Podcasts about ninth circuit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Episode 42: First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. PlatkinFirst Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 2, 2025. Argued by Erin Morrow Hawley, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Vivek Suri, Assistant Solicitor General (on behalf of First Choice Women's Resource Centers), and Sundeep Subramanian Iyer, Chief Counsel to the Attorney General of New Jersey (on behalf of the state of New Jersey).  Case Background, from the Institute for Free Speech case page: First Choice Women's Resource Centers is a Christian medical nonprofit serving pregnant women, new mothers, and fathers. The Attorney General of New Jersey has specifically singled out this organization due to its religious beliefs and pro-life stance. New Jersey thus issued a sweeping and unjustified subpoena, demanding extensive documentation from the nonprofit. This places a heavy burden on the organization, forcing it to allocate its limited resources to comply or face legal consequences. Despite this, the Attorney General has not provided any concrete evidence of wrongdoing to warrant such intrusive measures. Question Presented, from the Supreme Court docket: New Jersey's Attorney General served an investigatory subpoena on First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc., a faith-based pregnancy center, demanding that it turn over most of its donors' names. First Choice challenged the Subpoena under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal court, and the Attorney General filed a subsequent suit to enforce it in state court. The state court granted the Attorney General's motion to enforce the Subpoena but expressly did not decide First Choice's federal constitutional challenges. The Attorney General then moved in state court to sanction First Choice. Meanwhile, the district court held that First Choice's constitutional claims were not ripe in federal court.The Third Circuit affirmed in a divided per curiam decision. Judge Bibas would have held the action ripe as indistinguishable from. Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Banta, 594 U.S. 595, 618-19 (2021). But the majority concluded First Choice's claims were not yet ripe because First Choice could litigate its constitutional claims in state court. In doing so, the majority followed the rule of the Fifth Circuit and split from the Ninth Circuit. It did not address the likely loss of a federal forum once the state court rules on the federal constitutional issues.The question presented is: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?Resources:   Brief for Petitioner First Choice Women's Resource Center Brief for Respondent Matthew Platkin Institute for Free Speech Amicus Brief Supreme Court Docket The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

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

First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin | 12/02/25 | Docket #: 24-781 24-781 FIRST CHOICE WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTERS, INC. V. PLATKIN DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 5088105 CERT. GRANTED 6/16/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: New Jersey's Attorney General served an investigatory subpoena on First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc., a faith-based pregnancy center, demanding that it turn over most of its donors' names. First Choice challenged the Subpoena under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal court, and the Attorney General filed a subsequent suit to enforce it in state court. The state court granted the Attorney General's motion to enforce the Subpoena but expressly did not decide First Choice's federal constitutional challenges. The Attorney General then moved in state court to sanction First Choice. Meanwhile, the district court held that First Choice's constitutional claims were not ripe in federal court. The Third Circuit affirmed in a divided per curiam decision. Judge Bibas would have held the action ripe as indistinguishable from . Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Banta , 594 U.S. 595, 618-19 (2021). But the majority concluded First Choice's claims were not yet ripe because First Choice could litigate its constitutional claims in state court. In doing so, the majority followed the rule of the Fifth Circuit and split from the Ninth Circuit. It did not address the likely loss of a federal forum once the state court rules on the federal constitutional issues. The question presented is: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-3124

New voting restrictions across the country are threatening to make it harder for millions of Americans to participate in elections. In some states, these barriers have thrown long-registered voters into limbo, as Arizona voter James Wilson learned when he nearly lost his ability to vote because of strict new proof-of-citizenship rules. In this season finale, Democracy Decoded examines how these barriers to voting — along with an administration actively attempting to curtail the freedom to vote and a Supreme Court with voting rights cases on its docket — are reshaping access to the ballot.Host Simone Leeper speaks with election law scholar Rick Hasen and Campaign Legal Center's voting rights expert Danielle Lang to unpack the rise of new barriers to voting, the future of the Voting Rights Act, the dangers of executive overreach, and the policy solutions and reforms needed to secure the freedom to vote in 2026 and beyond.Timestamps:(00:00) — How did one Arizona voter nearly lose his right to vote?(04:35) — Why are federal actions now threatening elections?(06:50) — How do proof-of-citizenship laws disenfranchise voters?(11:48) — What happened inside Arizona's dual-track voting system?(15:32) — Who is most affected by modern voting restrictions?(21:36) — What role has the federal government historically played in protecting voting rights?(23:49) — Why is the SAVE Act so bad for voting rights?(25:16) — What is Campaign Legal Center doing to protect the freedom to vote in Louisiana?(28:38) — What is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?(30:06) — What is the Turtle Mountain v. Howe case?(34:05) — What reforms are needed to protect elections in 2026 and beyond?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Danielle Lang leads Campaign Legal Center's voting rights team dedicated to safeguarding the freedom to vote. She litigates in state and federal courts from trial to the Supreme Court, and advocates for equitable and meaningful voter access at all levels of government. Danielle has worked as a civil rights litigator her entire career. At CLC, she has led litigation against Texas's racially discriminatory voter ID law, Florida's modern-day poll tax for rights restoration, Arizona's burdensome registration requirements, North Dakota's voter ID law targeting Native communities and numerous successful challenges to signature match policies for absentee ballots. Previously, Danielle served as a Skadden Fellow in the Employment Rights Project of Bet Tzedek Legal Services in Los Angeles, where she represented low-wage immigrant workers in wage and hour, discrimination and human trafficking matters. From 2012 to 2013, Danielle clerked for Judge Richard A. Paez on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Professor Richard L. Hasen is the Gary T. Schwartz Endowed Chair in Law, Professor of Political Science (by courtesy) and Director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law. He is an internationally recognized expert in election law, writing as well in the areas of legislation and statutory interpretation, remedies and torts. He is co-author of leading casebooks in election law and remedies. Hasen served in 2022 and 2024 as an NBC News/MSNBC Election Law Analyst. He was a CNN Election Law Analyst in 2020.Links:Voting Is an American Freedom. The President Can't Change That – CLCVictory! Anti-Voter Executive Order Halted in Court  – CLCHow CLC Is Pushing Back on the Trump Administration's Anti-Voter Actions – CLCEfforts to Undermine the Freedom to Vote, Explained – CLCWhy America Needs the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act – CLCProtecting the Freedom to Vote Through State Voting Rights Acts – CLCWhat Does the U.S. Supreme Court's Recent Arizona Decision Mean for Voters? – CLCWhat You Need to Know About the SAVE Act  – CLCIn-Person Voting Access – CLCModernizing Voter Registration – CLCA Raging Battle for Democracy One Year from the Midterms – Trevor Potter's newsletterFour Threats to Future Elections We Need to Discuss Now – Trevor Potter's newsletterAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Federalism: May States sue to enjoin the withholding of federal funds by the Trump Administration? - Argued: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:26:54 EDT

