Podcasts about ninth circuit

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.

California's trans agenda suffers another legal blow after attempt to undercut SCOTUS order fails A three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against California, saying its request should be handled by a lower court Conservatives celebrated Tuesday after a federal appeals court denied California's request to narrow a Supreme Court ruling on transgender policies, two weeks after the high court dealt the state a major blow in the same case. “California has now lost at the district court, lost at the Supreme Court, and been turned away by the Ninth Circuit,” Executive Vice President of the Thomas... View Article

Financial lines insurance trends are evolving with new legal rulings, DOJ antitrust activity and emerging AI-related risks impacting coverage and compliance. In this episode, Mike Radak and David Finz, Alliant Specialty Claims & Legal, discuss a recent Ninth Circuit decision impacting D&O insurance coverage, recent Department of Justice enforcement signals and a case exploring AI and legal privilege. Together, they break down what these developments mean for policyholders and organizations, including how to challenge coverage denials, prepare for regulatory scrutiny and manage confidentiality risks associated with AI tools.

Welcome to your weekly UAS News Update. We have five stories for you this week; the FAA dropped Section 2209 NPRM, the public comment window is closing on DJI's FCC Covered List challenge, a record-breaking 218 drone incursions over wildfires last year, ACSL is Partnering with Draganfly, and today marks 7 years of uninterrupted drone news! First up this week, the FAA has finally filed its long-overdue Section 2209 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NPRM. This opens a 60-day comment window that will determine how fixed-site facilities can apply for permanent drone restrictions over their property. The 181-page rule creates a new 14 CFR Part 74 framework with two tiers: a Standard Unmanned Aircraft Flight Restriction and a Special UAFR. The FAA proposes limiting eligibility to 16 critical infrastructure sectors, which could encompass more than 9,000 eligible facilities. The proposed rule includes a transit lane for commercial operators! Drones operating under Parts 91, 107, 108, 135, and 137 will be allowed to transit a Standard UAFR if they broadcast Remote ID, transit in the shortest practicable time, and notify the facility. Unfortunately, recreational flyers are not on that list. This rule explicitly does NOT grant facility operators counter-drone authority, such as jamming or drone capture. It is strictly an airspace designation. Next, the deadline to submit public comments on the FCC petition regarding DJI's placement on the Covered List is rapidly approaching on May 11, 2026. DJI is challenging the FCC's December 2025 decision that effectively blocks the authorization of new affected products for sale or import into the United States. DJI has pursued legal action in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. So far, more than 460 comments have been submitted, and the Department of Defense has recently urged the FCC to reject DJI's petition.Third up, the U.S. Forest Service reported a staggering 218 drone sightings over active wildfires in 2025. Most of these happened during the Eaton and Palisades, which includes the one on January 9, 2025 where a privately flown drone actually collided with a Canadair CL-415 Super Scooper aircraft, punching a 3-by-6-inch hole in the left wing. Remember, DJI removed mandatory geofencing enforcement from its consumer drones in early 2025, shifting to advisory warnings. Check for TFRs on tfr.faa.gov.Next up, Draganfly Inc. and ACSL signed an exclusive master distributor agreement on May 7, 2026, making Draganfly the sole Canadian distributor of ACSL's drone technology. The agreement also includes technical integration work between the two companies' platforms. The initial product offering is the ACSL SOTEN. Under the integration component of the agreement, Draganfly's Apex and Commander 3XL drones will be made compatible with SOTEN's swappable payloads and the TAITEN ground control station, allowing operators to mix components across both manufacturers' systems. SOTEN joins Draganfly's existing lineup of Apex, Commander 3XL, and Heavy Lift platforms.And last up, Today marks 7 years of uninterrupted drone news! We've covered a ton of ground since we started, with over 460,000 students, over a million enrollments, including 148,000 Part 107 students, 61,000 free stickers, which will continue to be free thanks to community donations, over 28,000 active members in our community, over 365,000 free TRUST certificates issued, and over 19,000 WINGS credits issued on the FAASafety platform. Thank you for your support! We'll see you on Monday for the live and on post flight in the premium community!https://dronelife.com/2026/05/05/public-comment-window-closing-fcc-weighs-dji-challenge-to-covered-list-ruling/https://dronexl.co/2026/05/01/218-wildfire-drone/https://dronexl.co/2026/05/05/faa-section-2209-nprm-drops/https://acsl-usa.com/https://draganfly.com/

Welcome to your weekly UAS News Update, We have three stories for you this week: DJI reveals that 25 unreleased products are stuck in regulatory limbo, Reliable Robotics raises 160 million dollars for autonomous cargo flights, and Starlight Aerial Productions makes history at Sun N Fun. Let's get to it.First up this week, DJI has filed a sharply worded brief in its Ninth Circuit court fight with the FCC, and they finally put specific numbers on how much the current ban is hurting their pipeline. According to the filing, the FCC has already voided authorizations for 14 existing products, which includes five drones and nine other products that are currently unreleased, and 25 planned product launches for 2026… This means a total of 39 DJI projects won't hit the market this year due to the FCC ban. According to DJI, this will cause a 1.56 billion dollar loss this calendar year alone. DJI's legal team filed a briefing, arguing that the FCC is trying to run out the clock by not making a formal decision. They are also making a major constitutional argument, claiming that FCC staff shouldn't have the power to ban entire product categories without a full Commission vote and judicial review. DJI is asking the court for a six-month pause on the ban to force the FCC to make a formal decision and issue a final ruling. This is obviously a massive deal for our drone industry, specifically consumers, public safety, and even some enterprise. We will keep a close eye on how the court responds.Next up, Reliable Robotics has closed a 160 million dollar funding round, bringing the company's valuation to nearly 1 billion dollars. The company, led by a former SpaceX engineer, is trying to certify an uncrewed Cessna 208 Caravan under Part 23 airworthiness rules. Instead of building a brand new drone from scratch, Reliable's system retrofits an already-certified Cessna 208 with a continuous autopilot that handles taxi, takeoff, cruise, and landing, all while a ground operator monitors the flight. They actually flew a Cessna with no one on board for 12 minutes back in November 2023. Now, they are planning to run autonomous cargo routes between airports in New Mexico and Colorado starting this summer. This is a huge step for large Beyond Visual Line of Sight operations. By putting autonomy into an airframe the FAA already knows and trusts, they are cutting a clear pathway for autonomous commercial cargo. If they actually start moving paying freight in US-controlled airspace this summer, that will be another major jump forward, and will set a massive precedent for every commercial operator out there. Last up, Starlight Aerial Productions and the Red Bull Air Force, staged what they describe as a first in airshow history: three people in wing suits flying through an illuminated drone formation at approximately 2,000 feet AGL during the night show. The demonstration was part of the event's "Red, White & Blue at 52" theme, marking both the 52nd annual expo and the 250th anniversary of the United States. The performance required months of planning, safety validation, and rehearsals coordinated among the FAA, Starlight, and the Red Bull Air Force to integrate crewed human flight with unmanned aerial systems in a live audience setting. The drone formation used American-made Lumenier Arora drones and was choreographed to create a three-dimensional lighted gateway timed to the wingsuiters' flight paths. And let me tell you, it was a great show and super cool to see the wing suits fly through the drone show! Be sure to join us in the Premium Community for Post flight, where we share our opinions that aren't always suitable for YouTube, and on Monday for the live! We'll see you next week! https://dronexl.co/2026/04/21/reliable-robotics-160m-nimble-partners-faa-certification/https://dronexl.co/2026/04/22/dji-ninth-circuit-opposition-brief-fcc-ban-1-56-billion/https://starlightdroneshows.com/

