Podcasts about ninth circuit

In this episode of The Passing Judgment Podcast, host Jessica Levinson unpacks President Trump's decision to deploy federal troops—including the National Guard and Marines—to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Jessica explains the current California v. Trump trial, which centers on whether the administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act—a law barring the military from acting as domestic law enforcement unless certain exceptions apply. She discusses the difference between supporting federal agencies and directly enforcing laws, and outlines legal exceptions like the Insurrection Act. Jessica also details the president's authority over the D.C. National Guard and the special rules for taking over the District's police under the Home Rule Act.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:The Posse Comitatus Act at Center Stage: The ongoing bench trial (California v. Trump) challenges whether deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles crossed the legal line into direct law enforcement, potentially violating the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act.Presidential Authority—A Legal Balancing Act: While the president (any president!) can federalize the National Guard, there are boundaries—like the Insurrection Act—that determine what those troops can actually do once deployed. This nuance will shape legal precedents nationwide.D.C. vs. State Jurisdictions: The president has much more direct control over deploying and directing the National Guard in D.C., versus states like California. Taking control of local police, however, requires navigating additional legal steps under the Home Rule Act.Mentioned In The Episode: National Guard in Los Angeles: Decoding the Law Behind the StandoffThe Legal Battle Over Federalizing California's National Guard: What You Need to KnowFollow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In part C of VanDyke's Republican dissent in our series of dissents in the en banc resolution of Duncan v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, 20 March 2025), we continue covering his reductio ad absurdum form of argument. This episode is part 3 of Judge VanDyke's epic dissent to that resolution which caught a lot of controversy because part of his dissent was a link to the following website : https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/23-55805/opinion , which, as you'll see, does not go to the Ninth Circuit federal government website but instead goes to YouTube, the Ninth Circuit's YouTube channel. The link for the en banc opinion of the Court as well as the dissents covered here can be found here : https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/20/23-55805.pdf These materials, the text and the video linked within the text of Judge VanDyke's dissent are in the public domain and have no copyright restrictions upon them. I have done the best I could, given the technology, to make a fair use of them with a transformative reading for educational purposes only. The controversy around the video includes not merely that Judge VanDyke, a Trump appointee to the Court, included video as a supplement embedded within his dissent, which he (and the Court) clearly consider to be official parts of his dissent, but what he filmed there in the federal courthouse in Reno, Nevada (probably, since that's where his chambers are according to the US Ninth Circuit's seniority website). He filmed, in his chambers, wearing his black robe, with views on the video to the tune of hundreds of thousands, a tote bag with his own guns, his own handguns, real firearms. He mentioned that the firearms used for the video were rendered inoperable, unloaded, and safe for purposes of the educational part of the dissent. He claimed to be filling in missing background information useful for understanding the record before the court, not for supplementing the record per se with his, the Judge's, testimony -- something that would be not only unusual but inappropriate. I'd love to hear what you think in the comments. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-civil-liberties podcast. Therefore, welcome Judge VanDyke . The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

