Podcasts about 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.

Stay connected with us at americangroundradio.com, on Facebook, and Instagram. You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for March 12, 2026. We tackle a question that seems almost too obvious to be controversial: Should you have to prove you’re an American citizen before voting in an American election? With more than 80% of Americans supporting voter ID and citizenship verification, we break down why something with such overwhelming public support has become a political fight in Washington. We talk about the proposed SAVE Act, the arguments surrounding election integrity, and why many Americans feel the political class is out of step with the people they’re supposed to represent. We also run through the three big stories you need to know for tomorrow. First, a shocking terror attack at Temple Israel Synagogue raises new concerns about security and rising threats against houses of worship. Then we look at the financial warning signs coming out of New York City after a major credit outlook downgrade tied to massive spending and a growing deficit. And finally, the federal government takes California to court over its zero-emissions vehicle mandate, setting up a major constitutional clash over interstate commerce and whether one state should be able to dictate policy for the entire auto industry. Plus American Mamas and Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burelson respond to outrage over reports that the Pentagon spent millions on steak and lobster. But when you learn that the meals were served to U.S. service members before heading into combat, the story looks very different—and it sparks a bigger conversation about how we treat the men and women willing to risk their lives for the country. We also welcome a powerful guest in the studio: Corey Brooks, who is literally walking across America to raise money for his organization Project H.O.O.D.. He shares why he started the journey in New York City, what he’s learning from people across the country, and how his mission to rebuild families and communities began on the South Side of Chicago. We wrap up with a Bright Spot about a first grader whose drawing sparked a controversy—and ultimately led to a major free-speech ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It’s a reminder that the principles of the First Amendment apply to everyone… even a six-year-old with crayons. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts, visit AmericanGroundRadio.com, and join the conversation at 866-AGR-1776!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.

This Day in Legal History: The AmistadOn March 9, 1841, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. The Amistad, ruling that a group of Africans who had seized control of the Spanish ship La Amistad were free individuals who had been illegally enslaved. The case began after the captives, led by Sengbe Pieh—often called Cinqué—revolted against the ship's crew while being transported from Cuba in 1839. They had originally been kidnapped in West Africa and sold into slavery in violation of international agreements banning the transatlantic slave trade. After the revolt, the ship was intercepted near Long Island and the Africans were taken into U.S. custody. Spanish officials demanded that the United States return both the ship and the captives to Cuba. The U.S. government supported Spain's request, arguing that the captives were property under Spanish law.Abolitionists rallied to the Africans' defense and secured legal representation for them in American courts. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where former President John Quincy Adams joined the legal team arguing for the captives' freedom. Adams delivered a lengthy and passionate argument emphasizing natural rights and the illegality of the slave trade that had brought the Africans to Cuba. Writing for the majority, Justice Joseph Story concluded that the captives had been unlawfully enslaved and were therefore not property. Because they were free individuals, the Court held that they had the legal right to resist their captivity and fight for their liberty. The Court ordered that the Africans be released rather than returned to Spanish authorities.The ruling was celebrated by abolitionists as an important moral and legal victory in the fight against slavery. Although it did not end slavery in the United States, the decision demonstrated that courts could recognize limits on the slave trade and acknowledge the legal claims of enslaved people.Thirteen major U.S. book publishers have filed a copyright lawsuit against Anna's Archive, a website they describe as one of the largest “shadow libraries” distributing pirated books and academic papers. The publishers—including HarperCollins, Wiley, McGraw Hill, and Cengage—filed the complaint in federal court in New York, alleging that the site hosts more than 63 million books and 95 million research papers without authorization. According to the lawsuit, Anna's Archive allows users to download these materials directly or through torrent networks, making copyrighted works widely available for free. The publishers claim the site openly presents itself as a pirate platform and intentionally violates copyright law.The complaint also alleges that Anna's Archive was created in 2022 after copying entire collections from other illegal book repositories and has continued expanding its database. The publishers say the site operates anonymously and frequently changes domain names across different countries to avoid enforcement efforts. They further claim the platform targets artificial intelligence developers by offering large datasets of books and papers. While free users can access files slowly, the complaint states that faster downloads are available to users who make donations through untraceable methods like cryptocurrency or gift cards. The publishers allege that these donations can reach roughly $200,000 for high-speed bulk access. In response, the plaintiffs are asking the court to shut down the site and award statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each infringed work.The lawsuit follows a separate case brought by Atlantic Recording Corp., which earlier obtained a preliminary injunction preventing Anna's Archive from distributing millions of music files allegedly copied from Spotify. That case resulted in a default after the site failed to respond to the complaint. However, the publishers argue that the earlier injunction does not cover books, allowing the alleged book piracy to continue. The Association of American Publishers has publicly supported the lawsuit, describing the scale of digital piracy as extremely large and urging legal action to stop the operation.Publishers Sue ‘Shadow Library' For ‘Staggering' Book Piracy - Law360Companies that operate in California are facing uncertainty as the state moves forward with major climate disclosure laws while a federal appeals court considers whether the rules should be blocked. The laws—California Senate Bills 253 and 261—require large companies doing business in the state to disclose information about greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks. In late February, the California Air Resources Board approved initial regulations explaining how the reporting system will be administered and how companies will pay implementation fees. At the same time, the Ninth Circuit has temporarily blocked enforcement of S.B. 261 and is reviewing a request from business groups to halt both laws entirely.Because of this parallel regulatory and legal process, many companies are unsure whether they should invest heavily in compliance or wait for the courts to rule. S.B. 253 applies to companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue and requires reporting of Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, which include direct emissions, energy-related emissions, and emissions from supply chains. S.B. 261 applies to companies with more than $500 million in revenue and requires disclosure of climate-related financial risks and mitigation strategies. Attorneys say collecting this data could be difficult, especially for companies that only have limited operations in California or that must gather information from suppliers and partners in other regions.The reporting requirements could also affect businesses outside California because companies subject to the law may need emissions data from their partners and vendors. Regulators have begun setting deadlines for initial reporting, including an August deadline for certain emissions data, but many details about how the system will function remain unresolved. Meanwhile, business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argue the laws violate the First Amendment by forcing companies to speak on controversial issues related to climate change. With rulemaking still underway and litigation ongoing, companies are left trying to prepare for possible compliance while waiting to see whether the courts ultimately uphold or invalidate the laws.Companies In Limbo Over Calif. Climate Disclosure Laws' Fate - Law360In a major California bellwether trial over claims that social media harms children's mental health, the plaintiff has finished presenting her case against Instagram and YouTube. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old referred to as Kaley G.M. to protect her identity, alleges that features on the platforms contributed to anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia she experienced as a minor. Her attorney, Mark Lanier, chose not to call Kaley's mother to testify live, instead presenting a brief portion of her deposition to the jury. The decision appeared partly influenced by strict time limits imposed by the judge during the trial. In the deposition testimony, the mother acknowledged she had little knowledge of her daughter's social media use and did not monitor her phone because she viewed it similarly to a household landline.Defense attorneys have argued that Kaley's mental health problems were caused by difficulties at home rather than the platforms themselves. Evidence introduced at trial suggested the plaintiff had conflicts with her mother, including allegations of neglect, verbal abuse, and limited supervision of internet use. The defense also pointed to bullying and other personal issues as alternative explanations for the plaintiff's struggles. Meanwhile, a former Meta employee testified that internal company information suggested Instagram could be addictive and harmful to young users, although defense lawyers challenged his credibility and the extent of his involvement with safety issues.The plaintiff's final expert witness discussed ways social media companies could design safer platforms for children. After the plaintiff rested, Meta began presenting its defense with testimony from school administrators connected to the plaintiff. The case is the first bellwether trial among thousands of similar lawsuits consolidated in California, with outcomes potentially shaping settlement negotiations and future trials. TikTok and Snap previously settled with this plaintiff, but the broader litigation against social media companies continues.Meta, Google Begin Defense As Mental Harm Plaintiff Rests - Law360 UKThe U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency told a federal trade court that it expects to create a system within about 45 days to process refunds for tariffs that were previously imposed under President Donald Trump and later ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The tariffs generated roughly $166 billion in payments from about 330,000 importers, and the Court's decision did not specify how those funds should be returned. As a result, government lawyers and a judge from the U.S. Court of International Trade are working to establish a practical process for issuing refunds.Under the proposed plan, importers would submit a declaration through CBP's electronic system detailing the tariffs they paid. The agency would verify the information and then issue a single payment from the Treasury Department to each importer, including interest. Officials say this approach would avoid forcing businesses to file individual lawsuits to recover their money. The judge overseeing the matter recently modified an earlier order that required immediate refunds, acknowledging that the agency needs time to build a workable system.CBP explained that its current administrative system cannot automatically process refunds on the massive scale required. Importers paid tariffs on more than 53 million shipments, and manually reviewing each transaction could require millions of hours of labor. Several large companies, including affiliates of Nintendo and CVS, have already filed lawsuits seeking repayment, though the government hopes a broader refund system will resolve claims more efficiently.Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have supported the proposal, saying it could simplify the process for smaller companies. However, officials noted that relatively few importers have registered for the electronic refund system created earlier this year. The court continues to oversee the development of the refund process through a test case that could guide how payments are returned to all affected businesses.US customs agency expects tariff refund system to be ready in 45 days | 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

