Podcasts about ninth circuit

NFL weekend chaos, Week Zero heartbreak, and plenty of drama. Aaron Donald is back — so what does that mean for the Rams and their futures? Plus, Jacobs lands on the commissioners list, a fantasy league debacle unfolds, and we investigate the very real possibility that the “49ers guy” is completely fake. We break down the brutal Hawaii beat from Week Zero, roast Knish for celebrating way too early, dive into the Ninth Circuit's Kalshi ruling, and ask why “pros don't want to share.” Plus: Storm Buonatony on sports media salaries, the latest GRP saga, and another edition of the Chopping Block. Drop your questions in the chat! Jacob Gramegna hosts this episode of Circle Back alongside Rob Pizzola and Geoff Fienberg for another edition of Circles Off, part of The Hammer Betting Network.

In this episode, Ray Cochrane digs into Anthropic’s Model Hardware Standard. It is a shared driver that lets an AI agent run real lab equipment, from pipetting robots to the lasers inside a quantum computer. He also covers OpenAI’s builder’s guide to GPT-5.6, Google’s new Expert Intelligence book feature, Apple’s M5 Ultra Mac Studio, and a judge’s order forcing Google to stop hiding rival app stores. Finally, he weighs in on Apple’s proposed 15 percent link-out fee, Meta’s Australia numbers, the White House deputizing private hackers, and why rivers obey a 1957 math rule. – Want to start a podcast? Its easy to get started! Sign-up at Blubrry – Thinking of buying a Starlink? Use my link to support the show. Subscribe to the Newsletter. Email Ray if you want to get in touch! Like and Follow Geek News Central’s Facebook Page. Support my Show Sponsor: Best Godaddy Promo Codes Get 1Password Full Summary Cochrane opens with a quick personal update. He is hunting for tickets to Michigan for his dad’s anniversary, and he has been learning Blender and Godot on the side, mostly modeling and blocking out levels. Consequently, he asks listeners for advice on starting a big game project, and he plans to record his progress, maybe as a time lapse. Then it is straight into the featured story. Anthropic’s Model Hardware Standard: A Driver for the Physical World The featured story comes from Anthropic, which opened a research preview of the Model Hardware Standard, or MHS. Cochrane frames it as the other side of the question NVIDIA’s world models raised two weeks ago: when do AI agents start touching actual machines? A typical lab runs a microscope, a liquid handler, a robotic arm, and a plate reader, each from a different vendor with its own control software. One Janelia researcher in the post launches seven programs in three languages just to start an experiment. Anthropic says wiring a setup like that takes weeks or months of specialist work. MHS is a driver, the same kind of translation layer a printer uses, except every device gets described with a tiny set of commands like read and write. Devices announce themselves on the network. A plain-English reference file then records what each machine measures, what can be adjusted, and which safety limits get enforced no matter what the agent asks. Agents then reach the hardware through the Model Context Protocol, the command line, or plain code. Cochrane sees the same move the industry keeps making, from coding harnesses to RSS and JSON: agree on a standard and let everyone build against it. In fact, he calls MHS the hardware version of MCP. The partner results carry the segment. QuEra builds quantum computers from individual atoms held by lasers that must hold their frequency to about one part in a trillion. A four-person team spent months on a relock script that worked 58 percent of the time. However, four copies of Claude iterating overnight through MHS produced a decision-tree script that recovers the laser in about six seconds, and it passed 99.3 percent of 700 blind trials. Carnegie Mellon wrote MHS drivers for four instruments across three incompatible computers in about eight hours, then ran dose-response experiments three times faster and blocked all six deliberately induced faults. Genentech, meanwhile, showed the limits. Claude used the same pump speed for water, a foamy protein solution, and a human had to explain that the bubbles were a physics problem. That gap in physical intuition is what sticks with Cochrane. He doubts it will change soon, and he suspects the fix will arrive as sub-agents or sub-models that judge a request against an expected outcome. He also connects MHS to a video of racing robots that never learned to stop at the finish line. What happens, he wonders, once they can read a distance sensor through a shared standard? Still, he calls the announcement a fantastic read and points listeners to the full article. Sponsor: GoDaddy Economy hosting $6.99/month, WordPress hosting $12.99/month, domains $11.99. Website builder trial available. Use codes at geeknewscentral.com/godaddy to support the show. GPT-5.6 Does the Same Work for a Fraction of the Cost OpenAI’s builder’s guide to GPT-5.6 leads the headlines. Cochrane recaps the three tiers from episode 1870, Sol, Terra, and Luna, plus the separate dial for reasoning effort. On BrowseComp, a benchmark for digging up obscure facts on the web, the old GPT-5.5 flagship scored about 84 percent on a run that cost 33 dollars three months ago. Luna now matches that score for a dollar thirty-three, and OpenAI has since cut Luna’s price another 80 percent. Browser Use reports Luna finishing 78 percent of its hardest browser tasks for about 14 dollars, against 80 percent for roughly 235 dollars from the best available model. The guide’s other big addition is a multi-agent beta flag. It lets the model handling a request spawn parallel helper agents that report back to a root agent inside a single API call. However, Cochrane is unimpressed by the timing. He has been running that pattern in Claude Code for months, so he sees OpenAI copying a workflow other companies already ship rather than inventing its own. Along the way, he plugs Claude Code’s remote-control sessions, which let him send prompts from his phone to a terminal session at home. Google Lets Gemini Read the Books You Actually Bought Google launched Expert Intelligence, a name Cochrane calls quite the reach. The feature lets you drop a book you bought on Google Play Books into Gemini Notebook, formerly NotebookLM, and ask questions answered only from that book, with citations. Cochrane sees real power here for students, since he once used NotebookLM to organize scattered course PDFs. Additionally, publishers get a cut, which he calls a far better deal than the wholesale scraping of books that trained earlier models. Nevertheless, he asks who loses out, because a paid publisher does not automatically mean a paid author. He floats the same idea for artists, even a penny per use, then admits that may be too idealistic. Apple’s M5 Ultra Mac Studio Is Built to Run Big Models at Home Back in episode 1861, when Apple killed the Mac Pro, an M5 Ultra Mac Studio was expected later this year. Now it is here. The M5 Ultra brings up to a 36-core CPU, an 80-core GPU, and 512GB of unified memory moving 1.2 terabytes per second. Apple claims up to 4.3 times the AI performance of the M3 Ultra. Thunderbolt 5 can also cluster four machines into one memory pool for up to three times faster inference. The M5 Max model starts at $2,499 and the Ultra at $5,499, with shipping on September 22 and the 512GB configuration arriving in late October. Cochrane finds the clustering pitch ridiculous at that price, but he invites anyone who spends the money to report back. Apple Opens a Manufacturing School in Houston Apple also opened a 20,000-square-foot Advanced Manufacturing Center in Houston. It offers free classes for small and midsize manufacturers, from circuit board design to hands-on time on a scaled-down production line, with college students joining later. Cochrane calls it a solid step in the bring-manufacturing-home movement. The bigger story is the campus itself, which builds Apple’s AI servers and will add the first US-assembled Mac mini line later this year. That ties back to the Mac mini shortage that followed the OpenClaw rush, when Tim Cook warned of months-long waits. Cult of Mac was still reporting four-month waits in late July. However, Cook blamed chip supply rather than assembly, so Cochrane is not counting on relief just yet. Amazon EC2 Turns Twenty Amazon EC2 turned twenty this week, which Cochrane admits makes him feel old. The 2006 beta offered one server size in one region for ten cents an hour. Each came with a 1.7 gigahertz Xeon and under two gigabytes of memory, and accounts were capped at twenty servers. Today AWS offers more than 1,200 instance types across 39 regions. Consequently, Cochrane credits the company with turning that tiny product into the backbone of cloud and AI computing. Intel Gamer Days: Two Free Games, With Fine Print Intel Gamer Days runs through September 13. Buy a qualifying Core Ultra Series 2 or 14th Gen desktop chip, a Core Ultra Series 3 laptop, or an Arc graphics card. In return you get Star Wars: Galactic Racer plus the Tomb Raider: Legacy of Atlantis remake. GamesRadar values the pair at about 120 dollars. However, neither game is out yet, and codes must be redeemed by October 31 even though the Tomb Raider remake ships in February. Cochrane calls that awful, but he still tells qualifying buyers to claim the deal early. Note that 13th Gen chips do not qualify. Judge Orders Google to Stop Hiding Rival App Stores A jury found Google’s Android app monopoly illegal in late 2023, and Judge James Donato ordered rival stores into the Play Store in 2024. On August 13, Epic’s lawyer demonstrated that searching Play for “store for apps” returned Walmart instead of any app store. Donato called that “not acceptable” and ordered three fixes within a week. Searches must surface third-party stores, listings need a plain install button, and the “are you looking for” interstitial has to go. Cochrane welcomes the monopoly being chipped away, but he notes that a controlling entity still sits atop every app store. In his view, community hubs like app stores and social media need a public infrastructure layer. He suspects governments skip that investment because companies already run the services, while selling your data. Apple Wants 15 Percent of Purchases Outside Its Store The other half of the Epic saga is Apple’s proposed link-out commission. After the 2021 anti-steering injunction, Apple charged 27 percent on purchases made through external links. A judge held it in contempt last year, and the Ninth Circuit then allowed a fee limited to the cost of running the system. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers refused to wait for the Supreme Court, writing that “further delay is unwarranted.” Apple filed 15 percent for standard apps, 10 percent for subscription renewals and partner programs, and 5 percent for small businesses. It also conceded the rate would be “essentially zero” under the appeals court’s cost yardstick. Since Apple has charged nothing on link-outs since the contempt ruling, Cochrane sees this as a raise. He calls a cut on purchases made on a developer’s own website disturbing. He also recalls reading about the size of Uber’s payments to Apple, and he questions whether that kind of percentage is sustainable for companies without funding. Meta Says It Has Cut Off 750,000 Australian Kids Meta reported locking out more than 750,000 Facebook and Instagram accounts in Australia by the end of June under the country’s under-16 social media law. Over 500,000 of those were removed before the law even took effect. Detection relies mostly on AI scanning posts and bios for tells like birthday messages, plus user reports and blocks on re-registration. However, the post gives no count of mistaken removals or appeals, and the regulator’s early data shows under-16 usage falling only from about 86 to 81 percent. Meta wants a single age signal at the operating system or app store level, and Cochrane agrees completely. He connects it to the MHS idea from the top of the show: platforms need a standard flag to reference instead of guessing. The White House Deputizes Private Hackers Earlier this month the White House signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum that lets vetted private security firms run surveillance and disruption operations against overseas criminal groups. The Justice Department and Homeland Security hold the contracts and oversee the work. Firms need a proven track record, vetted staff, and a bond of at least $1 million, and must submit operating procedures within 60 days. Cochrane finds the measure aggressive in a good way and hopes it deters attacks on innocents. Still, he takes Kevin Beaumont’s warning seriously that the private security industry profits from ransomware existing. He compares it to the old Head and Shoulders myth: why solve the problem that drives your revenue? A Weather Satellite Watched the Eclipse Shadow Cross Europe Cochrane skips the readout on this one and simply sends listeners to ESA’s site. The MTG-I1 weather satellite captured the Moon’s shadow sweeping across Europe during the August 12 eclipse. Watching a shadow cross an entire continent, he says, was a first for him. Additionally, it leaves him excited about the research happening beyond the planet. Rivers, Deltas, and the Number 0.6 Quanta Magazine explains Hack’s law, which John Hack discovered in 1957 while measuring streams in Virginia and Maryland. A stream’s length tracks its drainage area raised to the power of 0.6, regardless of the rock underneath, and satellite data later confirmed it worldwide. Computer models in the 1990s showed why. Channels that capture extra runoff cut deeper and steal from their neighbors until the network settles into the arrangement that wastes the least energy. Now a University of Texas Rio Grande Valley team has found the same 0.6 exponent in river deltas, which spread water out rather than gathering it. Nobody knows why yet, and Cochrane calls it a really cool read. Sugar Helped Grow the Human Brain, Too A new paper in Science, co-authored by Jennie Brand-Miller at the University of Sydney, adds a third ingredient to the story of early human brain growth. Alongside meat and cooking, natural sugars from ripe fruit and honey may have fueled it too. The brain is about two percent of body weight but burns twenty percent of resting energy. It runs on glucose, which meat and marrow barely supply and raw starch cannot release without fire. The team modeled ancestral diets from a chimp-like baseline through Homo erectus and concluded that the earliest hominins may have drawn over 65 percent of their energy from natural sugars. Cochrane stresses that it is a model, not fossils, and notes that paleoanthropologist Marina Lozano thinks the authors place widespread cooking too early. Still, he loves this kind of deep research. Retracing the steps to our own intelligence, he suggests, could hint at what it takes for intelligent life to develop at all. A Brain Rhythm That Tells Doctors Where to Aim Finally, Science Daily covered a University of Cologne study on deep brain stimulation. That is the implanted-electrode treatment that eases Parkinson’s tremors for some patients but not others. Andreas Horn’s team recorded from 50 patients using both the implanted electrodes and an external magnetic scanner. They identified a circuit between the electrode’s target and the frontal cortex that oscillates at 20 to 35 cycles per second. Stronger coupling there predicted bigger improvement after surgery, though the study, published in Brain, shows correlation rather than cause. First author Bahne Bahners hopes the finding helps tune DBS more precisely, especially for patients who have not responded well. Cochrane half-jokingly asks whether MHS might one day drive those electrodes, and he calls brain disorders the hardest thing in the body to treat. Cochrane wraps with housekeeping: become a GNC Insider at geeknewscentral.com/insider, email geeknews@gmail.com with questions or comments, subscribe to the newsletter, and grab a modern podcast app at podcastapps.com. He thanks GoDaddy for over twenty years of keeping the show on the air, promises to catch everyone next Monday, and wishes listeners a great night. The post Eyes, Hands, and a Sense of Timing #1874 appeared first on Geek News Central.

CannCon flies solo for Tuesday with Ghost calling in for a meaty geopolitics segment on the Mecca agreement, an Article 5 style defense pact between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey that has now reportedly extended invitations to Iran and Syria. Ghost walks through Turkey's rising role inside NATO, US troops leaving Iraq, and a genuinely surprising revelation about who was actually serving as the back channel into Iran, which flips the widely reported narrative on its head. The back half turns domestic, with the Supreme Court allowing some vote by mail limits ahead of the midterms, a Ninth Circuit immigration ruling, and two brave Michigan township clerks publicly inviting federal officials in to cross check their voter rolls after a whistleblower claim. CannCon closes with a WNBA eligibility story that is equal parts absurd and pointed.