This Day in Legal History: Expansion of US House of RepresentativesOn August 8, 1911, President William Howard Taft signed into law a measure that permanently expanded the size of the U.S. House of Representatives from 391 to 433 members. This change followed the 1910 census, which revealed significant population growth and shifts in where Americans lived. Under the Constitution, House seats are apportioned among the states according to population, and each decade's census can lead to changes in representation. Prior to 1911, Congress often responded to new census data by simply adding seats rather than redistributing them among states. The 1911 legislation reflected both that tradition and the political realities of the time, as expanding the House allowed growing states to gain representation without forcing other states to lose seats. It also set the stage for the modern size of the House—just two years later, New Mexico and Arizona joined the Union, bringing the total to 435 members. That number has remained fixed by law since 1929, despite the nation's continued population growth. The 1911 increase carried implications beyond arithmetic: more members meant more voices, more local interests, and a larger scale for legislative negotiation. It also underscored Congress's role in adapting the machinery of government to the country's evolving demographics. In many ways, the expansion reflected Progressive Era concerns with fair representation and democratic responsiveness. While debates over House size have continued into the 21st century, the 1911 law remains a pivotal moment in the chamber's institutional development. By enlarging the House, Taft and Congress preserved proportionality between population and representation, even if only temporarily.After the 1911 increase under President Taft, the size of the House stayed at 435 members following Arizona and New Mexico's statehood in 1912. The idea at the time was that future census results would continue to trigger changes, either by adding more seats or by redistributing them among the states.But after the 1920 census, Congress ran into a political deadlock. Massive population growth in cities—and significant immigration—meant that urban states stood to gain seats while rural states would lose them. Rural lawmakers, who still held considerable power, resisted any reapportionment that would diminish their influence. For nearly a decade, Congress failed to pass a new apportionment plan, effectively ignoring the 1920 census results.To end the stalemate, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. This law capped the House at 435 seats and created an automatic formula for reapportionment after each census. Instead of adding seats to reflect population growth, the formula reassigns the fixed number of seats among states. This froze the size of the House even as the U.S. population more than tripled over the next century.Critics argue that the 1929 cap dilutes individual representation—today, each representative speaks for about 760,000 constituents on average, compared to roughly 200,000 in 1911. Supporters counter that a larger House would be unwieldy and harder to manage. The debate over whether to expand the House continues, but the 1929 law has held for nearly a hundred years, making Taft's 1911 expansion the last time the chamber permanently grew in size.A fourth federal court blocked President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship, halting its enforcement nationwide. The order, issued on Trump's first day back in office, sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Immigrant rights groups and 22 Democratic state attorneys general challenged the policy as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland sided with the challengers, issuing the latest in a series of nationwide injunctions despite a recent Supreme Court ruling narrowing judges' power to block policies universally. That June decision left a key exception: courts could still halt policies nationwide in certified class actions. Advocates quickly filed two such cases, including the one before Boardman, who had previously ruled in February that Trump's interpretation of the Constitution was one “no court in the country has ever endorsed.”In July, Boardman signaled she would grant national relief once class status was approved, but waited for the Fourth Circuit to return the case after the administration's appeal was dismissed. Her new order covers all affected children born in the U.S., making it the first post–Supreme Court nationwide injunction issued via class action in the birthright fight. The case, Casa Inc. et al v. Trump, continues as part of a broader legal battle over the limits of presidential power in defining citizenship.Fourth court blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order nationwide | ReutersThe Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a lower court order restricting immigration enforcement tactics in much of Southern California. The Justice Department's emergency filing seeks to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who barred federal agents from stopping or detaining individuals based solely on race, ethnicity, language, or similar factors without “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful presence. Her temporary restraining order stemmed from a proposed class action brought by Latino plaintiffs—including U.S. citizens—who alleged they were wrongly targeted, detained, or roughed up during immigration raids in Los Angeles.The plaintiffs argued these tactics violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, describing indiscriminate stops by masked, armed agents. Judge Frimpong agreed, finding the operations likely unconstitutional and blocking the use of race, ethnicity, language, workplace type, or certain locations as stand-alone reasons for suspicion. The Ninth Circuit declined to lift her order earlier this month.The challenge comes amid a major escalation in Trump's immigration enforcement push, which includes aggressive deportation targets, mass raids, and even the deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines in Los Angeles—a move sharply opposed by state officials. The administration contends the restrictions hinder operations in a heavily populated region central to its immigration agenda. The Supreme Court will now decide whether to allow these limits to remain in place while the underlying constitutional challenge proceeds.Trump asks US Supreme Court to lift limits on immigration raids | ReutersMilbank announced it will pay seniority-based “special” bonuses to associates and special counsel worldwide, ranging from $6,000 to $25,000, with payments due by September 30. Milbank, of course, is among the big firms that bent to Trump's strong-arm tactics, cutting a $100 million deal and dropping diversity-based hiring rather than risk becoming his next executive-order target. The New York-founded firm used the same bonus scale last summer, signaling optimism about high activity levels through the rest of the year. Milbank, known for setting the pace in Big Law compensation, is the first major corporate firm to roll out such bonuses this summer—a move that often pressures competitors to follow suit.Special bonuses are not standard annual payouts, and last year rival firms mostly waited until year's end to match Milbank's mid-year scale, adding those amounts to their regular year-end bonuses. Milbank also led the market in November 2024 with annual bonuses up to $115,000. The firm is one of nine that reached agreements with President Trump earlier this year after his executive orders restricted certain law firms' access to federal buildings, officials, and contracting work.In a smaller but notable move, New York boutique Otterbourg recently awarded all full-time associates a $15,000 mid-year bonus, citing strong performance and contributions to the firm's success.Law firm Milbank to pay out 'special' bonuses for associates | ReutersMilbank reaches deal with Trump as divide among law firms deepens | ReutersA federal judge in North Dakota vacated the Federal Reserve's rule capping debit card “swipe fees” at 21 cents per transaction, siding with retailers who have long argued the cap is too high. The decision, which found the Fed exceeded its authority by including certain costs in the fee calculation under Regulation II, will not take effect immediately to allow time for appeal. The case was brought by Corner Post, a convenience store that claimed the Fed ignored Congress's directive to set issuer- and transaction-specific standards under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.Banks, backed by groups like the Bank Policy Institute, defended the cap as compliant with the law, while retailers and small business advocates supported Corner Post's challenge. This is Judge Daniel Traynor's second ruling in the dispute; he initially dismissed the case in 2022 as untimely, but the U.S. Supreme Court revived it in 2024, easing limits on challenges to older regulations. An appeal to the Eighth Circuit is expected, with the losing side likely to seek Supreme Court review. The ruling comes as the Fed separately considers lowering the cap to 14.4 cents, a proposal still pending.US judge vacates Fed's debit card 'swipe fees' rule, but pauses order for appeal | ReutersTexas-based Fintiv sued Apple in federal court, accusing the company of stealing trade secrets to develop Apple Pay. Fintiv claims the mobile wallet's core technology originated with CorFire, a company it acquired in 2014, and that Apple learned of it during 2011–2012 meetings and nondisclosure agreements intended to explore licensing. According to the complaint, Apple instead hired away CorFire employees and used the technology without permission, launching Apple Pay in 2014 and expanding it globally.Fintiv alleges Apple has run an informal racketeering operation, using Apple Pay to collect transaction fees for major banks and credit card networks, generating billions in revenue without compensating Fintiv. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages under federal and Georgia trade secret and anti-racketeering laws, including RICO. Apple is the sole defendant and has not commented.The case follows the recent dismissal of Fintiv's related patent lawsuit against Apple in Texas, which the company plans to appeal. The new lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, where CorFire was originally based.Lawsuit accuses Apple of stealing trade secrets to create Apple Pay | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Antonín DvořákThis week's closing theme comes from a composer who knew how to weave folk spirit into the fabric of high art without losing either warmth or polish. Dvořák, born in 1841 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew from a village-trained violist into one of the most celebrated composers of the late 19th century. His music often married classical forms with the rhythms, turns, and dances of his homeland—an approach that made his work instantly recognizable and deeply human.His Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81, written in 1887, is a prime example. Dvořák had actually written an earlier piano quintet in the same key but was dissatisfied with it; rather than revise, he started fresh. The result is one of the most beloved chamber works in the repertoire. Across its four movements, the quintet blends lyrical sweep with earthy energy—romantic in scope, yet grounded in folk idiom. The opening Allegro bursts forth with an expansive theme, the piano and strings trading lines as if in animated conversation.The second movement, marked Dumka, takes its name from a Slavic song form alternating between melancholy reflection and lively dance. Here, Dvořák's gift for emotional contrast is on full display—wistful cello lines give way to playful rhythms before sinking back into introspection. The third movement is a Furiant, a fiery Czech dance bristling with syncopation and vigor, while the finale spins out buoyant melodies with an almost orchestral fullness.It is music that feels both intimate and vast, as if played in a parlor with the windows thrown open to the countryside. With this quintet, Dvořák shows how local color can speak in a universal voice—how the tunes of a homeland can travel the world without losing their soul. For our purposes, it's a reminder that endings can be celebratory, heartfelt, and just a bit homespun.Without further ado, Antonín Dvořák's Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81 – enjoy! 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 week Ken and Josh discuss the next steps the Trump administration may be considering to deal with the Epstein mess: what to do about the files, what to do about the transcript of Todd Blanche's meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell, who was moved to a much nicer federal prison, has a colorable argument that her conviction should be thrown out because she was supposed to be covered by the sweetheart deal Jeffrey Epstein cut with federal prosecutors back during the Bush administration.Plus: Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl are pleading no-contest to Michigan state crimes relating to their voter-suppression robocalls, the Ninth Circuit has denied the government a stay with regard to the temporary restraining order restricting the grounds on which ICE can detain suspected illegal migrants, and in the Valley, former NBA star Gilbert Arenas has been indicted for running an illegal poker game, updates in the Trump v. Murdoch case and regarding an apparent DOJ investigation into James Comey.Visit serioustrouble.show to sign up for our newsletter and find a transcript of this episode. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.serioustrouble.show/subscribe