This Day in Legal History: FDR Declares Bank HolidayOn March 6, 1933, just two days after taking office, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared a nationwide bank holiday in response to the escalating financial panic of the Great Depression. At the time, banks across the country were collapsing as frightened depositors rushed to withdraw their savings. The closures threatened to completely destabilize the American financial system. Roosevelt used emergency executive authority to temporarily shut down the nation's banks in order to stop the flood of withdrawals. The pause allowed federal officials to inspect financial institutions and determine which were stable enough to reopen.Although the order began as an executive action, Congress quickly moved to support the president's efforts. On March 9, lawmakers passed the Emergency Banking Act, which retroactively approved Roosevelt's bank holiday and expanded federal oversight of banks. The law allowed only financially sound banks to resume operations and provided additional confidence to depositors. In the days that followed, many banks reopened under stricter supervision, and public trust gradually returned to the banking system. Roosevelt reinforced this confidence through his first “fireside chat,” explaining the reforms directly to the American public.Legal challenges later tested the government's authority to take such sweeping action during a crisis. Courts ultimately upheld many emergency financial measures adopted during the early New Deal period. These rulings helped establish the principle that the federal government has broader power to respond to national economic emergencies. The bank holiday of March 6, 1933, therefore became an important early example of how executive initiative and congressional support can combine to address a national crisis.An insurer has filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law after its AI chatbot allegedly provided faulty legal assistance to a disability benefits recipient. According to the complaint, Nippon Life Insurance Co. of America had settled a long-term disability dispute with Graciela Dela Torre in January 2024. About a year later, she questioned the agreement and asked her attorney about reopening the case due to alleged documentation problems. When her lawyer explained that the settlement was final, Dela Torre consulted ChatGPT, asking whether her attorney had dismissed her concerns.The insurer claims the chatbot suggested that her attorney had invalidated her feelings and deflected responsibility. After receiving that response, Dela Torre fired her lawyer and attempted to reopen the case on her own. The lawsuit alleges that ChatGPT generated legal arguments asserting that her former counsel had pressured her into signing a blank signature page. She filed a motion based on those arguments, which Nippon says violated the settlement agreement releasing the company from future claims.According to the complaint, Dela Torre then submitted numerous additional filings drafted with the chatbot's help, including more than twenty motions and other court documents. The court rejected her attempt to reopen the case and upheld the settlement as valid. Despite that ruling, she allegedly used ChatGPT again to prepare a new lawsuit asserting claims such as fraudulent misrepresentation and interference with disability benefits. Nippon says she has filed dozens of motions that serve no legitimate legal purpose, forcing the company to spend significant time responding. The insurer is now seeking damages and an injunction preventing OpenAI from providing legal assistance to Dela Torre, while OpenAI has dismissed the claims as meritless.OpenAI Practices Law Without A License, Insurer Alleges - Law360A coalition of 24 states has filed a lawsuit challenging new global tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. The case was brought in the U.S. Court of International Trade and seeks to block tariffs introduced on February 20 under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The states argue the administration rushed to impose the tariffs only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated an earlier set of trade measures that had been issued under a different statute. According to the complaint, the new tariffs were an attempt to revive similar trade restrictions using a separate legal authority.The policy first imposed a 10% tariff on imports worldwide and was raised to the statute's maximum 15% the following day. The administration justified the move by claiming it was necessary to address serious U.S. balance-of-payments deficits. However, the states argue that such deficits do not actually exist and that the government selectively relied on negative data while ignoring overall positive financial inflows. They claim this misuse of the statute mirrors the earlier tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down.The lawsuit also argues that the tariffs violate the Constitution because the authority to impose taxes and duties belongs to Congress. The Supreme Court recently emphasized this principle when it ruled against the administration's earlier tariff policy. According to the states, Section 122 was originally enacted to address problems tied to an outdated international currency system that no longer exists today. Because the statutory conditions cannot be met, the coalition argues the president's tariffs are unlawful. The states are asking the court to invalidate the measures before they remain in effect through the summer.Two Dozen States Sue Trump to Halt New Global Tariffs - Law360Twenty-four US states file lawsuit to stop Trump's latest global tariffs | ReutersA federal trade judge is meeting privately with government lawyers to determine how the United States will refund billions of dollars in tariffs that courts recently ruled unconstitutional. Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade scheduled the closed-door meeting as a settlement conference to discuss a practical process for returning money to importers. The tariffs at issue were a major part of President Donald Trump's trade policy but were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in February for exceeding presidential authority. Because the Court did not provide guidance on how refunds should be handled, lower courts are now working to establish a workable procedure.The scale of the refunds could be enormous, potentially reaching $175 billion and affecting more than 300,000 importers. Government attorneys have warned that processing the reimbursements will be unusually complex because it may involve manual review of tens of millions of tariff payments. Many of the affected importers are small businesses concerned about the cost and administrative burden of seeking repayment. Judge Eaton has indicated that he wants a system that avoids forcing companies to file individual lawsuits.The issue arose in a case filed by Atmus Filtration Inc., which claims it paid $11 million in unlawful tariffs. Eaton recently ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection to begin using its internal processes to refund tariffs not only to Atmus but potentially to all affected importers. The upcoming conference is expected to focus on how the agency can efficiently review roughly 79 million shipments and distribute refunds. Attorneys involved in related cases believe the meeting could lead to a standardized process that allows most businesses to receive reimbursements without extended litigation.Exclusive: US judge to meet parties on Trump-tariff refunds in closed-door ‘settlement conference' | ReutersA federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump has the authority to suspend refugee admissions to the United States, reversing most of a lower court decision that had blocked the policy. The ruling came from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The judges concluded that federal law gives the president broad power to restrict the entry of foreign nationals when he believes it serves national interests. As a result, the panel allowed Trump's halt of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program to remain in place.The policy was introduced shortly after Trump took office in 2025 and paused the admission of refugees while the administration reviewed whether the program ensured proper assimilation. Refugees, their family members, and several resettlement organizations filed a class action lawsuit challenging the move. A federal judge in Seattle had previously issued injunctions blocking the suspension and related actions. However, the Ninth Circuit determined that most of those rulings exceeded the district court's authority.Writing for the panel, Judge Jay Bybee acknowledged that the decision could have serious real-world consequences for thousands of refugees who had already completed years of vetting and were awaiting resettlement. Despite those concerns, the court emphasized that Congress granted the president sweeping authority over immigration entry decisions. The judges said policy judgments about refugee admissions belong to the executive branch rather than the courts.The panel did leave some portions of the lower court's order in place. It upheld injunctions that prevent the government from cutting services to refugees who have already been admitted to the United States and from terminating certain agreements with refugee support organizations. One judge dissented in part, arguing that the district court's injunctions should have been entirely overturned.Trump can suspend refugee admissions, US appeals court rules | 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