John is joined by Daniel C. Posner, a partner in Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles office, and Renita N. Sharma, a partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office. Together, they discuss the recent victory secured by a team led by John, Dan, and Renita in the Amazon v. Perplexity case before the Ninth Circuit. The case addressed how the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) applies to agentic AI.Perplexity's Comet browser includes an AI assistant that performs multi-step tasks for users, including shopping on Amazon. Amazon objected because purchases made through the assistant may bypass Amazon's advertising and upselling opportunities. Amazon sued under the CFAA and the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA).The CFAA is the primary federal anti-hacking statute. To establish a violation, a plaintiff must prove that a person intentionally accessed a computer without authorization, obtained information through that access, and caused the plaintiff to suffer losses of at least $5,000. The CFAA is also a criminal statute, so case law has emphasized that it must be construed narrowly. The CDAFA is substantially similar to the CFAA, except it does not require proof of $5,000 in losses. CDAFA and CFAA claims typically rise and fall together.Amazon moved for a preliminary injunction almost immediately after filing its complaint. Amazon argued that Perplexity intentionally accessed its computers without authorization after Amazon expressly told Perplexity not to send its agents to Amazon's website. Perplexity responded that its servers never directly accessed Amazon's servers. Instead, the Comet browser resides on the user's computer and acts only when the user instructs it to perform a task. The user's computer communicates separately with Amazon and Perplexity, much as a conventional browser, such as Apple's Safari, facilitates access without Apple itself accessing the website. Perplexity also argued that it did not obtain any information from Amazon or cause any cognizable damages.Although the district court granted Amazon a preliminary injunction, the Ninth Circuit initially stayed and then reversed that decision, holding that Perplexity had not “accessed” Amazon's computers within the meaning of the CFAA. The court examined the technical architecture of the Comet browser and the broader principle that agentic AI, however sophisticated, remains a tool operated by a person. Because the user directs the assistant, the user—not Perplexity or the AI itself—is the relevant actor. In light of its ruling on access, the Ninth Circuit did not need to decide whether any access was unauthorized, whether Perplexity obtained information from Amazon, or whether Amazon suffered cognizable damages.The decision is likely to become an important early precedent governing agentic AI. Future cases could raise additional issues as AI agents become more autonomous, circumvent safeguards, enter into contracts on unfavorable terms, cause tortious harm, or are jointly controlled by users and developers. The ruling could also have implications for journalists and researchers who use automated tools to gather publicly available information online.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. QuinnProducer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

This is Thinking in Public, a program dedicated to intelligent conversation about frontline theological and cultural issues with the people who are shaping them.Steven D. Smith is the Warren Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. Since earning his law degree from Yale University, Professor Smith has taught at numerous institutions, including the law schools of Notre Dame University and the University of Virginia. Prior to that, he served as a law clerk for three years on the prestigious United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He's a sought-after legal authority, especially on issues of religious freedom. His book Pagans and Christians in the City: Culture Wars from the Tiber to the Potomac was the topic of a previous Thinking in Public conversation, but it is his most recent book, The Godless Constitution and the Providential Republic, that is the topic of this episode of Thinking in Public.You can purchase Professor Smith’s book, The Godless Constitution and the Providential Republic, here.Sign up to receive every new Thinking in Public release in your inbox.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.

This Day in Legal History: The Nineteenth Amendment Is RatifiedOn August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty-sixth state to ratify the Nineteenth Amendment—the final state needed to reach the three-quarters threshold—and with that vote, the constitutional guarantee that the right to vote could not be denied on account of sex became part of American law. It enfranchised, at a stroke, roughly half the adult population of the United States.The story of how it happened is almost unbelievably close. Tennessee's state senate had ratified comfortably, but the house was deadlocked, tied 48 to 48. The decisive vote belonged to a 24-year-old representative named Harry Burn, who had a red rose on his lapel signaling opposition to the amendment—and a letter in his pocket from his mother, Phoebe, urging him to “be a good boy” and vote for suffrage. He did. His single vote broke the tie, Tennessee ratified, and the amendment was certified into the Constitution days later. A generational struggle turned, in the end, on a young man listening to his mother.The significance of August 18, 1920 is best understood as the payoff to a story we told on this show back in July. When we covered the Seneca Falls Convention and its 1848 Declaration of Sentiments—the founding document of the American women's rights movement, which dared to demand the vote—I noted that it would take seventy-two years to win the ballot. This is that day. The distance from Seneca Falls to Nashville is the distance from a bold, ridiculed demand to a line in the Constitution. And like the Fifteenth Amendment before it, the Nineteenth didn't instantly deliver on its promise—many women of color, in particular, remained effectively disenfranchised for decades until the Voting Rights Act. But it permanently changed who “the people” are in a democracy. It's a reminder, on a day full of stories about the law's unfinished business, that some of the most fundamental rights we now take for granted were won slowly, against fierce resistance, and sometimes by a single vote.A landmark trial has begun in California federal court that could reshape the most popular apps on the planet: a bipartisan coalition of 29 states has put Meta on trial, alleging it deliberately designed Instagram and Facebook to addict and harm children. This is the big one we've been building toward all summer—the federal counterpart to the state cases in New Mexico and Tennessee. The states, led by Colorado, California, New Jersey, and Kentucky, told the court that Meta engineered features like infinite scrolling, notifications, “likes,” visual filters, and algorithmic recommendations to drive compulsive use, and misled the public about the platforms' safety for young people. Here's an important procedural wrinkle: while there's an eight-person jury in Oakland, it's serving only in an advisory capacity—the case will ultimately be decided by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. That's because this is largely an equitable case, and what the states are really after isn't just money but sweeping changes to how the platforms work: stronger age verification, restrictions on algorithms trained on children's data, limits on notifications, and the removal of features like infinite scroll. On damages, Meta itself has floated the staggering figure of $1.4 trillion as its potential exposure, though the states haven't named a number and legal experts consider an award anywhere near that scale unlikely. The significance is that this trial could force concrete, structural redesign of Instagram and Facebook for young users—not a settlement negotiated in private, but a judge's findings after a public trial. Everything we've tracked, from the multistate penalties to the New Mexico verdict to the Ninth Circuit clearing these suits, has been leading here. This is where the social-media reckoning gets its fullest public airing yet. Meta faces 29-state trial that could reshape Instagram and Facebook | ReutersYahoo Finance · anewsThe Justice Department has opened a civil-rights investigation into the College of William & Mary, alleging the Virginia public university runs scholarship and mentorship programs that unlawfully discriminate in favor of minority students. The Department's Civil Rights Division announced a “compliance review” under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act—which bars race discrimination by institutions that receive federal funding—targeting several specific programs: a fellowship in the education school that gives preference to Hispanic or Latina women with financial need, a doctoral mentorship program for “future education leaders of color,” and a law-school scholarship program. Here's the legal backdrop that makes this a national trend and not a one-off. After the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ended race-conscious admissions, the fight didn't end—it moved. The administration is now using Title VI to argue that race-conscious scholarships, fellowships, and pipeline programs are themselves a form of unlawful discrimination, framing programs designed to expand opportunity for underrepresented groups as illegal “discrimination in favor of minorities.” Supporters of these programs say they're lawful efforts to remedy historic exclusion and build diverse professions; critics say any use of race, even to help, runs afoul of the post-SFFA legal landscape. It's worth being precise: this is a compliance review, an investigation, not yet a lawsuit or a finding of wrongdoing. The significance is that this is part of a systematic campaign we've tracked against universities—from Harvard to Columbia—and it signals that the enforcement frontier after affirmative action has shifted from the admissions office to the financial-aid office. Every race-conscious scholarship in the country is now, potentially, a legal target. DOJ probes College of William & Mary alleging discrimination in favor of minorities | ReutersBloomberg · Fox NewsA federal judge has ordered the release of a woman charged with vandalizing the World War II Memorial in Washington—and the top federal prosecutor there, Jeanine Pirro, is not happy about it. The defendant, 41-year-old Melissa Farris of Kentucky, was arrested last week and charged with two felony counts after the memorial's fountain was filled with soap suds and the words “Clean hands Dirty $” were spray-painted across a surface in red and green. A judge ordered her released on conditions—surrendering her passport and not leaving the continental U.S. without approval—and Pirro publicly criticized that decision. Let's unpack the legal pieces, because there are two distinct ones. First, pretrial release: in the American system, the default is that a defendant awaiting trial should be released unless the government shows they're a flight risk or a danger, with conditions used to manage any risk. A judge ordering release with conditions is the system working as designed—the presumption of innocence is not an empty phrase—even when a prosecutor would prefer detention. Second, the underlying conduct: Farris reportedly said on social media that she acted to protest tax dollars not being spent on ordinary Americans and alleged corporate wrongdoing. But political motivation doesn't convert property destruction into protected speech—you can hold the message and still prosecute the spray paint. The significance ties into a thread we've followed: this is the same U.S. Attorney, Jeanine Pirro, at the center of the Reflecting Pool saga, again clashing over how a memorial-vandalism case should be handled—this time frustrated that a judge released a defendant rather than that a case was dropped. A preliminary hearing is set for September 3, and it's a reminder that the everyday machinery of bail and pretrial release keeps operating regardless of how politically charged the underlying act may be. US judge orders release of woman accused of vandalism at World War Two Memorial | ReutersWashington Post · CBS NewsAnd finally, in my column this week, I take on a well-intentioned proposal to tax artificial intelligence in order to help the workers it displaces—and argue that, while the instinct is right, the mechanism is wrong. The proposal in question is Representative Greg Casar's AI Tax and Work Protection Act. Its premise is sound: if firms are capturing the gains from replacing human workers with AI while pushing the costs—unemployment, lost tax revenue—onto workers and society, those costs look like an externality, the same way pollution does. And we tax externalities all the time: cigarettes, gasoline, carbon. So taxing AI to fund worker protections is a reasonable idea in principle.My problem is with the particulars. Casar's bill doesn't actually tax worker displacement—it taxes AI “tokens,” the technical units of AI computation, with the rate keyed to the unemployment rate. That creates an appealing feedback loop on paper: as AI drives up unemployment, the tax rises and generates more money to put people back to work. But it asks the Treasury to do two things it's genuinely bad at. First, it has to figure out, in real time and on a political calendar, how much of any given rise in unemployment is actually caused by AI, as opposed to a recession, a pandemic, or a war. That's a causal judgment the tax code has no machinery for. Second, and worse, it has to put a stable dollar value on a “token”—an unstable, non-standardized unit that spans text, code, images, audio, and video, and isn't sold in any clean arm's-length market. You're trying to tax the meter, and the meter doesn't have a reliable price.So here's the alternative I argue for: instead of taxing AI use, give the public an equity stake in the companies that capture AI's gains—let the government own a piece of the franchise rather than tax the meter. This isn't as exotic as it sounds; scholars like Jeremy Bearer-Friend and Sarah Polcz have proposed having AI firms pay tax in kind, transferring equity rather than cash, and Senator Sanders has floated a far more aggressive version—a 50% stake funding a sovereign wealth fund. My point is that you don't have to go to 50% to adopt the underlying architecture. Equity is a better proxy than token usage: it scales with the actual size of the economic reallocation AI produces, and it only asks the government to value a company once, rather than to price billions of individual computations or adjudicate whether a particular prompt cost a particular job. If AI merely augments workers and produces modest gains, the public's share stays modest; if it produces extraordinary gains, the public shares in the upside. A smaller equity assessment on the largest firms, held through an independently managed vehicle, would let the public participate in AI's wealth without handing a shrunken Treasury an impossible measurement problem. The instinct to make sure the public benefits from AI is exactly right—we should just own a piece of the thing, not tax the ticker. Taxing AI to Help Workers Sounds Good, But Public Deserves More | Bloomberg Tax 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

DOCKET ALERTS:   The Kennedy Center board of trustees is back on its BS. After being ordered to take Trump's name off the side of the building, they've now voted again to put it back on. They also voted to close the facility for two years. Rep. Joyce Beatty, who brought the lawsuit that forced them to back off the first time, vows to fight on.   Meanwhile musician Chuck Redd was just awarded $252,000 in attorneys fees after the Center sued him for breaching a contract he never signed.   Judge Roy Altman is Aileen Cannon-balling it up in Trump's trollsuit against the BBC. This week he allowed Trump to amend his complaint yet again for "good cause." What good cause could there be to sue a company which never broadcast the supposedly defamatory documentary in the US?   MAIN SHOW:   The Washington Post reports that Jeanine Pirro, the US Attorney for DC, has empaneled a special grand jury. Corruption incoming!   The DOJ has amended the indictment of the SPLC again. This time they've added a former employee who ran its Intelligence Project and managed its paid informants. The case is no less preposterous with an extra defendant and a couple more charges.   The Ninth Circuit issued a hugely consequential ruling on Section 230 immunity for websites, and Liz and Andrew do not agree at all about it.   SUBSCRIBER BONUS:   Judge Richard Stearns in Massachusetts swatted down the DOJ's effort to shout "antisemitism" and steal $950 million from Harvard.   Trump v. BBC https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72040010/trump-v-british-broadcasting-corporation/   Pirro, in rare move, convenes special grand jury in Washington https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/08/12/pirro-convenes-unusual-grand-jury-dc-that-can-focus-single-case-issue-report/   US v. Southern Poverty Law Center  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73223865/united-states-v-southern-poverty-law-center-inc/   Colorado v. Meta [9th Circuit opinion] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/10/24-7265.pdf   US v. Harvard https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72520538/united-states-v-president-and-fellows-of-harvard-college/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

