satisfied with the results he delivers.40:41 – Should Our Students Do What You Do?Michael poses a fundamental question to students: Do you know what kind of lawyer you want to be? He encourages students to take advantage of every opportunity to gain hands-on experience. Law firms require a diverse range of personalities and backgrounds to serve their clients effectively. He urges students to attend court and introduce themselves to lawyers, not just to network, but to genuinely learn. A sincere interest in the work can lead to meaningful opportunities.

Intellectual Property: May a class sue on behalf of people whose yearbook photos were used in advertising without consent? - Argued: Fri, 23 May 2025 9:36:39 EDT

Free Speech: May a State ban an at-home "Rape Kit" manufacturer from marketing its product as useful for collecting evidence of sexual assault? - Argued: Wed, 21 May 2025 19:34:26 EDT

Antitrust: Does it violate the antitrust laws for Apple to restrict third-party medical app makers from accessing medical information from the Apple Watch? - Argued: Wed, 21 May 2025 19:30:23 EDT

Intellectual Property: Does the trademark in the title of a Reddit forum owned by the creator of the forum or Reddit? - Argued: Mon, 19 May 2025 13:23:4 EDT

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

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.