Hunter v. United States | 03/03/26 | Docket #: 24-1063 24-1063 HUNTER V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 5003582 CERT. GRANTED 10/10/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: This Court has recognized that "no appeal waiver serves as an absolute bar to all appellate claims." Garza v. Idaho , 586 U.S. 232, 238 (2019). But the Court has "ma[de] no statement ... on what particular exceptions [to appeal waivers] may be required." Id . at 238-39 & n.6. In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed its precedent, holding that there are only two grounds on which defendants who sign general appeal waivers may challenge their sentence on appeal: (1) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) claims that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. The Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits adopt a similarly narrow view of the exceptions to general appeal waivers. In stark conflict, the First, Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits permit defendants who sign general appeal waivers to raise a broad range of constitutional challenges to their sentences beyond the limited exceptions recognized by the Fifth Circuit and the other courts on its side of the circuit split. The Fifth Circuit below also reaffirmed its precedent holding that an appeal waiver applies even when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object to that advice. Although other circuits agree with the Fifth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit squarely holds otherwise, releasing defendants from appeal waivers in identical circumstances. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. 2. Whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-20211

Welcome to your weekly UAS News Update, We have three stories for you this week: DJI takes the FCC to court, Apple TV sets a massive new drone light show record over Los Angeles, And BRINC teases a brand new drone, but we'll have to wait for release.First up, DJI is taking the FCC to court. They filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the December 22nd decision that blocked new equipment authorizations for their products. DJI argues the FCC never actually proved they're a threat. Here's the full statement from DJI, and I'm not going to read it for you, but if you'd like to pause and read it, here you go. Basically, DJI says the NDAA gave the government a full year to conduct a security audit, and DJI even sent letters asking to be examined. But no audit happened. Instead, the FCC banned all foreign-made drones just two days before the deadline. So, what does this mean for you right now? Nothing changes for current operators. If you have a drone authorized before December 22nd, you can still fly it. This includes the Air 3S, Mini 4 Pro, and Mavic 3 series. However, new models are currently blocked. This is the second suit DJI has against the federal government at the moment, and we'll be watching closely. Next, Apple TV launched a 3,000-drone light show over Los Angeles to promote season two of Monarch: Legacy of Monsters. The display reached up to 500 feet above the city and stretched across an area equal to about three football fields. They recreated massive images of Godzilla, King Kong, and the new villain Titan X, and the show even integrated fireworks into the choreography for key transitions. According to Apple TV, this set a world record for the tallest aerial display of a fictional character formed by drones, surpassing a 2024 formation of Wolverine. I'm sure the approvals for this one took a bit! And third this week, BRINC Drones is teasing a brand new aircraft. They'll reveal a next-generation Drone as First Responder on March 24th, nearly a month away from this recording. The teaser campaign is called Command the Night, and it looks like this drone is built specifically for low-light law enforcement operations. Teaser images show a large dome sensor housing, which could be new sensors or upgrades to their existing thermal or visual systems. BRINC CEO Blake Resnick claims this is their best product ever. Night operations have always been a weak point for DFR programs. Standard cameras struggle in the dark, and bolt-on thermal sensors just add unnecessary weight and complexity. A purpose-built night drone could be a massive game changer. BRINC is growing fast after raising 75 million dollars last year, bringing their valuation to over 400 million dollars. It'll be interesting to see if we're able to get our hands on this new drone to test it out! That's all for this week join us in the premium community where we share our opinions for post fight and we will see you next week. Have a great weekend.https://dronexl.co/2026/02/24/dji-takes-fcc-to-court/https://dronexl.co/2026/02/23/apple-tv-drone-record-los-angeles/https://dronexl.co/2026/02/24/brinc-teases-next-gen-dfr-drone-march-24/

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

In today's episode of iGaming Daily, SBC Media Manager Fernando Noodt is joined by SBC Americas Senior Business Journalist Tom Nightingale and SBC Americas Business Journalist Justin Byers to discuss the growing tension between federal regulators and state gaming authorities as prediction markets take centre stage in the US betting landscape following the CFTC Chair's surprise amicus brief in the Crypto.com case and what it could mean for the future of sports-related contracts nationwide.Tune in to today's episode to find out:What prompted the CFTC Chair to file an amicus brief in the Crypto.com case and why it marks a notable shift in toneWhether the CFTC's stance represents a calculated legal strategy or a broader political signalHow lawmakers are reacting to the potential expansion of federally regulated prediction marketsWhat's at stake in the Ninth Circuit appeal and how it could reshape sports-related contracts across the USWhether federally regulated event contracts could emerge as a parallel product to traditional sportsbooks, accelerating the federalisation of certain betting marketsHost: Fernando NoodtGuests: Tom Nightingale & Justin ByersProducer: Anaya McDonaldEditor: Anaya McDonaldLearn how Optimove's Positionless Marketing is changing how iGaming teams operate. Discover how operators are using Optimove's Positionless Marketing Platform to launch personalised CRM campaigns, dynamically change casino lobbies and bet slips, and create engaging gamified experiences. Learn more at optimove.com.To see how this approach comes to life, Optimove Connect returns to London on March 11 and 12, 2026. It is the only user conference where marketers from around the world share real-world results of Positionless Marketing driving efficiency and ROI. Register at connect.optimove.com.Finally, remember to check out Optimove at https://hubs.la/Q02gLC5L0 or go to Optimove.com/sbc to get your first month free when buying the industry's leading customer-loyalty service.

We continue our study of open carry in America's Constitutional tradition by spending more time today with Baird v. Bonta (2 Jan 2026, 9th Circuit) from the top of page 11 (Roman Numeral II) through to the top of page 27 (up to Roman Numeral V). The pro-Second-Amendment opinions, both of them that we take a look at, were written by Republican appointees (Trump, Republican US Senate). We will pick up at page 27 and Roman Numeral V next time. This episode and this series is dedicated to the memory of my closest first cousin, Little Dan Mountain Jr, closest in age by just a couple of weeks, who died a week ago today, last Thursday. I picked a topic that would bring a smile to his face and that would honor the bright spots in our childhood together in Colorado. The Republican Professor is a pro-Second-Amendment-in-California podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Criminal Procedure: Must an indictment be dismissed where the Attorney General extends the term of an interim U.S. attorney by making them an acting U.S. attorney? - Argued: Thu, 12 Feb 2026 15:46:17 EDT

California is the largest common-law jurisdiction where appellate courts don't follow each other—and it happened by accident. In Part 1 of this two-part episode, Michael Shipley explains how Bernard Witkin's treatise reflections on case dicta became binding law, why the federal circuit model works differently, and what the rule costs practitioners and trial judges every day.Key points:The Witkin origin story: No California Supreme Court decision actually establishes the no-horizontal-stare-decisis rule. It developed through dicta, then appeared in Witkin's first edition—which courts then cited as authority.The federal contrast matters for forum strategy: In the Ninth Circuit, Miller v. Gammy binds all panels within the circuit to follow the first published decision on an issue. California trial courts, by contrast, face conflicting appellate authority and must guess which rule the Supreme Court would adopt under Auto Equity—a burden one trial judge called being "appointed to the Supreme Court for temporary purposes."Stare decisis isn't jurisdictional (probably).Unpublished opinions create tension.The pros: California's rule allows multiple perspectives on emerging issues and prevents the first Court of Appeal decision from locking in statewide law before the Supreme Court weighs in.The cons: The rule creates uncertainty, burdens trial courts, and leads to inadvertent inconsistencies on procedural issues too minor for Supreme Court attention—splits that can persist for years or even decades. (In anti-SLAPP law, it took 13 years before Baral v. Schnitt decided how to handle mixed causes of action.)Publication practices hide the problem: Many conflicts never surface because courts strategically leave decisions unpublished, masking the frequency of divergent reasoning and making the appellate landscape harder to navigate.Listen to Part 1 now for the full discussion on how California got here and what it costs practitioners—then tune in to Part 2, where Shipley covers forum shopping, the anti-SLAPP mixed-causes-of-action case study, and his proposed reform: precedential transfer.