This Day in Legal History: The Weimar ConstitutionOn August 11, 1919, President Friedrich Ebert signed the Weimar Constitution into force, creating the first parliamentary democracy in German history. It came into effect a few days later, ending the provisional government that had followed Germany's defeat in the First World War and the fall of the monarchy. On paper, it was a strikingly modern and liberal document—and its story is one of the most important cautionary tales in all of constitutional law.The Weimar Constitution rested on genuinely progressive foundations: popular sovereignty, a separation of powers, and an extensive bill of fundamental rights, including—remarkably for 1919—formal equality between men and women and the right to vote for both. It established a directly elected president, a parliament, the Reichstag, and a framework that looked, in many respects, like a model twentieth-century democracy. For a document drafted in the chaos of postwar Germany, it was an ambitious attempt to build a rights-respecting republic from the ground up.But the Weimar Constitution is remembered today largely for the flaw that helped destroy it: Article 48, which gave the president sweeping power to rule by emergency decree, suspending civil liberties when he deemed public order to be threatened. That emergency clause was invoked more and more frequently as the republic's politics fractured—and in 1933 it became the legal mechanism through which the Nazi regime dismantled democracy from the inside, using the constitution's own emergency powers to suspend rights and seize dictatorial control. Which brings us back to today's opening quote: the Weimar experience is the definitive real-world example of Justice Jackson's warning that an emergency power, once available, “lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.” The significance of August 11, 1919 is that it stands as an enduring lesson that a constitution's protections are only as durable as the limits it places on emergency power—that a democracy can be subverted not in spite of its own laws, but through them.Luigi Mangione is due back in court for a pretrial hearing ahead of his murder trial, set to begin September 8, in the December 2024 killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel. Mangione, who is 28, has pleaded not guilty to murder, weapons, and forgery charges brought by the Manhattan District Attorney, and he has separately pleaded not guilty to federal stalking charges. At today's hearing before Justice Gregory Carro, the parties are expected to take up jury selection and the thorny question of public access to what is shaping up to be one of the most closely watched trials in years. Let's talk about the real legal challenges here, because this case is unusual on several fronts. First, Mangione faces parallel state and federal prosecutions arising from the same killing—something the Constitution permits under the “dual sovereignty” doctrine, even though it can feel like being tried twice. Second, the defense has signaled it may argue that Mangione lost control of his actions due to an extreme mental-health breakdown, and notably has not conceded that he was even the shooter, despite prosecutors citing surveillance video, DNA, ballistics, and a notebook. And third—the elephant in the courtroom—is that this case became a cultural flashpoint, with a wave of public anger at the health-insurance industry curdling, in some corners, into sympathy for the accused. That makes jury selection genuinely difficult: finding impartial jurors amid saturation coverage and strong public feeling is exactly the kind of problem that tests the machinery of a fair trial. The significance is that beyond the headlines, this is a serious test of whether the system can give a fair, dispassionate trial to a defendant the public has turned into a symbol—which is precisely when the guarantees of criminal procedure matter most. Luigi Mangione due in court ahead of insurance CEO murder trial | ReutersUPI · 6abcPresident Trump has said that whether to revive the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” is now up to his newly confirmed attorney general, Todd Blanche—a statement that lands like the punchline to a story we've been telling for weeks. Recall the sequence: Blanche rescinded the fund on the eve of his confirmation to win over Republican holdouts, but Trump then acknowledged that he himself never signed the rescission order, which left the door open. Now, with Blanche confirmed as attorney general by that razor-thin 50-49 vote, Trump is saying the future of the fund rests with Blanche. And that is exactly the scenario that critics warned about. Think back to what senators extracted as the price of confirmation: a promise to kill a fund that would have used taxpayer money to pay people, including January 6 defendants, who claimed to be victims of the prior Justice Department. But a promise made by the executive branch can be unmade by the executive branch, and here the president is openly signaling that his former personal lawyer, now running the Justice Department, could bring it back. The significance goes to the very heart of the concern that dogged Blanche's nomination: the independence of the attorney general. When the president publicly frames the revival of a controversial payout fund as a decision for “his” attorney general to make, it underscores the worry that the Justice Department's most consequential choices may run through the lens of the president's personal and political interests. The confirmation fight is over, but the question it raised is very much alive. Trump says future weaponization fund is up to Blanche | ReutersForbes · AxiosA federal appeals court has cleared thousands of lawsuits to proceed against the major social-media companies over claims they deliberately designed their platforms to addict young users. The San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit rejected the bid by Meta, Google's YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat to escape roughly 2,400 lawsuits consolidated in federal court, brought by states, municipalities, school districts, and individuals. The legal fight here is all about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—the 1996 law that shields online platforms from liability for content their users post. The companies argued that Section 230 also immunizes them from claims that they failed to warn about, or engineered, the addictive nature of their platforms. The court said no, and the distinction it drew is the crucial one: Section 230 protects a platform from being sued over what its users say, but it does not necessarily protect the platform's own product-design choices—the infinite scroll, the algorithmic feeds, the notification schedules engineered to maximize engagement. Claims aimed at that design, the court reasoned, are different from claims aimed at user content. If you've been listening, you know this is the federal counterpart to everything we've tracked at the state level—the New Mexico judgment, the Tennessee trial, the multistate penalty fight. The significance is that the industry's most powerful legal shield, Section 230, is being narrowed: plaintiffs are increasingly framing their cases around addictive design rather than harmful content, and courts are increasingly letting those cases through. That reframing may prove to be the key that unlocks the courthouse door for the whole wave of social-media harm litigation. US appeals court allows thousands of lawsuits against social media companies to proceed | ReutersNBC News · Al JazeeraAnd finally, in my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I dig into a question hiding underneath the AI gold rush: who's actually paying for it? My starting point is a striking data point—Microsoft's current federal tax expense fell year over year from about $14.1 billion to just $2.5 billion, even as its revenue surged. And a big part of that drop comes from accelerated deductions in last year's massive 2025 tax law, which restored 100% bonus depreciation—letting companies write off the full cost of huge investments, like AI data centers, in the very first year.My core argument is that the tax law is financing the AI infrastructure boom, but it isn't creating it—and that distinction matters enormously before anyone declares the policy a success. The political narrative writes itself: capital spending soared after the tax cut, therefore the tax cut worked. But I think correlation is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there. Microsoft and its rivals aren't pouring tens of billions into AI infrastructure because Congress rediscovered depreciation. They're doing it because falling behind in AI could threaten their core businesses—it's become about as close to a strategic necessity as it gets. And here's the tell: Microsoft announced its roughly $80 billion AI data-center plan in a blog post in January 2025, a full six months before the tax law was even signed. The trajectory was public, budgeted, and well underway before the depreciation rules changed.So my point to Congress is: prove it. Before congratulating yourselves, you owe the public evidence that these tax benefits actually changed corporate behavior rather than just rewarding investments companies were already racing to make. And I want to push back on the idea that this is “just” a timing benefit and therefore basically free. Timing isn't free—letting a company keep its cash now in exchange for tax revenue later is like giving it an interest-free loan, and every dollar of accelerated depreciation is a dollar the Treasury can't use for something else this year. That's a real opportunity cost, felt in deficits or forgone public investment. My recommendation is concrete: Congress should require the Treasury and the Joint Committee on Taxation to regularly estimate how much of this investment is genuinely induced by the tax break, how much was simply pulled forward, and how much would have happened anyway. Because the public is quietly helping finance the AI revolution—and if Congress intends to make taxpayers silent investors in it, it should at least have the honesty to say so, and to show the math. Tax Law Is Funding the AI Infrastructure Boom, Not Creating It | Bloomberg Tax 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

A poop-themed dog toy took on one of America's most iconic whiskey brands and after 12 years in federal court, it helped reshape trademark law. In this episode of The Valley Current®, Jack Russo unpacks the extraordinary legal battle between Jack Daniel's and VIP Products, tracing the case from the trial court to the Supreme Court and back to the Ninth Circuit. Along the way, he explains how parody, source identifiers, and brand dilution collided in a dispute that became far bigger than a squeaky toy. More importantly, Jack explores what the case reveals about the true cost of intellectual property litigation, where persistence can be as valuable as legal strategy, and why the party that changes the law is often the one that simply refuses to quit. Jack Russo Managing Partner Jrusso@computerlaw.com www.computerlaw.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackrusso "Every Entrepreneur Imagines a Better World"®️  

Part 4 of 5, this one focused on as-applied versus facial challenge of the penal code in California. The Ninth Circuit defends open carry in California, Part 4 of 5 (Part 4 was 17 April 2026, Part 2 was 19 Feb 2026 and Part 1 was 15 Jan 2026) of our study of open carry in America's Constitutional tradition by spending more time today with Baird v. Bonta (2 Jan 2026, 9th Circuit) from the top of page 37 (Roman Numeral II) through to the top of page 49 at VII. The pro-Second-Amendment opinions, both of them that we take a look at, were written by Republican appointees (Trump, with a Republican US Senate). We will pick up at page 49 and Roman Numeral VII. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/01/02/24-565.pdf Here's a link to the article I wrote 9 April 2020 for San Diego County Gun Owners, published on Gun Owner's Radio, that I entitled : "Two Types of Self-Defense" here. https://gunownersradio.com/two-types-of-self-defense/ This episode and this series is dedicated to the memory of my closest first cousin, Little Dan Mountain Jr, closest in age by just a couple of weeks, who died earlier this year in January. I picked a topic that would bring a smile to his face and that would honor the bright spots in our childhood together in Colorado. The Republican Professor is a pro-Second-Amendment-in-California podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

We're back — maybe getting a little too scheduled — with one opinion on the docket: West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, where the Court held that states may limit girls' and women's sports teams to biological sex without violation Equal Protection or Title IX. First, though, Will collects on a two-year-old prediction when the Court grants Jouppi v. Alaska, an Institute for Justice case about a five-figure airplane forfeited over a six-pack of beer. On the main event, we work through how the opinions are written (no pronouns, no "Lindsay"), what the litigants' Title IX concession did to the case, and whether there is any such thing as an as-applied equal protection challenge. Will makes a big-swing prediction about transgender status and heightened scrutiny, and we ask whether the Court's reasoning can be squared with VMI and the anti-stereotyping cases. Along the way: fencepost problems, Magneto's powers, Magic: The Gathering's crossover-IP wars, scrawny men, and Justice Kavanaugh's ode to the championship trophy.Highlights[00:00:21] Opening: continuing the roll, "starting to get a little scheduled," and record-setting season ambitions[00:02:05] Summer interim-docket check-in: a new SG filing on mail-in voting; still no rehearing petition in the birthright-citizenship case[00:03:23] Filing-day counting and the classic fencepost problem[00:04:50] Will doesn't condone violence, Dan; UFC, violent video games, and Dungeons & Dragons[00:07:46] The prediction workflow pays off: Will called the IJ excessive-fines cert push back in May 2024 (Culley)[00:08:05] Cert granted in Jouppi v. Alaska: a 5-figure aircraft forfeited over a 6-pack of beer[00:09:58] Scorecard methodology: easy predictions, Magneto clauses, and a slugging-percentage proposal[00:12:51] Dan's good news: Constitutional Rights in General Private Law, accepted at Harvard Law Review[00:13:32] The main event: West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox — states can keep transgender athletes off girls' and women's teams[00:15:25] How the opinions are written: no pronouns, and the majority never says "Lindsay"[00:18:44] The Thomas concurrence: suspect class, "biological men and boys who identify as girls," and the Josef Pieper abuse-of-language quote[00:21:49] Title IX: the statutory text, the litigants' concession, and what the dissents are trying to preserve[00:29:39] The Equal Protection Clause: Skrmetti, two kinds of anti-trans laws, and Will's big-swing prediction on heightened scrutiny[00:35:29] VMI's inherent differences, bathrooms, and the anti-stereotyping mainstays (Craig v. Boren)[00:43:33] Is there such a thing as an as-applied equal protection challenge? Footnotes 7 and 9, scrawny men, and Nguyen[00:52:35] The Ninth Circuit's dropped thread: Idaho's invasive verification testing and the cis-woman plaintiff[00:54:41] Justice Kavanaugh, the sports justice: the championship-trophy passage and Flood v. Kuhn lore[00:56:52] The flip side: does Title IX sometimes require excluding transgender athletes? Dueling predictions[01:00:30] Why this isn't Bostock: Gorsuch, formalism, and a contested Indian-law analogy[01:02:49] Sign-off — and a preemptive accusation that Will will game the scorecard by refusing to recordRelevant linksCasesWest Virginia v. B.P.J. / Little v. Hecox — slip opinionJouppi v. Alaska — Institute for Justice case pageCulley v. MarshallUnited States v. SkrmettiUnited States v. Virginia (VMI)Nguyen v. INSFlood v. KuhnCommentary & articlesD'Onfro & Epps, "The Fourth Amendment and General Law" — the Yale Law Journal predecessor to the new Harvard Law Review piece announced on the showOtherDivided Argument, "Originalism Hulk" — the back-catalogue episode whose new custom cover art comes up in the Marvel tangent

In Episode 403 (Rebroadcast of Ep 107), our guest is Todd Engel who was thrown in prison by the Obama administration for Todd's attendance at the Bundy Ranch, but - miracle of miracles! - his conviction was tossed out by the Ninth Circuit. He served over four years in federal prison before being freed.. He tells us what it's like to be a political prisoner. In the After Show, available for Patreon supporters, he answers Patreons' questions about prison and freedom. Please support our sponsors EMP Shield, Numanna Foods, Backwoods Home Magazine, CATI Armor, and Minutemen Coffee. Learn more about our podcast at Prepping 2-0.com  

In Episode 403 (Rebroadcast of Ep 107), our guest is Todd Engel who was thrown in prison by the Obama administration for Todd's attendance at the Bundy Ranch, but - miracle of miracles! - his conviction was tossed out by the Ninth Circuit. He served over four years in federal prison before being freed.. He tells us what it's like to be a political prisoner. In the After Show, available for Patreon supporters, he answers Patreons' questions about prison and freedom. Please support our sponsors EMP Shield, Numanna Foods, Backwoods Home Magazine, CATI Armor, and Minutemen Coffee. Learn more about our podcast at Prepping 2-0.com

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling that has left legal experts and everyday Americans scratching their heads. In this episode, we break down how a federal appeals court concluded that murder-for-hire is not always categorically a "crime of violence" under federal law, and why a hyper-technical legal doctrine known as the categorical approach led to this controversial decision.We'll examine the facts of the case, the court's reasoning, the difference between what actually happened and what the law requires judges to analyze, and why this ruling has sparked serious concerns about common sense, public safety, and the direction of the federal judiciary.Is this simply judges applying the law as written? Or has the legal system become so consumed with technicalities that it has lost sight of justice?Join the discussion and let me know where you stand in the comments.#NinthCircuit #CrimeOfViolence #MurderForHire #FederalCourt #CourtRuling #JudicialActivism #PublicSafety #Constitution #RuleOfLaw #LegalNews #TrueCrime #Politics #Law #RebelRadio #BehindTheLinePodcast

A Ninth Circuit judge calls for SCOTUS to "bench slap" anti-2A courts while Paul Markel joins Mark Walters to explain why major Second Amendment victories may be just ahead. Plus DOJ action, Bruen, magazine bans and the future of gun rights.