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.

This Day in Legal History: Lincoln Suspends Habeas CorpusOn April 27, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln authorized military officials to suspend the writ of habeas corpus along the rail lines between Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. The order came in the opening weeks of the Civil War, when Washington was vulnerable, Union troops were moving through hostile territory, and federal officials feared sabotage and rebellion along critical transportation routes.Habeas corpus is one of the oldest protections in Anglo-American law, allowing a detained person to demand that the government justify their imprisonment before a court. By suspending it, Lincoln allowed military authorities to detain certain people without immediately producing them for judicial review. The legal problem was that the Constitution says habeas corpus may be suspended “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it,” but it does not clearly say which branch of government may do the suspending.Lincoln argued that the rebellion created an emergency that required swift executive action. Critics argued that the suspension power belonged to Congress, not the president, because the Suspension Clause appears in Article I, the part of the Constitution dealing mostly with legislative powers. The conflict soon came to a head in Ex parte Merryman, after John Merryman, a Maryland secessionist, was arrested by military authorities and denied ordinary habeas review.Chief Justice Roger Taney, sitting as a circuit judge, ruled that Lincoln had exceeded his constitutional authority and that only Congress could suspend the writ. Lincoln did not comply with Taney's order, maintaining that the survival of the Union justified extraordinary action. Congress later gave statutory support for wartime habeas suspension, but the controversy over Lincoln's initial action has remained central to debates over presidential power, civil liberties, and constitutional government during crisis.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case involving Cisco Systems and the Alien Tort Statute, focusing on whether U.S. companies can face liability for allegedly helping foreign governments commit human rights abuses. The case comes from Falun Gong practitioners who claim Cisco built surveillance tools for China's “Golden Shield” program that helped officials identify, detain, torture, and persecute members of the religious movement. A federal district court dismissed the case, but the Ninth Circuit revived much of it in 2023, finding the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that Cisco aided and abetted violations of international law. Cisco argues that the Ninth Circuit improperly expanded the Alien Tort Statute by recognizing aiding-and-abetting liability even though Congress did not expressly create that cause of action. The company says the ATS was originally meant to cover only a narrow set of claims, such as piracy, violations of safe conduct, and harms to ambassadors. Cisco also relies on Supreme Court precedent to argue that courts should not create secondary liability unless Congress clearly authorizes it.The Falun Gong plaintiffs respond that aiding-and-abetting liability has long been part of international law and is especially important when serious abuses require technology, infrastructure, or corporate support. They argue that torture, extrajudicial killing, disappearances, and prolonged arbitrary detention are already recognized as serious international-law violations that can support ATS claims. Business groups and the federal government warn that expanding ATS liability could chill foreign investment and interfere with U.S. foreign relations by forcing American courts to judge the conduct of foreign governments. Supporters of the plaintiffs argue that corporate accountability can discourage companies from profiting from foreign repression and can promote fair competition for businesses that follow human rights standards. The Supreme Court's ruling could shape how much legal risk U.S. companies face when selling technology or services to governments accused of human rights abuses.Justices To Focus On Alien Tort Statute In Cisco Spying CaseThe U.S. Supreme Court is hearing Bayer's attempt to limit or end a large wave of lawsuits over Roundup, the weedkiller Bayer acquired when it bought Monsanto in 2018. The case involves John Durnell, a Missouri man who won a $1.25 million jury verdict after claiming years of Roundup exposure contributed to his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer argues that federal pesticide law should block state-law failure-to-warn claims because the Environmental Protection Agency has approved Roundup labels without a cancer warning. The company says EPA approval shows the product was not legally “misbranded” and that Bayer could not substantially change the label without agency approval. Durnell's lawyers argue that EPA registration does not make the label immune from challenge and that Missouri warning law mirrors federal requirements rather than adding new ones.The dispute turns on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, which regulates pesticide labeling and limits states from imposing requirements that differ from federal law. Bayer says more than 100,000 plaintiffs have brought Roundup-related cancer claims and that a Supreme Court win could largely end the litigation. The company has also proposed a $7.25 billion settlement to resolve many current and future claims, though some pending appeals and excluded claims would remain outside the deal. Agricultural and crop industry groups, along with the Trump administration, support Bayer, while environmental, farmworker, and public health groups support Durnell. Bayer warns that the lawsuits could threaten its ability to keep supplying glyphosate products to farmers. A decision is expected by the end of June.US Supreme Court hears Bayer's fight against Roundup lawsuits | ReutersElon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and Microsoft is headed to trial in federal court in Oakland, California. Musk claims OpenAI betrayed its original nonprofit mission by creating a for-profit structure after he left the board, while using his name and early financial support to build what he calls a profit-driven enterprise. He is reportedly seeking $150 billion in damages, with money going to OpenAI's charitable arm, and also wants OpenAI returned to nonprofit status. OpenAI denies wrongdoing and argues that Musk's real motive is to regain control and help his own AI company, xAI. Microsoft also denies collusion and says its partnership with OpenAI began after Musk had left.The trial is expected to feature testimony from major tech figures, including Musk, Altman, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Internal documents are likely to play a major role, including diary entries from Brockman that reveal tension inside OpenAI over Musk's influence and the organization's future. Musk's side points to those materials as evidence that OpenAI's leaders became focused on profit rather than the public-benefit mission. OpenAI's side says Musk knew about possible restructuring plans, wanted to be CEO, and later attacked the company after it became successful. The case comes as OpenAI faces heavy competition, major computing costs, and possible IPO plans, while Musk's xAI is also trying to compete in the AI market. The broader fight is not just about money, but about who controls one of the most influential companies in artificial intelligence.Elon Musk's trial against Sam Altman to reveal the ongoing power struggle for OpenAI | ReutersCole Tomas Allen, a 31-year-old California man, is expected to appear in Washington federal court after allegedly trying to breach security at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner while President Donald Trump was present. Authorities say Allen shot at a U.S. Secret Service agent at a hotel checkpoint before being tackled and arrested. The agent was hit, but a tactical vest stopped the shot, and the agent was later released from the hospital. Formal charges had not yet been filed at the time of the report, but prosecutors said Allen is expected to face charges including assault on a federal officer and using a firearm during a crime of violence. Officials also said more serious charges, including attempted assassination, could still be considered as the investigation continues.Authorities say Allen traveled from California to Washington by train and booked a room at the Washington Hilton, where the dinner was held. They also say he left family members a manifesto referring to himself as the “Friendly Federal Assassin” and discussing plans to target senior Trump administration officials. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Trump may have been among the intended targets. The shooting disrupted the high-profile dinner, forced attendees to take cover, and led security personnel to move senior officials out of the room. Monday's court hearing is expected to be brief, with a judge advising Allen of his rights and prosecutors likely asking that he remain detained. The incident has renewed concerns about security for Trump and other public officials.Suspect in Washington dinner shooting set to appear in court | 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