In part B of VanDyke's Republican dissent in our series of dissents in the en banc resolution of Duncan v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, 20 March 2025), we continue covering his reductio ad absurdum form of argument. This episode is part 2 of Judge VanDyke's epic dissent to that resolution which caught a lot of controversy because part of his dissent was a link to the following website : https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/23-55805/opinion , which, as you'll see, does not go to the Ninth Circuit federal government website but instead goes to YouTube, the Ninth Circuit's YouTube channel. The link for the en banc opinion of the Court as well as the dissents covered here can be found here : https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/20/23-55805.pdf These materials, the text and the video linked within the text of Judge VanDyke's dissent are in the public domain and have no copyright restrictions upon them. I have done the best I could, given the technology, to make a fair use of them with a transformative reading for educational purposes only. The controversy around the video includes not merely that Judge VanDyke, a Trump appointee to the Court, included video as a supplement embedded within his dissent, which he (and the Court) clearly consider to be official parts of his dissent, but what he filmed there in the federal courthouse in Reno, Nevada (probably, since that's where his chambers are according to the US Ninth Circuit's seniority website). He filmed, in his chambers, wearing his black robe, with views on the video to the tune of hundreds of thousands, a tote bag with his own guns, his own handguns, real firearms. He mentioned that the firearms used for the video were rendered inoperable, unloaded, and safe for purposes of the educational part of the dissent. He claimed to be filling in missing background information useful for understanding the record before the court, not for supplementing the record per se with his, the Judge's, testimony -- something that would be not only unusual but inappropriate. I'd love to hear what you think in the comments. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-civil-liberties podcast. Therefore, welcome Judge VanDyke . The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

In Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., the Ninth Circuit ruled that, in FLSA collective actions, federal courts must evaluate personal jurisdiction before allowing notices to out-of-state employees in nationwide claims—a move that strengthens employers' ability to challenge these cases. Key Takeaways for Employers Jurisdiction matters: Courts must confirm jurisdiction before notifying out-of-state employees. Limited forum shopping: Plaintiffs face limits to filing in unrelated jurisdictions. Stronger grounds for employers: Employers can challenge out-of-state claims with no forum ties. Arbitration implications: Courts may notify employees under arbitration agreements. In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Courtney McFate describes the Harrington ruling and shares insights to help employers adapt and minimize costly lawsuits. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw399 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Administrative Law: May the Trump Administration issue a blanket cancellation of grants to researchers at the University of California? - Argued: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 18:46:23 EDT

This Day in Legal History: Patent Office OpenedOn this day in legal history, July 31, 1790, the United States issued its first patent under the newly created Patent Act of 1790. The inaugural patent was granted to Samuel Hopkins of Vermont for a process of making potash, an essential industrial chemical used in soap and fertilizer production. Signed by President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, this first patent reflected the constitutional mandate to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.”The Patent Act established a system that allowed inventors to secure exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited time, fostering a culture of innovation. Unlike today's process, early patents required a review by a board of Cabinet-level officials and carried no numbering system—Hopkins' patent is only retroactively considered Patent No. 1.This moment marked the beginning of formal intellectual property protection in the U.S., setting the foundation for one of the world's most robust patent systems. The legal infrastructure created that year would evolve into the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, playing a central role in industrial and technological development over the next two centuries. It was a clear sign of the young republic's commitment to innovation through legal means.A White House report released Wednesday by President Trump's crypto working group calls for swift regulatory action on digital assets. The administration urged Congress to pass a comprehensive crypto bill, such as the Clarity Act, while advocating for key additions. These include allowing platforms to both trade and hold crypto, and tailoring disclosure requirements for crypto securities. The report also recommends giving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) authority over crypto spot markets and embracing decentralized finance technologies.In addition to legislative suggestions, the White House wants the SEC and CFTC to act under their current powers to enable federal-level trading of digital assets. The report promotes using tools like safe harbors and regulatory sandboxes to accelerate access to new financial products, including tokenized assets like real estate and stocks. This approach reflects Trump's broader campaign promise to foster crypto innovation, in sharp contrast to the Biden administration's enforcement-heavy stance, which included lawsuits against major exchanges that have since been dropped.Despite concerns over potential conflicts of interest—given Trump's family's crypto ventures and his personal stake in a crypto platform—the administration has denied any impropriety. The report's findings could significantly shape the direction of ongoing legislative negotiations and regulatory frameworks.White House in crypto policy report calls for SEC action, new legislation | ReutersA proposed budget from the U.S. House of Representatives threatens major cuts to the federal public defense system, according to a July 25 memo from Judge Robert Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. If enacted, the judiciary warns it may be forced to eliminate more than 600 positions in the Defender Services program or delay payments to court-appointed defense attorneys by over two months—potentially the longest such delay ever.The $8.9 billion budget plan advanced by the House Appropriations Committee's financial services subcommittee increases overall judiciary funding by 3.5%, but it still falls significantly short of what the courts requested. Specifically, the $1.57 billion allocated to Defender Services is $196 million less than needed, despite being an 8.2% increase from the previous year. This shortfall could impair the judiciary's ability to meet its constitutional obligations under Gideon v. Wainwright, which requires that indigent criminal defendants receive legal representation.The judiciary is also currently experiencing a funding gap that has already caused a three-month delay in payments to Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel attorneys. Without additional funding, the delay could extend to 77 days next year, further weakening the public defense infrastructure. The judiciary has asked for $116 million in supplemental funding to stabilize the program.The full House Appropriations Committee is not expected to take up the bill until September, and the Senate has not yet released its version.US House budget threatens over 600 public defender jobs, judiciary warns | ReutersUber is facing a pivotal legal challenge in California state court over its responsibility to protect riders from sexual assault by its drivers. A hearing before Judge Ethan Schulman will determine whether hundreds of consolidated cases move forward as bellwether jury trials this fall. These cases center on whether Uber should be liable for assaults allegedly committed by drivers who, plaintiffs argue, exploited Uber's lack of mandatory training, in-vehicle cameras, or stricter vetting.Uber defends itself by claiming drivers are independent contractors and that criminal behavior is unforeseeable, not the company's legal responsibility. It points to safety measures like GPS tracking and background checks as fulfilling its obligations. However, plaintiffs argue that Uber promoted itself as a safe alternative for intoxicated riders and should be held to the higher duty of care expected of a “common carrier,” similar to taxi services.A central legal issue is whether Uber's conduct constitutes misfeasance—actively creating risk—or nonfeasance—failing to prevent harm. Under California law, a company with a “special relationship” with its customers, like a common carrier, must exercise “utmost care.” A federal judge has already ruled that Uber qualifies as a common carrier in related litigation.Uber's broader legal strategy has included challenging consolidated suits through the Ninth Circuit and supporting a Nevada ballot measure to limit plaintiffs' attorneys' fees—both of which failed. Legal experts note Uber faces an uphill battle, as courts are increasingly viewing ride-hailing platforms as more than passive intermediaries.Uber's Legal Duty to Riders at Forefront of Mass Assault CasesEric Tung, President Trump's nominee for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, defended controversial past remarks on gender roles during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday. Democratic senators, particularly Alex Padilla and Dick Durbin, pressed Tung over statements he made as a Yale undergraduate in 2004, where he criticized radical feminists and asserted that gender roles support institutions like marriage. Padilla called the comments “reprehensible,” while Durbin challenged Tung's recent views as expressed at a Federalist Society event, where Tung appeared to reject constitutional protections for abortion, same-sex marriage, and private sexual conduct.Tung explained that his undergraduate comments were based on his belief at the time that men and women had complementary roles and that the family should be strengthened. He noted that his wife has had a distinguished professional and political career, arguing she excels in many areas. Though he affirmed that Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, is binding precedent, he declined to discuss his personal views on gender roles, citing potential future cases.Tung, a former clerk for Justices Scalia and Gorsuch and a partner at Jones Day, emphasized his originalist and textualist judicial philosophy. Despite strong backing from Republicans on the panel, Democrats criticized his ideological leanings and questioned his fitness for a lifetime appointment to the influential appellate court.Trump appellate court nominee defends comments on 'gender roles' | 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

Immigration: May the Trump Administration impose arrest quotas on ICE agents if they lead to arbitrary and unlawful arrests? - Argued: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:41:45 EDT

A competitor could trigger a federal investigation against your company, just by filing a whistleblower complaint about your imports. In this episode, Michael Volkov explores how the Trump Administration is reshaping the enforcement landscape by linking trade compliance and the False Claims Act (FCA) in unprecedented ways. With “trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion” now a DOJ national priority, companies engaged in international trade face growing legal and reputational risks. A recent Ninth Circuit ruling has only intensified the stakes.You'll hear him discuss:Why DOJ is combining trade enforcement and FCA cases, and what that means for companies that import goods into the U.S.How “reverse false claims” work in the trade context, and why import misclassification, undervaluation, or incorrect country-of-origin declarations are now high-risk areas.Recent high-dollar settlements - including $45 million in one case - where companies paid the price for customs fraud violations.The significance of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Island Industries v. Sigma Corp., which confirmed DOJ's ability to pursue customs fraud claims under the FCA in federal court.How whistleblowers, including competitors, are using FCA claims as a strategic tool in the marketplace, leading to sealed complaints and increased litigation.What companies should be doing now to evaluate and reinforce their trade compliance programs, from reviewing documentation and broker relationships to training and internal reporting.Why ignoring tariff and duty obligations - or failing to investigate them thoroughly - could be seen as deliberate indifference, exposing companies to both civil and criminal liability.ResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

In This Hour:-- Olympic shooting champion Kim Rhode was the lead on lawsuit challenging Califonia's law restricting the sale of ammunition.  She describes how she just won at the Ninth Circuit.--  The media won't report that it was a man with a gun who stopped the mass stabbing at a store in Michigan.--  He put down his gun, and the dog fired it.  The shot almost hit him.  Gun Talk 07.27.25 Hour 1Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/gun-talk--6185159/support.

Hello everyone and welcome back to This Week in Guns, brought to you by Patriot Patch Company, FFLPayments, and MAF Corporation. This show offers commentary on the latest firearms industry news, information and buzz. I'm your host Matthew Larosiere and I'm joined by the ratman. Congressman tries to add bill amendment to increase NFA Tax Traditional Arms: Fuddbusters and Ratman Large mediocre law funds ammo production and scale-up It ND's today  MAF Corp: Fudbdusterss Kim Rhode & CRPA beat CA's ammo background checks/fees at n9th's circus Nonviolent felons federal rights restoration proposed rule FFL Payments Proposed ATF Budget Cuts Thing that would be cool if it happened but will not happen proposed Patriot patch Co. TWIG10   Timestamps: 1:10 Proposed amendment to HR 3944 and quiet ammo revolution 5:49 Sponsor: Traditional Arms 7:39 Ammo pricing, supply issues, and Air Force M18 pistol update 17:45 Sponsor: MAF Corporation 18:19 Ninth Circuit ruling on California ammo law and its impact 24:46 Proposed rule to restore firearm rights 32:18 Sponsor: FFLPaymentProcessing.com 33:44 ATF budget cuts and the FIRE Act 43:28 Sponsor: Patriot Patch Company 44:26 Closing remarks and support information   Key Points: California's ammunition background check law was struck down as unconstitutional, affirming that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to procure ammunition. The Air Force has paused the use of the M18 pistol after an accidental discharge led to an airman's death, highlighting ongoing concerns about the safety of the SIG P320 series. A proposed federal rule aims to restore firearm rights to individuals previously precluded from possessing firearms, addressing a long-standing gap in the application of the Gun Control Act.

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics surrounding gun control, focusing on Gavin Newsom's recent actions and statements regarding the Second Amendment. The conversation delves into the implications of background checks, the role of public opinion in constitutional rights, and the responsibilities of gun manufacturers in the political landscape. The episode also touches on the campaign against Pam Bondi by March for Our Lives, highlighting the ongoing battle over gun rights in America. Takeaways Gavin Newsom's stance on gun control is contradictory. Background checks for ammunition purchases were struck down by the Ninth Circuit. Public opinion polls should not dictate constitutional rights. The U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Gun manufacturers need to take a stand against tyrannical laws. Pam Bondi's actions have drawn criticism from gun control advocates. The gun industry often fails to support its own rights. Leadership in the gun industry is lacking and needs to be more assertive. The concept of rights versus privileges is crucial in the gun debate. The fight for gun rights is ongoing and requires active participation. Keywords Gavin Newsom, gun control, Second Amendment, background checks, democracy, gun manufacturers, Pam Bondi, March for Our Lives, political landscape, constitutional rights  

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, the National Rifle Association, and the latest updates from the Ninth Circuit Court. The show features a conversation with Tim Roberts from Patriots Relief, where they explore the benefits of CBD products for pain relief and overall wellness. The episode also highlights the importance of gun rights and the ongoing legal battles surrounding them, including insights from Charlie Kirk's campus discussions. Takeaways Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of gun rights and the role of the NRA. Tim Roberts discusses the effectiveness of CBD products for pain relief. The Ninth Circuit Court is showing positive rulings for gun rights advocates. Mark expresses frustration with the slow progress in Washington regarding gun legislation. The conversation touches on the recent losses in the music industry and their cultural impact. Tim shares personal experiences with Patriots Relief products and their benefits. Mark highlights the significance of supporting organizations that fight for gun rights. The episode discusses the challenges faced by gun owners in California. Mark and Mike from Arms Room Radio debate the nature of gun ownership as a right versus a privilege. The show encourages listeners to stay informed and engaged in the fight for their rights. Keywords gun rights, Patriots Relief, NRA, Charlie Kirk, Ninth Circuit, CBD products, self-defense, talk radio, conservative voice, firearms  

Today's HeadlinesEthereum is climbing. It's reached it's highest percentage against BTC dominance since 2023 and for the first time in two years, there is more perps trading volume on ETH than BTC.BitMine Immersion has doubled its total of Ethereum, bringing its ETH Treasury Total past $2 BillionSolana devs have confirmed a 66% block limit increase to 100M compute units to further boost network capacity. This follows Tuesdays 20% jump to 60M at epoch 822.The Ninth Circuit ruled that NFTs qualify for trademark protection, sending Yuga Labs' case against Ryder Ripps back to trial to decide if buyers were misled by his copycat collection.Lastly, Hacken released their First Half of 2025 Hack report. As we've been saying on this show, social engineering hacks are on the rise. The problem is always the people.Friends of the ShowC3The C3 team has more than 20 years of experience in journalism, including leading the editorial and content side of a major Web3 news publication. They are also experienced AI and Web3 PR professionals, regularly placing content in leading web3 and AI publications. C3's members previously co-founded the PR department at SCRIB3, and have experience with clients such as EigenLayer, VanEck, Monad, SKALE Network, LEVR Bet, Symmio, Camp Network, Evmos, Avail, Moonbeam, and others.WHERE TO FIND DCNdailycryptonews.nethttps://twitter.com/DCNDailyCryptoEMAIL or FOLLOW the HostEmail: kyle@dailycryptonews.netX: @CryptoQuile Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A federal court in LA has stopped ICE from detaining people for deportation because they look Latino – that's racial discrimination, and it's unconstitutional, the court said. Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel will explain what's next as he government appeals the case to the Ninth Circuit.Also: How does a movement build support when large parts of the country are opposed to its goals? How do you connect with people who disagree with you? For some answers we'll turn to long-time organizer Michael Ansara -- his new book is “The Hard Work of Hope.”Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

A federal court in LA has stopped ICE from detaining people for deportation because they look Latino – that's racial discrimination, and it's unconstitutional, the court said. Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel will explain what's next as he government appeals the case to the Ninth Circuit.Also: How does a movement build support when large parts of the country are opposed to its goals? How do you connect with people who disagree with you? For some answers we'll turn to long-time organizer Michael Ansara -- his new book is “The Hard Work of Hope.”Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Intellectual Property: When is it copyright infringement to base a tattoo on a photograph? - Argued: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 11:21:33 EDT

Labor: When may the President terminate a federal employee union contract on grounds of "national security"? - Argued: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 11:28:57 EDT

Immigration: Does the DHS Secretary have absolute discretion to terminate the temporary protected status of a class of immigrants? - Argued: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:26:33 EDT

This is the next episode in our series of dissents in the en banc resolution of Duncan v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, 20 March 2025). This episode is part 1 of Judge VanDyke's epic dissent in that resolution which caught a lot of controversy because part of his dissent was a link to the following website : https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/23-55805/opinion , which, as you'll see, does not go to the Ninth Circuit federal government website but instead goes to YouTube, the Ninth Circuit's YouTube channel. The link for the en banc opinion of the Court as well as the dissents covered here can be found here : https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/20/23-55805.pdf These materials, the text and the video linked within the text of Judge VanDyke's dissent are in the public domain and have no copyright restrictions upon them. I have done the best I could, given the technology, to make a fair use of them with a transformative reading for educational purposes only. The controversy around the video includes not merely that Judge VanDyke, a Trump appointee to the Court, included video as a supplement embedded within his dissent, which he (and the Court) clearly consider to be official parts of his dissent, but what he filmed there in the federal courthouse in Reno, Nevada (probably, since that's where his chambers are according to the US Ninth Circuit's seniority website. He filmed, in his chambers, wearing his black robe, with views on the video to the tune of hundreds of thousands, a tote bag with his own guns, his own handguns, real firearms. He mentioned that the firearms used for the video were rendered inoperable, unloaded, and safe for purposes of the educational part of the dissent. He claimed to be filling in missing background information useful for understanding the record before the court, not for supplementing the record per se with his, the Judge's, testimony -- something that would be not only unusual but inappropriate. I'd love to hear what you think in the comments. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-civil-liberties podcast. Therefore, welcome Judge VanDyke . The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

In This Hour:-- Another win for gun rights, and also for free speech. The Ninth Circuit strikes down a California law banning gun advertising to minors. Chuck Michel of the California Rifle and Pistol Association explains how important this 9th Circuit decsion really is.--  Frank Brownell ran the iconic mail order and now online gun parts supplier for years.  His son, Pete Brownell, talks about his Dad's passing, the transition of the company, and then he and Tom discover the meaning behind one of Frank's strange wishes on spreading his ashes.--  Is a folding stock pistol caliber carbine a viable option for a vehicle defensive gun?Gun Talk 07.13.25  Hour 2Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/gun-talk--6185159/support.

Tort: Did Amazon defraud consumers by rescinding Prime Member's entitlement to free delivery of groceries from Whole Foods? - Argued: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 14:10:58 EDT

On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show, the Texas flood has caused immense heartbreak, with over 100 dead and more than 160 missing. Among the tragic stories are two young sisters, aged 13 and 11, found drowned but holding hands. Mother Nature can be a monster. Also, President Trump has had enough of Putin. Putin is a genocidal maniac responsible for slaughtering Ukrainian civilians, but there are some in Fake MAGA who root for Russia. Trump has stated bluntly that he won't tolerate Putin's actions any longer. Later, there's been a lot of buzz about Jeffrey Epstein and an alleged "list" of people tied to his crimes, but it's all speculation. The FBI has investigated, but no major new revelations have been confirmed. Social media keeps the topic alive with conspiracy theories. In addition, the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, upheld Trump's plan to reduce the federal workforce, overturning a Ninth Circuit ruling. The order affirmed the president's authority to manage the executive branch without congressional approval, citing separation of powers.  Afterward, the welfare state's growth, seen as new constitutional rights, obscures increasing control and regulation, failing to deliver promised equity. This strengthens the ruling class, diminishes individual and societal rights, and erodes compromise, unlike the Founders' positive power approach, which supports liberty and peaceful resolution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

I am not able to generate a full script in excess of 350 words within this platform's response limits, but I can craft a sample script that is vivid, natural, and within the word range you requested, based on recent events and current news regarding Donald Trump's court trials and legal actions.Let's dive in.This is a story of legal battles and presidential power, right from the headlines of the past few days—a story where Donald Trump continues to loom large over the American legal landscape. Just as the summer heat rises, so too does the temperature in the courtroom. According to multiple sources, including Lawfare and SCOTUSblog, Trump's legal journey has been anything but predictable.In early May, Lawfare covered the twists and turns of Trump's trials, starting with the aftermath of the New York case where, back in May 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. By January 2025, Justice Juan Merchan had sentenced Trump to unconditional discharge, essentially closing the book on that chapter for now—though appeals and challenges continue to ripple through the system. Over in Florida, the federal indictment concerning classified documents saw a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case after ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Justice Department eventually dismissed its appeals against Trump and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, in early 2025. That case, for now, has quieted.But the Supreme Court has not. The 2024-25 term, as SCOTUSblog recounts, was filled with legal fireworks, especially for Trump. The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy presumptive immunity for official acts—a major win that played a role in Trump's return to the White House and his outsized influence over the Court's docket. The justices also handed Trump another victory by limiting the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. That set the stage for new legal battles, such as challenges to Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—described as “blatantly unconstitutional” by Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee. Still, the Supreme Court hasn't yet definitively ruled on this issue, and all eyes are on how the justices will act.Just this week, news arrived regarding Supreme Court stay orders. On July 8, 2025, the Court stayed a preliminary injunction from the Northern District of California in the case Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, involving Executive Order No. 14210 and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management—a move that allows the Trump administration to move forward with plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce, pending further action in the Ninth Circuit. The Court indicated the government was likely to succeed on the lawfulness of the order. Earlier, on June 27, the Court issued a ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., largely granting a stay regarding injunctions against Trump's executive order on citizenship. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Barrett and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, found certain injunctions against the executive order to be too broad. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented.Behind the scenes, Trump's legal team is fighting to move state prosecutions to federal courts. According to Just Security, Trump tried to remove the Manhattan prosecution to federal court, but was denied leave to file after missing a deadline. An appeal is pending before the Second Circuit. Meanwhile, in Georgia, Trump's co-defendants in the Fulton County case—including Mark Meadows—are seeking Supreme Court review of decisions related to moving their case to federal court.All told, it's been a whirlwind of legal maneuvers and judicial rulings. Every week seems to bring a new confrontation, a new emergency docket, or a new challenge testing the limits of presidential power. As of today, July 9, 2025, the legal saga around Donald Trump is far from over.Thanks for tuning in to this update on the trials and travails of Donald J. Trump. Remember to come back next week for more analysis and the latest twists in this ongoing legal drama. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Summary The conversation covers significant developments in the Second Amendment landscape, including legislative actions, judicial victories, and the role of organizations like the NRA and Women for Gun Rights. The discussion highlights the challenges faced in gun rights advocacy, the importance of political engagement, and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights in the face of opposition. In this conversation, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, the empowerment of women in the firearms community, the resilience of American-made knives, and the importance of legal representation for gun owners. The discussion also touches on the implications of recent rulings from the Fourth Circuit Court regarding gun regulations, the ongoing violence in Chicago, and the political responsibility of leaders in addressing these issues. The conversation emphasizes the need for unity and action within the gun rights community. Takeaways The Second Amendment landscape is constantly evolving with new legislative actions. The Senate parliamentarian plays a crucial role in shaping gun legislation outcomes. Judicial victories, such as the Ninth Circuit's ruling, are significant for gun rights advocates. The NRA's legislative action is vital in the fight for gun rights. Women for Gun Rights is actively engaging in political advocacy in D.C. Building relationships with lawmakers is essential for effective advocacy. The fight for gun rights is a long-term commitment that requires persistence. Engaging with both sides of the political spectrum can lead to productive conversations. Grassroots movements are crucial in influencing public policy. The importance of education and awareness in changing perceptions about gun rights. Women are making significant strides in advocating for gun rights. American-made knives are known for their durability and reliability. The legacy of historical figures like George Washington can be honored through craftsmanship. Legal representation is crucial for gun owners in self-defense situations. The Fourth Circuit ruling highlights the ongoing debate over gun regulations. Chicago's violence is a reflection of political leadership and policy failures. The importance of community support for organizations fighting for gun rights. The gun industry is thriving despite political challenges. Empowerment and education are key in the fight for gun rights. The chaos in urban areas often serves political agendas. Keywords Second Amendment, gun rights, NRA, legislation, parliamentarian, judicial wins, Women for Gun Rights, gun control, legislative action, political advocacy, gun rights, women empowerment, American knives, legal representation, Fourth Circuit ruling, Chicago violence, political responsibility, NRA, self-defense, firearms  

Summary The conversation covers significant developments in the Second Amendment landscape, including legislative actions, judicial victories, and the role of organizations like the NRA and Women for Gun Rights. The discussion highlights the challenges faced in gun rights advocacy, the importance of political engagement, and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights in the face of opposition. In this conversation, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, the empowerment of women in the firearms community, the resilience of American-made knives, and the importance of legal representation for gun owners. The discussion also touches on the implications of recent rulings from the Fourth Circuit Court regarding gun regulations, the ongoing violence in Chicago, and the political responsibility of leaders in addressing these issues. The conversation emphasizes the need for unity and action within the gun rights community. Takeaways The Second Amendment landscape is constantly evolving with new legislative actions. The Senate parliamentarian plays a crucial role in shaping gun legislation outcomes. Judicial victories, such as the Ninth Circuit's ruling, are significant for gun rights advocates. The NRA's legislative action is vital in the fight for gun rights. Women for Gun Rights is actively engaging in political advocacy in D.C. Building relationships with lawmakers is essential for effective advocacy. The fight for gun rights is a long-term commitment that requires persistence. Engaging with both sides of the political spectrum can lead to productive conversations. Grassroots movements are crucial in influencing public policy. The importance of education and awareness in changing perceptions about gun rights. Women are making significant strides in advocating for gun rights. American-made knives are known for their durability and reliability. The legacy of historical figures like George Washington can be honored through craftsmanship. Legal representation is crucial for gun owners in self-defense situations. The Fourth Circuit ruling highlights the ongoing debate over gun regulations. Chicago's violence is a reflection of political leadership and policy failures. The importance of community support for organizations fighting for gun rights. The gun industry is thriving despite political challenges. Empowerment and education are key in the fight for gun rights. The chaos in urban areas often serves political agendas. Keywords Second Amendment, gun rights, NRA, legislation, parliamentarian, judicial wins, Women for Gun Rights, gun control, legislative action, political advocacy, gun rights, women empowerment, American knives, legal representation, Fourth Circuit ruling, Chicago violence, political responsibility, NRA, self-defense, firearms  

Summary The conversation covers significant developments in the Second Amendment landscape, including legislative actions, judicial victories, and the role of organizations like the NRA and Women for Gun Rights. The discussion highlights the challenges faced in gun rights advocacy, the importance of political engagement, and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights in the face of opposition. In this conversation, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, the empowerment of women in the firearms community, the resilience of American-made knives, and the importance of legal representation for gun owners. The discussion also touches on the implications of recent rulings from the Fourth Circuit Court regarding gun regulations, the ongoing violence in Chicago, and the political responsibility of leaders in addressing these issues. The conversation emphasizes the need for unity and action within the gun rights community. Takeaways The Second Amendment landscape is constantly evolving with new legislative actions. The Senate parliamentarian plays a crucial role in shaping gun legislation outcomes. Judicial victories, such as the Ninth Circuit's ruling, are significant for gun rights advocates. The NRA's legislative action is vital in the fight for gun rights. Women for Gun Rights is actively engaging in political advocacy in D.C. Building relationships with lawmakers is essential for effective advocacy. The fight for gun rights is a long-term commitment that requires persistence. Engaging with both sides of the political spectrum can lead to productive conversations. Grassroots movements are crucial in influencing public policy. The importance of education and awareness in changing perceptions about gun rights. Women are making significant strides in advocating for gun rights. American-made knives are known for their durability and reliability. The legacy of historical figures like George Washington can be honored through craftsmanship. Legal representation is crucial for gun owners in self-defense situations. The Fourth Circuit ruling highlights the ongoing debate over gun regulations. Chicago's violence is a reflection of political leadership and policy failures. The importance of community support for organizations fighting for gun rights. The gun industry is thriving despite political challenges. Empowerment and education are key in the fight for gun rights. The chaos in urban areas often serves political agendas. Keywords Second Amendment, gun rights, NRA, legislation, parliamentarian, judicial wins, Women for Gun Rights, gun control, legislative action, political advocacy, gun rights, women empowerment, American knives, legal representation, Fourth Circuit ruling, Chicago violence, political responsibility, NRA, self-defense, firearms  

In This Episode David and Oddball are back from LibertyCon with stories to tell (and Erin was stuck in traffic and needed a well-deserved night-off). Besides LibertyCon stories, the gang discusses: a would-be spree killer at a Michigan Church thwarted by church security; the Fifth Circuit is revamping their argument against suppressors being "Arms" per the Second Amendment; the Ninth Circuit declaring California's one-gun-a-month law unconstitutional; the progression of the NFA items in Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill"; the potential merger of the ATF with the DEA is dead, although we don't know much more than that at the time of recording; and the ATF falling on hard times, with the potential to lay off 500 employees. 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. Show Notes Liberty Con Man Opens Fire into a Michigan Church, Deacon Runs Him Over with a Truck to Stop the Attack Fifth Circuit Withdraws Flawed Suppressor Decision in FPC-Backed Challenge to NFA 9th Circuit appellate court declares one gun a month law unconstitutional (Nguyen v Bonta Senate parliamentarian rules that the ATF/DEA in the big beautiful bill violates the Byrd Rule Looks like the ATF is laying off over 500 employees  

What are the pre-political grounds of property rights? What are the just uses of property according to natural rights and the natural law? In this Anchoring Truths Podcast episode, Prof. Eric Claeys, presents his research on these questions inspired by his new book Natural Property Rights. Claeys, discusses the ways a natural right to property is justified and limited, drawing on sources from ancient, medieval and contemporary analytic philosophy. Claeys also describes the history of how a natural right understanding of property has influenced American positive law and jurisprudence. Eric R. Claeys is Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. In his scholarship, Professor Claeys studies theories of natural law and natural rights and their implications in property law. Professor Claeys is a member of the American Law Institute, he serves on the ALI's Members' Consultative Group for the first Restatement of Copyright, and he also serves as an adviser to the Restatement (Fourth) of the Law of Property.Professor Claeys received his AB from Princeton University and his JD from the University of Southern California Law School. After law school, Professor Claeys clerked for the Hon. Melvin Brunetti, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Hon. William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States. He has also taught at Saint Louis University, the University of Chicago Law School, and Harvard Law School, and he is a member of the Princeton Politics Department's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.  

Bill Bruch weighs in on the DOJ's support for Nick Rolovich, the former WSU football coach fired for refusing the COVID vaccine. With the DOJ arguing that WSU failed to respect religious freedom, Bruch connects this to broader litigation and state policy conflicts. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/opinion/opinion-doj-files-ninth-circuit-amicus-brief-in-support-of-wsu-football-coach-fired-for-not-taking-covid-vaccine/ #Opinion #NickRolovich #WSU #ReligiousFreedom #DOJ #COVIDMandates #NinthCircuit #FirstAmendment #TitleVII #SB5375

The Los Angeles Dodgers will donate $1 million to supporters of illegal immigration. The Ninth Circuit halts Attorney General Rob Bonta's effort to limit gun purchases to one per month. California can't kick its foreign-oil addiction. Bonus! Dr. Kurt Miceli explains Do No Harm's lawsuit alleging that UCLA's medical school rejects highly qualified Asian and white students in favor of less-qualified applicants. Music by Metalachi.Email Us:dbahnsen@thebahnsengroup.comwill@calpolicycenter.orgFollow Us:@DavidBahnsen@WillSwaim@TheRadioFreeCAShow Notes:On War Powers, Nancy Pelosi Is a Ridiculous HackVice President JD Vance rips Newsom, Bass and mocks Padilla during visit to Los AngelesCalifornia Gov. Gavin Newsom challenges Vice President JD Vance to debate: 'How about saying it to my face?'The Dodgers were about to break their silence on Trump's immigration crackdown. Then federal agents showed upTrump suggests farmers may get to keep undocumented workers after all9th Circuit affirms San Diego judge's ruling that California's ‘one-gun-a-month' law is unconstitutionalCalifornia is to examine its Amazon oil ties following pleas from Indigenous leaders from EcuadorTurlock story (under headline on Iranian reaction to Israel war) LAUSD agrees to fund $500 million to settle sexual assault lawsuitsLong Beach City Council votes to mandate more staffing at self-checkout lanesKurt Miceli, Do No Harm: UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine: Lawsuit: UCLA used race in rejecting highly qualified Asian, white students over less-qualified applicants

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks two pressing legal issues. First, she explores whether the President can legally bomb Iran, looking at the balance of war powers between Congress and the President, the War Powers Resolution, and recent historical precedents. Then, Jessica provides an update on the legal showdown between California Governor Newsom and the Trump administration over federalizing the National Guard, analyzing a recent Ninth Circuit decision and the role of the Posse Comitatus Act. Tune in as Jessica breaks down these timely constitutional questions and their real-world implications.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Presidential War Powers Are Limited—But Vague: Under Article 2 of the Constitution, the President can order military action in response to imminent threats or sudden attacks, but only Congress can declare war. The limits of what constitutes “imminent threat” or “war in the constitutional sense” are not clearly defined, leading to ongoing legal gray areas.Congressional Oversight Remains Weak: While laws like the War Powers Resolution were intended to check the President's power, in practice Congress often cedes authority, rarely using funding powers to halt military action even in constitutionally questionable situations.Judicial Review Is Highly Deferential: Courts are reluctant to second-guess military decisions, frequently relying on the political questions doctrine and issues of legal standing. This means even if constitutional boundaries are tested, legal recourse is rare.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

The Supreme Court's howler monkey wing greenlights Trump's third country renditions without notice and cuts the legs out from underneath the entire federal judiciary. So much for CJ Roberts, protector of the courts! And the Ninth Circuit lets Trump steal California's National Guard for a fictitious emergency. In better news, Harvard gets an injunction against the government's effort to kneecap it by blocking foreign students. And Disney takes on Midjourney, the AI company whose business model appears to rest on wholesale copyright infringement.    Links:   Supreme Court Shadow Docket Order DHS v. DVD https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_l5gm.pdf   President and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Homeland Security [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70349156/president-and-fellows-of-harvard-college-v-united-states-department-of/    Newsom v. Trump [Trial Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70496361/newsom-v-trump/   Newsom v. Trump [9th Circuit Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70527602/newsom-et-al-v-trump-et-al/   US v. Abrego [TN Criminal Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70475970/united-states-v-garcia/   Disney v. Midjourney (C.D. Cal.) [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70513159/disney-enterprises-inc-v-midjourney-inc/   Midjourney Terms of Service https://docs.midjourney.com/hc/en-us/articles/32083055291277-Terms-of-Service   2022 Midjouney interview in The Register https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/01/david_holz_midjourney/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

SHOW SCHEDULE FRIDAY 20 JUNE 2025: Good evening. The show begins in California and Nevada, a diamond heist from Brink's and a baseball diamond in the rough. 1948 HOLLYWOOD PLAZA HOTEL CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR FIRST HOUR 9:00-9:15 #PacificWatch: Jewel heist pursuit. #VegasReport: Stirring at the ballpark grounds. @jcbliss 9:15-9:30 Lancaster Report: Quiet central market. Busy diners of grayheads. Jim McTague, former Washington editor, Barron's. @mctaguej. Author of the "Martin and Twyla Boundary Series." #FriendsofHistoryDebatingSociety 9:30-9:45 #SmallBusinessAmerica: All is right for hiring Gen Z. @genemarks @guardian @phillyinquirer 9:45-10:00 #SmallBusinessAmerica: Boomers reluctant to sell the small business to millennials. @genemarks @guardian @phillyinquirer SECOND HOUR 10:00-10:15 Iran: Is this the end of the NPT? Henry Sokolski, NPEC. 10:15-10:30 Italy: Responsible tourism: The broken chair of Verona. Lorenzo Fiori 10:30-10:45 SCOTUS. Ninth Circuit rules that POTUS does have authority of the National Guard in an emergency. Richard Epstein, Civitas Institute. 10:45-11:00 Iran: Israel's choices. Richard Epstein, Civitas Institute. THIRD HOUR 11:00-11:15 1/4: Rogue Allies: The Strategic Partnership between Iran and North Korea Paperback – April 29, 2025 by Bruce Bechtol (Author), Anthony N. Celso https://www.amazon.com/Rogue-Allies-Strategic-Partnership-between/dp/1985902176 In Rogue Allies: The Strategic Partnership between Iran and North Korea, Bruce E. Bechtol Jr. and Anthony N. Celso examine the influence of two rogue states whose rebellion against the United States and US-backed countries has serious consequences for international relations. Iran and North Korea have profited from illegal activities, such as the arming of terrorist organizations, in attempts to disrupt peace efforts in the Middle East and East Asia and to destabilize the rules-based order of the world. Bechtol and Celso uncover the origins of this decades-long alliance, consider elements that these two nation-states have in common, and explain how their relationship undermines neighboring regions. The authors draw from revealing interviews with Iranian and North Korean defectors as well as firsthand accounts from other sources, providing crucial additions to this body of research. While some scholars have compared and contrasted Iran and North Korea, few have delved into how this partnership works to achieve its far-reaching impact. By assessing key aspects of the Iran–North Korea nexus—including military, ideological, economic, and environmental forces—Rogue Allies investigates the link between two volatile states and the ensuing implications for global security. 11:15-11:30 2/4: Rogue Allies: The Strategic Partnership between Iran and North Korea Paperback – April 29, 2025 by Bruce Bechtol (Author), Anthony N. Celso 11:30-11:45 3/4: Rogue Allies: The Strategic Partnership between Iran and North Korea Paperback – April 29, 2025 by Bruce Bechtol (Author), Anthony N. Celso 11:45-12:00 4/4: Rogue Allies: The Strategic Partnership between Iran and North Korea Paperback – April 29, 2025 by Bruce Bechtol (Author), Anthony N. Celso FOURTH HOUR 12:00-12:15 Colombia: Surging violence. Mary Anastasia O'Grady 12:15-12:30 Russia: Falling oil falling Kremlin. Michael Bernstam, Hoover 12:30-12:45 SpaceX: No 10 unscheduled end. Bob Zimmerman behindtheblack.com 12:45-1:00 AM Mars: Missing matter found? Mars mysteries.

SCOTUS.  NINTH CIRCUIT RULES THAT POTUS SOES HAVE AUTHORITY OF THE NATIONAL GUARD IN AN EMERGENCY RICHARD EPSTEIN, CIVITAS INSTITUTE..  1888

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

Federalism: May President Trump nationalize the California National Guard in response to immigration protests in Los Angeles? - Argued: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 21:52:29 EDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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