John is joined by Bill Patry, of counsel in Quinn Emanuel's New York office and author of numerous treatises and law review articles, including Patry on Copyright and Patry on Fair Use. Bill also served as in-house counsel at Google for 17 years. During that time, Google never lost a copyright case. They discuss a pending Ninth Circuit copyright appeal that could reshape how courts determine substantial similarity, the central test for copyright infringement.The dispute arises from a tattoo created by celebrity artist Kat Von D using a copyrighted photograph of Miles Davis taken by photographer Jeff Sedlik. She documented the process of creating the tattoo on social media and acknowledged copying the photograph exactly, creating the expectation that liability would be straightforward. Instead, the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the case proceeded to a jury, and the jury found no infringement, prompting an appeal focused less on the facts than on the Ninth Circuit's governing legal standard for infringement.For decades, the Ninth Circuit has applied two separate tests for infringement: the extrinsic test and the intrinsic test. The extrinsic test attempts to identify objectively protectable elements, while the intrinsic test asks jurors to compare the overall concept and feel of the two works, even though neither “concept” nor “feel” is copyrightable.The panel that heard the appeal affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion, concluding that the copying was fair use. However, the panel also issued three separate published opinions sharply criticizing the long-standing intrinsic test as confusing, overly subjective, and inconsistent with meaningful appellate review. The opinions suggested that the existing framework undermines copyright protection by making erroneous jury verdicts difficult to correct. They explain that copyright plaintiffs may lose cases even where copying is undeniable because the intrinsic test effectively shields jury decisions from appellate review.The en banc rehearing, scheduled for September 29 or 30, 2026, will present an opportunity for the Ninth Circuit to reconsider decades of precedent and replace an unpredictable doctrine with a clearer, more reviewable framework that could significantly influence future copyright litigation.The proposed alternative standard would require judges to determine, as a matter of law, which elements of a work are protectable before the case reaches a jury. Jurors would then decide only whether the defendant materially copied that protected expression.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Free Speech: May California prohibit employers from requiring employees to attend meetings where religious or political views will be discussed? - Argued: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 16:45:13 EDT

Free Speech: Does the Chamber of Commerce have standing to challenge California's prohibition requiring employees to attend meetings where religious or political views will be discussed? - Argued: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 16:41:16 EDT

Civil Rights: Do citizens have a constitutional right not to be unnecessarily tear gassed? - Argued: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:39:44 EDT

This Day in Legal History: Vermont Bans SlaveryOn July 8, 1777, delegates meeting in Windsor adopted the Constitution of the Vermont Republic—and in doing so, Vermont became the first place in North America to write the prohibition of slavery into its founding law. At a moment when the newly declared United States tolerated and protected human bondage, a small, unrecognized republic on the frontier put a very different principle on paper.The relevant language was striking for its era. The Vermont constitution declared that all people are born equally free and independent, and it provided that no adult could be held as a servant, slave, or apprentice against their will—specifically, no man over twenty-one and no woman over eighteen. It was not a complete abolition; the age limits meant the document did not immediately free everyone, and enforcement in practice was uneven and incomplete for years afterward. But as a matter of constitutional text, it was the first time on this continent that a government's foundational law declared slavery inconsistent with the very idea of being born free.The context matters. In 1777, Vermont was not yet a state—it wouldn't join the Union until 1791—and it existed in a kind of legal limbo, claimed by both New York and New Hampshire and recognized by neither. That outsider status may have given its drafters room to be bolder than their contemporaries. While the framers of the national government were negotiating the compromises that would embed slavery in American law for another four generations—the three-fifths clause, the fugitive slave clause, the twenty-year protection of the slave trade—Vermont's drafters wrote the opposite conviction into their first article.The significance of July 8, 1777 is partly symbolic and partly practical. Symbolically, it established that abolition was not some later invention imposed on a reluctant founding generation, but a principle that existed at the founding itself, chosen by people who could see the contradiction between declaring all men free and holding some in bondage. Practically, Vermont's provision became an early data point in the long argument that would run through the Northwest Ordinance, the gradual emancipation statutes of the northern states, the abolitionist movement, the Civil War, and finally the Thirteenth Amendment. It's a reminder that constitutional law is not just handed down from the most powerful actors—that sometimes the boldest legal principles come from the margins, from a place that wasn't even sure it counted as a state, writing down what it believed the law ought to be.A former Milwaukee County judge, Hannah Dugan, has been sentenced in federal court after being convicted of obstructing an immigration arrest outside her courtroom—a case that became a flashpoint in the fight over the Trump administration's use of courthouses to stage immigration enforcement. Dugan, who is 67 and was an elected circuit court judge, was found guilty of obstructing a federal proceeding, though a jury acquitted her of a lesser concealment charge.Federal immigration agents came to Dugan's courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican man who was scheduled to appear before her on misdemeanor assault charges. Prosecutors said Dugan directed him out through a non-public “jury door” in an effort to help him avoid the agents waiting in the public hallway. It didn't work—Flores-Ruiz walked through a public hallway with his attorney anyway, and agents arrested him outside after a brief foot chase. But the government charged Dugan criminally for what she did inside the courthouse, and a federal jury convicted her in December.Think about the competing principles colliding here. On one side is the idea that no one, not even a judge, gets to physically obstruct federal law enforcement carrying out its duties. On the other is a real institutional worry that animated a lot of the coverage: if immigration agents stake out courthouses, people with pending cases—victims, witnesses, defendants—may stop showing up at all, which grinds the ordinary work of the state courts to a halt. Dugan's defenders framed her actions as protecting the functioning of her courtroom; prosecutors framed them as obstruction of a federal operation. The jury sided with the government on the core charge.At sentencing, the two sides were far apart. Federal prosecutors declined to recommend a specific term but argued the guidelines called for fifteen to twenty-one months in prison. Dugan's lawyers disputed that calculation and asked U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman for time served—no prison at all. The significance of the case goes well beyond one judge. It's a marker of how aggressively the administration is willing to pursue anyone perceived to interfere with immigration enforcement, up to and including a sitting judge, and it sends a message to state and local officials everywhere about the personal legal risk of getting between federal agents and their targets.Ex-Wisconsin judge to be sentenced for obstructing immigration arrest | ReutersBayer is moving to bring an end to the sprawling federal litigation over its Roundup weedkiller, following a significant win at the Supreme Court. Late last month, the Court ruled 7-2 in Bayer's favor, and the company is now trying to convert that decision into the dismissal of the failure-to-warn claims that have driven nearly a decade of lawsuits.Thousands of plaintiffs have sued Bayer alleging that Roundup, and specifically its active ingredient glyphosate, caused their non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and that the company violated state law by failing to warn them of that cancer risk. Bayer's winning argument was about federal preemption—the principle that when federal and state law conflict, federal law wins. Bayer argued that because the Environmental Protection Agency has concluded glyphosate poses no cancer risk and requires no cancer warning on the label, plaintiffs can't use state failure-to-warn law to demand a warning the federal regulator affirmatively says isn't needed. The Supreme Court agreed, overturning a $1.25 million Missouri verdict in the process.Consider why this is such a powerful tool for Bayer. A failure-to-warn claim says, in essence, “you should have told me this was dangerous.” But if the federal agency in charge has studied the product and decided no warning is warranted, then a state jury ordering the company to warn anyway would effectively be overriding the federal regulator. Preemption resolves that conflict in favor of the federal standard. The practical effect is that the single most common theory in the Roundup litigation—failure to warn—is now largely off the table in the cases this ruling reaches.The significance is real but, importantly, not total. This should let Bayer dismiss current warning-based claims and block future ones, which is exactly why the company is now pressing courts to wind down the federal litigation, and it's pairing that push with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement to sweep in remaining Roundup users. But the decision doesn't make every claim disappear. Plaintiffs may still pursue theories that don't depend on a failure to warn—like defective design—and the settlement obligations remain. So this is a milestone in Bayer's long campaign to contain its liability, not the final word. It's also a notable example of how federal regulatory findings can become a shield against state tort law, a doctrine with implications well beyond weedkiller.Bayer seeks end to federal Roundup litigation after Supreme Court win | ReutersFederal judges are sounding skeptical of a California law that bans employers from forcing workers to attend so-called “captive audience” meetings—mandatory gatherings where a company shares its views on political or religious matters, most often its opposition to unionizing. The law has already been blocked by a district court, and the signs from the bench suggest that skepticism may carry through on appeal.Here's what a captive audience meeting is and why it's contested. When a union organizing drive is underway, employers have long held mandatory meetings where attendance is required and workers listen to management make the case against unionizing. Unions call these coercive; employers call them protected speech. California's SB 399 tried to ban compelling attendance at meetings covering “political matters,” a category defined broadly enough to include unionization. Judge Daniel Calabretta of the Eastern District of California blocked the law, and his reasoning is the crux of the whole fight.He gave two independent grounds, and it's worth separating them. The first is federal preemption—the same principle at work in the Bayer story. Calabretta found that the National Labor Relations Act, which governs labor relations nationwide, occupies this field and preempts California's attempt to regulate it under the Machinists and Garmon preemption doctrines. The second ground is the First Amendment: he held that the law was a content-based restriction on employer speech, singling out “political” and “religious” topics, and that it couldn't survive strict scrutiny—the most demanding test in constitutional law, which almost nothing passes. In his view, banning all speech on those topics in mandatory meetings swept far too broadly.The significance here is that this is a collision between the labor movement's priorities and employers' free-speech claims, and right now the free-speech and preemption arguments are winning in court. A number of states have passed captive-audience bans, so how the Ninth Circuit ultimately rules—California and Attorney General Rob Bonta are expected to appeal—will shape whether this entire category of worker-protection law survives. It's a reminder that even popular labor legislation has to run a gauntlet of federal preemption and the First Amendment, and that employer speech, including anti-union speech, gets substantial constitutional protection.US judges leery of California ban on workplace captive-audience meetings | 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

Prediction markets are a multi-billion dollar industry, led by companies like Kalshi and Polymarket. They are also controversial. Some want them banned and believe they are operating illegally, while others see them as invaluable truth-seeking markets.This podcast is a multi-hour deep dive on prediction markets, starting from conclave betting in 15th century Rome to the CFTC's proposed rulemaking on Rule 40.11 earlier this month.My goal: The internet's most comprehensive explainer on prediction markets.By the end of this episode, I promise you'll be in the top percentile for understanding prediction markets, regardless of where you're starting from. (You just might need to listen twice. There's a lot here.)Timestamps:0:00 Intro1:40 16th century papal betting (Koleman Strumpf)11:13 Insider trading rules on prediction markets (Bobby DeNault)16:20 The Google search insider case and Rule 180.1 (Sam Enzer)27:38 Why prediction markets matter (Chris Giancarlo)33:20 Election betting in America38:35 Iowa Electronic Markets and the 1992 no-action letter45:56 Dodd-Frank, swaps and the Special Rule48:08 Senator Lincoln on Super Bowl and Derby contracts55:49 Parlays as swaps (Josh Sterling)1:01:23 CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction (Thania Charmani)1:07:30 Perspective on the CFTC's NPRM (Michael Passalacqua)1:14:55 Exceptions that swallow the rule (Paul Grewal)1:27:25 How prediction markets actually work1:36:05 Kalshi's probability-weighted fee structure1:38:18 Cardi B and the resolution problem (Dustin Gouker)1:45:05 Oracles, UMA and decentralized resolution (Jeff Amico)1:51:55 Inside the Ninth Circuit case2:07:49 The CFTC's June 2026 proposed rulemaking (Brad Bourque, Stefan Schropp)2:19:06 Kalshi's landmark 2024 win2:23:05 PASPA, Murphy v. NCAA (Daniel Wallach)2:45:14 The case against banning prediction markets (Bobby DeNault)Newsletter: Stay updated on emerging tech law for free at lawofcode.fm. https://www.lawofcode.fm/Any feedback on this episode? Or how to improve the podcast? Click here. https://forms.gle/W4d2a5aHuLJjuNdn7Sponsors: This episode is sponsored by Cahill Gordon & Reindel, the Hyperliquid Policy Center, and the Solana Policy Institute. To get in touch with the Cahill team about how the issues discussed in this episode apply to your situation, email mtomsky@cahill.com. Subscribe to Cahill's free client alerts on digital assets and emerging technology at https://www.cahill.com/news/index?search=1&practice=litigation-digital-assets-and-emerging-technology.In this episode, you'll hear from the world's leading experts on the legal layer of prediction markets:Josh Sterling, partner at MillbankBobby DeNault, Head of Enforcement at KalshiChris Giancarlo, former Chairman of the CFTCDaniel Wallach, founder of Wallach Legal LLCStefan Schropp, Senior Regulatory Counsel at ParadigmSam Enzer, partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel and co-chair of CahillNXTPaul Grewal, Chief Legal Officer at CoinbaseKoleman Strumpf, economics professor at Wake ForestBrad Bourque, Policy Counsel at Hyperliquid Policy CenterThania Charmani, partner at Winston & TaylorMichael Passalacqua, Senior Advisor to CFTC Chairman SeligJeff Amico, Chief Operating Officer at GensynMatt Kalish, co-founder of DraftKings and CEO of HardscopeDustin Gouker, author of the Event Horizons newsletterDisclaimer: This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or investment advice. Views expressed by guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of their employers. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney-client relationship.

It's Friday, June 26th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus 250,000 British girls sexually assaulted by Pakistani Muslims Last week, a group called Restore Britain released a summary report of an inquiry into the widespread and systematic sexual exploitation of vulnerable working-class women and children across the nation, reports Breakpoint. At least 250,000 girls were sexually assaulted, trafficked, tortured, and even killed, mostly by gangs of Pakistani Muslims. The details in the report are so horrifying, it's difficult to believe they are true.   Evidence of the abuse and reports by victims were downplayed and ignored.  To his shame, when atheist British Prime Minister Kier Starmer, who resigned Monday, was Director of Public Prosecutions and the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, he shockingly dismissed 13,000 cases of suspected child sexual offenders with a warning letter rather than attempt to prosecute. British citizens who spoke out about the abuse or expressed criticism of mass migration were often prosecuted, especially if the criticisms were directed at Pakistani or Muslim communities.  The gangs that have been operating in Britain have deep ideological and cultural roots shaped by Islam, including Sharia law. Also ignored is the difficult truth that Islam, on its own terms, allows child sexual exploitation and trafficking.   Many of the young Muslim men responsible for these atrocities believe they are answerable to Sharia law, rather than to British law. They believe their devious assaults are approved by Islam's false god Allah, especially when done to an enemy who is oppressing them.  Send a 2-3 sentence letter urging that British authorities prosecute the rapists. Christian Turner, British Ambassador, British Embassy, 3100 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20008. Twin earthquakes in Venezuela killed 164, injured 1,000 At least 164 people have been killed and 971 injured in Venezuela after powerful back-to-back earthquakes rocked the country on Wednesday night, June 24th, reports Yahoo News. Thousands more are feared dead after a magnitude 7.2 earthquake hit about 100 miles west of the capital, Caracas, followed less than a minute later by a magnitude 7.5 tremor, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. In a Truth Social post, President Donald Trump said, "The U.S.A. stands ready, willing, and able to help! I have instructed all agencies of our government to get ready to move quickly. We will be there for our new and great friends." Supreme Court delivers major win to Trump On June 25th, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration's decision to end Temporary Protected Status for immigrants from Syria and Haiti, reports TownHall.com. In a 6-3 decision, the justices found that the statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims. After the Department of Homeland Security moved to terminate Temporary Protected Status for people from Syria and Haiti, it was hit with a deluge of lawsuits challenging the move. Congress created Temporary Protected Status back in 1990 to grant short-term humanitarian relief to foreigners who cannot safely return home due to armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extreme conditions. Syrians were able to take advantage of the program in 2012 because of the brutality of the Bashar al-Assad regime. Haiti received it in 2010 after a devastating earthquake. However, both designations went on for longer than the “temporary” label suggested. Alarm over Abortion Pills & dead babies in U.S. water supply Based on an alarming 86-page report entitled “Abortion in Our Water,” 14 state attorneys general sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency warning about a “growing threat to the country's waterways as a result of the pharmaceutical abortion drug mifepristone,” reports Liberty Counsel. They're asking the EPA to place mifepristone and its generics on the federal list of drinking water contaminants that need further investigation. The abortion industry has moved from clinics to toilets. Chemical abortions now account for 63% of all U.S. abortions in the formal health care system in 2023 — up from 31% in 2014 and 14% in 2005. Women are told to take the Abortion Kill Pills and flush everything directly into our water supply. About 700,000 chemical abortions each year send long-lasting abortion drugs and human remains into America's wastewater systems. Mifepristone blocks progesterone, thus starving the baby. This drug has long-lasting metabolites that remain in the water because the water treatment plants are generally not capable of filtering out these chemicals. In addition to these chemicals, the water systems were never designed for the resulting 30-40 tons of human remains which becomes hazardous medical waste! By contrast, hospitals and abortion mills are not allowed to flush medical waste down the drain for good reason. Through a special link in our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com, you can send faxes to Congress and demand they take action to stop this public health threat. Court blocks California “gender secrecy law”, affirms parental rights California parents scored a big victory as a court blocked a law that kept school districts from reporting a child's “sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression” to parents, reports the Daily Citizen. America First Legal announced the decision on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach and parents.  “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of key provisions of California's AB 1955 – a law that prohibits schools from disclosing information to parents about a child's sexual orientation, ‘gender identity,' or gender expression, unless the child consents.” In other words, the State of California sought to prevent parents from obtaining information about “gender transitions” of their own children without the child's so-called consent. Democrat California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1955 which, as California Family Council explained, prohibited schools from notifying parents if their gender-confused children asked to be referred to with a biologically incorrect pronoun and a new name. In Matthew 19:4, Jesus said, “Surely you have read in the Scriptures: When God made the world, 'He made them male and female.'” Singer Forrest Frank unashamedly affirms exclusive truth about Jesus And finally, Christian hip-hop musician Forrest Frank is playing in sold out arenas and boldly declaring the exclusive truth about Christianity. Listen to a portion of his hit song "Jesus Is Alive" which was released on May 8th. By the time of its release, the song already had 19 million views on social media. FRANK: “Muhammad is still in his tomb. Joseph Smith is still in his tomb. Buddha is still in his tomb. Confucius is still in his tomb. “But there is one man who was not found in the tomb. I've been there. The tomb is empty. He was seen alive by over 500 eyewitnesses who wrote down accurate accounts that we saw the man who hung on the cross, and we touched the scars. “Watch this word: Alive. Jesus is the King, and He's alive. Jesus is alive.” Matthew 28:5-6 records, “The angel said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; He has risen, just as He said. Come and see the place where He lay.'” Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, June 26th, in the year of our Lord 2026. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