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.

Sripetch v. SEC | 04/20/26 | Docket #: 25-466 25-466 SRIPETCH V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION DECISION BELOW: 154 F.4th 980 CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2026 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case presents a clear and acknowledged conflict over an exceptionally important question regarding the SEC's civil-enforcement power. In Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71 (2020), this Court held the SEC may seek equitable "disgorgement" in civil-enforcement actions if an award "does not exceed a wrongdoer's net profits" and "is awarded for victims ." 591 U.S. at 74- 75 (emphasis added). In the proceedings below, the Ninth Circuit held that investors can be ''victims" for disgorgement purposes despite not suffering pecuniary harm. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit recognized a direct "split" on this question, "reject[ed] the reasoning of the Second Circuit," and "joined the First Circuit in holding that a finding of pecuniary harm is not required." This statutory holding was the sole basis of the Ninth Circuit's decision, and it leaves the SEC's enforcement power in disarray: disgorgement requests are ubiquitous in SEC actions, and there are now conflicting rules in the two main circuits (the Second and Ninth) where enforcement actions are most prominent. There are millions (if not billions) of dollars at stake. The question presented is: Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm . LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-3830

Featuring:Sade Frazier, Attorney at Cahill Gordon & ReindelHost:Landis Barber, Safran Law OfficesIn this episode of Highlight Reel Headlines, host Landis Barber is joined by Sade Frazier of Cahill Gordon & Reindel to break down the biggest sports law stories from the past two weeks. The conversation opens with the Department of Justice's antitrust investigation into the NFL's media distribution model and what is at stake for future media rights deals. Landis and Sade then turn to college athletics, discussing Feistel v. NCAA and connecting that case to the NCAA's proposed rule changes on pre-enrollment prize money and the Brantmeier litigation. The episode continues with a look at recent federal appellate decisions, including Robinson v. NCAA and the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Blythe v. NCAA. Finally, Landis and Sade break down a contract dispute in Dallas, where the Mavericks secured a notable ruling at summary judgment. It was a busy couple of weeks. So, join us as we roll through the headlines!

This Day in Legal History: Columbine ShootingOn April 20, 1999, a mass shooting at Columbine High School became one of the most consequential events in modern American legal history. Two students carried out a planned attack that resulted in the deaths of 13 people and injured many others, shocking the nation and prompting immediate legal scrutiny. In the aftermath, victims' families filed multiple lawsuits against the Jefferson County School District, arguing that officials failed to act on warning signs and threats. These claims raised difficult questions about foreseeability and the extent of a school's duty to protect students from third-party violence. Courts examining these cases often had to balance negligence standards against doctrines like governmental immunity, which can shield public entities from liability.The tragedy also intensified national debate over gun control laws, particularly regarding background checks and access to firearms by minors. Legal discussions extended to the role of parents, as some lawsuits attempted to hold the shooters' families accountable for failing to secure weapons. Additionally, Columbine influenced how courts and policymakers viewed threats made by students, contributing to stricter enforcement and zero-tolerance policies in schools. The event led to expanded use of security measures such as surveillance, school resource officers, and emergency preparedness protocols.Columbine's legal legacy can be seen in later case law addressing school liability and student safety, where courts often referenced the limits of institutional responsibility. It also shaped legislative efforts at both the state and federal levels aimed at preventing school violence. The case highlighted the challenges of proving causation in negligence claims involving unpredictable criminal acts. Over time, it became a foundational example in discussions of tort law, particularly in cases involving public institutions and risk prevention.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider the scope of the Securities and Exchange Commission's authority to seek “disgorgement,” a remedy that forces wrongdoers to give up profits obtained through illegal conduct. The case arises from a challenge by Ongkaruck Sripetch, who was ordered to repay more than $3 million tied to a fraudulent stock scheme. Although the SEC's general ability to pursue disgorgement is well established and supported by Congress, the dispute focuses on whether the agency must prove that investors suffered actual financial harm before recovering those profits.Sripetch argues that the SEC failed to show his actions caused investors measurable losses, and therefore should not be entitled to the repayment order. The federal government, defending the SEC, maintains that disgorgement is meant to strip unlawful gains from violators rather than compensate victims, making proof of financial harm unnecessary. Lower courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sided with the SEC's broader interpretation of its authority. However, other appellate courts have disagreed, creating a legal split that prompted Supreme Court review.The case highlights the significance of disgorgement as one of the SEC's primary enforcement tools, with billions of dollars recovered in recent years under different administrations. The outcome could clarify the limits of the agency's power and reshape how securities fraud penalties are pursued, particularly in cases where direct financial harm to victims is difficult to quantify.US Supreme Court to consider SEC's ‘disgorgement' power | ReutersAmerican Airlines publicly denied reports that it is considering a merger with United Airlines, stating that no discussions are taking place and that it has no interest in pursuing such a deal. The denial followed speculation that United's CEO had raised the idea during a recent meeting with federal officials. American emphasized that a merger between the two major carriers would likely harm competition and consumers, signaling concerns about antitrust implications in an already concentrated airline market.The company also suggested that such a combination would conflict with broader regulatory principles aimed at preserving competition. Instead of pursuing a merger, American stated it will remain focused on its own long-term strategy and operations. United did not comment on the reports.While a deal between the two largest airlines appears off the table, smaller industry transactions are still moving forward. Allegiant Travel Company is proceeding with its acquisition of Sun Country Airlines after receiving regulatory approval to operate both carriers separately under shared ownership. Similarly, Alaska Airlines previously completed its purchase of Hawaiian Airlines in 2024 with government approval. These developments highlight that, despite scrutiny of large mergers, regulators are still permitting consolidation among smaller airlines under certain conditions.American Airlines Shuts Down United Merger Rumors - Law360Lawyers for Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service are negotiating a potential settlement in Trump's $10 billion lawsuit over the leak of his tax returns. The parties have asked a federal court to pause the case for 90 days to allow negotiations, suggesting a resolution could avoid extended litigation. The lawsuit stems from disclosures made by former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn, who leaked Trump's tax information and data on other wealthy individuals to media outlets.Trump and co-plaintiffs, including his business entities and family members, claim the leak caused financial damage and reputational harm. Littlejohn pleaded guilty to unlawful disclosure and was sentenced to prison, establishing the underlying misconduct. A settlement could raise complex issues because Trump, as president, is effectively suing a federal agency within the executive branch, creating potential conflicts for government lawyers representing the IRS.The case also carries financial implications, as any settlement payout would likely come from public funds. Beyond this dispute, Trump has pursued several other high-value lawsuits against media organizations, reflecting a broader legal strategy tied to alleged reputational and political harm.Trump, IRS in talks to settle US president's $10 billion lawsuit | 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