Intellectual Property: Does removing copyright management information from open source code violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act when used to train AI models? - Argued: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 11:22:36 EDT

Federalism: Can the Trump Administration bar municipal grant recipients from having DEI programs, providing abortion services, or being sanctuary cities? - Argued: Mon, 09 Feb 2026 11:18:37 EDT

The Steve Gruber Show | Guest Host, Scot Bertram | Courts, Chaos, and the Crossroads of America --- 00:00:00 - Hour 1 Monologue 19:10 – Matthew Trayler, Director of Programs at the Christian Business Men's Connection (CBMC). Trayler reacts to reports of 30,000 layoffs despite a company posting $60 billion in profits. He discusses what this says about corporate priorities, leadership, and the moral responsibilities of business. 28:05 – Brian Jodice, National Press Secretary for the American Federation for Children. Jodice argues it's time to take school choice nationwide. He explains why empowering parents and expanding educational options should not depend on a family's ZIP code. 38:14 - Hour 2 Monologue 47:10 – Christian Clase, Constitutional Litigation Fellow at the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA). Clase explains why NCLA is urging the Supreme Court to hear a vaccine mandate case from the Ninth Circuit. He argues the lower court misapplied precedent, raising serious constitutional concerns. 57:07 – Dan McLaughlin, Senior Writer at National Review Online and Fellow at the National Review Institute. McLaughlin analyzes where Florida Governor Ron DeSantis goes next politically. He discusses DeSantis' options and what they could mean for the future of the GOP. 1:05:49 – Diane Schindlbeck, co-owner of Schindy's on Diamond Lake in White Cloud, Michigan. Schindlbeck shares how a pizza name controversy spiraled into death threats, prompting FBI involvement. She discusses free speech, small business ownership, and navigating public backlash. 1:15:45 - Hour 2 Monologue 1:24:38 – Mark J. Quann, author of Be Smart, Pay Zero Taxes: Use the Buy, Borrow, Die Strategy to Get Rich and Stay Rich. Quann opens the 2026 tax season by explaining how President Trump's tax cuts could impact individuals and investors. He breaks down strategies for minimizing tax exposure legally. 1:34:49 – Anna Giaritelli, journalist for the Washington Examiner. Giaritelli discusses Texas Governor Greg Abbott's argument that he set the national standard on illegal immigration enforcement. She examines how Texas' approach is shaping the broader immigration debate. --- Visit Steve's website: https://stevegruber.com TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@stevegrubershow Truth: https://truthsocial.com/@stevegrubershow Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/stevegruber Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/stevegrubershow Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/stevegrubershow/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Stevegrubershow Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/TheSteveGruberShow

Transcript: rmad.ac/AIAe083This week's podcast guest is Kat Macfarlane. Professor Macfarlane serves as professor of law and director of the Disability Law and Policy Program at Syracuse University College of Law. She teaches and writes about disability law, civil rights litigation, and constitutional law. Her scholarship has been published in the Georgetown Law Journal, Fordham Law Review, Washington Law Review, North Carolina Law Review, Alabama Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal Forum, among others.Professor Macfarlane recently served as special counsel to the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. Prior to joining academia, Kat practiced law in Los Angeles and New York-based law firms and clerked for the District of Arizona and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She received her BA, magna cum laude, from Northwestern University and her JD cum laude from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles.Connect with Kat: Kat Macfarlane (@katmacfarlane.bsky.social) — BlueskySSRN Home PageConnect with the Rocky Mountain ADA Center at RockyMountainADA.org or find us on social media. Don't forget to subscribe, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, or anywhere else you get your podcasts!

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Trump administration illegally stripped Temporary Protected Status from Venezuelans and Haitians, finding that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem overstepped her legal authority. Judges said federal law does not allow DHS to undo or erase TPS protections once they have been lawfully granted. The court set aside the administration's actions under the Administrative Procedure Act, leaving hundreds of thousands of immigrants protected and able to work, remain with their families and avoid deportation. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey folks, imagine this: it's early 2026, and I'm glued to my screen in my Washington D.C. apartment, coffee going cold as the Supreme Court ramps up for what could be the biggest clash yet with President Donald Trump. Just days ago, on January 28th, News4JAX aired a riveting breakdown on Politics & Power, hosted by Bruce Hamilton alongside a constitutional law scholar, dissecting how Chief Justice John Roberts subtly defended the court's independence in his end-of-2025 year-end report. Roberts leaned hard on history over politics, but they warned 2026 is the real showdown—cases testing if Trump can unilaterally rewrite citizenship laws, slap massive tariffs worldwide, and even fire Federal Reserve governors like Lisa Cook.Let me take you back a bit. Trump's second term kicked off January 20, 2025, and he hit the ground running with executive orders that shook everything up. By February and April, he'd unleashed tariffs on imports from nearly every country—10 to 50 percent reciprocal hits, tweaking them for toys from China or steel from Europe. Two Illinois companies, Learning Resources, Inc., and hand2mind, Inc., weren't having it. They sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president carte blanche for unlimited tariffs. The district court sided with them in May, issuing a preliminary injunction. The Court of International Trade echoed that without the injunction, and by August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shot down Trump's appeal. Boom—the Supreme Court grabbed it for expedited review, hearing oral arguments on November 5, 2025, right in the thick of their term that started October 6.SCOTUSblog's been all over it, noting the justices are in winter recess now, not back on the bench until February 20. That's when we might get the tariffs ruling—unless they drop it early like they did with Trump v. Anderson in 2024, zipping out a decision before Super Tuesday primaries. Trump's fighting tooth and nail, calling the stakes massive for America's economy.But tariffs are just the appetizer. There's Trump v. Barbara, straight from Oyez, challenging Executive Order No. 14,160 that aims to gut birthright citizenship—can he really end it by fiat? Then there's the Lisa Cook drama. Trump tried firing the Federal Reserve Governor over alleged mortgage fraud, claiming dual primary residences in D.C. and Atlanta. Lower courts blocked it, saying no full hearing yet, and the Supreme Court agreed across ideologies: Cook stays put until it's sorted. The Ninth Circuit's National TPS Alliance v. Noem ruling ties in too—Trump's team, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed January 25, 2025, moved fast to vacate Haiti's Temporary Protected Status extension set to expire August 2025.And don't get me started on Kilmar Orega or those nationwide injunctions Trump hates—judges in far-off districts halting his policies for the whole U.S. without everyone getting a say. Britannica lists these as marquee 2025-26 term battles: Learning Resources v. Trump, plus Chiles v. Salazar, Louisiana v. Callais, Little v. Hecox—all probing separation of powers. Experts on that News4JAX show predict Trump might lose big on delegation doctrine; Congress, not the president, sets agency rules. It's midterm election year, Trump's termed out, politically weaker—courts historically push back harder then. The Supreme Court's legitimacy hangs in the balance, walking that tightrope between executive muscle and judicial check.Whew, listeners, what a whirlwind these past days. From tariff showdowns to citizenship overhauls, Trump's vision collides head-on with the robes in black. Thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

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 sighthttps://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/05/trump-administration-immigrants-mandatory-detention-00709494Fulton County Election Hub Warranthttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26513986-1-28-26-fulton-warrant/Marimar Martinez Motion to Unsealhttps://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487595/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487595.100.0.pdfExclusive: ICE officers in Minnesota directed not to interact with 'agitators' in new ordershttps://www.reuters.com/world/ice-officers-minnesota-directed-not-interact-with-agitators-new-orders-2026-01-29/J.G.G. v. Trumphttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdfTrump v. CASAhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdfTobay Robles v. Noemhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72120823/tobay-robles-v-noemJudge Tunheim TROhttps://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230526/gov.uscourts.mnd.230526.41.0.pdfShow Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals revived claims against a former Multnomah County prosecutor, ruling that prosecutorial immunity does not apply when a prosecutor personally swears to alleged false statements in a warrant affidavit, allowing the case involving Joey Gibson and Russel Schultz to return to district court. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/ninth-circuit-revives-claims-against-prosecutor-who-personally-swore-to-warrant-affidavit-containing-alleged-false-statements/ #CourtRuling #NinthCircuit #ProsecutorialImmunity #FourthAmendment #PacificNorthwest

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., both involve the question of whether states can designate women’s sports based on biological sex consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.In 2020 and 2021, Idaho and West Virginia passed laws that required public schools and colleges to designate sports by biological sex and to forbid males from competing on women’s sports teams. Two male athletes who identified as females, one a middle school shot-put and discus thrower and the other a collegiate cross-country runner, challenged the laws in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Idaho and Southern District of West Virginia, alleging a right to compete in women’s sports and saying the state laws discriminate on the basis of sex and transgender status in violation of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In Little v. Hecox, the Idaho district court entered a preliminary injunction against the Idaho law for violating the Equal Protection Clause, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the West Virginia district court preliminarily enjoined the West Virginia law for violating Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause and then dissolved that injunction, upholding the law at summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered the district court to enjoin the law for violating Title IX.The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and oral argument is set for January 13, 2026. Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how both oral arguments went before the Court.Featuring:Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

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

The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that the First Amendment protects a religious institution's right to hire only people who adhere to the same sincerely held religious beliefs. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

Wolford v. Lopez | 01/20/26 | Docket #: 24-1046 24-1046 WOLFORD V. LOPEZ DECISION BELOW: 116 F.4th 959 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen , 597 U.S. 1, 33 (2022), holds that "the Second Amendment guarantees a general right to public carry" of arms, meaning ordinary, law-abiding citizens may "'bear' arms in public for self-defense." In this case, the Ninth Circuit sustained a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a concealed carry permit holder to carry a handgun on private property unless he has been "given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property by the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property." H.R.S. § 134-9.5. That holding is in acknowledged direct conflict with the Second Circuit's holding in Antonyuk v. James , 120 F.4th 941 (2d Cir. 2024), a decision that struck down an identical State law in the same procedural posture as this case. The Ninth Circuit also sustained a multitude of other location bans on carry by permit holders, relying solely on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws. That doctrinal approach is in direct conflict with the Third Circuit's decision in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police , 125 F.4th 428 (3d Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Connelly , 117 F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024), the Eighth Circuit's decision in Worth v. Jacobson , 108 F.4th 677 (8th Cir. 2024), and, most recently, the Eleventh Circuit's en banc decision in NRA v. Bondi , No. 21- 12314, 2025 WL 815734 at *5 (11th Cir. March 14,2025) (en banc), all of which hold that primary focus must be on Founding generation laws and tradition in applying the text, history and tradition test Bruen mandates. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier? 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen 's text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-16164

You have to literally disobey an order in California to be held in contempt. But federal courts are a little more touchy-feely: they will find a contempt for violating the “spirit” of their orders. Tim and Jeff compare the Ninth Circuit's contempt finding against Apple in the Epic Games dispute, and a state litigant who got around a visitation-time order but without violating the letter of the order, so no contempt.Meanwhile, a CEQA plaintiff that won at the Court of Appeal—only to be reversed by emergency legislation and the Supreme Court—learned the hard way that "prevailing" on the law as written means nothing if the Legislature rewrites the rules mid-case.Key points:Contempt requires literal violation in California, not just bad faith. But in federal court, violating the “spirit” of an order is contempt.Legislative abrogation torpedoed $1.2M in CEQA fees: Plaintiffs in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents won significant CEQA victories establishing that crowd noise and alternative locations must be analyzed—then watched the Legislature pass emergency legislation abrogating both holdings. After the Supreme Court reversed, the Court of Appeal denied nearly $1.2 million in private attorney general fees, calling the prior opinion "smoldering ruins, not citable precedent." The court held plaintiffs weren't "successful parties" because they failed to halt the project, even though they vindicated principles under the law as it existed when filed.Ninth Circuit discovery ruling survives en banc review: The court declined to rehear the Trump administration's challenge to a discovery order requiring production of federal reorganization and layoff plans, rejecting executive privilege claims without requiring plaintiffs to show bad faith. Judge Bumatay's dissent warned of a "binding dicta trap" where the panel's comments on what qualifies as deliberative could become binding precedent.California Supreme Court limits Public Records Act obligations: Superior Courts can issue declaratory relief even after documents are produced if the dispute is likely to recur, but the Public Records Act does not impose a statutory duty to preserve documents a public agency identifies as exempt.

This Day in Legal History: Marbury v. MadisonOn January 20, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that began as a minor dispute over an undelivered judicial commission and ended by redefining American constitutional law. The story traces back to the final days of the Adams administration, when outgoing President John Adams rushed to appoint Federalist judges before Thomas Jefferson took office. John Marshall, then serving simultaneously as Secretary of State and incoming Chief Justice, sealed the commissions but failed to deliver several of them. One of the would-be judges, William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to force Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, to hand over the commission.The case placed Marshall in a precarious position, as he was being asked to rule on a problem he had helped create. Marshall first held that Marbury had a legal right to his commission and that the law ordinarily provided a remedy when such rights were violated. He then turned to the Judiciary Act of 1789, which appeared to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. Marshall concluded that this provision conflicted with Article III of the Constitution, which strictly limits the Court's original jurisdiction. Rather than ordering Madison to act, Marshall declared that the statute itself was unconstitutional.By denying Marbury his commission while simultaneously asserting the power to strike down an act of Congress, Marshall executed a strategic legal maneuver that avoided a direct confrontation with the executive branch. The Court emerged stronger despite losing the immediate case. In explaining why the Constitution must prevail over conflicting statutes, Marshall articulated the principle of judicial review. That reasoning transformed the Supreme Court from a relatively weak institution into the ultimate interpreter of constitutional meaning.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to a Hawaii law that restricts carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the owner's explicit permission. The case was brought by three licensed concealed-carry holders and a local gun rights group after Hawaii enacted the law in 2023. Under the statute, individuals must have clear verbal or written authorization, including posted signage, before bringing a handgun onto most business premises. A lower federal court initially blocked the law, but the Ninth Circuit later ruled that the measure likely complies with the Second Amendment.Hawaii has argued that the law appropriately balances gun rights with property owners' authority to control access to their premises. The challengers contend that the rule effectively prevents lawful gun owners from engaging in everyday activities such as shopping, dining, or buying gas. The challengers are supported by the Trump administration, which claims the law severely burdens the practical exercise of Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court declined to review other portions of the law involving bans in sensitive places like beaches and bars.The dispute unfolds against the backdrop of the Court's recent expansion of gun rights, particularly its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which recognized a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. That decision also reshaped how courts evaluate gun regulations by focusing on historical analogues rather than modern policy goals.US Supreme Court to hear challenge to Hawaii handgun limits | ReutersA federal judge has allowed Dominion Energy to resume construction on its $11.2 billion offshore wind project off the coast of Virginia, marking another courtroom loss for President Donald Trump's efforts to curb offshore wind development. Judge Jamar Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Dominion could restart work while it continues to challenge a stop-work order issued by the Interior Department. That order had halted several offshore wind projects based on newly cited, classified national security concerns related to radar interference.Walker found that the government's suspension was overly sweeping as applied to Dominion's project and emphasized that the cited security risks related to turbine operations, not ongoing construction. Earlier in the week, other offshore wind developers had secured similar rulings, allowing their projects to move forward despite the administration's objections. Dominion has already invested close to $9 billion in the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, which is expected to supply electricity to hundreds of thousands of homes. The company said it would focus on safely resuming construction while continuing to pursue a long-term resolution with federal regulators.The decision underscores the legal and financial stakes for the offshore wind industry, as project delays can threaten multi-billion-dollar investments. At the same time, lawsuits challenging federal actions and the administration's opposition to offshore wind continue to create uncertainty for the sector. Several states, particularly along the East Coast, view offshore wind as critical to meeting growing energy demand and reducing emissions as electricity use increases.US judge allows Dominion offshore wind project to restart, another legal setback for Trump | ReutersFlorida has joined Texas in scaling back the American Bar Association's role in determining which law school graduates may sit for the state bar exam. In a 5–1 decision, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the ABA will no longer serve as the sole accrediting body for Florida bar eligibility, though graduates of ABA-accredited schools will remain eligible. The court said it plans to allow graduates of law schools approved by other federally recognized accrediting agencies to take the bar, even though no such agencies currently specialize in law school accreditation.The court framed its decision as an effort to expand access to affordable legal education while protecting academic freedom and nondiscrimination. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis praised the move, criticizing the ABA as overly partisan and arguing it should not control entry into the legal profession. The ABA responded that the ruling reaffirms state authority over licensing and said it would continue to promote the value of national accreditation standards.Florida's decision follows a similar move by the Supreme Court of Texas, which recently announced plans to develop its own criteria for approving non-ABA law schools. Other states, including Ohio and Tennessee, are also reviewing their accreditation rules. These developments come amid escalating conflict between the ABA and President Donald Trump's administration, which has taken steps to reduce the organization's influence across multiple areas, including judicial nominations and legal education.Within the ABA, the controversy has prompted internal reforms aimed at reinforcing the independence of its law school accreditation arm. One Florida justice dissented, warning that abandoning exclusive reliance on the ABA was an unnecessary and risky departure from a system that had functioned well for decades.Florida joins Texas in limiting ABA's law school oversight role | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I argue that the Internal Revenue Service's partnership audit program has effectively been dismantled under the second Trump administration, with specialized auditors fired, pushed out, or leaving altogether. These weren't ordinary revenue agents but highly trained experts who understood the most complex partnership structures and could spot abuse hidden deep inside tiered entities. Once that kind of institutional knowledge walks out the door, it can't simply be rebuilt by restoring funding later. There is no meaningful private-sector substitute for this expertise, and when these specialists leave government, they often stop doing enforcement work entirely.I explain that this collapse isn't just a federal tax problem—it's a looming state budget issue. High-income states that rely heavily on progressive income taxes are especially vulnerable when wealthy taxpayers shift income through opaque pass-through structures. For decades, states have relied on federal audits and enforcement as a backstop, but that dependency has now become a serious liability. I suggest that states step into the vacuum by hiring former IRS partnership specialists and building dedicated partnership audit units within their own revenue departments.With relatively modest investment, states could recover revenue that would otherwise vanish into complex and lightly monitored structures. I also propose a multistate enforcement compact that would allow states to share audit resources, staff, and findings, creating a decentralized alternative to federal enforcement. The core message is that while federal capacity has been allowed to wither, the expertise still exists—and states may be the last institutions capable of preserving it.IRS Partnership Audit Brain Drain Is an Opportunity for States This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Immigration: May the Trump Administration summarily cancel Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Venezuelans? - Argued: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 10:58:52 EDT

In This Episode Erin and Weer'd discuss: the shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis, and the greater implications it has on society; a truck attack on a protest in Los Angeles, with thankfully no serious injuries; and the Ninth Circuit ruling that California's ban on open carry is unconstitutional. Oddball breaks down the details of the NRA vs. NRA Foundation lawsuit; and David talks about 3D printed shooting targets. Did you know that we have a Patreon? Join now for the low, low cost of $4/month (that's $1/podcast) and you'll get to listen to our podcast on Friday instead of Mondays, as well as patron-only content like mag dump episodes, our hilarious blooper reels and film tracks. Main Topic Minneapolis ICE shooting: A minute-by-minute timeline of how Renee Nicole Good died Cellphone Video of Renee Good Shooting 8 USC 1357: Powers of immigration officers and employees Iran protest turns violent in LA California's ban on openly carrying guns is unconstitutional, appeals court rules Gun Lovers and Other Strangers Assorted Calibers Podcast Ep 288 Assorted Calibers Podcast Ep 292 COVID-19 Self-Healing Target Target Stencil 1 Target Stencil 2 Clay pigeon target holder Target Tack 14cm Target holder Target Stake Simple Target Uncommon Valor Brena Bock Author Page David Bock Author Page Team And More  

Free Speech: Does California's Age-Appropriate Design Code violate the First Amendment by imposing age-based regulations on services that are likely to be accessed by children? - Argued: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 15:40:49 EDT

It's Wednesday, January 14th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Most dangerous countries for Christians: The 2026 Red List Global Christian Relief released its 2026 Red List of the world's most dangerous countries to be a Christian.  The report verified nearly 2,000 Christians were killed between November 2023 and October 2025. The country with the most killings of Christians was Nigeria. The country with the most violence and intimidation against churches was Rwanda. China led with the most arrests and sentences of Christians. Mozambique saw the most displacement of believers. And Mexico had the most abductions of Christians.  Other dangerous countries for Christians included the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Russia, Ukraine, and Vietnam. Psalm 37:14-15 says, “The wicked have drawn the sword and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, to slay those who are of upright conduct. Their sword shall enter their own heart, and their bows shall be broken.” Trump threatens Nigeria with more military strikes Speaking of Nigeria, the country could see more military strikes from the United States if violence against Christians continues. On Christmas Day last month, the U.S. launched deadly strikes in Nigeria against militants linked with the Islamic State.   U.S. President Donald Trump told The New York Times last Thursday, “I'd love to make it a one-time strike. But if they continue to kill Christians it will be a many-time strike.” Listen to President Trump's warning last November. TRUMP: “I'm hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our cherished Christians.” Texas banned tax-funded abortion travel Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed victory last Friday in a case against San Antonio's abortion travel fund. The city established its so-called “Reproductive Justice Fund” last year to support women traveling to other states to kill their unborn babies. However, Texas subsequently passed a law to ban such funding. Attorney General Paxton commented on the case. He said, “I will always do everything in my power to prevent radicals from manipulating the system to murder innocent babies. … San Antonio's unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.” Trump wants to ban institutional investors in single-family homes President Donald Trump is calling for Congress to ban large institutional investors from buying single-family homes. Such investors have acquired thousands of single-family homes since the 2008 financial crisis.  President Trump hopes his ban on institutional investors would make single-family homes more affordable. The median price for an existing home hit a record $435,300 last year. On Truth Social, he wrote, “People live in homes, not corporations.” More immigrants left America than entered in 2025 A report by the Brookings Institute estimates that more immigrants left the U.S. than entered it last year. The report suggests net migration fell by anywhere from 10,000 to 295,000 in 2025. It's the first time in at least 50 years that net migration was negative for America. 2026 is also expected to see negative net migration. Actor Timothy Busfield arrested on child sex abuse charges NewsNation has confirmed that Emmy-winning actor Timothy Busfield has surrendered to law enforcement after an arrest warrant was issued last week amid allegations of sexual abuse involving minors in New Mexico. According to a criminal complaint, two young actors allege that Busfield, age 68, touched them inappropriately while on set filming the Fox series “The Cleaning Lady” from 2022 to 2024, where Busfield was an Executive Producer. The court documents detail a pattern of grooming, where Busfield would allegedly shower the children with gifts and praise, while also kissing and fondling the boys in a bedroom on set. They were 7 and 8 years old at the time. Record high of U.S. independents A new Gallup survey found a record-high 45 percent of U.S. adults identified as political independents last year. The last time that Americans were evenly split between Republicans, Independents, and Democrats was 2005. Since then, identification with Republicans and Democrats has dwindled to 27 percent each.  The rise of political independents comes as younger generations are less likely to identify with a party. However, slightly more Americans still lean Democrat than Republican.  Christian homeless shelter allowed to hire like-minded staff And finally, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of Union Gospel Mission last Tuesday. The Christian homeless shelter in Washington state serves anyone but only hires employees who agree with their religious beliefs. A state anti-discrimination law would have required the mission to hire people who did not align with their beliefs. So, the mission challenged the law with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom. Jeremiah Galus, Senior Counsel with the Christian legal group, said, “Yakima Union Gospel Mission exists to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through its homeless shelter, addiction-recovery programs, outreach efforts, meal services, and health clinics. The Ninth Circuit correctly ruled that the First Amendment protects the mission's freedom to hire fellow believers who share that calling.” Hebrews 13:16 says, “But do not forget to do good and to share, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Wednesday, January 14th, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Little v. Hecox | 01/13/26 | Docket #: 24-38 24-38 LITTLE, GOVERNOR OF IDAHO V. HECOX DECISION BELOW: 104 F.4th 1061 ORDER OF OCTOBER 20, 2025: RESPONDENT'S REQUEST THAT THE COURT DISMISS THE CASE AS MOOT IS DEFERRED PENDING ORAL ARGUMENT. SEE ACHESON HOTELS, LLC v. LAUFER , 601 U. S. 1, 4 (2023). CERT. GRANTED 7/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Women and girls have overcome decades of discrimination to achieve a more equal playing field in many arenas of American life-including sports. Yet in some competitions, female athletes have become bystanders in their own sports as male athletes who identify as female have taken the place of their female competitors-on the field and on the winners' podium. The Idaho Legislature addressed that injustice by enacting the Fairness in Women's Sports Act, which ensures that women and girls do not have to compete against men and boys no matter how those men and boys identify. The Act-one of 25 such state laws around the country-is consistent with longstanding government policies preserving women's and girls' sports due to the "average real differences" between the sexes. Clark ex rel. Clark v. Ariz. Interscholastic Ass'n, 695 F.2d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 1982). Breaking with this Court's precedents, its own caselaw, other circuit decisions, and biological reality, the Ninth Circuit panel here upheld an injunction against the Act because it prevents "transgender women and girls"-meaning males who identify as women and girls-from competing in "women's student athletics." App.4a-5a. The question presented is: Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 20-35813, 20-35815