We report on a wave of highly targeted legislative, legal, and medical updates aimed at curbing market disorder and protecting public health.In the United States, Virginia has advanced a budget deal to its governor establishing a definitive July 2027 timeline for adult-use dispensary sales, while Illinois has enacted precise safety guardrails by banning intoxicating hemp sales to minors and enforcing strict child-proof packaging. This regulatory tightening faces immediate constitutional hurdles in the courts, where Ninth Circuit judges are currently deadlocked over whether sweeping state bans on cannabis billboard advertisements violate free speech.Meanwhile, international markets are facing severe enforcement crises; Thailand's Ministry of Public Health has rolled out an aggressive penalty framework targeting rule-breaking dispensaries with immediate license suspensions, and Canada's regulated sector is suffering such severe economic pressure from a deeply entrenched illicit market that a major national cannabis organization was forced to suspend its operations.Underpinning these legislative shifts is an escalating medical concern highlighted by The Epoch Times, which details how high-potency THC stores itself long-term in bodily fat and organs, continuously triggering low-grade, system-wide immune inflammation even after active consumption stops.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In this episode, we explore the transformative experience of law school clinics and their pivotal role in shaping the careers of aspiring lawyers. Today, we have the privilege of hearing from three exceptional graduates of Loyola Law School of Los Angeles' Ninth Circuit Clinic: Tina Kuang, Sydney Wong, and Molly Okamura. Under the guidance of our host, M.C. Sungaila, these talented alumni share their remarkable journeys, where they, along with their law school teammates, took on the challenge of briefing, arguing, and ultimately prevailing in immigration appeals before the esteemed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Their stories exemplify how participation in law school clinics can sharpen legal skills, nurture professional growth, and accelerate careers in the legal arena.

Artificial Intelligence: Does a user's deployment of AI agents to make purchases violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? - Argued: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 18:0:32 EDT

The SEC's “Gag Rule” long conditioned settlement of enforcement actions on the defendant's agreeing never to publicly deny the agency's allegations, even where the defendant admitted no wrongdoing. In Powell v. SEC, now before the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, Petitioners argue that this condition violates the First Amendment; the Ninth Circuit had upheld the rule as a permissible voluntary waiver. The case has already produced major developments. Last month, the SEC rescinded the Gag Rule, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has now rescinded its own comparable no-deny settlement policy. The SEC now contends that its rescission of the rule renders Powell moot. Join us for a litigation update on Powell and a broader discussion of what these reversals mean for agency enforcement, settlement negotiations, mootness, and government efforts to control the public narrative. Featuring: --Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance --Hon. Gregory G. Garre, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP --(Moderator) Jill Jacobson, Litigation Associate, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

After a string of high-profile climate lawsuits, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has delivered a ruling that supporters of sound energy policy may have reason to celebrate.In this episode of Sanity Check, David Legates examines a lawsuit brought by twenty-three young activists challenging President Trump's executive orders aimed at expanding domestic energy production. The plaintiffs argued that policies supporting oil, gas, hydropower, and other energy resources violated their constitutional rights and threatened their future. Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit ultimately disagreed, concluding that the sweeping relief requested was beyond the proper role of the judiciary.David unpacks the legal arguments, the court's reasoning, and the broader strategy behind climate litigation campaigns led by organizations such as Our Children's Trust. He also argues that while constitutional and procedural challenges may continue to derail these cases, the long-term battle must be fought on scientific grounds. Courts may dismiss lawsuits for lack of standing or separation-of-powers concerns, but unless exaggerated claims about climate catastrophe are challenged directly, the underlying narrative remains intact.What does this ruling mean for future climate litigation? Why are activists increasingly turning to the courts to achieve policy goals? And why does David believe the scientific debate remains the most important front in the fight against climate alarmism?Join us as we take a closer look at a significant legal victory—and the larger challenges that still lie ahead.Sources: https://montanafreepress.org/2026/06/02/ninth-circuit-court-denies-young-americans-lawsuit-challenging-trumps-handling-of-climate-change/https://www.climatecasechart.com/documents/lighthiser-v-trump-memorandum_7eaeVisit our podcast resource page: https://cornwallalliance.org/listen%20to%20our%20podcast%20created%20to%20reign/Our work is entirely supported by donations from people like you. If you benefit from our work and would like to partner with us, please visit www.cornwallalliance.org/donate. 

Episode Overview:In this episode of The World According to Boyar, Jonathan Boyar speaks with Lina Tetelbaum, a corporate partner at Wachtell Lipton, one of the world's most influential corporate law firms, where she heads the firm's shareholder engagement and activism defense practice.Lina takes us inside the world of shareholder activism — how activists choose targets, the small universe of ideas they typically push, how companies and boards respond, and why so many activist campaigns ultimately end in settlements rather than full proxy fights.We discuss the tension between the changes activists typically call for and long-term business strategy, the role of index funds and proxy advisors, how activists build positions, what really happens behind the scenes in settlement negotiations, and why even controlled companies are not completely immune from activist pressure.Lina also shares her perspective on Wachtell Lipton's history in takeover defense and activism, from the era of the poison pill to today's more complex battles between boards, activists, institutional investors, and other stakeholders.Topics discussed include: shareholder activism, proxy fights, activist settlements, board governance, index funds, ISS and Glass Lewis, activist nominees, controlled companies, capital allocation, M&A, and long-term value creation.To receive more of Boyar's research, interviews, and thoughts on investing, subscribe to our Substack at boyarresearch.substack.comAbout Lina Tetelbaum:Elina (Lina) Tetelbaum is a Corporate Partner and Head of Shareholder Engagement and Activism Defense at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.  Lina regularly counsels on proxy fights, takeover defense, corporate governance, crisis management and mergers and acquisitions. Lina has been named a Dealmaker of the Year by The American Lawyer, one of The Deal's Top Women in Dealmaking, a Power Player in Shareholder Activism by Financier Worldwide, a Leading Partner in Shareholder Activism by Legal500, a Law360 Rising Star for M&A, and one of the 500 Leading Dealmakers in America by Lawdragon, among other honors.Lina has advised companies in numerous industries navigating activist situations across an array of established and new activists, including Phillips 66 in its response to three years of activism from Elliott Management and first-ever contested vote by Elliott in the United States, United States Steel Corporation in its successful defense against a proxy contest by Ancora, The J.M. Smucker Co. in its response to activism by Elliott Management, Hexcel Corporation in response to activism by Vision One, Macy's, Inc. in its response to activism and unsolicited takeover proposals, Match Group in its response to activism by Elliott Management and later Anson Funds, and numerous REITs in their response to activism by Land & Buildings.  Lina has extensive expertise advising companies in response to unsolicited takeover offers, including National Instruments in its $8.2 billion acquisition by Emerson following its unsolicited offer, and Kansas City Southern in its unsolicited transaction with Canadian National Railway and $31 billion acquisition by Canadian Pacific Railway. Lina has also advised public and private companies in a wide range of industries in mergers and acquisitions, including The Free Press in its acquisition by Paramount, Allergan in its $83 billion acquisition by AbbVie, PDC Energy in its $7.6 billion acquisition by Chevron and successful proxy fight defense against Kimmeridge, Barnes Group in its $3.6 billion acquisition by Apollo Global Management, and Masonite International in its $3.9 billion sale to Owens Corning. Lina is the President of the Stuyvesant High School Alumni Association, an Advisory Board Member of the Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance, the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, and the Yale Law School Center for the Study of Corporate law. She frequently lectures, presents and publishes on corporate governance and M&A at law schools and corporate governance conferences around the world. Lina received an A.B. magna cum laude in Economics from Harvard University and completed a J.D. from Yale Law School, where she served as editor-in-chief of the Yale Journal on Regulation and editor of the Yale Law Journal. After law school, Lina served as a law clerk to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Unlocking Investment Opportunities Since 1975At the Boyar Value Group, we've dedicated nearly five decades to the pursuit of value on behalf of our clients. Founded in 1975, our firm has earned a reputation as a trusted source for uncovering undervalued opportunities in the stock market.To find out more about the Boyar Value Group, please visit www.boyarvaluegroup.com

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia DecidedOn this day in 1967, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia striking down Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and, with it, the anti-miscegenation statutes that sixteen states still had on the books. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the Court. The case had come up from a county courthouse in Caroline County, Virginia, where Richard Loving, a white bricklayer, and Mildred Jeter, a Black and Native American woman, had been arrested in their bedroom in the middle of the night in 1958 by a sheriff acting on an anonymous tip — they had been married in the District of Columbia and returned home to Virginia, where their marriage was a felony. The Lovings pleaded guilty, accepted suspended sentences on the condition that they leave the state for twenty-five years, and lived in exile in Washington until Mildred wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy that landed eventually with the ACLU, which took the case.The Supreme Court's opinion did two things at once. It held that Virginia's statute violated the Equal Protection Clause because it drew an explicit racial classification with no legitimate state purpose beyond preserving “White Supremacy” — the Court used the phrase the Virginia statute itself had used — and it held that the statute violated the Due Process Clause because the freedom to marry is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” That second holding, the marriage-as-fundamental-right strand, is the through-line that runs from Loving to Zablocki v. Redhail in 1978, to Turner v. Safley in 1987, to Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 — every one of those decisions cites Loving and treats it as the foundational case. Whether the Court's substantive due process marriage doctrine survives the next decade is, as we discussed earlier this week, one of the open questions in American constitutional law. But Loving itself remains intact, and on June 12, 1967, the Court said something it had not said cleanly before: that the right to marry is the kind of liberty interest the Constitution actually protects.The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the Second Circuit in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd., holding 6-3 that the Investment Company Act of 1940 does not give private parties a cause of action to seek rescission of fund bylaws or other contractual terms. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority. The dispute came out of a campaign by Boaz Weinstein's Saba Capital against eleven closed-end funds — funds that, under Maryland's Control Share Acquisition Act, had adopted bylaws limiting the voting power of any shareholder who accumulated a disproportionate stake without the consent of other shareholders. Saba sued under Section 47(b) of the ICA, which makes contracts that violate the Act unenforceable, and the Second Circuit held that Section 47(b) implied a private right to rescind the bylaws.The Court told the Second Circuit to look harder at the modern implied-cause-of-action doctrine, which since Alexander v. Sandoval in 2001 has been hostile to inferring private rights of action that Congress did not write into the statute. The opinion reads as a continuation of that line: the ICA's enforcement structure is committed to the SEC, not to private plaintiffs, and Section 47(b) is a defense against contracts the SEC has already determined to be unlawful, not an offensive cause of action. The dissent, by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that this is a misreading of Section 47(b)'s text and that the majority is gratuitously narrowing the enforcement of the federal securities laws. The practical impact is significant. Activist investors who had been pushing closed-end funds to convert to open-end form, or to alter investment strategies, lose a federal-court tool they had been using; the funds themselves and their independent directors gain a meaningful structural defense. Expect the next round of activist campaigns to move to state-court fiduciary-duty theories instead.US Supreme Court rules against private suits brought under key securities law | US NewsThe Court on Thursday also decided Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., vacating the Fifth Circuit 9-0 in an opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The case is small in its facts and large in its doctrine. Thomas Keathley filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2019 and failed to disclose, on his schedule of assets, a personal-injury claim he later brought against a construction company over a truck accident. The Fifth Circuit barred the personal-injury suit on judicial-estoppel grounds — the longstanding equitable doctrine that prevents a party from taking one position in one proceeding and a contradictory position in another — using a three-factor test under which a debtor's mere knowledge of the facts plus a motive to conceal was enough to bar the later claim.The Supreme Court said no.To determine whether the omission was inadvertent or mistaken for judicial-estoppel purposes, the Court held, the lower courts must look to the totality of the circumstances, not just to whether the debtor knew of the facts and had a motive. The doctrinal interest of the case lies in two concurrences. Justice Sotomayor, concurring, wrote that judicial estoppel should likely never apply in an open bankruptcy case at all — the trustee can simply amend the schedule and pursue the claim for the estate, which solves the problem judicial estoppel was invented to address. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, went further and questioned whether federal courts have any inherent authority to apply judicial estoppel as a freestanding doctrine, period — a position that, if it ever gets five votes, would unwind a doctrine that has been part of American practice since the 1850s. None of that is the holding. But the votes to revisit one of the duller corners of equitable estoppel are now visibly on the table.Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. | SCOTUSblogThe third unanimous decision of the day was Abouammo v. United States, in which the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and vacated the obstruction-of-an-FBI-investigation conviction of Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee whose underlying case was one of the more striking Saudi-Arabia infiltration prosecutions of the last decade. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion. The facts are simple and the constitutional point cleaner than the facts. Abouammo, while working at Twitter's San Francisco office in 2014 and 2015, accessed and passed on confidential user information about Saudi dissidents to a Saudi official, in exchange for a $42,000 watch and $200,000 in wire transfers. The FBI eventually came to interview him at his home in Seattle, where he had moved by 2018, and during those interviews he created and emailed agents a fake invoice intended to make the wire transfers look like a legitimate consulting fee. The Justice Department charged the obstruction count along with foreign-agent and wire-fraud counts in the Northern District of California, and a San Francisco jury convicted him on all of them.The Supreme Court held that the obstruction count belonged in the Western District of Washington, not California, because the act of creating and sending the false invoice — the only act that supported the obstruction charge — happened entirely in Seattle. Article III's venue clause and the Sixth Amendment's vicinage requirement together do not let the government try a defendant in a state where no element of the charged offense occurred, no matter how convenient the prosecution. The obstruction conviction is vacated. The foreign-agent and wire-fraud convictions, which had different venue facts and were not before the Court, stand. Abouammo will not walk free. But the prosecution will need to decide whether to retry the obstruction count in Seattle, and the case is now a clean precedent that the venue clause has real teeth in a multi-district federal investigation.US Supreme Court overturns ex-Twitter employee's obstruction conviction in Saudi spy case | US News This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of Greenberg Traurig's Good In Practice podcast, host Caroline Heller, Chair of the firm's Global Pro Bono Program, sits down with Jordan Grotzinger, Co-Chair of the firm's Los Angeles Litigation Practice, to discuss one of the most compelling pro bono cases in GT's recent history: the wrongful conviction case of Pierre Rushing. Pierre Rushing was convicted of murder at age 22, sentenced to 50 years to life, has now spent 15 years incarcerated for a crime that mounting evidence suggests he did not commit. Pierre has maintained his innocence since the beginning. Jordan, whose day-to-day practice focuses on trade secrets and commercial litigation, explains how a podcast he listened to during the pandemic sparked his interest in wrongful conviction work and ultimately led him to Pierre's case. He walks listeners through the significant evidentiary problems with the original conviction, including the testimony of an eyewitness whose description of the perpetrator changed dramatically over time. Their conversation traces the long and winding post-conviction road, including two prior habeas proceedings, a federal appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and the eventual emergence of critical new evidence. That evidence includes a recantation by the original eyewitness, declarations from two individuals who were present at the scene stating that Pierre was not there, and - most strikingly - 464 pages of police reports produced by the prosecution 13 years after the conviction, which may have violated the Brady disclosure rules of evidence. Beyond the legal details, the episode offers a look at Pierre as a person - a young man from a difficult background in Oakland who was going to school and building a future as a rapper when his life was upended. Jordan reflects on Pierre's resilience and on the extraordinary contributions of GT associate Andrea Carmona, whose work he credits as essential to getting the case to its current stage. The episode closes with a broader call to action. With over 3,800 documented exonerations in the United States since 1989, and far more individuals claiming wrongful conviction without access to legal representation, Jordan and Caroline urge lawyers to consider taking on innocence cases pro bono.  A hearing in Pierre's case is forthcoming. For more, watch this CNN interview with Jordan Grotzinger and Andrea Carmona, visit: https://www.gtlaw.com/en/news/2026/05/media-coverage/injustice-system-re-examining-the-murder-case-of-pierre-rushing.  