Civil Rights: Did Seattle violate the constitutional rights of businesses in areas that the city declined to police during the BLM protests? - Argued: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 13:59:20 EDT

Civil Rights: Did Seattle violate the constitutional rights of businesses in areas that the city declined to police during the BLM protests? - Argued: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 13:56:22 EDT

In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a consequential opinion that stifled the freedom of association across countless campuses when it came to religious groups. In CLS v. Martinez, in a divided 5-4 opinion, the Court opened the way for universities to limit group association by refusing to grant them power to elect those leaders best suited to carry on that group's mission and purpose. In a forthcoming article (here) in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, my guest today, Benjamin Fleshman, covers the infamous Martinez decision and the problem it created for student organizations across the country. Given the closeness of this topic to my own work, we discuss in some detail the infamous "all comers" policy (see this and this) still upheld in some law schools, e.g., UC-Berkeley (see this), nature of student organizations, the importance of recent Supreme Court decisions (see recent FCA en banc decision in the Ninth Circuit and then the other mentioned FCA case in Washington, D.C.), the recent attempts to strengthen group access (see this), and more. Benjamin joined The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty as Counsel in 2023. His work there focuses on appellate litigation in both state and federal courts. Prior to joining Becket, Ben worked as an associate at Shearman & Sterling in Washington, D.C., where he practiced antitrust law and complex commercial litigation. Before entering private practice, he served as a law clerk to Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Full bio. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento.