Federalism: May States regulate prediction markets as a form of gambling? - Argued: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 8:50:42 EDT

Welcome to your weekly UAS News Update, we have three stories for you this week, the Pentagon cites classified intelligence to oppose DJI's FCC petition, the FAA clears the military to use anti-drone lasers in U.S. airspace, and DJI officially teases the new Lito drone launch. Let's get to it. First up this week, the Department of Defense has officially filed a memo with the FCC opposing DJI's petition to be removed from the agency's Covered List. The Pentagon stated that their national security decision wasn't just based on public supply chain concerns, but actually relied on both classified and unclassified intelligence. They even submitted a classified document to Congress on April 3rd. DJI has been fighting this on three different legal fronts, including a Ninth Circuit petition and a D.C. Circuit appeal. But this classified intelligence creates a massive hurdle. How do you defend yourself against evidence you aren't allowed to see? Meanwhile, the FCC is pushing forward with new rules to support domestic drone manufacturing under the "Unleashing American Drone Dominance" initiative. They recently gave conditional approvals to four non-Chinese drone systems; all enterprise models. Next up, the FAA has officially given the U.S. military clearance to use high-energy anti-drone lasers in U.S. airspace. This comes after a tense two-month standoff that actually shut down commercial flights over the Texas-Mexico border twice. Back in February, Customs and Border Protection used a Pentagon-owned laser to target what turned out to be metallic balloons. The FAA immediately closed all airspace within a 10-nautical-mile radius of El Paso from the surface up to 18,000 feet. The White House eventually had to step in to lift the shutdown. Then, in a crazy friendly-fire incident on February 26th, soldiers used the same laser to shoot down a drone over Texas. It turns out, the drone belonged to CBP, and it reportedly cost about 30 million dollars! After these incidents, the FAA and Pentagon ran a live test at the White Sands Missile Range. During the test, a commercial aircraft drifted into the laser's tracking angle, and the system's automatic safety shutoff immediately powered the laser down before it could fire. Because of that successful safety feature, the FAA determined the lasers do not present an increased risk to the flying public. If you are flying manned or unmanned aircraft near the southern border, pay attention, because the FAA will be issuing an advisory about increased anti-drone laser activity. And finally this week, after months of leaks, DJI has officially teased a new drone launch for April 23rd. The teaser uses the tagline "Just Fly" and confirms the Lito name with hashtags for the DJI Lito and Lito X1. Now let's talk about the rumored specs. We are reportedly expecting two models, and we're thinking this will replace the Mini series as the entry level drone. The entry-level Lito 1 is reported to be a sub-250-gram drone with 22 gigabytes of internal storage and a price tag around $330. The higher-end Lito X1 is rumored to have 42 gigabytes of storage and cost around $759. Both drones are expected to feature multi-band connectivity across 2.4, 5.2, and 5.8 gigahertz, along with Wi-Fi 6. Flight times are rumored to be around 30 minutes on the standard battery, pushing up to 50 minutes with a heavier plus battery that will put you over that 250-gram limit. The Lito X1's FCC filing also mentions an "SDR Transmission 2 Transceiver," which has people speculating about O5-class transmission performance. Alright, that's it for this week, no Post Flight or Live, but if you're in the Lakeland Florida area, be sure to stop by Sun N Fun to meet the team on Saturday or Sunday! `https://dronexl.co/2026/04/11/faa-clears-military-use-anti-drone-lasers/https://dronexl.co/2026/04/11/pentagon-dod-classified-intelligence-dji-fcc-covered-list-opposition/https://dronexl.co/2026/04/14/dji-teases-lito-drone-launch-for-april-23/

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

Civil Rights: When ,ay ICE use tear gas against protestors? - Argued: Tue, 07 Apr 2026 15:58:16 EDT

This Day in Legal History: WHO EstablishedOn April 7, 1948, the World Health Organization (WHO) was officially established when its constitution entered into force, marking a pivotal moment in the development of international law. The creation of the WHO reflected a growing recognition among nations that public health challenges transcend borders and require coordinated legal and institutional responses. Its constitution set out a broad definition of health as a fundamental human right, helping to shape future legal frameworks and policy discussions worldwide. By joining the organization, member states accepted binding obligations, particularly in the areas of disease surveillance, reporting, and cooperation. These obligations were designed to promote transparency and rapid response to emerging health threats, which had historically spread unchecked due to limited coordination.The WHO's legal framework also empowered the organization to issue regulations and recommendations, including what would later become the International Health Regulations, a key tool in managing global health emergencies. This marked an important shift toward formalized international governance in public health, moving beyond informal cooperation to structured legal commitments. The constitution further established the World Health Assembly, giving member states a forum to negotiate and adopt health-related policies with legal and political significance. Over time, the WHO has played a central role in shaping international responses to pandemics, vaccination efforts, and health equity initiatives. Its authority, while not absolute, carries significant influence in both legal and diplomatic contexts.A group of YouTube creators has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Amazon, alleging that the company improperly used their copyrighted videos to train its AI video-generation tool, Nova Reel. The plaintiffs claim Amazon bypassed YouTube's technological safeguards to access and download large amounts of video content without permission. According to the complaint, Amazon used automated scraping tools and techniques like rotating IP addresses to avoid detection while extracting videos at scale. The creators argue that this conduct violated both YouTube's terms of service and federal copyright law.The lawsuit specifically alleges violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, focusing on Amazon's alleged circumvention of technological protection measures designed to safeguard content. Plaintiffs claim their videos were then used for Amazon's commercial benefit in developing its AI system, without compensation or consent. They also argue that once content is used to train AI models, it cannot be effectively removed, causing lasting harm to creators. The complaint challenges Amazon's characterization of its training data as “publicly available,” arguing that availability does not equal lawful use.The creators seek to represent a nationwide class of individuals whose content may have been similarly used. They are asking for damages, injunctive relief, and a declaration that Amazon's actions were willful. The case highlights broader tensions between content creators and AI developers over data sourcing practices. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other AI companies, reflecting a growing wave of litigation in this area.YouTube Creators Say Amazon Scrapes Videos To Train AI - Law360The Supreme Court of the United States has sent a long-running lawsuit over alleged FBI surveillance of Muslims in Southern California back to a lower court for reconsideration. The case, brought by several individuals including Sheikh Yassir Fazaga, claims the FBI unlawfully monitored their community using an informant after 9/11. The justices did not rule on the merits but instead instructed the lower courts to revisit the case in light of new factual developments and the government's motion to dismiss.At the center of the dispute is the state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine that allows the government to block litigation if it risks exposing national security information. The FBI has argued that continuing the case could reveal sensitive intelligence methods and weaken this protection. Previously, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowed parts of the lawsuit to move forward, reasoning that courts should not dismiss claims too early without fully examining whether secret evidence is truly necessary. The appellate court suggested possible ways to proceed while protecting classified information, such as limited judicial review of sensitive materials.The Supreme Court's earlier 2022 decision confirmed that the state secrets privilege applies but left open how it should be used in this case. The Ninth Circuit later revived some claims, while still dismissing others against individual agents. The government challenged that ruling, arguing it forces courts to rely on protected information in ways that undermine the privilege. Plaintiffs, however, maintain their case can proceed using non-classified evidence and that the subject matter itself is not a state secret.The remand keeps the case alive but unresolved, requiring the lower courts to reassess whether it can proceed without endangering national security. The outcome could shape how courts handle similar conflicts between civil rights claims and government secrecy.Justices Remand State Secrets Dispute In FBI Spying Case - Law360In my column for Bloomberg this week, I examine how a major IRS modernization effort fell short—not simply because of execution issues, but because of chronic underfunding. A recent report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration shows that funds from the Inflation Reduction Act that were intended for modernization were largely redirected to cover basic operations. Instead of transforming systems and rebuilding long-term capacity, the IRS used much of the money to sustain staffing and maintain existing IT infrastructure. In my view, this outcome was predictable given the agency's longstanding resource constraints.I explain how budget cuts and workforce reductions undermined the modernization initiative from the start. Even with new funding, the IRS still had to meet its core obligation of processing hundreds of millions of tax returns each year. Faced with those pressures, it prioritized immediate operational needs over long-term upgrades, including spending significant sums on routine IT maintenance. I also point out that contractor spending surged, reflecting a growing reliance on outside support rather than investment in internal expertise.The report highlights inefficiencies as well, including canceled or reworked contracts that consumed large amounts of funding without delivering meaningful results. At the same time, labor costs remained elevated due to the complexities of downsizing, creating a situation where the IRS was both shrinking its workforce and paying contractors to compensate for lost capacity. I argue that this pattern is better understood as institutional outsourcing rather than modernization.Ultimately, I contend that real modernization cannot occur without stable baseline funding for core operations. Without that foundation, any new investment will continue to be diverted toward keeping the agency running. My conclusion is that Congress attempted to modernize the IRS without first ensuring its institutional stability, making the outcome not just disappointing, but largely inevitable. 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

John is joined by Matthew Borden, partner and co-founder of BraunHagey & Borden, and Kory DeClark, partner at BraunHagey & Borden. They discuss litigation challenging federal law enforcement responses to protests, focusing on the Dickinson case in Portland, Oregon, that resulted in an injunction restricting how government agents may use force against demonstrators. The case arose from a series of protests against immigration enforcement policies. The plaintiffs alleged a pattern of excessive and indiscriminate force by federal agents at these protests that chilled lawful First Amendment activity. The legal team assembled extensive evidence, including 62 sworn declarations and video footage, documenting incidents such as using pepper spray on an 82-year-old woman and firing tear gas and projectiles at peaceful protesters.The effort to gather evidence was intense, involving rapid coordination among attorneys, staff, and volunteers to identify witnesses, collect recordings, and conduct expedited discovery in only 28 days. The discovery included depositions of federal personnel and testimony from experts and local law enforcement officials, who contrasted federal tactics with established crowd-control practices. The evidence demonstrated a broad pattern amounting to an informal policy inconsistent with constitutional protections rather than a series of isolated incidents. One powerful piece of evidence, in addition to the limited training that is much inferior to what police receive, was that the government conducted no investigations of and imposed no disciplinary measures on the officers involved in these incidents.   At the preliminary injunction hearing, the government largely relied on general assertions that protests were dangerous and that restrictions on force would compromise officer safety, while offering no direct rebuttal to specific incidents. In contrast, the plaintiffs emphasized that targeted, proportional policing methods were available and commonly used by trained local agencies, and that indiscriminate tactics such as tear gas often escalated tensions rather than restoring order.The resulting injunction limits the use of force to situations involving imminent threats and active resistance. It restricts the deployment of crowd-control weapons against passive or non-threatening individuals. These constraints align with existing use-of-force standards and have not been shown to endanger officers when implemented. The government has appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit.Finally, they discuss BraunHagey & Borden's “impact” practice of focusing almost 20% of its work on pro bono activities on cases that could have the maximum impact for a broad group of people or change the law to benefit a large group of people.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Joining me today is Laura Powell, an attorney and founder of Californians for Good Governance, to break down one of the most important parents' rights cases in recent history: Mirabelli v. Bonta. We trace how California schools came to adopt policies that require staff to conceal a child's gender identity — including name and pronoun changes at school — from their own parents, and how a federal lawsuit has finally forced this issue all the way to the Supreme Court.Laura walks me through the legal history in California, from a 2014 state law that said nothing about parental secrecy to a decade of school districts acting as though it did. We discuss the December 2024 federal injunction, the Ninth Circuit's stay, and the landmark March 2025 Supreme Court opinion in which six justices made strong, unambiguous statements affirming that parents have a constitutional right to know how their children are being raised and educated.We also pull apart the arguments used to justify these secrecy policies — the abuse narrative, the suicide risk claim, and the "children's rights to privacy" framing — and show why none of them hold up to scrutiny. From a psychological standpoint, I weigh in on adolescent development, the dangers of idealization transfer, the secondary gain of trans identification, and why social transition is not a neutral intervention but the beginning of a pathway toward medicalization. We also talk practically about what parents can and should do — including why parents whose kids are already caught up in this ideology may want to be more strategic than parents who are still in a preventative position.Laura Powell is a mother, attorney, investigator, and founder of Californians for Good Governance, a nonpartisan group advocating for civil liberties and government accountability in California. Her work has gained national media coverage, been cited in federal investigations, and led to the repeal of an unconstitutional state law. A former leftist and registered Democrat, she left the party due to its shift away from classical liberal values and basic common sense.Links

Civil Rights: Is the Trump Administration's investigation of telehealth providers for "gender affirming care" improperly politically motivated? - Argued: Fri, 06 Mar 2026 16:38:39 EDT

Environmental Law: Does the EPA engage in age discrimination against the young, when it gives more weight to present economic harms than the longterm impacts of climate change? - Argued: Thu, 05 Mar 2026 16:46:12 EDT

Civil Rights: May the Trump Administration terminate federal funding for "gender affirming care"? - Argued: Thu, 05 Mar 2026 16:41:58 EDT

Two explosive First Amendment cases from the Ninth Circuit show how culture-war flashpoints are reshaping speech doctrine and judicial decorum. In B.B. v. Capistrano Unified, the court held that elementary students have enforceable free speech rights under Tinker, vacating summary judgment after a first grader was disciplined for giving a classmate a pro-BLM drawing. Meanwhile, in Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, a divided panel upheld Washington's requirement that a women-only Korean spa admit pre-operative transgender women, prompting Judge VanDyke to open his dissent with "This is a case about swinging dicks," drawing a rebuke from 28 judges and igniting a firestorm over judicial rhetoric, religious liberty, and whether civility in opinions masks ideological outcomes.Key points:Olympus Spa + judicial rhetoric: VanDyke's vulgar disentail drew a “barroom talk” rebuke; defenders say it was an alarm about what “civil” language hides. • Rule-of-law theme: Majority applied rational basis; dissents argued Tandon strict scrutiny and denominational discrimination under Catholic Charities.B.B. v. Capistrano: Ninth Circuit confirms elementary students have Tinker rights, with age as a factor, not a cutoff.Why it goes back: Disputed facts over intent, impact, and discipline (including recess) made summary judgment improper.AI hallucination fallout: Campos/Munoz sanctions an attorney for fake citations; Westlaw's blue-link formatting can still mislead.Tune in to hear why these cases expose judicial composition, not doctrine, as the real variable, and why the fight over whether a judge can write "swinging dicks" may matter more than the legal tests themselves.

The Trump administration came in promising mass deportation. What has followed goes well beyond border control to matters of local policing, detention, federal power, and the limits of the law inside the United States. On this episode of Stanford Legal, co-host Professor Richard Thompson Ford talks with immigration expert Jennifer Chacón, the Bruce Tyson Mitchell Professor of Law, about the Trump administration's immigration enforcement agenda and the profound consequences it is having in cities and communities across the country. They discuss racial profiling, ignored court orders, pressure on states and localities, and the widening reach of immigration enforcement into everyday civic life. Professor Chacón, author of a casebook on immigration law, elaborates on some of the themes in her recently published paper “The Law of the Immigration Raid.” Links: Jennifer Chacón >>> Stanford Law page Legal Phantoms >>> Stanford Law page Immigration Law and Social Justice >>> Stanford Law page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X   (00:00:00) Immigration Enforcement in 2026 (00:03:47) The Economics of a Closed Border (00:09:58) Closing the Border to Asylum (00:10:44) Profiling in Immigration Enforcement (00:16:48) Courts, Defiance, and Detention (00:25:40) Sanctuary, Commandeering, and the Weaponization of Immigration (00:32:26) How States Can Restore the Humane Dimensions of Immigration Law Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

SAF's Kostas Moros joins Cam to discuss a big win regarding the right to carry, as well as some good news from the Ninth Circuit.

SAF's Kostas Moros joins Cam to discuss a big win regarding the right to carry, as well as some good news from the Ninth Circuit.

And Legalweek talk. ------ It was Legalweek last week, and we discuss the big happenings from the show -- which is pretty much all AI talk -- but while we saw splashy product announcements about the future of working as a lawyer within an AI-enhanced workflow, an assistant U.S. Attorney got bounced from the job for letting AI run too much of the workflow. But the most imaginative large language models wouldn't have predicted opening a federal judicial opinion with the phrase "swinging dicks." That takes a special level of deranged that's pure Judge Lawrence VanDyke. The certified non-qualified occupant of a Ninth Circuit seat kicked off an official taxpayer funded rant about wokeness framed as vulgar trolling to appeal to the White House. His colleagues -- most of them anyway -- issued a plea for decorum, that went basically nowhere.

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

Did Starbucks downplay how big their expansion in Nashville really is? Ninth Circuit forces trans women into women’s spa, judge fires back with blistering dissent. Democrats are trying to blame the GOP for the DHS shutdown. Guest: State Rep. Travis Couture (R-Allyn) announced he is running for reelection. // Big Local: Detectives confiscated fentanyl and firearms thanks to some help from a Sequim casino. Olympia is the first city in the state to pass legal protections for polyamory. Two different animals have been shot on the Olympic Peninsula over the last month. // You Pick the Topic: Businesses in Seattle’s Magnolia neighborhood are dealing with the effects of soft-on-crime policies. Yet another CEO says he’s leaving Washington for a red state.

Justice Kagan has more words about the emergency docket, aka shadow docket. This one is about the 9th Circuit panel injunction of California's law requiring school officials not to share with parents when their children present as trans. The Supreme Court keeps the injunction in effect.And on the fee award front, big firms don't automatically get a lodestar boost.Plus, a debrief from oral argument in the Scientology AI sanctions case—where the court said nothing about the sanctions at all.The shadow docket is now a routine appellate strategy: Mirabelli v. Bonta saw the U.S. Supreme Court reverse a Ninth Circuit stay on an emergency application, reinstating an injunction protecting parental notification rights on substantive due process grounds—despite the majority's stated skepticism of such claims post-Dobbs. Justice Kagan's dissent warned that the Court is bypassing the normal appellate process and deciding cases before en banc review, signaling a procedural shift practitioners are already exploiting.AI cover-ups carry career-ending stakes: In Kjoller v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court ordered a referee investigation after a prosecutor fabricated eight case citations, then called it "scrivener's error." The lesson is blunt—own the mistake immediately, or face bar referrals and public sanctions modeled on U.S. v. Hayes, where notice went to every judge in the district and every state bar where the attorney held a license.Firm size doesn't cap your fees: In LA International Corp. v. Prestige Brands, the Ninth Circuit vacated a fee award that discounted rates for a four-lawyer firm, holding that "brilliance at the bar is not measured by the number of associates a lawyer commands." Skill, experience, and reputation control the lodestar—not letterhead.Oral argument silence in the Scientology AI case: Despite an Order to Show Cause for sanctions over AI-generated citations, the Second District panel never raised the issue during argument, focusing only on anti-SLAPP merits while the sanctioned attorney sat in the gallery with separate counsel at the podium.Legislative response is coming: A California Senate bill imposing heightened duties of care for AI use by attorneys is advancing with no opposition, suggesting statutory guardrails are imminent.

He's the most-requested guest in Pilot to Pilot history — and the wait was worth it. Trent Palmer, recreational bush pilot and one of aviation's most recognized YouTube creators, finally sits down with Justin for a raw, unfiltered conversation about the highs and lows of a life built around flying and filmmaking.Trent opens up about his journey from RC helicopters and drone cinematography in Hollywood to becoming a full-time content creator — including how FAA regulations ironically pushed him into getting his pilot's license in the first place. But this episode goes far deeper than flying cool places and making beautiful videos.Trent shares the gut-wrenching details of his engine failure in the Nevada backcountry, what it actually feels like when the prop stops and you have 45 seconds to find a field, and why the flight home may have been scarier than the emergency itself. He talks candidly about watching a close friend crash — and somehow survive — and how each close call reshapes your relationship with risk.Then there's the FAA battle that nearly broke him. Trent walks through both investigations, the $50,000 in legal fees, the four-year court fight that went all the way to the Ninth Circuit, the license suspension he wishes he'd just accepted, and the personal toll of having your character questioned publicly.This one is honest, emotional, and packed with lessons — whether you're a pilot, a content creator, or just someone who loves a great story.What you'll hear:From drones on Hollywood sets to bush pilot YouTuberEngine failure over remote Nevada — the full storyWatching a friend crash and survive a "unsurvivable" impactTwo FAA investigations, $50K in legal fees, and hard lessons learnedHow YouTube became his full-time career (and why he almost walked away)Advice for pilots who want to start creating contentWhat's next: floats, new adventures, and maybe finally starting that podcast