We Like Shooting - Ep 666 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Foxtrot Mike (Code: WLSISLIFE) C&G Holsters (Code: WLSISLIFE) Midwest Industries (Code: WLSISLIFE) Gideon Optics (Code: WLSISLIFE) Flatline Fiber Co (Code: WLS15) Otis Technology (Code: WELIKESHOOTING15) Second Call Defense Text Dear WLS or Reviews +1 743 500 2171 Public   Show Titles   GOA GOALS Aug 1-2 in Iowa. https://goals.goa.org/ JUNE 20th, 2026 GunCon.net Tickets on sale now. Use code AGENCY171 GEAR CHAT Note Mike 102 – foxtrot mike products CANCONTRAST(Nick) CanContrast Suppressor Comparison Tool Choose a can CanContrast is an online database and interactive comparison tool for suppressors (“cans”). It enables users to select, compare, and contrast the physical size and weight of over 500 suppressor models from dozens of brands, with automatic adjustments for mounts. The site emphasizes data-only with no sales, featuring visual representations such as ruler overlays or weight bars. TRIGGER KICKER – HOFFMAN TACTICAL Hoffman Tactical Trigger Kicker Investigating some site issues, will restock in the morning. The Trigger Kicker is an active reset mechanism that replaces the disconnector in a standard AR-15 fire control group. It is contacted by the hammer to reset the trigger, then tucks under the standard safety selector to lock the trigger in the reset position until the bolt carrier returns to battery. Manufactured from hardened 4130 alloy steel, it is designed for AR-15 rifles with standard mil-spec bolt carriers and fire control groups. BULLET POINTS GUN FIGHTS Play the best Price Is Right-style GunBroker game on the internet. BANGRANK A live cast ranking segment for anything and everything in the gun world, powered by questionable certainty, strong opinions, and audience voting. THE AGENCY BRIEF WLS IS LIFESTYLE Masters of the Universe Masters of the Universe ODYSEE NVG Mono PVS-14 Hat Clip Adapter by stankycheeseman Lets you clip a PVS-14 or similar monocular to a hat. How neat is that?? It's going to be as sturdy as the hat you select for the job. Mount is pretty solid. Peep the readme. This is a 3D-printable CAD model (available as STEP files) for a hat clip adapter designed to mount a PVS-14 night vision monocular directly to a hat or cap. It includes components such as an IPD Knuckle and J Arm for compatibility with standard PVS-14 mounting interfaces. The design enables a lightweight, non-helmet alternative for monocular NVG use. GOING BALLISTIC PEW REPORT(Savage) Aero Precision, LLC and Ballistic Advantage, LLC Court-Appointed Receivership (Pierce County Superior Court Case No. 26-2-08316-4) Aero Precision and Ballistic Advantage Enter Court-Appointed Receivership Aero Precision and Ballistic Advantage are now under court-appointed receivership following an order entered in Pierce County Superior Court in Washington State on May 5, 2026. According to a public legal notice published in the Tacoma Daily Index, the court appointed J.S. Held LLC as receiver over […] On May 5, 2026, Pierce County Superior Court in Washington State appointed J.S. Held LLC as general receiver over the assets of Aero Precision, LLC (Lakewood, WA) and Ballistic Advantage, LLC (Ocoee, FL). Creditors must submit claims to the receiver; it is currently unclear whether assets will be available for distribution to general unsecured creditors. The public notice does not disclose the underlying causes or petitioner, and no filings indicate the companies have ceased operations. AMMOLAND SHOOTING SPORTS NEWS(Savage) Wilson v. Katz: Lynchburg Circuit Court Judge Patrick Yeatts Reaffirms Injunction Blocking Virginia HB 1525 Universal Background Checks A Lynchburg judge rejected Virginia's attempt to revive universal background checks on private firearm sales, keeping the injunction against State Police enforcement in place. On June 3, 2026, Lynchburg Circuit Court Judge Patrick Yeatts denied the Virginia State Police and Attorney General's motion to dissolve his October 2025 permanent injunction. The injunction struck down Virginia's universal background check requirement for private firearm sales (originally enacted in 2020 and codified at Va. Code § 18.2-308.2:5) after finding it unconstitutional under Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, particularly as applied to those under 21, and non-severable. The ruling came after the legislature passed and Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed HB 1525 in April 2026 with an emergency clause directing VSP to resume checks; plaintiffs including Gun Owners of America, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and individuals filed to enforce the existing injunction. YouTube DOES RAREBREED HAVE A GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED MONOPOLY?(Savage) Rare Breed Triggers v. DOJ Settlement and ATF Director Robert Cekada Congressional Testimony on Forced Reset Triggers YouTubeVideo | Does RareBreed Have a Government Sanctioned Monopoly? Today we are going to be discussing the most recent development in the RareBreed Triggers situation. Since the settlement with the Department of Justice there have been many lawsuits filed and a major discussion about the legality of other devices that are similar to the FRT-15. Recently the new director of the ATF, Robert Cekada, testified in front of congress and had some interesting things to say about Forced Reset Triggers. ALL LINKS, Join the Email List, and get discounts from the affiliates page: https://linktr.ee/vso_gun_channel #vsogunchannel #rarebreeds #atf #gunlaw #MONOPOLY The VSO Gun Channel video in the Going Ballistic series examines the DOJ settlement with Rare Breed Triggers allowing continued FRT-15 sales contingent on patent enforcement, alongside recent congressional testimony by the new ATF director (referred to as Robert Cekada or Sacuta in sources) clarifying the settlement's narrow scope to Rare Breed's specific forced reset trigger design rather than all similar devices. The discussion covers legal distinctions between rate of fire, trigger function, drop-in auto sears, and potential implications for competing forced reset trigger products. AMMOLAND SHOOTING SPORTS NEWS(Savage) United States v. DeBorba (9th Cir. 2026): Suppressors Not Protected as 'Arms' Under Second Amendment The Ninth Circuit ruled suppressors are not Second Amendment arms in United States v. DeBorba, a bad-facts illegal alien gun case that may hurt future suppressor challenges. The Ninth Circuit affirmed João Ricardo DeBorba's convictions for unlawful possession of firearms, ammunition, and an unregistered silencer under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The court held that silencers/suppressors are optional accessories or ‘accoutrements' rather than ‘arms' covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, citing prior precedent such as Duncan v. Bonta. It further ruled the NFA's shall-issue registration and taxation regime is constitutional as DeBorba failed to show abusive enforcement. NRA BLOWS WHISTLE ON NRA FOUNDATION, FILES LAWSUIT IN COURT(Savage) National Rifle Association of America v. NRA Foundation (1:26-cv-00015, D.D.C.) The National Rifle Association filed a lawsuit against the NRA Foundation, asserting ownership of intellectual property and alleging the foundation's leadership is operating in bad faith and withholding funds. NRA CEO Doug Hamlin stated the foundation has declined to approve 2026 grant funding, jeopardizing programs like the NRA National Firearms Museum and Eddie Eagle GunSafe program. On January 5, 2026, the National Rifle Association filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against its affiliated charitable arm, the NRA Foundation. The complaint asserts NRA ownership of trademarks and intellectual property used by the Foundation, alleges the Foundation's leadership (described as a disgruntled faction of former NRA directors) is operating in bad faith, misleading donors, withholding or misappropriating funds intended for NRA charitable programs, and attempting to break away. The suit seeks to prevent trademark infringement, unfair competition, and separation from the NRA. REVIEWS by Listener What's frustrating you most in gun culture right now? Review: Roadrunner gunner If you haver ever heard the phrase “hes got a face for radio.” Refering to someone who is ugly. Then Savage has the charisma to stand in a field like steel fucking gong. He means well but jesus christ, im a grown man with a stutter, but everytime he reads the news, i catch myself saying “T -T- T – today jr!” I never thought id say it but i wish AAron would come back, just to read the news even he couldn'tfuck that one up. Anyways the rest of you are sufficient enough that i dont regret being in the agency/cult or whatever it is now. Thanks for tickling my ear pu$$y twice a week. Review: Kyle R. from Iowa Dear WLS,Question I'm turning into a product review because I'm glad to hear about Foxtrot Mike signing on. What is the oddest, or most expensive fix you've ever done to get a trash gun running? For yourself, friend, customer, anyone. I got a Turkish 410 AR upper to play around with. Put it on a known functioning lower with their supplied modified buffer because the proprietary BCG is slightly longer. Slam fired half a magazine. Looked it over, tried a different lower with their other buffer they supplied. Slam fired 3 rounds, had an out of battery, sheared the bolt off. Sent it back. They sent me a whole new upper right around the same time I listened to the last episode you had Foxtrot Mike on. They were talking about slam firing 9mm and buffer weights. I immediately picked up a couple recoil mitigation buffers for PCCs. When the new 410 upper showed up I weighed the supplied buffers to

Send us Fan MailFIRST HALF: Attorney General of Florida, James Uthmeier, is back in 2nd Amendment news by declaring Florida's 3-day and 5-day waiting (stalling?) periods unconstitutional.SECOND HALF: Massachusetts school district allows Sikh students to carry their ceremonial knives, while continuing to ban all knives and all other weapons from the rest of the student body.Ninth Circuit rules that suppressors are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.Support the showGiveSendGo | Unconstitutional 2A Prosecution of Tate Adamiak Askari Media GroupBuy Paul Eberle's book "Look at the Dirt"Paul Eberle (lookatthedirt.com)The Deadly Path: How Operation Fast & Furious and Bad Lawyers Armed Mexican Cartels: Forcelli, Peter J., MacGregor, Keelin, Murphy, Stephen: 9798888456491: Amazon.com: Books

CannCon and Zak Paine open the Monday show with California's election count turning into a full display of the machine in operation. Spencer Pratt held a lead of over 20,000 votes on election night in the LA mayoral race, then batch after batch of late mail-in ballots arrived giving Nithya Raman 40% while she had been polling at 23% all week. The statistical probability of that shift is compared to finding a single grain of sand on Earth twelve separate times. CannCon maps out California's full fraud architecture: Smartmatic VSAP machines, motor voter automatic registration of noncitizens, gym memberships as valid voter ID, ballot harvesting with no limit on collectors, and mail-in ballots sent to every registered voter with a seven-day post-election acceptance window. The DOJ has been fighting California in the Ninth Circuit for over a year to audit the voter rolls. Trump calls it a rigged election live in his NBC interview with Kristen Welker, tells her she is either crooked or stupid, and walks out. CannCon plays the full exchange and makes the murder witness analogy: evidence dismissed on procedural grounds is still evidence. Zak and CannCon close by discussing the Resolute Desk bugging theory, noting Trump removed it on day one of his second term.