This Day in Legal History: Statute of MarlboroughOn November 18, 1267, the Statute of Marlborough was enacted during the reign of King Henry III of England. It is the oldest piece of English statute law still partially in force, with four of its original twenty-nine chapters remaining on the books. The statute emerged from a period of intense baronial conflict and civil unrest, notably the Second Barons' War, and was part of a broader effort to restore royal authority and stabilize governance through legal reform. It reinforced the crown's prerogatives while addressing grievances raised by rebellious nobles, making it a compromise between royal and feudal powers.Among its most enduring provisions were regulations on the practice of “distress,” which referred to the seizure of property to compel debt repayment or enforce court judgments. The statute restricted unlawful and excessive distresses, requiring them to occur only with legal justification and in the appropriate jurisdiction. These reforms curtailed private self-help remedies and emphasized formal court processes, laying foundational principles for due process and the centralization of judicial authority. It also addressed issues like wardship, waste of land, and the obligations of tenants—key concerns in the feudal legal structure.The Statute of Marlborough built upon earlier reforms such as the Provisions of Oxford and Westminster, but had a more lasting legal impact. Its survival into modern times speaks to the durability of certain legal concepts, especially those reinforcing procedural fairness. Some of its language has been modernized, but the essence of its rules remains intact in English law. The statute reflects an early attempt to systematize and limit both public and private power through legal mechanisms. Legal historians often point to it as a stepping stone on the path to the English common law tradition.The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging the federal government's authority to limit asylum processing at official U.S.-Mexico border crossings under the now-rescinded “metering” policy. Originally implemented under President Trump and formalized in 2018, metering allowed border agents to stop asylum seekers before they crossed into the U.S. and decline to process their claims, even when they were physically present at ports of entry. The Biden administration repealed the policy in 2021, but Trump's return to office has revived interest in reestablishing it.At the core of the case is the legal meaning of the phrase “arrives in the United States,” with the Ninth Circuit ruling in 2024 that it includes people who reach official border entry points—even if still on the Mexican side. That ruling held that federal law requires asylum seekers at ports of entry to be inspected and allowed to apply, regardless of logistical constraints like capacity. The advocacy group Al Otro Lado, which brought the lawsuit in 2017, argues the metering policy illegally circumvented these obligations, leaving vulnerable migrants stranded in dangerous border conditions.Trump's Justice Department contends that “arrives in” means actual entry, not mere proximity—using analogies ranging from Normandy to football to make its point. The administration has also signaled that it intends to resume the policy if conditions warrant. The case, which will likely be decided by June, comes amid broader efforts to restrict asylum protections globally and may clarify the limits of executive power over humanitarian migration policy.Supreme Court to review US government power to limit asylum processing | ReutersA California judge has blocked a proposed class action lawsuit involving 6,000 Black workers at Tesla's Fremont factory who alleged systemic racial harassment, marking a significant legal win for the company. Judge Peter Borkon ruled that the case could not proceed as a class action because the plaintiffs' attorneys failed to secure testimony from at least 200 workers—raising doubts about whether the experiences of a smaller group could represent the broader workforce. This reverses a 2024 decision by another judge who had previously allowed the class to move forward.The original lawsuit, filed in 2017 by former worker Marcus Vaughn, alleged pervasive racism at the facility, including slurs, racist graffiti, and even nooses in work areas. Tesla has denied allowing harassment and said it takes disciplinary action against those who violate company policy. While this ruling narrows the scope of Vaughn's lawsuit, Tesla still faces other legal challenges, including a similar case from California's civil rights agency and a separate federal suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Tesla has previously settled other race discrimination lawsuits brought by individual employees.Tesla wins bid to undo race bias class action by Black factory workers | ReutersAshurst and Perkins Coie have agreed to merge, forming a global law firm with 3,000 lawyers and $2.7 billion in revenue—placing it among the world's top 20 legal outfits by size. The merger, expected to close in late 2026 pending partner approval, will create Ashurst Perkins Coie, with 52 offices across 23 countries. The move is part of a broader trend of transatlantic law firm consolidation aimed at scaling up to serve cross-border clients more effectively.Leadership will be shared between Ashurst's global CEO Paul Jenkins and Perkins Coie's managing partner Bill Malley, who emphasized the merger's value for clients in technology, financial services, and energy. Talks began in early 2025, with both firms framing the deal as a long-term strategic alignment. Perkins Coie recently gained attention for its role in successfully challenging executive orders from President Trump's administration targeting the firm and others tied to his political adversaries. While the firms say they have no current plans to expand their office footprint, the combination signals a deepening of U.K.-U.S. legal market integration.Law firms Ashurst, Perkins Coie agree merger to create global top-20 outfit | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at OpenAI's effort to expand the CHIPS Act tax credit into a broad-based AI infrastructure subsidy—and what it reveals about the government's evolving role in underwriting the AI economy. OpenAI has asked the federal government to stretch the Advanced Manufacturing Investment Credit—originally designed to revive U.S. semiconductor manufacturing—to cover the entire AI stack, from servers to steel. That request arrives as data centers' energy consumption and land use start imposing real costs on local grids, budgets, and communities, raising the question: who's actually footing the bill for AI?I argue that this isn't a bailout so much as a bid for taxpayer-backed central planning, with a venture-capital gloss. AI infrastructure projects like OpenAI's Stargate centers already benefit from layers of state and local tax breaks, discounted electricity, and favorable land deals. Adding a 35% federal credit on top creates a subsidy stack that warps local priorities—school districts lose tax revenue, utilities are forced to reroute energy, and residents pay more on their bills. The public impact is mounting, even as the private benefit remains largely proprietary and insulated.Rather than offering blank checks, Congress should condition federal support on clear benefit-sharing requirements: job thresholds, emissions transparency, energy sourcing obligations, and clawbacks for missed targets. I propose a framework that makes federal aid contingent on upfront impact disclosures, co-investment in the grid, and full accounting of overlapping subsidies. Industrial policy isn't inherently bad—but without enforceable terms, we're not funding a public-private partnership. We're subsidizing a corporate buildout dressed up as a national security imperative. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: John Jay First SCOTUSOn November 6, 1789, John Jay was sworn in as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the development of the federal judiciary. Appointed by President George Washington, Jay was a prominent figure in the American founding, having co-authored The Federalist Papers and served as President of the Continental Congress. His confirmation by the Senate came just weeks after the Judiciary Act of 1789 formally established the structure of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. At the time of his appointment, the Court held limited power and prestige, lacking even a permanent home or a defined role within the balance of government.Jay's tenure as Chief Justice lasted from 1789 to 1795 and was characterized more by circuit riding—traveling to preside over lower federal courts—than by Supreme Court rulings. Nonetheless, he helped lay the procedural and institutional groundwork for the Court's future authority. One of his few significant decisions came in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which asserted that states could be sued in federal court, a holding that was quickly overturned by the Eleventh Amendment. Jay also took on diplomatic duties, most notably negotiating the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794, which aimed to resolve lingering tensions from the Revolutionary War.Though his judicial legacy on the bench was modest, Jay's influence as the Court's inaugural leader was crucial in legitimizing the judiciary as a coequal branch of government. He later declined a reappointment to the position in 1800, citing the Court's lack of power and institutional independence. The role of Chief Justice would eventually evolve into a central force in constitutional interpretation, but it was Jay who first gave the office its shape. This milestone in legal history underscores the slow and deliberate construction of American judicial authority, which did not arrive fully formed but was built case by case, institution by institution.The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, a case that raises major constitutional and statutory questions about the scope of presidential power—particularly in the context of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At the heart of the dispute is whether the word “regulate” in IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The case touches on foundational issues in constitutional law, including statutory interpretation, the nondelegation doctrine, emergency powers, and the “major questions” doctrine. The Court must assess not just what the statute says, but also how to interpret the silence—IEEPA never mentions “tariffs” or “taxes”—in light of Congress's constitutional power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce.From a textualist standpoint, the omission of “tariffs” suggests Congress did not intend to delegate that taxing authority to the executive. From a purposivist view, the debate turns on whether Congress meant to arm the president with broad economic tools to respond to emergencies or to narrowly limit those powers to national security concerns. Additional arguments center on legislative history and the principle of avoiding surplusage, as opponents claim interpreting “regulate” to include “tariff” would render other statutes that explicitly mention tariffs redundant.The nondelegation doctrine also plays a key role. If IEEPA is read to permit the president to impose tariffs, critics argue it may represent an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power—particularly taxing power—absent a clear “intelligible principle” to guide executive discretion. The Court is also being asked to consider whether the president's determination of an “emergency” under IEEPA is reviewable and whether actions taken in response to such emergencies must still adhere to constitutional limits. The outcome of this case could significantly redefine the boundary between congressional authority and executive power in trade and economic policy.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5, 2025, in a case challenging President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had exceeded his authority by bypassing Congress to enact tariffs, which are traditionally under legislative control. The legal debate centered on whether IEEPA's grant of authority to “regulate importation” includes the power to impose long-term tariffs, and whether doing so constitutes a “major question” requiring explicit congressional authorization.Chief Justice John Roberts, among others, expressed concern that Trump's use of IEEPA effectively allowed the executive to impose taxes—a core congressional function. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether there was any precedent for interpreting “regulate importation” as tariff-imposing authority, while Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that IEEPA was designed to limit, not expand, presidential power. Some conservative justices, like Brett Kavanaugh, were more receptive, referencing historical precedents like Nixon's use of similar powers.The administration argued the tariffs were necessary to respond to trade deficits and national security threats and warned that removing them could lead to economic harm. But critics, including business representatives and Democratic-led states, warned of a dangerous shift in power toward the executive. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested such an interpretation of IEEPA could permanently shift trade powers away from Congress, violating constitutional checks and balances.Lawyer for Trump faces tough Supreme Court questions over legality of tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Senate confirmed Eric Tung to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 52-45 party-line vote, making him President Donald Trump's sixth appellate court appointee in his second term. Tung, a former federal prosecutor and Justice Department lawyer, most recently worked at Jones Day, where he focused on commercial litigation and frequently represented cryptocurrency interests. His confirmation came over the objections of California's Democratic senators, who criticized his past statements and writings on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gender roles.Tung has been a vocal legal advocate for controversial positions, including support for the independent state legislature theory and the argument that stablecoin sales fall outside SEC regulation. While he pledged to follow Supreme Court precedent, critics raised concerns about his originalist approach to constitutional rights. He faced intense scrutiny during his confirmation hearings for remarks made at a Federalist Society event and earlier in life, including statements about gender roles that drew fire from Senator Alex Padilla.Despite these concerns, Tung's legal career earned strong endorsements from colleagues and conservative legal allies. He clerked for Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch and has experience handling judicial nominations from within DOJ. Tung fills the seat vacated by Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, a fellow conservative, ensuring ideological continuity on the Ninth Circuit.Former DOJ, Jones Day Lawyer Confirmed as Ninth Circuit JudgeThe California Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom, seeking to block the implementation of new congressional maps approved by voters just a day earlier via Proposition 50. The measure, backed by Newsom and passed by wide margins, suspends the state's independent redistricting commission and installs a Democratic-leaning map that could endanger five Republican-held congressional seats. Newsom has framed the move as a direct response to Texas' mid-cycle redistricting, which is expected to boost Republican power in the 2026 midterms.The GOP lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, argues that the new maps violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as the primary factor in redrawing districts to favor Hispanic voters. The plaintiffs, represented by attorney Mike Columbo of the Dhillon Law Group, claim the state legislature lacked sufficient justification to use race in this way and failed to meet the legal standards required under the Voting Rights Act.Republicans also contend that Proposition 50 diminishes the political voice of non-Hispanic groups and constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The suit, Tangipa v. Newsom, is backed by the National Republican Congressional Committee and includes Republican lawmakers and candidates as plaintiffs. It mirrors legal challenges in Texas, where courts are evaluating claims of racial bias in redistricting. The outcome of these cases could significantly affect congressional control heading into the latter half of President Trump's second term.California Republicans Sue to Block New Congressional Maps (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

The psychopaths running the government are not going to let a crisis go to waste. They're taking advantage of the shutdown to cut SNAP benefits and fire civil servants — or they would if courts would let them. Plus, the Ninth Circuit and even the Supreme Court (GASP!) are putting the kibosh on Trump's plan to flood blue states with troops. And still, Lindsey Halligan, the wannabe US Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, is finding new and creative ways to screw up the prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey.   Links:   Massachusetts v. USDA [SNAP benefits] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71783393/commonwealth-of-massachusetts-v-united-states-department-of-agriculture/   AFGE-AFL CIO v. US [shutdown RIFs] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71502325/american-federation-of-government-employees-afl-cio-v-united-states   Drake v. UMG [trial docket] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69546009/graham-v-umg-recordings-inc   Oregon v. Trump [Ninth Circuit] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71554902/state-of-oregon-et-al-v-trump-et-al   SCOTUS Docket: Chicago Troop Deployment https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a443.html   US v. Comey https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71459120/united-states-v-comey/?order_by=desc   US v. Ramirez [Essayli] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71166841/united-states-v-ramirez/?order_by=desc Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThis week, both James Comey and Letitia James continue to seek dismissal of the criminal charges brought against them, and one argument they've both made will be considered by a judge from another state. We talk about why that's happening, we also discuss a lesson from the Barry Bonds steroids case that could be relevant for Comey, and we look at a complaint James has made about Halligan's communications about grand jury proceedings to a reporter. That, plus a look at Ninth Circuit action in the national guard cases and a look at a sloppy defamation lawsuit from Paul Ingrassia, constitutes this week's free show.Beyond the paywall, we talk about an effort from the D.C. bar to impose new burdens on law firms that might, theoretically, enter into settlement deals with the government, an dwhen a state could prosecute an ICE officer for breaking state law (not never, is the short answer), and our discussion of how some judges are now getting in trouble for their misuse of AI in drafting opinions.Upgrade your subscription at serioustrouble.show.

A truck full of deadly virus-infected "aggressive" lab monkeys were released in a crash in Mississippi. It's about time, right? In fact, doesn't it feel a little late in this disaster of a timeline for that kind of event? Anymore, a thing like that feels like some sort of shitshow oasis. David Waldman has already shown some signs of infection this morning, but Greg Dworkin remains hale, and hearty enough to dredge another a raft o'stories from the dismal fen of Ex-Twitter. Fewer people like Donald K. Trump. More like him less. Tariffs that were to hurt the other guy, foreign and domestic, have been discovered to hurt them as well. Generic Democrats come to the rescue of the American economy. Gops have ways of dealing with those nasty polls, and one way is to simply cease to be and allow the scum to float to the top. Judges are now the last line of defense. A federal judge has decided that Bilal Essayli can't be U.S. attorney for the Central District of California just because the Senate has never selected anyone for the job. Another federal judge demands that violent recidivist Greg Bovino wear a camera and report to her each day. The Ninth Circuit en banc bench continues to block Trump's Portland invasion. The House is trying to fund SNAP because having the National Guard put down food riots might image badly heading into the midterms. South Korea takes satire further than South Park would ever dare, handing Trump a gold crown and a bottle of ketchup. Satire can never catch an administration that keeps male veterans from getting coverage for breast cancer,,, What, hasn't Pete Hegseth banned nipples in the armed forces yet? Meanwhile, Ken Paxton sues Tylenol until he can figure out how to jail mothers of autistic children. In local news… maybe not local to you, but local to somebody, Jay Jones' texting scandal hardly hurts him, let alone Abigail Spanberger. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, on the other hand, hopes the Zohran Mamdanimentum always rolls her way. Andrew Cuomo not only hopes people will remember him next week, but he also hopes they can find him on the ticket.

The Trump administration got caught lying to the Ninth Circuit about the so-called crisis in Portland. Will it matter? Is Stephen Miller correct that ICE and CBP can beat up protesters without worrying about legal repercussions? (No, but …) And what even is spoliation anyway? Asking for Justin Baldoni. Plus for subscribers, a deep dive into the government's effort to repurpose years-old evidence in the Comey case. Links: US v. Abrego Garcia https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70476164/united-states-v-abrego-garcia/?order_by=desc Abrego Garcia v. Noem https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71191591/abrego-garcia-v-noem/?order_by=desc US v. Comey https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71459121/united-states-v-comey/?order_by=desc Oregon v. Trump [Ninth Circuit] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71554902/state-of-oregon-et-al-v-trump-et-al/?order_by=desc Chicago Headline Club v. Noem https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71559589/chicago-headline-club-v-noem/?order_by=desc Bovino interview CBS https://www.cbsnews.com/news/border-patrol-chief-gregory-bovino-agents-use-of-force-in-chicago Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod

See what Portland media won't show you. Victoria Taft breaks down the so-called “cleanup” of Antifa's encampment—a carefully timed stunt ahead of a key Ninth Circuit decision. You'll watch how police literally negotiate with Antifa while harassing ordinary citizens just trying to drive home.You'll also hear about the government shutdown and how Democrats are using working families, air traffic safety, and food stamps as political leverage.Then, Victoria speaks with Yukong "Mike" Zhao from Chinese Americans for the Constitution. He shares his firsthand story of escaping communist China, facing harassment in California, and fighting back against Gavin Newsom's radical Prop 50 power grab.#antifa, #portland, #governmentshutdown, #victoria_taft, #mikezhou, #communism,#free_speech, #lawandorder, #pjmedia, #anarchists

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

Support the show by signing up to our Patreon and get access to the full Weekender episode each Friday as well as special Live Shows and access to our community discord: http://patreon.com/muckrakepodcast With Jared Yates Sexton out, Coach Nick hosts a two-guest Weekender unpacking how “absolute immunity” is morphing into absolute impunity. Criminal defense attorney Greg Rosenfeld joins from Palm Beach County to break down Ninth Circuit skirmishes, shadow-docket shenanigans, and why judicial deference is gutting real checks on an increasingly imperial presidency. Then Professor Jason Niedleman (University of La Verne) digs into the political strategy behind National Guard deployments, the shutdown blame game, and the long war over rules, filibusters, and gerrymanders. Along the way: DC crime stats spin, immigration theatrics, a Santos commutation sidebar, and why expanding the electorate is the actual endgame. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

US Attorney Lindsey Halligan takes a break from prosecuting Jim Comey for leaking to reporters to … leak to reporters. Jim Comey noticed, and so did New York Attorney General Tish James. The Ninth Circuit blesses Trump's invasion of Los Angeles. There is gambling in basketball. We are shocked, SHOCKED! And Trump demands $230 million from US Treasury.   Links:   O'Hara v. Beck (Star Wars Music) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.286143   “Anna, Lindsey Halligan Here.” https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/anna--lindsey-halligan-here   US v. Ramirez (Challenge to appointment of US Atty Bill Essayli) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71166841/united-states-v-ramirez/?order_by=desc   US v. Tish James https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71601419/united-states-v-james/?order_by=desc   US v. James Comey https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71459121/united-states-v-comey/   US v. Aiello (NBA indictment 1 - poker cheating) [docket via CourtListener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.537409/gov.uscourts.nyed.537409.1.0_2.pdf   US v. Earnest (NBA indictment 2 - basketball cheating) [indictment via New York Times] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/10/23/nyregion/nba-betting-scheme-indictment.html?unlocked_article_code=1.vk8.BGFB.maF0MnGV9jLM&smid=url-share   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Antitrust: May Apple be barred from charging commissions for purchases made outside of its App Store? - Argued: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:38:4 EDT

Civil Rights: May the Trump Administration ban transgender individuals from serving in the military? - Argued: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 11:35:49 EDT

Federalism: May a federal judge enjoin the president from unlawfully deploying the National Guard in California? - Argued: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:40:53 EDT

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has delivered a game-changing ruling, overriding state objections and permitting the immediate deployment of federalized National Guard troops into Portland, Oregon. This decision fundamentally redefines the limits of presidential power in domestic civil law enforcement. Meanwhile, the administration is simultaneously threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act to send forces into San Francisco. Independent media has never been more important. Please support this channel by subscribing here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g?sub_confirmation=1 Join this channel with a membership for exclusive early access and bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g/join Five Minute News is an Evergreen Podcast, covering politics, inequality, health and climate - delivering independent, unbiased and essential news for the US and across the world. Visit us online at http://www.fiveminute.news Follow us on Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/fiveminutenews.bsky.social Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/fiveminnews Support us on Patreon http://www.patreon.com/fiveminutenews You can subscribe to Five Minute News with your preferred podcast app, ask your smart speaker, or enable Five Minute News as your Amazon Alexa Flash Briefing skill. CONTENT DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed on this channel are those of the guests and authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Anthony Davis or Five Minute News LLC. Any content provided by our hosts, guests or authors are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything, in line with the First Amendment right to free and protected speech. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Monday, a majority of a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the Trump administration can send members of the National Guard to Portland. The immediate impact of the ruling, however, is unclear. The Ninth Circuit’s decision only applies to one of the two temporary restraining orders U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut issued earlier this month blocking deployments both from Oregon and from any other state. Writing for the majority, Judges Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade said that both of Judge Immergut’s restraining orders “rise or fall together” because they’re based on the same legal reasoning. In a dissent, Judge Susan Graber disagreed and said the Trump administration did not challenge the second restraining order, which therefore remains in effect.    Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson responded to the ruling in a joint statement and called for a hearing before the full Ninth Circuit. “Oregon remains united in the fight against this unwanted, unneeded military intervention in Oregon,” Gov. Kotek wrote. Last week, a federal appeals court upheld an Illinois district court’s ruling that blocked the deployment of the National Guard to Chicago. The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the National Guard deployment in Chicago.    Joining us for a legal analysis of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is Jessica Levinson, clinical professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.    

When lies ignite chaos, truth becomes the only defense. Tara exposes how the “Trump the dictator” narrative collapsed live on MSNBC after the liberal Ninth Circuit Court confirmed his National Guard deployment was fully legal. From Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's incendiary claims to celebrity rants comparing Trump officials to Nazis, Tara breaks down how false talking points are radicalizing the left and leading to open calls for violence — including shocking remarks from the president of Colombia suggesting Trump should be “taken out.” The episode also dives into cartel infiltration, a massive AWS outage that revealed America's digital vulnerability, and election updates in South Carolina.

Tara dives deep into the biggest controversies the mainstream media refuses to report accurately: the Epstein files, Trump's alleged “law-breaking,” and record-breaking law enforcement results under his administration. From sealed flight logs and shocking victim accounts to Democratic governors threatening ICE without naming laws allegedly broken, Tara exposes the truth behind the headlines. The episode also highlights historic FBI and DHS arrests of violent criminals, child predators, and human traffickers, while liberal courts confirm Trump's lawful authority to deploy the National Guard. With foreign threats escalating due to political narratives, Tara untangles fact from fiction, revealing what the media and politicians hope Americans never learn.

It's make or break time for the rule of law at the Supreme Court, as the Trump administration's plan to flood the streets with troops comes to One First Street. The Ninth Circuit says: YES. The Seventh Circuit says: NO. Meanwhile in Virginia, Trump's insurance lawyer Lindsey Halligan is LARPing as US Attorney so she can prosecute his nemesis James Comey. Which motion to dismiss will put this dumb case out of its misery? Selective and vindictive prosecution? Halligan's unlawful appointment? Literal truth of the supposed false statements? And for bonus subscribers: ANTIFA is the new RICO.   Links:   US v. Comey https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71459121/united-states-v-comey/   US v. Giraud [Seventh Circuit Docket] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71195676/united-states-v-julien-giraud-jr/   Trump v. Illinois [SCOTUS DOCKET] https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a443.html   Oregon v. Trump [Ninth Circuit Docket] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71554902/state-of-oregon-et-al-v-trump-et-al/   US v. Arnold (Hill)  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71664415/united-states-v-arnold/?order_by=desc   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Vice President JD Vance is in Israel as Washington tries to stabilize the first phase of the Gaza cease-fire and push Israel and the Hamas terrorist group toward the next phase. Vance will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and hold a press conference later on Tuesday.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that President Donald Trump can deploy National Guard troops into Portland. The three-judge panel granted the Justice Department's request to lift a lower court block on the deployment. The court said the move was an appropriate response after protesters damaged a federal building and threatened ICE officers.

Walk through the Ninth Circuit's ruling that affirmed the President's authority to deploy National Guard support to protect federal facilities—yes, even in Portland. You'll see what that meant for the “No Kings” actions outside ICE HQ, why federal overtime and local police non-response became key facts, and how agitators reportedly tried to manufacture “moments” for the cameras.You'll also step inside Seattle's Anarchist Book Fair—where “anarchy” came with a long list of rules (masks required, no bikes, no dogs, curated lunch). We'll connect the money flows and the NGO alphabet soup you keep hearing about, then finish with the latest DC intrigue: a referral for former CIA director John Brennan and what Congress says he knew.#Portland #NinthCircuit #NationalGuard #ICE#Antifa #NoKings #Seattle #Anarchist #FreeSpeech #VictoriaTaft

Todd breaks down the optics and fallout of the nationwide “No Kings” protests, arguing why the spectacle risks alienating moderates while only firing up the far left. Then he digs into day twenty one of the government shutdown—what the Senate filibuster means, the real strategy behind a longer continuing resolution, and who's feeling the economic pinch. Finally, a rare twist from the Ninth Circuit: a panel decision that opens the door to federalizing the Oregon National Guard in Portland—what it means and what comes next. Plus, a quick note on gerrymandering battles and why the left suddenly wants a truce. Conservative not bitter, straight talk you won't get from the legacy media.

CannCon and Alpha Warrior kick off the week with a fiery breakdown of the latest legal and geopolitical moves shaking the nation. From the Ninth Circuit's ruling that Trump can deploy the National Guard to Portland, to the ongoing James Comey legal fallout, the duo dives deep into how these court decisions could redefine presidential authority and expose deep state hypocrisy. They connect the dots between Judge appointments, DOJ corruption, and why John Bolton's case might blow the media narrative wide open. Alpha brings his law enforcement insight to the Supreme Court's new gun rights case while CannCon takes aim at Colombia's narco ties and Trump's bold threats to shut down foreign drug operations. The episode wraps with sharp geopolitical takes on Gaza, Ukraine, and the quiet power signals coming from the U.S. military. Brutally honest, fast-paced, and full of laughs, this episode of Badlands Daily proves no topic is too big, or too dangerous, for these two patriots.

Crusin' with Steak!  00:00:00 – Setting the Table Mike opens solo with Grim (Cruzin with Steak) filling in; quick riff on nonstop political chaos, A24 movie talk, and a promise to kick off with “Alex Jones Clips of the Week.” 00:04:34 – Alex Jones Clips of the Week A rapid, ridiculous Jones montage (soup bowls, “new world order,” live rants) sets a comedic tone before shifting back to show business. 00:09:33 – Clip Hangover & Pivot They wrap the Jones bit and pivot toward current events and legal-ish headlines that'll recur later in the show. 00:13:10 – Jones Legal/Bankruptcy Thread Brief backgrounder chatter on Jones' court/receiver saga and “summary judgment” beats, used as a springboard to talk institutional power and punishments. 00:18:07 – “Big Balls” DC Assault Sentencing Outrage over the light probation for teens who beat the Elon/DDOS staffer known as “Big Balls”; used to argue why DC brought in the Guard and why people feel justice is upside-down. 00:23:06 – Federal vs. State: Guard Deployments Debate over courts blocking/allowing federally controlled Guard in Chicago; 10th/14th Amendment talk; “guns but no bullets” analogy; airports/Patriot Act as precedent. 00:27:41 – Strategy of Tension More on how protests, laser-targeting aircraft, and courtroom moves can manufacture the very “authoritarian” outcome activists fear. 00:32:40 – “Are We Building the Police State for Them?” Continuing the theme: court fights (Ninth Circuit), Guard units staging near Chicago, and how sustained agitation invites a harder crackdown. 00:37:17 – Hollywood Money Weirdness Quick detour: Saudi cash, game/film IP, and industry desperation — a palette cleanser before the weird news block heats up. 00:42:04 – Snake-Lady Headlines A viral Indian tabloid story: husband claims his wife is a shapeshifting snake; lots of side-eye, jokes, and “sorcerer” as legal expert. 00:47:01 – How Often Do ‘Snake-Lady' Claims Happen? They try to quantify the phenomenon, conclude it's vanishingly rare, and tee up better-sourced U.S. weirdness. 00:51:58 – Carolina Pale Crawler: The Setup Introduce the Pender County, NC 911 case via the Carolina Case Files YouTube investigation; promise to play/parse the report. 00:56:39 – 911 Tape & Deputy Notes Caller sees a blood-soaked “Civil War soldier,” then hears a slam: something jumps into his truck bed and beats on the cab; later thrown off by braking. 01:01:33 – The Witness Speaks Detailed eyewitness interview: milky white face at the rear glass, 7-foot lanky thing, thrown off at ~80→35 mph braking, sprints into the trees. 01:06:02 – Is It “The Rake”? They place the entity in modern folklore: AI images, creepypasta origins (4chan era), “pale emaciated” long-limbed descriptions vs. sparse credible sightings. 01:10:41 – North Carolina Weird File Pulls older NC cases (tiny “coke-bottle man,” metallic spheres, odd odors, footprints) to show the region's high strangeness pedigree beyond “rake” lore. 01:15:28 – Area 51 Crash Gets Weirder Recap: man shot near the gate, then an aircraft crash; later, someone appears to have planted dummy bomb bodies and a mystery panel — FBI gets involved. 01:19:56 – “Where Are All the Aliens?” Tackle a new “aliens are apathetic” paper; hosts torch the hypothesis as “lazy aliens,” reiterate their own takes (undersea/hybrid programs/dark forest). 01:24:36 – AI Dog Translator University of Texas team compiling massive canine audio/video to train an AI collar; debate whether it'll translate desires or just become a grift. 01:29:37 – CERN, Portals & ‘3I Atlas' Viral claim: CERN “opened a portal” and telepathically contacted a “draconian-occupied mothership” (3I Atlas). The crew treats it as eyebrow-raising sensationalism. 01:34:34 – Remote Viewing & Reptilians More on remote-viewer assertions (slime/tech/organic craft) and competing bureaucracies — then, “okay, let's do wacky news.” 01:39:34 – Drive-By Cheeseburger Florida man allegedly weaponizes a cheeseburger during a strip-club spat; running jokes about “arsenals of food” in the car. 01:44:03 – World's Priciest Burger (Invite-Only) An $11k “by-invitation” burger with secret ingredients; hosts call it pure hype — like brand-building via billboards before making any clothes. 01:48:29 – The 50-Year Fake Blindness Scam Italian man accused of faking total blindness for decades; investigators filmed him doing everyday tasks — and now, big claw-back trouble. 01:52:31 – $680 Coffee & Sign-Offs Dubai café's record cup sparks “who'd pay that?” banter; show plugs, schedules, Battlefield talk, and the farewell roll. 01:56:48 – Outro Stinger Final seconds trail off with a goofy musical/button coda.   Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research ▀▄▀▄▀ CONTACT LINKS ▀▄▀▄▀ ► Website: http://obdmpod.com ► Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/obdmpod ► Full Videos at Odysee: https://odysee.com/@obdm:0 ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/obdmpod ► Instagram: obdmpod ► Email: ourbigdumbmouth at gmail ► RSS: http://ourbigdumbmouth.libsyn.com/rss ► iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/our-big-dumb-mouth/id261189509?mt=2  

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

"Too Disturbing to See”: Judge Blocks Graphic Kohberger Crime Scene Photos-WEEK IN REVIEW Should the worst moments of someone's life be public forever? In this gripping episode of Hidden Killers with Tony Brueski, we unpack a powerful new court ruling in the Bryan Kohberger case—one that challenges how far the public's right to know really goes. Idaho Judge Megan Marshall has officially barred the release of graphic crime scene photos depicting the slain bodies of four University of Idaho students: Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. Why does this matter? Because we're living in an age where “transparency” often doubles as clickbait. The photos in question, described by the judge as “incredibly disturbing,” were requested under Idaho's Public Records Act. But citing emotional trauma to the families and legal precedent around survivor privacy, the court drew a clear line: some truths don't need to be seen to be known. We break down the legal framework behind the ruling, including the landmark National Archives v. Favish decision and the Ninth Circuit's recognition of post-mortem privacy. We also explore the tension between legitimate public interest and pure morbid curiosity—especially in the digital age where true crime content gets instantly repurposed, decontextualized, and weaponized online. What gets lost when we treat victim imagery as “just another post”? And what do we actually gain when the system chooses dignity over spectacle? This is not just a legal story—it's a cultural reckoning. One that asks: Is it justice if the families suffer more after the verdict is in? Watch now as we separate justice from voyeurism—and explain why this ruling may reshape the future of transparency in high-profile true crime cases. Hashtags #BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #TrueCrimeNews #HiddenKillers #CrimeScenePrivacy #UniversityOfIdaho #KayleeGoncalves #XanaKernodle #EthanChapin #MadisonMogen Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

"Too Disturbing to See”: Judge Blocks Graphic Kohberger Crime Scene Photos Should the worst moments of someone's life be public forever? In this gripping episode of Hidden Killers with Tony Brueski, we unpack a powerful new court ruling in the Bryan Kohberger case—one that challenges how far the public's right to know really goes. Idaho Judge Megan Marshall has officially barred the release of graphic crime scene photos depicting the slain bodies of four University of Idaho students: Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. Why does this matter? Because we're living in an age where “transparency” often doubles as clickbait. The photos in question, described by the judge as “incredibly disturbing,” were requested under Idaho's Public Records Act. But citing emotional trauma to the families and legal precedent around survivor privacy, the court drew a clear line: some truths don't need to be seen to be known. We break down the legal framework behind the ruling, including the landmark National Archives v. Favish decision and the Ninth Circuit's recognition of post-mortem privacy. We also explore the tension between legitimate public interest and pure morbid curiosity—especially in the digital age where true crime content gets instantly repurposed, decontextualized, and weaponized online. What gets lost when we treat victim imagery as “just another post”? And what do we actually gain when the system chooses dignity over spectacle? This is not just a legal story—it's a cultural reckoning. One that asks: Is it justice if the families suffer more after the verdict is in? Watch now as we separate justice from voyeurism—and explain why this ruling may reshape the future of transparency in high-profile true crime cases. Hashtags  #BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #TrueCrimeNews #HiddenKillers #CrimeScenePrivacy #UniversityOfIdaho #KayleeGoncalves #XanaKernodle #EthanChapin #MadisonMogen Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872