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureChina & Canada are trying to bypass Trump trade tariffs. This has already failed, and Trump calls out Carney.EU economy is weak and it is getting weaker, there are two paths, one that follows the [CB] agenda the other is Trump economic agenda. Inflation declines again, Gold and Silver are up, Trump’s plan is working, its time to end the endless.The [DS] is now calling for the insurgency to accelerate. Clinton and Obama are now calling on their foot soldiers to push the insurrection against Trump. Trump has put a message to all D’s, lets work together, the optics are very good, the D’s will do this for a short period of time but in the end they will push the insurrection. Once they do this, they lost the people. Timing and optics are very important.   Economy  Carney Cracks: Canada Has ‘No Intention’ Of Pursuing Free Trade Deal With China After Trump Threatens 100% Tariffs To review: right before Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney returned from a trip to Beijing and announced a new 5-point ‘strategic partnership’ to ‘diversify our trade partnerships.’ The agreements included slashing tariffs on Chinese EV imports from 100 percent to 6.1 percent for the first 49,000 units, in exchange for China cutting tariffs on Canadian canola from 85 percent to 15 percent until at least the end of the year. Other exports, including Canadian canola meal, lobsters, crabs, and peas will also not be subject to Chinese anti-discrimination tariffs until at least the end of 2026. A week later, Carney told the global elite at Davos resort that the “rules-based order” established by the United States and its allies following WW2 was fraying amid the current rivalry between China and America, so the “middle powers must act together because if we’re not on the table, we’re on the menu.”  Carney said that for their survival, nations should no longer “go along to get along” with Trump.   Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney says Canada has “no intention” of pursuing a free trade deal with China, after Donald Trump threatened to slap a 100% tariff on Canadian exports if Ottawa “makes a deal” with Beijing.   Source: zerohedge.com Trump Is Right About Europe's Weak Economy: U.S. vs. EU Compared  President Trump argued that Europe's economic stagnation is the result of a self-inflicted “civilizational erasure” driven by reliance on what he calls the “Green New Scam,” which he says has replaced affordable energy with costly and unreliable wind power. He further asserted that unchecked mass migration has strained social infrastructure and altered the continent's cultural identity, while a stifling regulatory environment and excessive government spending have suppressed the innovation needed to compete with the United States. Finally, he accused European nations of freeloading on American security, arguing that their failure to meet NATO defense spending targets over the past 70 years has allowed them to avoid the true costs of national sovereignty at the expense of the American taxpayer. Based on current economic data as of January 2026, the comparison supports Trump's critique. While the United States is experiencing aggressive growth alongside widespread deregulation, Europe remains mired in what can best be described as stabilized stagnation. The United States enters 2026 with inflation at 2.7%, steadily returning toward the 2% target. As in President Trump's first term, strong GDP growth has been paired with relatively modest inflation. Fourth-quarter GDP growth is projected at 5.4%, dwarfing Europe's stagnant 0.2%. For the full year, U.S. growth is expected to reach between 4.3% and 5%, while Europe is projected to manage only about 1.3% to 1.6%. On the labor front, the United States maintains its historical advantage, with unemployment at 4.4% compared to 6.3% in the Eurozone. This low level of unemployment has been achieved despite deep government job cuts that reduced taxpayer costs. While the United States reduced federal spending by $100 billion, European fiscal policy has moved in the opposite direction. The U.S. has moved 1.2 million people off food stamps, while European social safety nets are coming under increased strain from rising living costs. In 2024, the most recent data available, EU social protection spending rose by 7%, far outpacing nominal GDP growth. This imbalance pushed the social expenditure-to-GDP ratio to 27.3% across the bloc, with countries such as France and Austria exceeding 31%, reinforcing the strain caused by rising demand for social welfare. Energy remains far cheaper in the United States, particularly electricity and natural gas, due to abundant domestic production, lower taxes and levies, and reduced reliance on imports, with overall prices about half of Europe's and industrial electricity often as little as one-third. Source: thegatewaypundit.com (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/2015764155580756471?s=20 https://twitter.com/truflation/status/2015770236105138602?s=20 https://twitter.com/WallStreetMav/status/2015647917441183786?s=20 spending problems. Gold is at record highs against every currency, not just the dollar Political/Rights DOGE https://twitter.com/WallStreetMav/status/2015553600106164548?s=20 Geopolitical https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2015729194270154997?s=20   supply before then. More LNG, more U.S. gas, more renewables… Higher costs baked in. For Brussels this is an irreversible line. After 2027, there's no “going back to normal.” The EU has indeed been importing refined petroleum products from India that originate from Russian crude oil, creating an indirect pathway for Russian oil to enter the European market despite sanctions on direct imports from Russia since December 2022.  This circumvention became prominent after the EU and G7 imposed a price cap on Russian oil, prompting Russia to redirect exports to countries like India and China, where the crude is refined and then resold.    EU officials and analysts have long acknowledged the loophole, which is why recent sanctions packages have targeted it directly. For instance, the EU’s 18th sanctions package in July 2025 banned the import of petroleum products derived from Russian crude processed in third countries, and specifically sanctioned Nayara Energy, an Indian refinery partly owned by Russia’s Rosneft.  The 19th package in October 2025 further tightened measures by sanctioning additional third-country entities, including three in India, for supporting Russia’s circumvention efforts. As a result, major Indian refiners like Reliance Industries have stopped importing Russian crude for certain facilities to comply with these rules and maintain access to EU markets. Russia, meanwhile, continues to adapt by using new middlemen exporters to supply India, aiming to sustain the flow despite the crackdown.  India has not fully stopped importing Russian oil since then, but imports have significantly declined. In 2025, Russia’s share of India’s crude oil imports fell to 33.3% from 36% the previous year, while OPEC’s share rose slightly to 50%.  By December 2025, India dropped to the third-largest buyer of Russian fossil fuels overall, importing €2.3 billion worth that month, with major refiners like Reliance Industries scaling back or halting purchases.    This reduction appears driven by a mix of U.S. tariff pressures, steeper discounts on Russian crude drawing buyers back selectively, and India’s strategic diversification to ensure energy security without fully alienating Russia—a key defense and trade partner. https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2015527595975033161?s=20   the CMC Joint Staff Dept: Under investigation for violations 5. Director of CMC Political Work Dept: Removed in 2025 over corruption The US-China rivalry has gone well beyond trade.   The purges depicted in the image of China’s Central Military Commission (CMC) stem from an escalating anti-corruption campaign under Xi Jinping, which has targeted the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) extensively since 2023. This drive is officially framed as rooting out graft, bribery, and disciplinary violations, but analysts widely interpret it as a mechanism for Xi to consolidate power, enforce unwavering loyalty among military leaders, and address systemic issues like incompetence or factional rivalries that could undermine PLA readiness.  The campaign has intensified in 2025-2026, affecting nearly the entire top echelon of the CMC—China’s highest military decision-making body, chaired by Xi himself—leaving it in significant disarray  War/Peace Report: Iran's Khamenei Flees to ‘Fortified' Bunker, Fearing U.S. Strike Following rising concerns over a possible U.S. military strike, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has relocated to a heavily fortified underground compound in Tehran, according to reports, which cited sources close to the regime who revealed his son now oversees day-to-day operations. Source: breitbart.com https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2015828196273303756?s=20 calling it a dream disconnected from reality. The US covers about 68% of NATO defense spending while Europe still misses its 2% commitments. Medical/False Flags [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2015559098847428717?s=20 https://twitter.com/JoeConchaTV/status/2015519543846703552?s=20 If you are preparing a city for an insurrection is this what you do to lower morale, have police quit and this way there is no one to stop the insurgency     In 2024 Minnesota AG Keith Ellison Argued No Right to Carry a Gun at ‘Political Rallies and Protests' In 2024, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) was among 17 AGs who contended there is no right to carry a gun at “political rallies and protests.” The AGs did this in a January 26, 2024, filing in support of upholding California's gun controls for “sensitive places” in a Ninth Circuit case. In the filing, Ellison and the other AGs expressed support for banning the possession of firearms “in crowded places.” The AGs wrote: “Without the power to institute such restrictions, California and other states would be left unable effectively to prevent gun violence in crowded places, around vulnerable populations, or where individuals are exercising other constitutionally protected rights, putting the public at risk.” They emphasized, “Even the perceived risk of gun violence could cause repercussions, as individuals may be discouraged from visiting crowded or confined locations where they know others may be armed.” Source: breitbart.com https://twitter.com/BillClinton/status/2015562744993350135?s=20 Didn’t Bill and Hiliary Violate a Supeona to testify in front of congress, they broke the law, shouldn’t he be in jail. Barack Obama Urges More Street Protests, Blames Trump for Minneapolis Shooting https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/2015479691147149747?s=20 4700 Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 ID: a54ff9 No.10644532 Sep 14 2020 11:34:31 (EST) Worth remembering [think what you see today]. https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/119629.pdf