What do immigration attorneys need to know about the biggest legal developments this month? In this episode, John Q. Khosravi, Esq. sits down with monthly returning guest Kevin A. Gregg, Esq. for their latest immigration law roundup. Kevin breaks down the wave of circuit court decisions pushing back on mandatory detention, the adjustment of status memo fallout, the Haitian TPS case at the Supreme Court, and key Ninth Circuit rulings on consular non-reviewability and I-130 denials. Sharp legal analysis and real passion for the people behind the cases, every single month. Spotify | iTunes | YouTube Music | YouTube Follow eimmigration by Cerenade: Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Start your Business Immigration Practice! (US LAWYERS ONLY - SCREENING REQUIRED): E-2 Course EB-1A Course Get the Toolbox Magazine!  Join our community (Lawyers Only) Get Started in Immigration Law! The Marriage/Family-Based Green Card course is for you Our Website: ImmigrationLawyersToolbox.com Not legal advice. Consult with an Attorney. Attorney Advertisement. #podcaster #Lawyer #ImmigrationLawyer #Interview #Immigration #ImmigrationAttorney #USImmigration #ImmigrationLaw #ImmigrationLawyersToolbox  

Docket Alerts:   Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard led a raid on the Fulton County Election Hub and Operating Center in Atlanta. ProPublica got the warrant. Mo Ivory, a Democratic commissioner for Fulton County, breaks it down on Instagram.   In Chicago, Marimar Martinez has moved to unseal evidence from DOJ's failed effort to prosecute her for getting shot by ICE.   Reuters reports that Marcos Charles, the top official in ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations division, issued new guidance instructing ICE to target only immigrants who have been arrested or convicted of crimes. This would be a huge improvement, but DHS won't comment.   Main Show:   Once again, this is all the Supreme Court's fault. Specifically, its rulings in J.G.G. v. Trump and Trump v. CASA led directly to the mayhem in Minnesota. First the Court forced immigrants challenging their detention to file thousands of individual habeas cases. And then they drastically limited the power of federal judges to issue relief when it "discovered" that nationwide injunctions are illegal.    The Trump administration took this as an invitation to break the law, irrespective of how many courts tell them not to, on the theory that CASA means precedent doesn't count any more. DHS dummied up a memo saying that actually everyone without a green card must be held indefinitely. This is a gross misstatement of the law, as literally hundreds of courts have already ruled. But the Trump administration says because of CASA, they can continue to lock up people who've lived here for decades, checking in with DHS, working, paying taxes, and taking care of their families.   Judges are deluged with habeas petitions, which differ from each other only in the particulars of the cruelty being visited upon the individual immigrant. After ICE failed to obey a court order to release a habeas petitioner, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz in the District Court of Minnesota ordered Todd Lyons, the Acting Director of ICE, to either release the guy or show up and explain why he shouldn't be held in contempt of court.    ICE released the petitioner, but Judge Schiltz was still furious. He published a list of 96 violations of court orders in January alone — and that's only in Minnesota! Thanks, Chief Justice Roberts!   On the plus side, Judge Schiltz's colleague Judge John Tunheim issued a TRO ordering ICE to release every refugee detained under the erroneous memo and quit kidnapping them and spiriting them away to Texas.   And for subscribers, we'll discuss the Ninth Circuit's ruling that bars Kristi Noem from unilaterally canceling temporary protected status for a million Venezuelans and Haitians.   Hundreds of judges reject Trump's mandatory detention policy, with no end in sight https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/05/trump-administration-immigrants-mandatory-detention-00709494   Fulton County Election Hub Warrant https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26513986-1-28-26-fulton-warrant/   Marimar Martinez Motion to Unseal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487595/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487595.100.0.pdf   Exclusive: ICE officers in Minnesota directed not to interact with 'agitators' in new orders https://www.reuters.com/world/ice-officers-minnesota-directed-not-interact-with-agitators-new-orders-2026-01-29/   J.G.G. v. Trump https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf   Trump v. CASA https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf   Tobay Robles v. Noem https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72120823/tobay-robles-v-noem   Judge Tunheim TRO https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230526/gov.uscourts.mnd.230526.41.0.pdf   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Part 2. We cover the DC Court of Appeals 5 March 2026 decision overturning the wrongful conviction of Tyree Benson who was criminalized for innocent conduct. Benson v. US disagrees with the Ninth Circuit's en banc resolution of Duncan v. Bonta, 2025, which we covered over several episodes in 2025. We cover up through the middle of page 37 from page 22. We continue there next time at page 37. https://www.dccourts.gov/court-of-appeals/opinions-and-memorandum-of-judgments?search=benson&date=&date_range=&type=All The Republican Professor is a pro-non-criminalizing-innocent-conduct-podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

In this episode, a panel of legal experts discusses the different approaches taken by the Second and Ninth Circuits on two key areas of copyright law: substantial similarity and the Server Test. Presented by the New York City Bar Association's Copyright & Literary Property and Entertainment Law Committees, the panel explores recent and emerging case law and the Second and Ninth Circuits' divergent approaches to analyzing substantial similarity, a key element of copyright infringement, as well as the ongoing debate surrounding the Server Test, which addresses whether the posting of online content constitutes a “display” within the meaning of the Copyright Act. Moderated by Dwayne Amos, Associate at Kasowitz LLP, the episode features a panel of leading copyright litigators and experts, including: • Barry Werbin, Counsel, Herrick Feinstein LLP • Aaron Moss, Partner, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP and author of the Copyright Lately blog • Marc Lebowitz, Principal, Lebowitz Law Office • James Bartolomei, Of Counsel, Duncan Firm The wide-ranging discussion covers the practical implications of these divergent approaches for copyright owners, litigators, content creators, online platforms, forum selection, free speech, and the application of copyright law nationwide. This episode was produced by Jose Landivar, Senior Associate at Coates IP LLP, with contributions from Philippa Loengard, Executive Director, Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts and Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School, and support from the New York City Bar Association Communications Team. Copyright Lately: Creative Law for Curious People – www.copyrightlately.com

Buckley v. Blanche, No. 24-1957 (1st Cir. May 29, 2026)review of adjustment of status denial; later filed BIA brief; failure to provide reasoned consideration; substantial Lozada compliance; IJ duty to develop the record; prejudice  Matter of A-H-D-, 29 I&N Dec. 642 (BIA 2026)past persecution in the Ninth Circuit; police beatings; unable or unwilling to protect and tribal resolution of conflict; Mauritania Matter of Germain, 29 I&N Dec. 648 (BIA 2026)untimely DHS appeal; LPR cancellation of removal; weighing factors with criminal history; failure to show remorse; denying criminal conduct where there is no conviction  Matter of Nwagwu, 29 I&N Dec. 651 (BIA 2026)INA § 204(c); revoking I-130 petition; sworn statement from ex-spouse; failure of mother to identify spouse Matter of Martinez-Rodriguez, 29 I&N Dec. 656 (BIA 2026)   bond; dangerousness; single misdemeanor conviction Matter of Richards, 29 I&N Dec 658 (BIA 2026)                                                                                                                                                           LPR cancellation of removal; lack of candor about criminal history; Texas marijuana possession; adverse credibility; discretionary weighing; rehabilitation  United States v. Scott, No. 25-4048 (4th Cir. May 26, 2026)crime of violence; robbery; Parham; VA Code § 18.2-53.1 Lopez-Vasquez v. Blanche, No. 25-1338 (8th Cir. May 29, 2026)extreme and exceptionally unusual hardship; voluntary departure moot when removed during petition for review; no due process review to non-LPR cancellation of removal denial Nwosu v. Blanche, No. 25-3831 (6th Cir. May 29, 2026)corroboration; kidnapping in Nigeria; opportunity to explain missing evidence; exceptional and extremely unusualn hardship; substantial evidence  Argueta Castillo v. Blanche, No. 25-1297 (1st Cir. May 27, 2026)exceptional and extremely unusual hardship; sleep walking; lazy eye; aggregate hardship Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.eimmigration"Immigration law software you'll love to use."get.eimmigration.com/IRP Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Click me!Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATION:Email: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerSupport the show

In this Federalist Society America250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.In 2022, the Supreme Court overruled the "Lemon Test" for interpreting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, holding that the Clause must instead be interpreted by reference to "historical practices and understandings." To do this, the Court suggested it would look to certain historical "hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment." This has kicked off a vigorous debate, in both caselaw and scholarship, about what constituted "an establishment of religion" at the time of the Founding, and how that history should inform interpretation of the Establishment Clause today. Join a gathering of the foremost scholars and litigators of the Establishment Clause to discuss the Clause's historical meaning both as a matter of originalist theory and in its application to current church-state controversies, such as displays of the Ten Commandments in public schools.Featuring:Joe Davis, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious LibertyDouglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia; Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law Emeritus, University of TexasMichael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School(Moderator) Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

──────────────────────────────────────── [00:04:09] Operation Warp Speed Killed More Americans Than Any Other War — Trump Calls Himself the Father of the Vaccine VAERS shows COVID shots produced more deaths and injuries than all other FDA-approved vaccines combined. Trump forced FDA approval and still boasts. Johnson blames Biden's FDA, not Trump. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:15:25] Ron Johnson: Biggest Government Scandal of My Lifetime — FDA Knew It Was Hiding the Safety Signals FDA's vaccine division head was briefed their algorithm would mask signals — 26 days later hiding 60 signals including sudden cardiac death and stroke types. Johnson refuses to name Trump. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:24:39] Trump's EPA Reversed the Fluoride Ruling by Banning All Scientific Evidence Produced After 2020 The Ninth Circuit sent the case back with instructions to exclude all evidence from the last six years. Lee Zeldin is also pushing to keep PFAS forever chemicals in the water. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:32:57] Merck Is Lobbying to Give HPV Vaccines to Infants — Sales Are Down 40% Globally HPV is sexually transmitted — a four-year-old cannot be exposed to it. Merck hired former Gates Foundation advisors who declared no conflicts of interest. Childhood vaccine classification means zero liability. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:43:48] Josh Shapiro: Tracking AIPAC's Money Is Racist — They Can Buy Congress, You Are Not Allowed to Watch Pennsylvania's governor said AIPAC tracking is intimidation. Knight: they're calling for speech to be criminalized. AIPAC doesn't register as a foreign agent — you can't look at who they're buying. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:51:48] Todd Blanche's Background: Fake Mossad Agent, Twin Grifters, Forgery and Malpractice Accusations Before representing Trump, Blanche's clients used a fake Mossad agent to threaten witnesses and bribe DOJ officials. The case ended with forgery and malpractice accusations against Blanche. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:15:23] Blanche Is Setting Up the Ghislaine Maxwell Pardon — After a Long Interview, She Was Moved to Club Fed Blanche visited Maxwell for a long interview; shortly after she was moved to comfortable quarters. He pushed prosecution of political enemies and declined to investigate those tight with Epstein. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:21:24] The Trump Phone Is Finally Shipping — It's an HTC Running on American Values, Assembled in a Box After months of broken promises and removing buyer protections, Trump Mobile is shipping. CNET found the processor identical to a Taiwanese HTC. Designed with American values in mind. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:41:44] SWAT Team Destroyed a Texas Woman's Home — Government Said She Wasn't a Victim — Six Years Later She May Get $60,000 Police were given the key, garage opener, and gate code — drove a Bearcat through the fence, blew up the garage, drove through the front door. Government argued she wasn't a victim. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:50:06] Texas Woman Arrested Under a Bomb Threat Law for Posting That Her Town's Water Was Brown The police chief applied a felony false alarm statute — designed for fake bomb threats — to a woman warning neighbors about brown water. The city later admitted the water was undrinkable. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

──────────────────────────────────────── [00:04:09] Operation Warp Speed Killed More Americans Than Any Other War — Trump Calls Himself the Father of the Vaccine VAERS shows COVID shots produced more deaths and injuries than all other FDA-approved vaccines combined. Trump forced FDA approval and still boasts. Johnson blames Biden's FDA, not Trump. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:15:25] Ron Johnson: Biggest Government Scandal of My Lifetime — FDA Knew It Was Hiding the Safety Signals FDA's vaccine division head was briefed their algorithm would mask signals — 26 days later hiding 60 signals including sudden cardiac death and stroke types. Johnson refuses to name Trump. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:24:39] Trump's EPA Reversed the Fluoride Ruling by Banning All Scientific Evidence Produced After 2020 The Ninth Circuit sent the case back with instructions to exclude all evidence from the last six years. Lee Zeldin is also pushing to keep PFAS forever chemicals in the water. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:32:57] Merck Is Lobbying to Give HPV Vaccines to Infants — Sales Are Down 40% Globally HPV is sexually transmitted — a four-year-old cannot be exposed to it. Merck hired former Gates Foundation advisors who declared no conflicts of interest. Childhood vaccine classification means zero liability. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:43:48] Josh Shapiro: Tracking AIPAC's Money Is Racist — They Can Buy Congress, You Are Not Allowed to Watch Pennsylvania's governor said AIPAC tracking is intimidation. Knight: they're calling for speech to be criminalized. AIPAC doesn't register as a foreign agent — you can't look at who they're buying. ──────────────────────────────────────── [00:51:48] Todd Blanche's Background: Fake Mossad Agent, Twin Grifters, Forgery and Malpractice Accusations Before representing Trump, Blanche's clients used a fake Mossad agent to threaten witnesses and bribe DOJ officials. The case ended with forgery and malpractice accusations against Blanche. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:15:23] Blanche Is Setting Up the Ghislaine Maxwell Pardon — After a Long Interview, She Was Moved to Club Fed Blanche visited Maxwell for a long interview; shortly after she was moved to comfortable quarters. He pushed prosecution of political enemies and declined to investigate those tight with Epstein. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:21:24] The Trump Phone Is Finally Shipping — It's an HTC Running on American Values, Assembled in a Box After months of broken promises and removing buyer protections, Trump Mobile is shipping. CNET found the processor identical to a Taiwanese HTC. Designed with American values in mind. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:41:44] SWAT Team Destroyed a Texas Woman's Home — Government Said She Wasn't a Victim — Six Years Later She May Get $60,000 Police were given the key, garage opener, and gate code — drove a Bearcat through the fence, blew up the garage, drove through the front door. Government argued she wasn't a victim. ──────────────────────────────────────── [01:50:06] Texas Woman Arrested Under a Bomb Threat Law for Posting That Her Town's Water Was Brown The police chief applied a felony false alarm statute — designed for fake bomb threats — to a woman warning neighbors about brown water. The city later admitted the water was undrinkable. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