Send us a textHeadlines race, facts walk. We open by unpacking the Minneapolis shooting through settled law rather than viral outrage: why vehicles are treated as deadly weapons, what “clean shoot” means in legal terms, and where personal responsibility, intent, and public perception collide. It's an uncomfortable, necessary look at risk math and how narratives can erase accountability.From there we head west to California, where Gavin Newsom's “model state” story collides with stubborn numbers. We examine the population exodus, sky-high cost of living, and homelessness spending that lacks clear outcomes. We challenge the notion of a “strong” economy built on volatile revenue, ask why record education funding isn't translating to proficiency, and explore how climate goals buckle under grid costs when theory meets the bill. Crime stats may be improving on paper, but trust is earned on sidewalks and subways, not in slides. The theme is consistent: speeches are easy; results are hard.We close with the Ninth Circuit's decision to reinstate school secrecy policies on gender identity during appeal and what that means for families. Citing key Supreme Court precedents, clinical guidelines, and survey data, we make the case for bringing parents into the process—because family involvement is one of the strongest protective factors for youth mental health. Educators are essential, but they are not clinicians, and policies that force them into that role without parents set kids up to struggle. The better path blends compassion with caution: multidisciplinary care, transparent communication, and shared responsibility.If this conversation challenged you, that's the point. Subscribe, share with a friend who loves data over spin, and leave a review telling us where you agree—or where you think we got it wrong. Your feedback drives the show.Support the show

The government can not force a Christian organization to hire employees who openly reject its faith and mission. __________ For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. 

A Downtown Seattle business suffered two break-ins in one week. A fired judge is reinstated after claiming criticism of her abusive personality was racism. // Multiple media outlets are debunking the claim that the Trump Administration passed over Venezuela’s opposition leader as the country’s new leader because she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. // Ninth Circuit smacks down Washington AG Nick Brown for targeting Christian homeless ministry.

Securities Law: Did Meta commit securities fraud by downplaying the effect that Apple's privacy changes would have on its business model? - Argued: Tue, 06 Jan 2026 8:43:19 EDT

Technology: Does CDA § 230 preclude lawsuits alleging social media addiction? - Argued: Tue, 06 Jan 2026 8:41:11 EDT

Second Amendment Foundation's Kostas Moros joins Cam to discuss the implications of the Ninth Circuit's recent ruling in Baird v. Bonta, which struck down the state's ban on open carry in 95% of the state.

2A Tuesday: Mark Walters Breaks Down California's Open Carry Ruling and Gun Rights Battles Summary: Mark Walters joins the show for 2A Tuesday to analyze the Ninth Circuit's decision striking down California's open carry ban, the legal reasoning under the Bruen Test, and the broader implications for gun rights nationwide. He also discusses red flag laws, campus carry, and state-level battles shaping the Second Amendment, emphasizing ongoing challenges and victories for gun owners. #2ATuesday #SecondAmendment #CaliforniaOpenCarry #BruenDecision #GunRights #RedFlagLaws #MarkWalters #ArmedAmericanRadio

Aaron kicks off 2026 with the stunning U.S. military raid that captured Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife in Caracas—Trump announces America will run the country until a proper transition, massive 20% drop in U.S. homicides brings rates near record lows, HHS freezes Minnesota child-care payments amid explosive Somali fraud allegations, Ninth Circuit strikes down California open-carry ban, Iranian protests rage, NYC swears in socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani, and more.   Maduro captured, Venezuela raid, Trump runs Venezuela, homicide rate drop, Somali fraud Minnesota, child care scam, California open carry, Iran protests, Zohran Mamdani mayor, Marco Rubio

Summary In the kickoff broadcast of Armed American Radio for 2026, host Mark Walters discusses significant topics surrounding the Second Amendment, including a recent Ninth Circuit ruling on open carry in California, the ongoing debate between open and concealed carry, and the implications of background checks on ammunition purchases. The conversation also touches on the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the political landscape affecting gun rights, emphasizing the importance of unity among patriots in defending their rights. In this conversation, Mark Walters discusses various themes surrounding gun rights, government preparedness, and the implications of recent political developments. The dialogue covers the failures of government systems, the importance of understanding individual rights as outlined in the Federalist Papers, and the potential impact of upcoming Supreme Court cases on gun legislation. The conversation also delves into the political landscape in Virginia and California, the significance of local politics, and personal stories that highlight the dangers of communism and the importance of individual rights. The speakers emphasize the need for active participation in political processes to safeguard freedoms. Takeaways The Ninth Circuit ruling affirms open carry as a constitutional right. Open carry and concealed carry are not interchangeable rights. Background checks for ammunition purchases are flawed and unconstitutional. The political landscape in California continues to challenge Second Amendment rights. The NFA and tax stamp changes are significant developments for gun owners. Gun control laws often fail to address the root causes of violence. The importance of historical context in understanding gun rights. Unity among gun rights advocates is crucial for effective advocacy. The ATF’s inefficiencies highlight the challenges faced by gun owners. The ongoing debate over gun rights reflects broader political tensions. The government often fails to anticipate the consequences of its actions. Understanding our rights is crucial for defending them. The Supreme Court’s decisions can significantly impact gun rights. California’s gun laws are restrictive and controversial. Local politics play a vital role in shaping gun legislation. Personal stories of communism highlight the importance of individual rights. The Democrat Party’s stance on gun rights is increasingly concerning. Active participation in politics is essential for protecting freedoms. The Federalist Papers provide insight into the founding principles of rights. Self-defense legal representation is crucial for gun owners. Keywords Armed American Radio, Second Amendment, Open Carry, Concealed Carry, Ninth Circuit, Gun Control, Background Checks, NFA, Tax Stamp, Political Commentary, gun rights, government preparedness, Supreme Court, Virginia politics, California gun laws, self-defense, communism, individual rights, Democrat Party, Federalist Papers

Summary In the kickoff broadcast of Armed American Radio for 2026, host Mark Walters discusses significant topics surrounding the Second Amendment, including a recent Ninth Circuit ruling on open carry in California, the ongoing debate between open and concealed carry, and the implications of background checks on ammunition purchases. The conversation also touches on the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the political landscape affecting gun rights, emphasizing the importance of unity among patriots in defending their rights. In this conversation, Mark Walters discusses various themes surrounding gun rights, government preparedness, and the implications of recent political developments. The dialogue covers the failures of government systems, the importance of understanding individual rights as outlined in the Federalist Papers, and the potential impact of upcoming Supreme Court cases on gun legislation. The conversation also delves into the political landscape in Virginia and California, the significance of local politics, and personal stories that highlight the dangers of communism and the importance of individual rights. The speakers emphasize the need for active participation in political processes to safeguard freedoms. Takeaways The Ninth Circuit ruling affirms open carry as a constitutional right. Open carry and concealed carry are not interchangeable rights. Background checks for ammunition purchases are flawed and unconstitutional. The political landscape in California continues to challenge Second Amendment rights. The NFA and tax stamp changes are significant developments for gun owners. Gun control laws often fail to address the root causes of violence. The importance of historical context in understanding gun rights. Unity among gun rights advocates is crucial for effective advocacy. The ATF’s inefficiencies highlight the challenges faced by gun owners. The ongoing debate over gun rights reflects broader political tensions. The government often fails to anticipate the consequences of its actions. Understanding our rights is crucial for defending them. The Supreme Court’s decisions can significantly impact gun rights. California’s gun laws are restrictive and controversial. Local politics play a vital role in shaping gun legislation. Personal stories of communism highlight the importance of individual rights. The Democrat Party’s stance on gun rights is increasingly concerning. Active participation in politics is essential for protecting freedoms. The Federalist Papers provide insight into the founding principles of rights. Self-defense legal representation is crucial for gun owners. Keywords Armed American Radio, Second Amendment, Open Carry, Concealed Carry, Ninth Circuit, Gun Control, Background Checks, NFA, Tax Stamp, Political Commentary, gun rights, government preparedness, Supreme Court, Virginia politics, California gun laws, self-defense, communism, individual rights, Democrat Party, Federalist Papers

Summary In the kickoff broadcast of Armed American Radio for 2026, host Mark Walters discusses significant topics surrounding the Second Amendment, including a recent Ninth Circuit ruling on open carry in California, the ongoing debate between open and concealed carry, and the implications of background checks on ammunition purchases. The conversation also touches on the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the political landscape affecting gun rights, emphasizing the importance of unity among patriots in defending their rights. In this conversation, Mark Walters discusses various themes surrounding gun rights, government preparedness, and the implications of recent political developments. The dialogue covers the failures of government systems, the importance of understanding individual rights as outlined in the Federalist Papers, and the potential impact of upcoming Supreme Court cases on gun legislation. The conversation also delves into the political landscape in Virginia and California, the significance of local politics, and personal stories that highlight the dangers of communism and the importance of individual rights. The speakers emphasize the need for active participation in political processes to safeguard freedoms. Takeaways The Ninth Circuit ruling affirms open carry as a constitutional right. Open carry and concealed carry are not interchangeable rights. Background checks for ammunition purchases are flawed and unconstitutional. The political landscape in California continues to challenge Second Amendment rights. The NFA and tax stamp changes are significant developments for gun owners. Gun control laws often fail to address the root causes of violence. The importance of historical context in understanding gun rights. Unity among gun rights advocates is crucial for effective advocacy. The ATF’s inefficiencies highlight the challenges faced by gun owners. The ongoing debate over gun rights reflects broader political tensions. The government often fails to anticipate the consequences of its actions. Understanding our rights is crucial for defending them. The Supreme Court’s decisions can significantly impact gun rights. California’s gun laws are restrictive and controversial. Local politics play a vital role in shaping gun legislation. Personal stories of communism highlight the importance of individual rights. The Democrat Party’s stance on gun rights is increasingly concerning. Active participation in politics is essential for protecting freedoms. The Federalist Papers provide insight into the founding principles of rights. Self-defense legal representation is crucial for gun owners. Armed American Radio, Second Amendment, Open Carry, Concealed Carry, Ninth Circuit, Gun Control, Background Checks, NFA, Tax Stamp, Political Commentary, gun rights, government preparedness, Supreme Court, Virginia politics, California gun laws, self-defense, communism, individual rights, Democrat Party, Federalist Papers

Molly Henry represents international ship owners in a practice spanning oil spill response, vessel arrests, cargo disputes, and casualties at sea. She explains how admiralty law—a conglomeration of international treaties and federal common law—treats ships as legal persons that can be arrested and sold to satisfy judgments. Molly describes her crisis management role, boarding vessels to investigate crew deaths and fielding calls at all hours when maritime casualties occur. She reflects on transitioning from task-based associate work to strategic case management, and how an early opportunity to argue before the Ninth Circuit built her confidence. Molly is a graduate of the Ohio State Moritz College of Law.This episode is hosted by Kyle McEntee.Mentioned in this episode:Access LawHub today!Colorado Law SchoolLearn more about Colorado LawLoyola Law SchoolLearn more about Loyola Law School

Matt Larosiere and Ivan T. Troll dive into a packed episode, starting with personal updates and a move. They explore the history of the Colt All American and discuss Matt Hoover's legal challenges. The episode covers Caribbean gun trafficking and analyzes a controversial gun seizure image. They critique the Trump administration's NFA contradictions and examine an AP article on mass killings post-Bruen. The ATF's rule on interstate NFA transport is scrutinized, followed by a look at shotguns in military history and a UK man's legal issues over a shotgun photo. They end with discussions on California ammo law, Rep. Ilhan Omar's gun control, and Florida's gun law repeal. Caribbean gun trafficking tied to hubs in Florida and Georgia Both sides of the mouth: The Government Defending NFA while Taxing at 0 Additionally, they're doing the same thing in the Colon case US mass killings are down in 2025 Proposed ATF Final Rule Would Simplify Interstate Transport Of Some NFA Items Traditional Arms: Fuddbusters and Ratman America's Dumbest Shotgun Earns Another U.S. Army Contract Man Arrested in UK for Posting Shotgun Photo From Florida Trip to Linkedin MAF Corp: Fudbdusterss 9th Circuit revives California law requiring background checks for ammo purchases Rep. Ilhan Omar Pushes for Federal Gun Registry and Nationwide Buyback FFL Payments US Justice Department plans gun rights office within civil rights unit Florida: Pro-Gun Bill Repealing Adult Age Discrimination Advances to House Vote Patriot patch Co. TWIG10   Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction and sponsors 1:37 Consolidated: Ivan's updates and Matt's moving 2:31 Colt All American discussion 5:24 Matt Hoover's legal situation 6:28a Caribbean gun trafficking report 8:18 Analysis of gun seizure image 15:03 Trump admin and NFA contradictions 26:39 AP article on mass killings and crime post-Bruin 32:05 ATF rule on interstate NFA transport 38:21 Sponsor: Traditional Arms Holsters 38:58 Shotguns: History and military use 46:38 UK man's shotgun photo incident 52:22 Sponsor: MAF Corporation 53:16 Ninth Circuit and California ammo law 57:12 Rep. Ilhan Omar's gun control efforts 1:02:14 Sponsor: FFLPaymentProcessing.com 1:02:57 DOJ's gun rights office and Florida gun law repeal 1:07:49 Sponsor: PatriotPatch.co 1:09:43 Closing remarks and Patreon promotion

Join the multi-talented Jay Kuo for "political and legal analysis with a dose of humor." Jay will discuss issues ranging from the president's use of the National Guard, immigration, Supreme Court decisions and more. About the Speaker Jay Kuo is the chair-elect of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBTQ+ civil rights organization with more than 3.3 million members. He currently leads its Public Policy Committee to help elect equality-focused candidates at the national, state and local level. Jay is the CEO and founder of The Social Edge, a digital publishing and social media company. As head of "Team Takei,” he built actor and activist George Takei's social media into an online juggernaut reaching more than 25 million fans. Jay writes a popular daily Substack on politics and law called "The Status Kuo," which has more than 5 million monthly reads. Bu that is not all. He is a two-time Tony winning co-producer for Hadestown and The Inheritance and is currently developing two new musical productions in the U.K. Jay is also a musician and composed the score for the Broadway musical Allegiance.  Jay is a partner in Gaingels, the nation's largest LGBTQ+ investing group. He has worked as an appellate litigator admitted to practice before the Ninth Circuit, where he argued the first “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” challenge in 1996, and is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court bar. Jay has previously served on the boards of the Northern California ACLU and the Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom. He currently lives in New York City, where he is a single dad with two beautiful infant children, Riley and Ronan. Commonwealth Club World Affairs of California is a nonprofit public forum; we welcome donations made during registration to support the production of our programming. See more  Michelle Meow Show programs at Commonwealth Club World Affairs of California. Commonwealth Club World Affairs is a public forum. Any views expressed in our programs are those of the speakers and not of Commonwealth Club World Affairs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Riley Gaines joins Jillian to share opinions, feelings, and expertise on this week's trending news stories in America. From week 3 of the historic government shutdown (polls, paychecks, fallout) to the Ninth Circuit's National Guard ruling in Portland Oregon (federal vs. state power), No Kings Protests, ICE Tracker Controversy, the USA Powerlifting/Minnesota Supreme Court case (fairness in women's sports), and what Democrats actually stand for on immigration (Title 8, expedited removal, sanctuary city policies, then-vs-now with Clinton/Obama). Plus: Fetterman's viral moment, new data on trans identification trends, and more.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

New York Attorney General Letitia James indicted by a Virginia grand jury on charges of bank fraud and false statements, accused of lying about her use of a Norfolk property to secure favorable loan terms. President Trump touts the historic Israel–Hamas hostage deal during his cabinet meeting, and reacts to the potential for a Nobel Peace Prize. Virginia Democrat candidate for Attorney General Jay Jones faces plummeting favorability after texts surface of him fantasizing about shooting a Republican House Speaker and his children. The Ninth Circuit appears likely to side with the Trump administration in Oregon's lawsuit over federal National Guard deployments to Portland amid ongoing unrest. Federal and state officials cite more than 500 arrests in Memphis as proof the administration's crime crackdown, aided by the National Guard, is already delivering major results.All Family Pharmacy: Order now at https://allfamilypharmacy.com/MEGYN and save 10% with code MEGYN10Lean: Visit https://TakeLean.com & use code MK for 20% off Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.