Join us for a special AAPI Month program featuring prominent Bay Area Asian American elected officials. We'll hear from BART Board Director Janice Li, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, and San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee member Uma Rao Krishnan. What drives them in the ultra-competitive Bay Area political scene? What are their goals, and how do they go about achieving them? About the Speakers Janice Li was first elected to the BART Board of Directors in November 2018 and was re-elected in 2022. Li served as president of the Board in 2023, and as vice president in 2022. Janice was born in Hong Kong and moved to the U.S. at a young age. In 2013, Li moved to San Francisco and began working at the SF Bicycle Coalition. Li currently works at Chinese for Affirmative Action, a San Francisco-based organization that has led Asian American civil rights advocacy for over 50 years. She leads the Coalition for Community Safety and Justice, a local coalition that addresses hate and violence targeting Asian American and Pacific Islander communities through community-based programs. David Chiu is the city attorney of San Francisco, the first Asian American to lead one of the country's top municipal law offices. Previously, he represented the half million residents of eastern San Francisco as a State Assemblymember for seven years. For six years, Chiu served as president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Before holding elected office, he served as law clerk to Judge James R. Browning of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a civil rights attorney with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, a criminal prosecutor at the San Francisco District Attorney's Office, Democratic Counsel to the U.S. Senate Constitution Subcommittee, and general counsel to a public affairs technology company. A founding member of API Equality, he also served as president of the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Bay Area.Uma Rao Krishnan is a Gen Z activist, organizer, and engineer bridging the worlds of technology and politics. She holds a B.A. in computer science with a minor in public policy from UC Berkeley and is currently pursuing her Master's in data science there, with a focus on the tech-civics intersection. Krishnan is the co-founder and president of the SMC AAPI Alliance, an organization dedicated to empowering San Mateo County's AAPI community in civic engagement and political action, most recently leading Prop 50 mobilization efforts and anti-Trump actions, including No Kings, where she has served as emcee. First elected as an ADEM delegate at just 21 years old and the highest vote-getter in county history, she has since been re-elected twice and also serves as a member of the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee and board member of the California Democratic AAPI Caucus.    See more  Michelle Meow Show programs at Commonwealth Club World Affairs of California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Truman DoctrineOn May 22, 1947, President Harry S. Truman signed legislation authorizing American aid to Greece and Turkey, giving legal force to what became known as the Truman Doctrine. The law provided economic and military assistance to both countries at a moment when U.S. leaders feared that instability in the eastern Mediterranean could expand Soviet influence. Greece was in the middle of a civil war, while Turkey faced pressure over control of strategic territory and access between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Britain had previously played the leading role in supporting Greece and Turkey, but after World War II it told the United States it could no longer bear that burden.Truman responded by asking Congress to approve aid, arguing that the United States had to support “free peoples” resisting outside pressure or armed minority movements. By signing the bill, Truman transformed that broad statement of foreign policy into statutory authority backed by federal money. Legally, the act mattered because it showed how Cold War policy would often be made: the president would identify a global threat, and Congress would authorize funds and tools to respond. It also helped normalize large peacetime commitments abroad, a sharp change from earlier American reluctance to enter long-term foreign entanglements. The statute became an early foundation for the national security state that grew through later aid programs, alliances, intelligence activities, and military commitments.The Truman Doctrine also raised enduring questions about the balance of power between Congress and the president in foreign affairs. Congress approved the aid, but the broader doctrine gave presidents a flexible language for intervention that could be invoked well beyond Greece and Turkey. In that sense, May 22, 1947, was not just a date in diplomatic history; it was a legal turning point in how the United States authorized, funded, and justified its Cold War role in the world.A Ninth Circuit panel appeared uncertain about whether Jack Daniel's proved enough to win its trademark dilution-by-tarnishment claim against VIP Products over the “Bad Spaniels” dog toy. The judges focused especially on whether Jack Daniel's had shown that anything beyond the words “Jack Daniel's” was famous enough to qualify for dilution protection. Judge Andrew Hurwitz pressed Jack Daniel's counsel on whether the company could rely on the fame of its name to protect broader elements of its label and bottle design. Jack Daniel's argued that the court should consider the full context of the toy, including its bottle-like appearance and bathroom-humor references. VIP, by contrast, argued that the analysis should be limited to the famous mark itself and the allegedly diluting mark, not the entire product presentation.The case began after VIP made a dog toy parodying a Jack Daniel's bottle with poop-themed jokes, prompting years of litigation over trademark infringement, dilution, parody, and free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court previously ruled that VIP could not use the Rogers test because the toy used another company's trademark-like features to identify VIP's own product. On remand, the district court rejected Jack Daniel's infringement claim but again found dilution by tarnishment, which VIP appealed. VIP also raised a First Amendment challenge to the federal tarnishment law, though both VIP and the federal government suggested the Ninth Circuit could decide the case without reaching that constitutional issue. The Justice Department intervened to defend the law's constitutionality while also acknowledging that waiver or insufficient proof could let the panel avoid the First Amendment question.9th Circ. Questions Jack Daniel's' TM Win Over ‘Bad Spaniels' - Law360Meta has settled a closely watched lawsuit brought by Breathitt County School District in Kentucky over costs allegedly tied to youth mental health harms from social media. The case was important because it was the first school-district case against social media companies scheduled for trial on these claims. Breathitt had accused Meta, YouTube, Snap, and TikTok of designing platforms that kept young users engaged in harmful ways and contributed to anxiety, depression, self-harm, and other student mental health problems. The district sought more than $60 million, including money for a 15-year mental health program and an order requiring changes to allegedly addictive platform features. Meta's settlement follows earlier settlements by YouTube, Snap, and TikTok, meaning Breathitt's case is now fully resolved.The case was a bellwether, meaning it was chosen as a test case to help courts and parties evaluate similar lawsuits. About 1,200 school districts are pursuing related claims, and thousands of other social-media addiction lawsuits are pending in California state and federal courts. Meta said it resolved the case amicably and pointed to teen-safety tools such as Teen Accounts and parental controls. Lawyers for the school district said they remain focused on claims brought by the other districts. The settlement avoids a June 15 trial that could have shaped settlement talks and strategy across the broader litigation. Other major school systems, including Los Angeles and New York City, have filed similar lawsuits, while DeKalb County, Georgia, has claimed billions in future mental health costs.Meta settles first US case over school costs tied to youth mental health, court filing shows | ReutersOpenAI has expanded its group of outside law firms as it faces major litigation, complex business deals, and a possible future IPO. Reuters reports that the company, recently valued at $852 billion, now works with more than a dozen large U.S. law firms. OpenAI, CEO Sam Altman, and lawyers from Wachtell Lipton and Morrison & Foerster recently defeated Elon Musk's lawsuit claiming that OpenAI had departed from its original nonprofit mission. That ruling removed one potential obstacle to a possible IPO, which sources have said could happen as soon as September. Wachtell has also handled major OpenAI transactions since ChatGPT launched, including large fundraising deals involving Microsoft, Nvidia, and other investors.Wachtell is a central player for OpenAI in both deal work and litigation. The firm is defending OpenAI in a lawsuit from Musk's xAI alleging that OpenAI and Apple monopolized markets involving smartphones and generative AI chatbots. In a separate xAI trade secrets case, OpenAI hired Munger, Tolles & Olson. Latham & Watkins has worked on OpenAI deals, including a $4 billion credit line, and is also helping defend the company in copyright lawsuits brought by authors, comedians, and news organizations. OpenAI is arguing in those copyright cases that using material to train AI systems is protected by fair use. Wilson Sonsini is defending OpenAI in a case claiming ChatGPT engaged in unauthorized practice of law, an allegation OpenAI rejects by arguing that ChatGPT is not a lawyer and does not practice law.OpenAI grows stable of law firms for high-stakes lawsuits, deals | 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 this episode, we continue “Exposing the Matrix” with a powerful deep dive into the systems shaping modern society through fear, entertainment, propaganda, and behavioral conditioning. From the Ninth Circuit medical mandate ruling and the expansion of emergency government authority to Hollywood symbolism, celebrity worship, occult themes, streaming addiction, and the normalization of moral inversion, this episode examines how modern culture influences identity, belief, and perception on a massive scale. We explore the growing merger between corporate power, media influence, technology, and political control while asking difficult questions about freedom, truth, censorship, and the spiritual battle unfolding beneath the surface of modern entertainment and culture. This is not merely a discussion about movies, mandates, or media—it is an examination of how fear, distraction, and constant stimulation can slowly reshape society itself. Featuring Scripture from Romans 12:2, this hard-hitting special presentation challenges listeners to think critically, guard their minds, and discern the spirit of the age before conformity becomes complete.Support us: Zelle- 719-651-0642PayPal- @thefacthunterWmail us: thefacthunter@mail.com

Apple's five-year war with Epic Games is finally circling the drain -- after getting slapped with contempt in 2025 for sneaking a 27% commission on external payments despite the court order, the Ninth Circuit just told Apple to pound sand on rehearing and now the iPhone maker's running to the Supreme Court begging for a miracle stay before a lower judge sets the final "reasonable" fee and basically guts their App Store cash cow for good. Yeah Epic's been winning round after round since Fortnite got the boot in 2020 for daring to bypass the 30% cut, and Apple's endless appeals are starting to look like a desperate Hail Mary while developers cheer and the rest of us watch the trillion-dollar gatekeeper get dragged kicking and screaming into the real world. Watch the podcast episodes on YouTube and all major podcast hosts including Spotify. CLOWNFISH TV is an independent, opinionated news and commentary podcast that covers Entertainment and Tech from a consumer's point of view. We talk about Gaming, Comics, Anime, TV, Movies, Animation and more. Hosted by Kneon and Geeky Sparkles. Get more news, views and reviews on Clownfish TV News - https://more.clownfishtv.com/ On YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/ClownfishTV On Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/4Tu83D1NcCmh7K1zHIedvg On Apple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/clownfish-tv-audio-edition/id1726838629 MORE CLOWNFISH TV - Official Merch Store: http://ClownfishMinus.com Facebook - https://facebook.com/ClownfishTV X - https://x.com/ClownfishTVcom Clownfish TV subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ClownfishTVOfficial/ Disclaimer: This series is produced by Clownfish Studios and WebReef Media, and is part of ClownfishTV.com. Opinions expressed by our contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of our guests, affiliates, sponsors, or advertisers. ClownfishTV.com is an unofficial news source and has no connection to any company that we may cover. This channel and website and the content made available through this site are for educational, entertainment and informational purposes only. These so-called “fair uses” are permitted even if the use of the work would otherwise be infringing. #News #Podcast #FYP #Shorts #AppleEpic #AppStoreDrama #EpicGames #AppleVsEpic #AppStoreFees #AntitrustLawsuit #SupremeCourtApple #FortniteBattle Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Katie and Steve speak with esteemed copyright lawyer Nancy Wolff about the Ninth Circuit case Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, in which photographer Jeffrey Sedlik sued celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D for copyright infringement related to her inking a copy of his photographic portrait of Miles Davis on a friend's arm and publicizing the process on social media. They discuss the Ninth Circuit's unique approach to copyright infringement in applying a subjective (jury-determined) test for substantial similarity based on "total concept and feel" and how that test may be in conflict with basic and established copyright principals.   Notes for this episode: https://artlawpodcast.com/2026/04/27/ninth-circuit-greenlights-tattoo-copying-of-photographs-of-miles-davis-at-least/   Follow the Art Law Podcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/artlawpodcast/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@artlawpodcast Katie and Steve discuss topics based on news and magazine articles and court filings and not based on original research unless specifically noted.

A $300M bridge exploit is forcing the question DeFi has been avoiding: when users lose money, who is actually responsible — the protocol, the infrastructure provider, or both? Thanks to our sponsors! *⁠ As Bitcoin's application layer, Citrea gives you access to the first trust-minimized BTC on a fully programmable platform and a native stablecoin for Bitcoin, ctUSD.  You can now participate in Bitcoin capital markets with lending, privacy, payments, Bitcoin yield, trading and predictions. You get expanded Bitcoin utility without sacrificing its security.  ⁠Citrea mainnet is live. Put your BTC to work at ⁠⁠citrea.xyz/unchained.⁠  *⁠ Nexo is the premier digital wealth platform. Receive interest on your crypto, borrow against it without selling, and trade a range of assets. Now available in the U.S with 30 days of exclusive privileges. Get started at http://nexo.com/unchained A $300 million bridge exploit at Kelp DAO has put DeFi's most uncomfortable question back on the table: when users lose money, who is actually responsible?  Katherine, Jessi, and Vy dig into the Kelp and Layer Zero finger-pointing and ask whether the industry's core values — permissionlessness, open composability — have become its greatest vulnerability.  Then: the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on prediction markets last week, and the panel's pointed questions signal the case is headed to the Supreme Court sooner than most expect.  Finally: American Express just solved three of agentic commerce's hardest problems — identity, mandate, and accountability — with a product that's live today. The crypto industry, which should be leading this race, is watching from the sidelines. Hosts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Katherine Kirkpatrick Bos⁠⁠, General Counsel at StarkWare. Previously held senior legal roles across DeFi and centralized exchanges. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jessi Brooks⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, General Counsel at Ribbit Capital ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TuongVy Le⁠⁠⁠, General Counsel at Veda Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Just six weeks from the California gubernatorial primary, Democrats are still auditioning for a lead — and risk watching Republicans steal the show. Can someone please introduce candidate Tom Steyer to the U.S. Constitution? State Senator Scott Wiener's attempt to muzzle ICE melts in the Ninth Circuit. A fake bear wreaks fake terror on luxury vehicles in Lake Arrowhead. Bonus! A brief history of California's Modoc War. Music by Metalachi. Email Us:dbahnsen@thebahnsengroup.comwill@calpolicycenter.org Follow Us:@DavidBahnsen@WillSwaim@TheRadioFreeCA Show Notes: Trump ally Roger Stone hired to lobby for Bay Area tribe seeking control of Presidio ‘San Francisco treasure': City, state leaders blast Trump for firing Presidio Trust board 3 sentenced for insurance fraud after using bear costume to stage fake attacks on luxury cars Takeaways from the first California governor's debate since Eric Swalwell's exit ‘Becerra Bounce.' How Xavier Becerra surged from behind to be a frontrunner in governor's race ‘Dark Horse' Gets Sudden Jolt in Packed California Race Steyer proposes ending ICE, jailing police 9th Circuit blocks California limits on anonymous immigration agents G.B. V. Environmental Protection Agency (9th Cir. 2026) How Newsom Boosted His Book Sales With $1.5 Million From His PAC CA hasn't signed off on a promised deal to help bail out LA if the Olympic Games lose money Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Velazquez-Olais v. Blanche, No. 25-1244 (7th Cir. Apr. 6, 2026)  FARO; Riley; ICE emails; review of ICE decision refusing to reopen FARO  Matter of Bolivar-Bolivar, 29 I&N Dec. 548 (BIA 2026) termination; in absentia; DHS burden to prove alienage; DHS need not appear; Tepec-Garcia  Gamas-Vicente v. Blanche, No. 25-3415 (6th Cir. Apr. 7, 2026) particular social group exhaustion; due process and interpreters; new particular social group on petition for review  Santana Gonzalez v. Blanche, No. 16-70793 (9th Cir. Apr. 8, 2026) asylum; nexus; pro se exhaustion; Ninth Circuit stay policies   Mukhtar v. Lambrecht, et al., No. 24-1451 (10th Cir. Apr. 8, 2026) mootness; denial of adjustment based on deficient Form I-693; Class B medical issue; action capable of repetition yet evading review; voluntary cessation Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.eimmigration"Immigration law software you'll love to use."get.eimmigration.com/IRP Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com  EB-5 Support"EB-5 Support is an ongoing mentorship and resource platform created specifically for immigration attorneys."Contact: info@eb-5support.comWebsite: https://eb-5support.com/Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Click me!The Pen and SwordClick me!Discount code: ImmigrationReview26 Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATION:Email: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerSupport the show

Sarah Isgur and David French dive into two Ninth Circuit opinions: one involving an anti-discrimination law in Washington, another related to a first-grade girl being punished for giving her classmate a drawing inspired by what her teacher read in class. The Agenda:–Is the Fifth Circuit still the most conservative court?–Judge VanDyke's swinging opinion–What is this case even about?–Adrian Vermeule weighs in–Don't sic a kid's drawing–First-graders have free speech rights Order Sarah's book here. Show Notes:–The Postmodern Jurisprudence of Lawrence VanDyke Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices