Podcasts about obergefell

This Day in Legal History: The Fourteenth Amendment Is RatifiedOn July 9, 1868, South Carolina and Louisiana became the final two states needed to push the Fourteenth Amendment over the three-quarters threshold, and with their votes the amendment was ratified into the Constitution. It is, by almost any measure, the most consequential of the Reconstruction amendments and arguably the most important addition to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights.The amendment was written to answer the central question left open by the Civil War and the abolition of slavery: what did freedom actually mean, and who was entitled to it? Its first section does an enormous amount of work in a single sentence. It establishes birthright citizenship—declaring that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of both the nation and their state. It then forbids any state from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens, from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying any person the equal protection of the laws. Those three clauses—privileges or immunities, due process, and equal protection—became the constitutional text on which vast stretches of modern American law are built.The historical purpose was direct. The framers of the amendment, led in the House by John Bingham, wanted to overrule Dred Scott, which had held that Black Americans could not be citizens, and to constitutionalize the civil rights protections Congress had already tried to enact by statute—putting them beyond the reach of any future hostile Congress or Southern legislature. They understood that emancipation without citizenship and equal protection would be a hollow victory, and they wrote a guarantee that applied against the states, not just the federal government.The significance of July 9, 1868 is hard to overstate, because so much of what we argue about today runs directly through this text. The Equal Protection Clause is the basis of Brown v. Board of Education and school desegregation, of Loving v. Virginia striking down bans on interracial marriage, and of Obergefell recognizing marriage equality. The Due Process Clause became the vehicle for incorporating most of the Bill of Rights against the states, so that free speech, free exercise, and protections for the criminally accused bind state governments too. And the Citizenship Clause is the reason that birthright citizenship is a constitutional guarantee rather than a policy preference—as the Supreme Court reaffirmed just this past term. When you hear debates about who counts as a citizen, what process the government owes a person before it takes something from them, or whether a law treats people equally, you are hearing an argument about the amendment ratified on this date.A federal judge in Florida has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to keep giving four Republican-led states—Florida, Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio—access to a federal database those states use to check whether registered voters are citizens. The order, from U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II in Pensacola, lets the states continue using the system while the underlying legal fight plays out.The database is called SAVE—Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements—a federal system historically used to verify immigration status for benefits. After a revamp last year, it became far more powerful for election purposes: users could search many records at once, and it exposed individuals' Social Security numbers. Several Republican-led states began comparing their voter rolls against SAVE and canceling the registrations of people the database flagged as noncitizens. The problem is what happens when the database is wrong or out of date—people who are in fact citizens can get flagged and purged.That risk is exactly why this ruling sits in tension with another one. Just weeks earlier, on June 22, a different federal judge in Washington, D.C., restricted broader use of the database, warning that relying on it could result in eligible voters being wrongly stripped from the rolls. So you now have two federal courts pointing in different directions—one worried about wrongful purges and limiting the database's use, and one ordering DHS to keep the spigot open for these four states. When trial courts split like this, the disagreement typically has to be resolved higher up, and it means the rules can differ depending on which state and which courtroom you're standing in.The significance is that this is a live fight over the machinery of voter-roll maintenance heading into a midterm election year. There's a genuine and legitimate interest in keeping noncitizens off the voter rolls—but there's an equally real risk that a blunt, error-prone matching process disenfranchises actual citizens who then have to fight to get back on. This ruling tilts toward giving states the verification tool; the D.C. ruling tilts toward protecting against wrongful removals. Watch the appellate courts, because the boundary between list maintenance and unlawful voter purging is about to get drawn more sharply.US judge orders four states be given access to citizenship data for voter checks | ReutersIn a closely related development, the Justice Department has sent letters to all fifty states warning that state and local election officials could face criminal prosecution if they allow noncitizens to remain on their voter rolls. The letters, from Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Department's Civil Rights Division, give officials just five days to respond with a plan to comply. The federal government does have statutes on the books aimed at protecting the integrity of elections and barring noncitizens from voting, and the letters invoke several of them. But the ordinary way these laws work is that you prosecute a person who actually votes illegally, or who knowingly facilitates fraud. What's unusual here is the target: the letters put state and local election administrators—the people who maintain the rolls—on notice that they personally could be charged. That reframes routine election administration as potential criminal exposure for the officials doing it.Think about the position this puts an election official in. Maintaining accurate voter rolls is genuinely hard—people move, die, naturalize, and occasionally register in error—and every state already has processes for it. Now imagine being told by the U.S. Department of Justice that if the federal government later decides your rolls were inadequate, you could be a criminal defendant, and you have five days to send in a compliance plan. Even if few or no prosecutions ever materialize, the threat itself is designed to change behavior—to push officials toward more aggressive purging out of fear of personal liability. Critics call that coercion; the Department frames it as enforcement.The significance is about federal pressure on the decentralized American election system. Elections in this country are run by states and localities, deliberately, so that no single national authority controls the vote. Democratic officials in states like Michigan pushed back hard, noting they've already taken extensive steps to ensure only eligible voters can vote. The letters, arriving alongside the SAVE database fight, are part of a coordinated push ahead of the midterms, and they raise a serious question about the line between legitimate federal enforcement of election laws and using the threat of prosecution to lean on the officials who administer them.US Justice Department tells state officials they could be prosecuted over noncitizen voting | ReutersAnd in a very different kind of case, a former Olympic canoe racer, David Hearn, pleaded not guilty in D.C. Superior Court to a felony charge of deliberately damaging the recently renovated Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Hearn, who is 67 and competed in three Summer Olympics, entered his plea through an attorney at his first court appearance, and his lawyers have described the prosecution as an abuse of power built on what they call a “concocted narrative.”The Reflecting Pool sits on the National Mall between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument and had just undergone a roughly $16 million renovation. Hearn has said he was stopped by National Guard troops and U.S. Park Police and detained for about five hours after pausing at the pool during a 64-mile bike ride in June. He was later indicted on a single felony count of property destruction. The top federal prosecutor for D.C., U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, said six other people were arrested on misdemeanor charges connected to damage at the same site.The legal question worth watching is the gap between the charge and the conduct. Property-destruction law generally requires proof that the defendant intentionally caused the damage, and a felony charge usually turns on the dollar value of that damage. Hearn's defense is essentially that the government has manufactured intent and seriousness out of an innocent encounter—that a man pausing on a bike ride has been turned into a felony defendant. The judge apparently agreed there was little flight or danger risk: Hearn was released without court supervision pending an August 5 status hearing, which tells you something about how the court currently views the threat he poses.The significance here is less about one damaged pool and more about the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Deciding whom to charge, and whether to charge a felony versus a misdemeanor versus nothing at all, is one of the most powerful and least reviewable choices in the legal system. When critics call a prosecution politically motivated or an abuse of power, they're pointing at that discretion. Whether this case is a legitimate property-crime prosecution (it isn't) or an overreach (it is) is exactly what the coming proceedings will test—and it's a useful reminder that the same charging power that holds genuine wrongdoers accountable can also be aimed in ways that raise real fairness concerns.Former US Olympian pleads not guilty in Reflecting Pool vandalism case | 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

Millions of Americans now believe and live as if Obergefell has settled the question of same-sex "marriage". It did not.  __________ Help ADF defend our freedoms by giving at joinadf.com/breakpoint.

Maria Keffler – author and co-founder of Advocates Protecting Children joins Trending with Timmerie Episode Guide How Gender Ideology Functions Like a Cult (1:54) How Can Parents Protect Their Children from Radical Gender Ideology and Competing Views of Sexuality and the Family in School? (20:57) Most people believe a child should be raised with both their mom and dad – overturn SCOTUS decision on Obergefell (39:42) Where do driver assistance cars, AI, and the Catholic Church overlap? (43:11) Monday on Trending (50:57) Resources mentioned: Book: Desist, Detrans & Detox https://sophiainstitute.com/product/desist-detrans-detox/ OuPath APP https://apps.apple.com/us/app/outpath/id6754087224 opt out Letter https://www.advocatesprotectingchildren.org/_files/ugd/aafe4e_a3018c892b4246ccb28181402861de36.pdf The Social Dilemma https://thesocialdilemma.com/ Latest poll on children’s needs https://greaterthancampaign.com/poll/

Hour 1 for 6/26/26 Drew and Katy Faust discuss the consequences of the Obergefell decision in 2015 (6:02), the rights of children (13:10), and what's coming next (19:31). Then, Fr. Colin Blachford covers the Couage ministries for those with same-sex attraction (30:30), and discuses misconceptions about the ministry (34:48), and EnCouage (43:25). Link: https://greaterthancampaign.com/ https://couragerc.org/

Josh opens the show with the latest developments on the Iran deal and explains why it now appears to be hanging by a thread following Iran's actions earlier this week. He revisits what should have been done from the beginning, why the current approach has fallen short, and why President Trump still has time to secure a real victory. Josh also examines the biggest obstacles standing in the way of a lasting agreement and whether a deal is still realistically within reach. Next, Josh turns to the courts with a major legal update, breaking down the Left's meltdown over a recent Supreme Court ruling that may go down as one of the most commonsense decisions we've seen from the Court. He explains what the ruling actually says, why critics are misrepresenting it, and what it means for the future of executive authority and the rule of law. Finally, Josh discusses the anniversary of the Obergefell v. Hodges same-sex marriage decision at the Supreme Court and why new polling provides evidence that the fight to restore the proper definition of marriage is far from a lost cause.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On Friday's show: HISD's state-appointed board of managers approved Bible-infused curriculum for elementary school students and also voted to adopt a $2 billion operating budget for the 2026-27 school year. We get details on both.And, Fort Bend County government ground to a halt after two Democratic commissioners walked out of a meeting, breaking quorum and leaving county business in limbo. The standoff is the latest escalation in a partisan dispute over who legally leads the county.Also this hour: We mark an anniversary for a few key landmark Supreme Court rulings impacting gay rights: Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, the 2013 striking down of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and, in 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the High Court ruled same-sex couples had a Constitutional right to marriage under the 14th Amendment.Then, our non-experts contemplate The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly of the week.And we preview the Ensemble Theatre's production of Get Ready, which explores the impact that shifts in popular music had on Black musicians starting in the 1950s.Watch

This Day in Legal History: Windsor and ObergefellOn two separate June 26ths, exactly two years apart, the Supreme Court made history by recognizing marriage equality as a constitutional right. These decisions fundamentally transformed American law and represented victories for millions of Americans.On June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. DOMA had defined marriage, for federal law purposes, as a union only between one man and one woman. This meant that even though some states had legalized same-sex marriage, the federal government refused to recognize those marriages for tax purposes, immigration, federal benefits, and countless other legal matters. Edith Windsor, a woman who had been married to her female partner for over 40 years, faced a massive federal estate tax bill after her wife's death because the federal government refused to recognize their marriage. She sued, arguing that DOMA violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. The Court agreed. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that DOMA “violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government.” The decision meant that same-sex couples legally married under state law now had to be recognized by the federal government. It was a stunning victory—but not a complete one, because some states still didn't allow same-sex marriage at all.Two years later, on June 26, 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court took the final step. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the Fourteenth Amendment. This was different from Windsor. Windsor said the federal government must recognize marriages that states allowed. Obergefell said states must allow same-sex couples to marry in the first place. The decision meant that in all 50 states, same-sex couples could get married and have their marriages recognized and protected by law. Justice Kennedy again wrote the majority opinion, describing marriage as “the foundation of the family” and emphasizing that the right to marry has been recognized as vital in our history and tradition. He wrote about the personal dignity of same-sex couples and their commitment to each other: “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.”For most of American history, the law told millions of Americans they weren't allowed to marry the person they loved. The law denied same-sex couples basic rights that heterosexual couples took for granted—hospital visitation, inheritance, tax benefits, the ability to make medical decisions for each other. Windsor and Obergefell said that's unconstitutional. They affirmed that equal protection of the law means you can't be denied basic rights because of who you love.These two decisions, decided on the same date two years apart, represent one of the most dramatic shifts in constitutional law in decades. They show how the Constitution evolves to protect fundamental rights, and they demonstrate that the arc of justice, though long, bends toward equality. Millions of same-sex couples across America now have the legal right to marry, to have their marriages recognized, and to be treated equally under the law. For many, these decisions represented not just legal victories but personal affirmations that their relationships, their love, and their families matter.The Supreme Court has signaled its approval of restrictive immigration policies, suggesting the Trump administration will succeed in making immigration law more difficult for immigrants and more favorable to enforcement.The Supreme Court has been reviewing several immigration cases involving Trump administration policies designed to restrict immigration. Based on recent oral arguments and the Court's questioning during those arguments, many observers believe the Court will side with the Trump administration on immigration issues. This represents a significant shift. For decades, the courts have sometimes limited executive power over immigration, recognizing that even though the President has broad authority over immigration, the Constitution still applies. Immigrants have constitutional rights, including due process protections before being deported. But the current Supreme Court appears skeptical of these limitations.The President does have significant power over immigration—deciding who can enter the country and who must leave. But the Constitution doesn't disappear just because immigration is involved. People facing deportation deserve notice, a chance to be heard, and due process. The Supreme Court appears to be tilting toward giving the Trump administration even broader immigration power, with fewer constitutional protections for immigrants. This signals that restrictive immigration policies will likely succeed in the courts.If the Court rules in favor of the administration's immigration policies, it will embolden more restrictive immigration enforcement. Immigrant communities will face greater risks of deportation. The ruling will signal that courts defer heavily to the Executive Branch on immigration matters, even when constitutional rights are at stake. This represents one of the most significant shifts in immigration law in decades, moving away from judicial protection of immigrants' constitutional rights and toward deference to executive immigration enforcement.On immigration, Supreme Court accedes to Trump's restrictive agenda | Reuters The Supreme Court has ruled to expand Second Amendment protections and has indicated it intends to take more gun rights cases in the coming years. This signals a fundamental shift in how the Court views the right to bear arms.For decades, the Second Amendment was interpreted as primarily protecting gun ownership for militia purposes. But in 2008, in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns for lawful purposes like self-defense. That decision was controversial—it overturned decades of precedent and limited gun regulations. Since Heller, courts have struggled with the question: If people have a constitutional right to own guns, what gun regulations can the government still impose? The Supreme Court has now signaled it's willing to expand Second Amendment protections even further. The Court has indicated it will hear more gun rights cases, and recent decisions and comments suggest the Court will protect gun ownership rights broadly.The Constitution protects free speech, but you can still have laws against yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. The question with the Second Amendment is: What reasonable regulations can the government impose while still respecting the constitutional right? Gun rights advocates say any regulation is an unconstitutional restriction. Gun safety advocates say common-sense regulations like background checks and waiting periods are reasonable. The Supreme Court is signaling it will take the gun rights side of that debate and will continue expanding Second Amendment protections beyond what was previously recognized.This signals that many gun regulations that have existed for years—regulations that public opinion supports—may be struck down as unconstitutional. States will lose authority to regulate firearms. The Court's expansion of Second Amendment rights will make it harder for the government to pass gun safety legislation. This represents a dramatic constitutional shift away from allowing gun regulations and toward treating gun ownership as a nearly absolute right. It will likely lead to more mass shooting deaths if gun safety measures are struck down, but it reflects the current Supreme Court's deep commitment to gun rights.US Supreme Court expands Second Amendment rights, eyes more gun cases | Reuters A federal judge has ordered that settlement records in a real estate class action case be unsealed and made available to the public. The ruling represents a victory for transparency and accountability.In class action lawsuits, many companies settle rather than go to trial. The settlement typically includes both money paid to class members and a “confidentiality agreement” that keeps the details of the settlement secret. These confidentiality clauses often protect the company's reputation by keeping the details of what went wrong hidden from the public. In this real estate class action, a federal judge decided that the public's right to know outweighs the company's interest in keeping the settlement secret.If a company deceives consumers or engages in unfair practices, and then settles the lawsuit while keeping the details secret, the public never learns what happened. Other consumers stay in the dark about the company's practices. The company's wrongdoing goes unexamined. The judge found that when a company settles a public lawsuit involving alleged harm to consumers, the public has a legitimate interest in knowing what the company did and what it agreed to pay. Transparency protects consumers and holds companies accountable. Settlements should not be used as a tool to hide corporate wrongdoing. The order to unseal the settlement records means the public can now read the details of what the company allegedly did, what harm it caused, and what it agreed to pay.This ruling protects the public's right to information about corporate misconduct. It makes it harder for companies to settle lawsuits while keeping their wrongdoing secret. It encourages companies to settle in ways that are fair, because they know the details will be public. As more settlement records are unsealed, companies will face pressure to behave more honestly, knowing their practices may be exposed in court documents. This decision represents an important check on corporate power and a protection of consumer interests.US judge orders unsealing of settlement-related records in real estate class action | 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

While Lizzie and Arden take a short summer holiday, they wanted to re-release an episode celebrating all things Pride! In this week's episode to honor pride month, Lizzie and Arden examine a landmark Supreme Court case that paved the way for gay marriage, U.S. v Windsor! Join them as they look at the facts of the case, what the opinion and dissents were from the justices, and how it laid the groundwork for Obergefell v. Hodges!Follow us on socials: Let's Get Civical  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/letsgetcivical/Lizzie Stewart Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/lizzie_the_rock_stewart/Arden Walentowski Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ardenjulianna/Love the show? Leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify!

Send us Fan MailA baby asks for “mama,” and two adults laugh back, “There is no mama.” That short viral moment is heartbreaking on the surface, but we think it also reveals something deeper about the way modern culture talks about same-sex marriage, commercial surrogacy, and what counts as a family.I'm joined by my daughter Hannah as we slow down and look past the news cycle. We start with why the video felt so evil to so many people, not only because it provokes a child to tears, but because it treats a child's mother as optional. From there we revisit a question some people warned about years ago after Obergefell: what about the children? We talk plainly about how no “private” adult choice stays private once a child is involved, and why children's rights must come before adult agendas.We also bring in the child development and sociology side. We outline what social scientists commonly acknowledge about socioemotional health: biology matters, gender differences matter, and parental loss is harmful whether it comes through divorce, abandonment, death, adoption, IVF, or third party reproduction. We challenge the slogan “love is enough,” discuss why some studies are methodologically weak, and point listeners to research associated with Paul Sullins and Mark Regnerus. Finally, we share testimony from adult children and stories drawn from Katie Faust's Them Before Us, where “father mother hunger” shows up again and again.If you care about faith, family, and the real-world impact of marriage and reproductive technology on kids, listen through to the end, then subscribe, share this with a friend, and leave a review so more people can find the show.Support the showhttps://www.jacksonfamilyministry.comhttps://bobslone.com/home/podcast-production/

What does it take to evolve the law? In the first of a two-part episode of Pursuing Justice, Alicia Aiken speaks with two giants of civil rights litigation, Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry Global and Shannon Minter of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, about the long arc of marriage equality — from early legal and cultural resistance, to the nationwide victory in Obergefell v. Hodges. Hear how a combination of pro bono power, strategy, and persistence can lead to change. Explore our Pro Bono programs and resources Learn about our Pro Bono Memberships and Scholarships for qualified organizations and individuals Please note: CLE is not offered for listening to this podcast, and the views and opinions expressed within represent those of the speakers and not necessarily those of PLI.

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

In this episode, we welcome Katy Faust back to the studio. She is a Children's Rights Advocate and the Founder and President of “Them Before Us”, a global movement defending children's right to their mother and father. She is also the author of several books including “Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children's Rights Movement”. In this interview, we discuss her new initiative: The Greater Than Campaign, why she is trying to get the Obergefell v. Hodges gay marriage SCOTUS ruling overturned, how the rights of children are being violated to make adults feel comfortable, the dangers faced by children in gay parent households, how easy it has become for people to create and take possession of “designer babies”, why the IVF process is helping drive this cultural shift, and much more. Let's get into it… Episode notes and links HERE. Donate to support our mission of equipping men to push back darkness. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: The Burning of the GaspeeOn this day in 1772, a Royal Navy revenue schooner called HMS Gaspee, captained by a notably overzealous Lieutenant William Duddington, ran aground in shallow water in Narragansett Bay while chasing a Rhode Island packet boat called the Hannah. Within hours of the grounding, roughly sixty Providence merchants, sailors, and “Sons of Liberty” — led by John Brown, one of the wealthiest men in the colony — rowed out under cover of darkness in eight longboats, boarded the Gaspee, shot Duddington, and burned the ship to the waterline. The legal significance lies in what came next. The Crown convened a Royal Commission of Inquiry with authority to ship the perpetrators across the Atlantic for trial in England, bypassing colonial juries entirely, a procedural maneuver that the colonies read as a direct attack on the right to jury trial in the vicinage.The Virginia House of Burgesses responded in March 1773 by forming the first Committee of Correspondence, a sustained intercolonial communication network that became, two years later, the institutional skeleton of the Continental Congress. The Gaspee Affair never produced a single prosecution — the commission could not get the colonial governor or the Rhode Island courts to cooperate, and witness testimony evaporated — but it produced something more durable: the colonial conviction that the Crown's willingness to detour around local juries was itself a constitutional grievance worth organizing against. The right-to-jury-in-the-vicinage point that Madison wrote into the Sixth Amendment seventeen years later is, in a real sense, the Gaspee Affair's longest-lived legacy.The Supreme Court on Monday granted, vacated, and remanded the D.C. Circuit's decision in American Gas Association v. Department of Energy, sending the long-disputed Biden-era Department of Energy efficiency rule on non-condensing residential gas furnaces and commercial water heaters back to the D.C. Circuit “for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General.” That last phrase is the operative one. The new Solicitor General, on behalf of the second Trump administration's DOE, told the Court in late April that the prior administration's reading of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act was, in DOE's current view, wrong, and that the rule effectively bans non-condensing units that millions of homes and small commercial properties were built around. A confessed-error from a new administration doesn't automatically win a case, but the procedural vehicle — a grant-vacate-remand, or “GVR” — is the Court's standard way of saying “go look at this again with the new posture in mind” without resolving the merits itself.The trade-group plaintiffs, led by the American Gas Association and the American Public Gas Association, framed the rule from the start as a de facto product ban dressed up as efficiency standards. The environmental and consumer groups that intervened to defend the rule will get another bite at the apple on remand, but their position is harder when their own client agency has switched sides. Watch the D.C. Circuit's case calendar over the next few weeks for an expedited briefing schedule.Supreme Court Vacates Decision Outlawing Gas Stoves, Water Heaters | NewsBustersSCOTUSblog on Monday published a careful overview of an increasingly organized litigation campaign to ask the Supreme Court to overrule Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The campaign now includes Liberty Counsel, MassResistance, and the Southern Baptist Convention, which last year voted overwhelmingly to urge the Court to reverse the decision. The underlying ground for the push is partly the Court's reasoning in Dobbs four years ago, which gave conservative litigants a road map for unwinding substantive due process precedents, and partly the gradual erosion of public-opinion support for same-sex marriage in one slice of the polling, with Republican support falling from 55 percent in 2022 to 37 percent now. The legal headcount at the Court is, however, the part of the story that is not yet there.Only Justice Thomas has been a consistent vote to revisit Obergefell, having said so in his Dobbs concurrence. Justice Alito, despite being one of Obergefell's original dissenters, recently emphasized in a public speech that he is not suggesting the case should be overruled, citing stare decisis. Justice Gorsuch's dissent in 303 Creative seems to concede that Obergefell is good law and tries instead to carve out specific exceptions to it. None of which is a reason for litigants on the marriage-equality side to relax. The path Dobbs opened up is wider than any single justice's current voting pattern, and the campaign is plainly playing a long game.The next round of test cases on standing and ripeness will start to surface in the lower courts in the next term or two — that is when the campaign's seriousness becomes measurable.The campaign to overrule Obergefell | SCOTUSblogThe third and most constitutionally significant story of the day is one we've been watching: the litigation over President Trump's $400 million ballroom — built on the site of the demolished East Wing — is on track to land in front of the Supreme Court, SCOTUSblog reported Monday. The D.C. Circuit panel that heard the case for more than two hours in late April has not yet ruled, but the questioning made clear that a more substantial opinion is coming and that an appeal to the Court is the likely next stop regardless of which side wins. The legal question is unusually fundamental. The plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, argues that the President has no “free-floating” power to construct major federal buildings without an appropriation from Congress, and that the Antideficiency Act and the Public Buildings Act both require the kind of statutory authorization the East Wing ballroom never received.The administration's response, delivered in a tone that several court-watchers described as unusually defiant, has essentially been that construction has “gone too far to be stopped” and that the courts have no role in second-guessing a presidential building decision once the steel is up. The structural separation-of-powers questions here — what does the Appropriations Clause actually constrain, and can a federal court enjoin a President from continuing to build something that is partially constructed — are large enough that the Supreme Court will almost certainly want to take the case if it reaches the high court. Construction, meanwhile, continues. The most likely Supreme Court resolution is a narrow opinion on standing or remedies, with the broader Appropriations Clause questions deferred for another day. We will see.White House ballroom battle may soon arrive at the Supreme Court | SCOTUSblogIn my Bloomberg Tax column this week, I argue that the SALT deduction cap's biggest problem is not that it is unconstitutional, but that it is badly designed. The latest failed challenge, Sims v. United States, involved two New Jersey taxpayers who claimed the cap violated the 10th Amendment, the 16th Amendment, and broader federalism principles. The federal district court rejected those arguments, finding that Congress has broad authority to tax income and decide which deductions are allowed, limited, or denied. My point is that opponents of the SALT cap should stop looking for constitutional defects that courts are unlikely to find and instead focus on forcing Congress to fix the policy it created.I explain that the cap has always been politically loaded: supporters see it as a needed limit on a deduction that benefits many high-income taxpayers in high-tax states, while critics see it as a targeted attack on those states. But unfair or politically motivated tax policy is not automatically unconstitutional. The real weakness, I argue, is the cap's uneven design, especially the pass-through entity tax workaround. Many business owners can effectively get around the cap when state taxes are paid at the entity level, while wage earners, sole proprietors, and many individual taxpayers remain stuck behind it.That creates a serious mismatch: two taxpayers can live in the same state, earn similar income, and face similar state tax burdens, but receive different federal treatment depending on whether one has the right business structure. I argue that this kind of selective relief may be a more promising target for a narrower administrative or legal challenge than another broad constitutional attack on Congress's taxing power. Congress partly recognized the problem when it raised the cap from $10,000 to $40,000, but I note that the fix is temporary, only lightly indexed, and still leaves major structural problems in place. The marriage penalty remains especially glaring because married couples filing jointly do not receive double the cap available to similarly situated unmarried taxpayers.I also criticize the phaseout design because it can create cliffs or marginal-rate spikes that reward tax gamesmanship rather than sound policy. A better fix, in my view, would make the higher cap permanent, index it meaningfully, eliminate the marriage penalty, smooth out the phaseout, and require Treasury to rationalize the treatment of pass-through entity taxes. The lesson from Sims is that courts may uphold the SALT cap, but that does not make it good tax policy. If the cap is unfair, incoherent, or selectively porous, Congress owns that problem.SALT Deduction Cap Falls Short in Design, Not Constitutionality 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

Have a comment? Send us a text! (We read all of them but can't reply). Email us: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.comWhat happens when feelings become the test of truth?Robert P. George joins Faithful Politics to talk about what he calls “the age of feeling,” a moment where many people treat personal emotion as the final word on what is true. George argues that this does not lead to tolerance. It often makes disagreement feel like a personal attack, which shuts down honest conversation and creates real problems for democracy. The conversation moves through faith, reason, truth, tribalism, intellectual humility, and the challenge of disagreeing with your own side. Will brings in Jonathan Haidt's work on intuition and political identity, while Josh and George work through harder questions around same-sex marriage, gender, Obergefell, Loving v. Virginia, and the deeper moral assumptions underneath those debates.At its core, this episode is about whether Americans can still disagree seriously without turning each other into enemies. George's answer is that truth-seeking requires more than strong opinions. It requires reasons, evidence, humility, and the courage to listen when your tribe says one thing and your conscience says another.website: robertpgeorge.comGuest BioRobert P. George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. He is a legal scholar, political philosopher, and public intellectual whose work focuses on natural law, constitutionalism, religious liberty, conscience, civil discourse, and moral reasoning in public life. He is the author of several books, including Conscience and Its Enemies, Making Men Moral, Seeking Truth and Speaking Truth, and Truth Matters, co-authored with Cornel West. Support the show

Steve discusses the primary runoff that really matters, not only for the Lone Star State but for the rest of the country: next week's Texas attorney general runoff. Then, the team reacts to a recent discourse on MS NOW among hosts and panelists who seemed genuinely dumbfounded by the idea of God-given rights. In Hour Two, Katy Faust of Greater Than joins the program to discuss the ongoing battle to overturn Obergefell and how to practically navigate issues involving homosexuality among those closest to you. Finally, Pop Culture Tuesday is possible the worst top ten list of all time. TODAY'S SPONSORS: BEAM: https://shopbeam.com/products/sleep-powder?discount=steve&variant=40436356710455&selling_plan=787415095&utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=sponsorship&utm_campaign=steve and use code STEVE at checkout RELIEF FACTOR: VISIT https://www.relieffactor.com/ OR CALL 800-4-RELIEF MASA CHIPS: https://www.masachips.com/pages/deace use promo code DEACE FAST GROWING TREES: https://www.fast-growing-trees.com/?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=audio&utm_campaign=Steve+Deace+Show code DEACE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2015 the Supreme Court decided in the case Obergefell v. Hodges, that the Fourteenth Amendment protected the right for homosexuals to get marriage. In 2026 the State of Tennessee is working on legislation that points out that private groups are organizations are not bound by the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore by Obergefell.

On this episode of “The Kylee Cast,” Katy Faust, a children's rights advocate, author, and founder of Them Before Us, joins Federalist Managing Editor Kylee Griswold to talk about The Seattle Times' front-page hit piece on her — on Mother's Day — for the crime of defending the rights of children and daring to oppose […]

On this episode of “The Kylee Cast,” Katy Faust, a children's rights advocate, author, and founder of Them Before Us, joins Federalist Managing Editor Kylee Griswold to talk about The Seattle Times' front-page hit piece on her — on Mother's Day — for the crime of defending the rights of children and daring to oppose Obergefell. Kylee and Katy dissect the shoddy piece of journalism, discuss how one bad SCOTUS decision redefined parentage by redefining marriage, and share what Christians can expect in the fight for kids' rights.Listen to Katy and Kylee's previous episode about IVF, surrogacy, and divorce here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLvWCQL9DKoRead Katy's article on The Seattle Times' hit piece here: https://thefederalist.com/2026/05/14/in-its-hit-piece-on-me-seattle-times-proves-im-right-about-obergefell/Follow Katy on X: https://x.com/Katy_FaustThe Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.

I have a rotten phlegmy cold so no news and clips today but I do have a great first time guest!  Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE : On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Shannon Minter is the Vice President of Legal (Legal Director)  Over his more than 30 years at NCLR, Shannon Minter has led impact litigation, legislative, and public policy efforts. He has filed multiple lawsuits challenging a range of Trump administration anti-transgender executive orders. He is one of the nation's foremost experts on conversion therapy, helping to draft and pass legislation in states to protect LGBTQ youth and support survivors. He served as lead counsel in the landmark California marriage equality case, and he led NCLR's contributions to multiple Supreme Court cases, such as Pavan v. Smith, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. An appointee to President Obama's Commission on White House Fellowships, Shannon was one of the most senior transgender appointees in the Obama administration. He has taught law at UCLA, Stanford, Golden Gate University, and Santa Clara University. Shannon is currently counsel in six cases challenging the Trump administration's anti-transgender policies, including Talbott v. Trump, which seeks to restore the right of transgender Americans to serve openly in the armed forces. His work challenging anti-transgender military policies spans nearly a decade — he previously challenged the 2017 transgender military ban under the first Trump administration, and co-chaired the Planning Commission on Transgender Military Service, which produced a comprehensive study demonstrating that inclusive service policies are both administratively feasible and militarily beneficial. Shannon has been at the forefront of efforts to protect LGBTQ+ youth from conversion therapy. He founded NCLR's Born Perfect project, a national campaign to end conversion therapy through legislation, litigation, and public education. He has helped draft laws protecting LGBTQ youth from conversion therapy across the country and continues to advocate for legal remedies to hold practitioners accountable for the harm they cause, including through malpractice, consumer fraud claims, and professional licensing sanctions. Shannon was lead counsel for same-sex couples in the landmark California marriage equality case, which was the first state supreme court decision to hold that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry and that laws discriminating based on sexual orientation are subject to the highest level of constitutional scrutiny. He was also counsel for married same-sex couples from Tennessee in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing marriage equality nationwide, and NCLR's lead attorney in Pavan v. Smith, a 2017 Supreme Court decision requiring equal treatment of same-sex parents, and in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding nondiscrimination policies based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In 2015, President Obama appointed Shannon to the President's Commission on White House Fellowships, making him one of the most senior transgender appointees in the Obama administration. Shannon called the appointment a reflection of the President's commitment to building a government that reflects the full diversity of the American people. He is co-editor of Transgender Rights (2006), the first comprehensive book on the transgender civil rights movement. Among his many honors, Shannon has received the ABA's Stonewall Award, the Ford Foundation's Leadership for a Changing World Award, the Cornell Law School Exemplary Public Service Award, the Dan Bradley Award from the National LGBTQ Bar Association, and the California Lawyer of the Year designation from California Lawyer magazine. He received his B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin and his J.D. from Cornell Law School. On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing

I have a rotten phlegmy cold so no news and clips today but I do have a great first time guest!  Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE : On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Shannon Minter is the Vice President of Legal (Legal Director)  Over his more than 30 years at NCLR, Shannon Minter has led impact litigation, legislative, and public policy efforts. He has filed multiple lawsuits challenging a range of Trump administration anti-transgender executive orders. He is one of the nation's foremost experts on conversion therapy, helping to draft and pass legislation in states to protect LGBTQ youth and support survivors. He served as lead counsel in the landmark California marriage equality case, and he led NCLR's contributions to multiple Supreme Court cases, such as Pavan v. Smith, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. An appointee to President Obama's Commission on White House Fellowships, Shannon was one of the most senior transgender appointees in the Obama administration. He has taught law at UCLA, Stanford, Golden Gate University, and Santa Clara University. Shannon is currently counsel in six cases challenging the Trump administration's anti-transgender policies, including Talbott v. Trump, which seeks to restore the right of transgender Americans to serve openly in the armed forces. His work challenging anti-transgender military policies spans nearly a decade — he previously challenged the 2017 transgender military ban under the first Trump administration, and co-chaired the Planning Commission on Transgender Military Service, which produced a comprehensive study demonstrating that inclusive service policies are both administratively feasible and militarily beneficial. Shannon has been at the forefront of efforts to protect LGBTQ+ youth from conversion therapy. He founded NCLR's Born Perfect project, a national campaign to end conversion therapy through legislation, litigation, and public education. He has helped draft laws protecting LGBTQ youth from conversion therapy across the country and continues to advocate for legal remedies to hold practitioners accountable for the harm they cause, including through malpractice, consumer fraud claims, and professional licensing sanctions. Shannon was lead counsel for same-sex couples in the landmark California marriage equality case, which was the first state supreme court decision to hold that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry and that laws discriminating based on sexual orientation are subject to the highest level of constitutional scrutiny. He was also counsel for married same-sex couples from Tennessee in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing marriage equality nationwide, and NCLR's lead attorney in Pavan v. Smith, a 2017 Supreme Court decision requiring equal treatment of same-sex parents, and in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding nondiscrimination policies based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In 2015, President Obama appointed Shannon to the President's Commission on White House Fellowships, making him one of the most senior transgender appointees in the Obama administration. Shannon called the appointment a reflection of the President's commitment to building a government that reflects the full diversity of the American people. He is co-editor of Transgender Rights (2006), the first comprehensive book on the transgender civil rights movement. Among his many honors, Shannon has received the ABA's Stonewall Award, the Ford Foundation's Leadership for a Changing World Award, the Cornell Law School Exemplary Public Service Award, the Dan Bradley Award from the National LGBTQ Bar Association, and the California Lawyer of the Year designation from California Lawyer magazine. He received his B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin and his J.D. from Cornell Law School. On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing

On this episode of “The Kylee Cast,” Josh Wood, executive director of Them Before Us, joins Federalist Managing Editor Kylee Griswold to discuss the viral video of two gay “dads” laughing as the child they commissioned via surrogate cries for “mama.” Plus, Kylee and Josh discuss adoption, natural rights, and the direct line from this heartbreaking video back to Obergefell.Follow Josh on X: https://x.com/J_K_WoodLearn more about Them Before Us here: https://thembeforeus.com/Learn more about the Greater Than campaign here: https://greaterthancampaign.com/The Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.

On this episode of “The Kylee Cast,” Josh Wood, executive director of Them Before Us, joins Federalist Managing Editor Kylee Griswold to discuss the viral video of two gay “dads” laughing as the child they commissioned via surrogate cries for “mama.” Plus, Kylee and Josh discuss adoption, natural rights, and the direct line from this […]

The boys drink and review a homebrewed porter, then discuss birthright citizenship. The question of birthright citizenship hinges on one phrase in the 14th Amendment, which reads "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What does that mean? The point of the amendment was to give citizenship to freed slaves, but it's been interpreted to mean that the child of an illegal immigrant, born in the U.S., is a citizen. Is that justified in the text? The boys discuss. This weird aspect of American law has led to many business opportunities for enterprising criminals. People make a lot of money bringing pregnant illegal aliens into the country. That's bad enough, but the Chinese have found ways to exploit this as a national security issue. They've been creating "American citizens" who are then raised in China. To what purpose, we wonder. While on the topic of the 14th amendment, the boys discuss the Obergefell decision, in which SCOTUS decided that states cannot prohibit same-sex marriage. If the court addresses and overturns birthright citizenship, maybe (God willing) they'll overturn Obergefell as well. (Not likely, but we can hope.) P&C end the show with predictions about how SCOTUS will rule on upcoming cases about birthright citizenship.

A major Supreme Court battle is reigniting the debate over free speech and gender identity—and Donald Trump is weighing in. At the center: whether states can enforce speech rules on therapists and professionals when it comes to gender identity discussions. With a controversial dissent from Ketanji Brown Jackson and broader cultural implications, this ruling could shape the future of the First Amendment in America. ⚡ EPISODE SUMMARY This episode dives into a heated legal and cultural clash over free speech, gender identity, and government authority. The discussion traces the roots of today's debate back to the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, where the concept of “self-identity” began influencing broader legal interpretations. At issue: whether professionals—like therapists—can be restricted in what they say to clients regarding gender identity. A recent ruling pushed back on state-level restrictions, framing them as violations of the First Amendment. Critics argue these policies amount to enforced speech, while supporters say they protect vulnerable individuals. The episode also explores broader implications—from parental rights and education to the role of government in regulating language—and highlights growing tensions inside the legal system itself.

"8" A PLAY ABOUT THE BATTLE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY (RATED PG-13) A co-production of 63audio and LEAP Audio. This is the story of two gay couples and their fight to challenge the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which went into effect in the first decade of the 21st century, predating "Obergefell". Prop. 8 essentially made it illegal for same-sex couples to marry. Fashioned from actual dialog, TV political ads and court transcripts, "8" is a moving, gripping drama that you must share with your family and friends.  Written by the author of the hit TV miniseries, "When We Rise", Dustin Lance Black.  Featured in the cast were: Austin Beach (of Audioblivious Prod.) as Charles Cooper Bob Caro as Evan Wolfson Shannon Grace as Maggie Gallagher Christian Ferris as David Blankenhorn MJ Cogburn as Dr Cott Jeremy Hennessy (of Audioblivious Prod.) as Dr. Gregory Herek Michael Cogburn as Elliot Perry Mason Cogburn as Spencer Perry John Washington as Dr. Tam Keane Lutz as Ryan Kendall Kristy Glick as Sandy Stier Melody Gaines as Kris Perry Kyle Bauer as Dr. Ilan Meyer Maurice Curran as Jeff Zarillo Omar Lopez as Paul Katami Lisa Marie Ayala as the Court Clerk Victoria Fancki as the Journalist And special Guest stars: Pete Lutz as Judge Vaughn Walker Jack Ward (of Electric Vicuna Prod.) as David Boies Timm Gillick as Dr. Gary Segura Mark Bruzee as Theodore Olson and Nick Wommack as the Narrator

It's Monday, March 16th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus 400 Christians murdered in Congo in one year Christians are being attacked, murdered, and abducted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo every week, and the violence appears to be worse than ever, reports International Christian Concern. Between July 1, 2024 and July 1, 2025, the Institute for International Religious Freedom reported that nearly 400 Christians were murdered in the African nation of Congo. And this is only a fraction of the total violence being perpetrated. Rebel militias have gained vast influence over the Christian-majority nation due to extremist Islamist ideologies, years-long civil wars, and political upheaval. According to Open Doors, Congo is the 29th most oppressive country worldwide for Christians. The persecuted Christians in Congo are no doubt praying Psalm 91 which says, “I will say of the Lord, ‘He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust.' Surely, He will save you from the fowler's snare and from the deadly pestilence. … You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day. … A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you. You will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked.” (verses 2,3,5, 7-8) Missile strikes U.S. Embassy in Iraq A missile has struck a helipad inside the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq as President Donald Trump's war on Iran heads into its third week, reports The Daily Mail. Plumes of smoke were seen above the U.S. embassy in the Iraqi capital. The missile landed within the embassy's boundaries. Pentagon sending assault ship & 2,500 Marines toward Iran The Pentagon is deploying the U.S.S. Tripoli and 2,500 Marines to the Middle East after President Trump vowed Friday to unleash “unparalleled firepower,” reports the New York Post. On Friday morning, War Secretary Pete Hegseth gave this overview. HEGSETH: “With every passing hour, we know, and we know they know, that the military capabilities of their evil regime are crumbling. They can barely communicate, let alone coordinate. They're confused, and we know it.  Our response? We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies.” Iran's blocking Strait of Hormuz leading to global oil price spike The deployment of the amphibious assault ship comes as the American military admits it's currently unable to break Iranian influence over the vital Strait of Hormuz as global oil prices spike.  The Strait of Hormuz is located between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It provides the only sea passage from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean and is one of the world's most strategically important choke points. The expected two-week voyage from East Asia matches Energy Secretary Chris Wright's prediction of reopening the crucial waterway “by the end of the month.” Secretary Hegseth was perturbed by a CNN report that Iran's stranglehold of the Strait of Hormuz was a surprise. HEGSETH: “More fake news from CNN. Reports that the ‘Trump administration underestimated the Iran war's impact on the Strait of Hormuz.' “Patently ridiculous, of course! For decades, Iran has threatened shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. This is always what they do: Hold the Strait hostage. CNN doesn't think we thought of that. It's a fundamentally unserious report.” Idaho House urges Supreme Court to invalidate homosexual “marriage” The Idaho House of Representatives has voted to reject the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges and urged the justices to reconsider the decision legalizing homosexual marriage nationwide, reports the Herzog Foundation. Lawmakers approved House Joint Memorial 17 last Tuesday in a 44-26 vote. All Democrats voted against the measure, and a small number of Republicans joined them. The resolution now heads to the Idaho Senate. The memorial states the Legislature “rejects the Obergefell decision” and “calls upon the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse Obergefell and restore the natural definition of marriage.” Supporters say the 2015 ruling overrode the authority of states and ignored the will of voters who had already defined marriage in state law. The resolution says Obergefell “is at odds with the Constitution of the United States and the principles upon which the United States is established.” It also says the ruling “arbitrarily and unjustly” cast aside the historic understanding of marriage, which “has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman for more than 2,000 years.” Idaho Republican State Rep. Tony Wisniewski sponsored the memorial. He said supporters oppose “the debasing of the term of marriage to that of something that is abhorrent to many of us.” The memorial also points to Idaho voters' earlier decision on the issue. In 2006, 63% of voters approved Amendment 2, which added language to the state Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Supporters argue the Supreme Court brushed aside that vote when it issued the Obergefell ruling. The resolution also states the decision “may have been illegitimately adjudicated” because two justices in the majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, had previously officiated homosexual weddings and did not recuse themselves. The memorial now moves to the Idaho Senate. The governor does not play a role because joint memorials do not require a signature. “Educated for Liberty” film urges Christian parents to wake up And finally, the rise of government-controlled schools and secular education has produced a decline of moral and academic excellence, which has led to a loss of liberty, reports The Providence Foundation. Schools have become progressively dangerous. Some of the most negative influences that young Americans can face today are found in public schools. Exposure to drugs, assault, rape, and murder are becoming more and more common. Radical transgender and homosexual ideology is promoted in classrooms, and reinforced by biological males having access to girls' restrooms and being allowed to compete in girls' sports. Well, there's a new Christian documentary out entitled Educated for Liberty. It urges Christian parents to pull their kids out of public schools and homeschool them or place them in private Christian schools instead. DAVID BARTON: “If you can't think biblically, then what you have is a bunch of secular-thinking people who attend church which will never change a community in the right direction.” RHONDA THOMAS: “We're not, as a church, raising up parents that understand their responsibility in the education of their children.” CAROL SWAIN: “Sunday School is fine. It's good. Vacation Bible School: Fine and good, but it's not enough.” CAROLE ADAMS: “Education is discipleship -- one way or another. Discipling our children in a secularized society, or it's discipling them to Christ.” CASEY GORDON: “How could you possibly segregate the concept of education from the duty and responsibility of the Christian faith, and that they should be trained in the Christian faith and in a Christian way?” ALEX NEWMAN: “For hundreds of years in this country, the Bible was the essential book. It was the foundation of everything. And yet, here we are where it's actually controversial that we should have the Bible in education. It's truly astounding.” MRS. SAM SORBO: “Give your children the Bible, and you give them an understanding of God, which is education. Then the world will become clear to them, and they'll be world changers.” Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Watch the film, Educated for Liberty, for free through a special link in our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com. Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, March 16th, 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.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Bienvenue dans FIFTY STATES SUPREME !!Pour tout savoir sur l'AmériquePour tout savoir sur son HistoireOn a décidé de zoomer sur les grands arrêts de la Cour SuprêmeAujourd'hui, on va parler coup de foudre, bisous et mariageAvec l'arrêt Obergefell VS HodgesLa date ? Le 26 juin 2015L'enjeu : le mariage pour tous aux Etats-Unis !Rien que ça !!Dans cet épisode, vous allez découvrir comment deux hommes, Jim Obergefell et John Arthur, ont changé la vie de milliers d'Américaines et d'AméricainsLe combat a été long, compliqué, chaotiqueMais désormais, le mariage entre personnes de même sexe est un droit constitutionnel aux Etats-UnisPour tout savoir sur cet évènement historiqueUne seule adresse :Le podcast Fifty States !!Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

This is Thinking in Public, a program dedicated to intelligent conversation about frontline theological and cultural issues with the people who are shaping them.Sign up to receive every new Thinking in Public release in your inbox.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.

Jan 30, 2026 The interview features the Drew Mariani Show with Dr. Jennifer Roback Morris discussing the Greater Than campaign, which argues that redefining marriage has harmed children by undermining the traditional mother-and-father model. Morris outlines the campaign's approach, emphasizing a child-centered case for preserving both parents in a child's life. The discussion covers adoption by same-sex couples, third-party reproduction, divorce, contraception, and gender-related issues from a Catholic perspective. Callers share personal experiences and concerns about children's well-being in different family structures. Listeners are encouraged to learn more at greaterthan.com and the Ruth Institute.

Katy Faust – Founder and President of Them Before Us Episode Guide Fighting for a child’s right to a mom and a dad – putting children’s needs above adult desires (00:17) How children’s needs will be brought back by overturning Obergefell v. Hodges (19:42) Planned Parenthood’s brilliant new business model based on botox, new funding sources, and marketing abortion to a new generation (32:32) Meat-free Fridays of Lent (45:20) Resources mentioned: Katy Faust explains the connection between gay marriage and harm to children. https://relevantradio.com/2026/01/the-business-of-child-exploitation/ Katy Faust – Them Before Us https://thembeforeus.com/ The Greater Than Campaign https://greaterthancampaign.com/ Mass creation of children who were abused https://thefederalist.com/2025/08/13/chinese-immigrants-create-21-surrogate-children-before-allegedly-abusing-them/ Known predator commissioned baby https://x.com/Katy_Faust/status/1950045587229016446?s=46 An elderly man has twin boys vis surrogacy https://sfstandard.com/2025/08/06/san-francisco-kids-alleged-cage/ Big Fertility Is the Billionaire’s Modern-day Harem https://thefederalist.com/2026/01/06/big-fertility-is-just-modern-day-harems-for-billionaires/

This Day in Legal History: Marbury v. MadisonOn February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that permanently reshaped American constitutional law. The dispute arose after President John Adams appointed several “midnight judges” in the final hours of his administration. One of those appointees, William Marbury, never received his commission because it was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commission, prompting Marbury to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court.Presiding over the case was Chief Justice John Marshall, whose involvement added a striking layer of irony. Before becoming Chief Justice, Marshall had served as Secretary of State under Adams and had been responsible for sealing the very commissions at issue. In other words, Marshall was now reviewing the legal consequences of actions taken by his former office. Rather than recuse himself, he authored the opinion that would define the Court's authority.Marshall concluded that Marbury had a legal right to his commission but held that the statute granting the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Marshall reasoned, any conflicting statute must be void. In declaring part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the Court asserted the power of judicial review for the first time.The decision simultaneously denied Marbury his remedy while expanding the Court's institutional authority. It avoided a direct political confrontation with Jefferson while firmly establishing the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. What began as a minor political dispute over an undelivered commission became the foundation for the Supreme Court's power to strike down unconstitutional laws.A federal judge has permanently blocked the Justice Department from releasing a prosecutor's report concerning the classified documents case against President Donald Trump. The ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who concluded that making the report public would amount to a “manifest injustice” because the case never went to trial. She reasoned that publishing detailed allegations of criminal conduct without a jury verdict would undermine basic fairness principles.The case had been brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith and accused Trump of unlawfully retaining sensitive national defense materials at his Mar-a-Lago property and obstructing government efforts to recover them. Trump and his co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, pleaded not guilty and described the prosecution as politically motivated. In 2024, Cannon dismissed the charges, finding that Smith had not been lawfully appointed.After Trump returned to office, the Justice Department supported efforts to keep the report confidential. Although special counsels are typically required to submit reports explaining their charging decisions, Cannon held that releasing this one would conflict with her earlier rulings, including her determination that Smith's appointment was invalid. She also cited concerns about exposing grand jury material.The decision prevents public disclosure of substantial details about one of the four criminal cases Trump faced after leaving office. It follows the Supreme Court's recent decision limiting Trump's tariff authority and marks another significant legal development in the ongoing disputes surrounding his post-presidency investigations.US judge permanently blocks release of report on Trump documents case | ReutersThe chief judges of two major federal appeals courts have announced plans to step back from active service later this year, creating new vacancies for President Donald Trump to fill. Debra Ann Livingston of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both notified the president that they intend to take senior status. Livingston plans to assume senior status on July 1, while Sutton will do so on October 1.Their decisions come ahead of the November midterm elections, when control of the U.S. Senate could shift, potentially complicating confirmation of successors. Because judicial vacancies have been relatively scarce during Trump's second term, the openings present an opportunity to expand his appellate appointments. During his first term, Trump appointed 54 appellate judges, significantly influencing the judiciary's ideological direction.Both judges were originally appointed by President George W. Bush. Livingston, who has served on the Second Circuit since 2007 and became chief judge in 2020, has at times issued notable dissents, including in cases involving LGBTQ workplace protections and congressional subpoenas tied to Trump's business records. Sutton, on the Sixth Circuit since 2003 and chief judge since 2021, has been an influential conservative jurist. He authored a 2014 opinion upholding same-sex marriage bans that the Supreme Court later overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges.Senior status allows eligible judges to continue hearing cases on a reduced basis while enabling the president to nominate full-time replacements. Their departures will hand Trump two high-profile appellate vacancies at a time when few others are available.Two chief US appellate judges to leave active service, handing Trump vacancies | ReutersIn my weekly column for Bloomberg Tax, I examine the Trump administration's proposed 0.125% “land port maintenance tax” and question whether it is truly infrastructure policy or contingency planning after the Supreme Court curtailed its tariff authority. The proposal is framed as a parity measure to mirror the Harbor Maintenance Fee, but I argue the timing is hard to ignore. Just this week, the Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, reaffirming that Congress controls taxing power absent clear delegation. In my view, that ruling narrows executive trade authority and invites efforts to find alternative mechanisms embedded elsewhere in the customs code.I suggest the land port tax looks like one such alternative. Although labeled a “maintenance” fee, it would be imposed at the border and function economically like a tariff, with costs passed to US importers and consumers. Because most land-based trade flows through Canada and Mexico, I note that the charge would operate in practice as a North American supply chain tax. Calling it infrastructure policy does not change its price effects.I also argue that the Harbor Maintenance Fee analogy falls apart on inspection. Whatever its flaws, the HMF at least carries a user-fee logic tied to dredging and port upkeep. By contrast, the new proposal appears loosely connected to land-border infrastructure and bundled within a broader maritime industrial policy agenda. If shipbuilding is a national security priority, I contend Congress should fund it transparently through the Defense Department and regular appropriations. If the HMF distorts shipping routes, it should be reformed directly rather than replicated inland.Ultimately, I maintain that after Learning Resources, any border charge that operates like a tariff will face legal skepticism. If policymakers intend to subsidize maritime industry, they should say so clearly, define measurable goals, and subject the costs to democratic accountability. 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

Katy Faust sees a not-so-hidden thread that connects divorce, gay marriage, IVF, surrogacy, child trafficking, and more: the historically-recent pivot of putting adult desires before children's needs and well-being. Today, we're discussing the history and data behind this disturbing trend and how we can fight back for the most vulnerable.Them Before Us: https://thembeforeus.com/ NEW: Check out our Merch store! https://shop.lilaroseshow.com/Join our new Patreon community! https://patreon.com/lilaroseshow - We'll have BTS footage, ad-free episodes, and early access to our upcoming guests.A big thanks to our partner, EWTN, the world's leading Catholic network! Discover news, entertainment and more at https://www.ewtn.com/ Check out our Sponsors: -Cozy Earth: Better Sleep, Brighter Days - Get the highest quality sleep essentials for 20% OFF at https://cozyearth.com/lila!-Seven Weeks Coffee: https://www.sevenweekscoffee.com Buy your pro-life coffee and Save up to 25% with promo code 'LILA' & get a free gift: http://www.sevenweekscoffee.com-EveryLife: https://www.everylife.com Buy diapers from an amazing pro-life diaper company and use code LILA to get 10% off!-Presidio Healthcare: Healthcare and doctors who share your values. If you're in TEXAS visit: https://www.presidiocare.com/ If you're NOT in Texas, visit: https://www.prolifeproviders.com/00:00:00 - Intro00:02:58 - Katy's background00:08:03 - Katy's “two moms”00:21:26 - The harms of lacking a mother/father00:35:49 - Disturbing LA mansion news00:46:33 - What is Surrogacy?00:55:16 - Do you need a mom and dad?01:06:45 - Any large studies on same-sex households?01:15:05 - Another study01:17:24 - No Fault Divorce01:30:07 - Ab*se data 01:34:22 - Obergefell and Same Sex Marriage 01:45:51 - Epstein

In this insightful interview on "Driving Home the Faith," Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of the Ruth Institute, addresses the significant consequences of the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision on marriage and family dynamics. Dr. Morse elaborates on our active role in a new coalition, led by Them Before Us, dedicated to championing children's rights and restoring traditional marriage values. Listen in as we discuss our mission to build a civilization of love, ensuring that children's needs are prioritized in today's evolving society.

Join us on #TexasValuesReport with special guest Katy Faust, Founder of Them Before Us, & host Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values, as they discuss the campaign Greater Than, a campaign with the goal of ultimately overturning Obergefell; the 2015 redefinition of marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, which effectively made mothers and fathers optional in law and culture. Read our press release Texas Values Joins Huge Nationwide Coalition to Overturn Obergefell Launching Today (1/28/2026) https://txvalues.org/texas-values-joins-huge-nationwide-coalition-to-overturn-obergefell-launching-today/ Learn more about the Greater Than Campaign https://greaterthancampaign.com/ Learn more about Them Before Us http://thembeforeus.com/ Get your free Texas voter's guide https://freevotersguide.com/ Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

On February 5th, 2026, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse joins Driving Home the Faith to unravel the future of marriage and family dynamics. In this compelling interview, Dr. Morse challenges conventional views and discusses the societal impact of the Obergefell decision, emphasizing the need for a child-centered approach. Tune in for a thought-provoking conversation that promises to reshape your understanding of modern marriage.

Dr. Jennifer Roback-Morse from the Ruth Institute joins the Drew Mariani Show to discuss the profound effects of redefining marriage on children and society. In this engaging interview, Dr. Morse delves into the cultural shifts following the Obergefell decision, the rise of the Greater Than campaign, and the importance of centering children's needs in marriage and family policies. Discover how these changes impact family dynamics and the long-term implications for future generations.

Episode Summary: Almost every cultural and political battle we face eventually lands on the shoulders of children. Modern culture talks endlessly about rights but often overlooks the rights of children. If children truly have rights, then marriage cannot mean whatever adults want it to mean. In this episode, Katy Faust argues that when marriage is redefined, parenthood is rewritten, and children are the ones who lose. She shows why defending God's design for marriage and family isn't merely a religious conviction, but a natural law argument with profound implications for society as a whole.We explore a child-centered framework for marriage, IVF, surrogacy, and sexual ethics grounded in general revelation, social science, and the biblical vision of human flourishing. The Obergefell case legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S. and had profound ripple effects on identity, parenthood, and a growing commodification of children. As a culture, we are becoming more aware about how redefinitions of marriage have harmed children. Do you feel at a loss for how to meaningfully think about this and talk about it? Join the movement to grow in clarity, courage, and meaningfully protect the voiceless in the coming generation.–How well do you understand the implications of gay marriage and its impact on children? Quiz: https://greaterthancampaign.com/Who is Disciple Nations Alliance (DNA)? Since 1997, DNA's mission has been to equip followers of Jesus around the globe with a biblical worldview, empowering them to build flourishing families, communities, and nations.

If you want to learn more about CatholicVote's sponsorship of the Greater Than campaign, head over to their website at https://greaterthancampaign.com/ where you can take a QUIZ to find out how much you REALLY know about parental rights in America today.

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Katy Faust, founder and president of children's rights organization Them Before Us, joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to discuss the devastating consequences the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision had on children and deliberate on the best way to recenter marriage and family to prioritize kids' rights. Read more from Faust here: https://thefederalist.com/2026/01/29/obergefell-has-harmed-children-for-far-too-long/Learn more about the Greater Than campaign here: https://greaterthancampaign.com/about-us/Learn more about Them Before Us here: https://thembeforeus.com/whoweare/The Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Katy Faust, founder and president of children's rights organization Them Before Us, joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to discuss the devastating consequences the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision had on children and deliberate on the best way to recenter marriage and family to prioritize kids' rights. Read more […]

Aaron McIntire recaps Tom Homan's Minnesota visit emphasizing de-escalation through reduced rhetoric, while condemning Hakeem Jeffries' call to "put [DHS Secretary Kristi Noem] on ice permanently." Highlights mob chaos chasing federal air marshals in LA mistaken for ICE, Chuck Grassley's flip to co-sponsor the SAVE Act for citizenship-proof voting, a partial shutdown averted but 78% of government still at risk, Trump's housing comments prioritizing current owners' wealth, and the launch of the Greater Than campaign—pushing back against Obergefell by prioritizing children's right to a mom and dad over adult desires, featuring voices like Lila Rose, Allie Beth Stuckey, and Michael Knowles. Closes with Ask or Tell Me Anything submissions, including reaction to a rational breakdown of the Alex Pretti case.     The AM Update, Aaron McIntire, Tom Homan Minnesota, Hakeem Jeffries threat, Kristi Noem, federal air marshals LA, Chuck Grassley SAVE Act, government shutdown deal, Trump housing prices, Greater Than campaign, Obergefell, children's rights, Alex Pretti reaction, Ask or Tell Me Anything

Hour 1 for 1/30/25 Dr. Jennifer Robak Morse covers the new Greater Than Campaign (11:51). Topics: challenge of overturning gay marriage (21:48), caller: my grandchild was adopted by two men (28:42), contraception (34:54), and traditional marriage (48:15). Link: https://greaterthancampaign.com/ https://ruthinstitute.org/

Steve reacts to the day's news: border czar Tom Homan speaks in Minnesota, the "bananas and rice" Somali woman gets arrested, and Tucker Carlson makes a puzzling statement in Saudi Arabia. In Hour Two, Katy Faust joins the program to talk about a new effort she is joining called "Greater Than" and to explain why the overturning of Obergefell is so needed (and possible). TODAY'S SPONSORS: JASE MEDICAL: https://jasemedical.com/ and enter code “DEACE” at checkout for a discount on your order COWBOY COLOSTRUM: https://cowboycolostrum.com/?discount=deace&utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=deace CHIRP: https://gochirp.com/pages/steve-deace use promo code STEVE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Katy Faust of Them Before Us The Greater Than Campaign Pro-Child Politics: Why Every Cultural, Economic, and National Issue Is a Matter of Justice for Children Raising Conservative Kids in a Woke City Them Before Us Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children’s Rights MovementThe post Children's Rights and a Campaign to Overturn Obergefell's Same-Sex Marriage Ruling – Katy Faust, 1/28/26 (0283) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! In this episode, we explain the legal requirements for marriage formation in the United States. We also cover common law marriage as an exception to the procedural requirements and use hypothetical scenarios to illustrate how these rules apply in practice.   In this episode, we discuss: Defining marriage and legal precedents Procedural and substantive requirements for getting married Common law marriage Two hypotheticals from previous California bar exams Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2002 (https://juraxbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/July-2002-CBX.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2008 (https://nwculaw.edu/pdf/bar/February%202008%20Essays%20and%20Sample%20Answers.pdf) Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (https://red.library.usd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3390&context=sdlrev) Loving v. Virginia (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395) Obergefell v. Hodges (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/644/) Podcast Episode 41: Tackling an MEE Family Law and Conflicts of Law Essay Question (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-41-tackling-an-mee-family-law-and-conflicts-of-law-essay-question/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-341-listen-and-learn-marriage-formation-and-requirements-family-law/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comLaura Field is a writer and political theorist who specializes in far-right populist intellectualism in the US. She's currently a Scholar in Residence at American University, a Senior Advisor for the Illiberalism Studies Program at GW, and a nonresident fellow with Brookings. Her new book is Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right. We bonded over some of the right's wackier innovations, and differed over how far the left has also slid into illiberalism.An auto-transcript is available above (just click “Transcript” while logged into Substack). For two clips of our convo — on the New Right's “post-constitutional moment,” and the war on the civil service — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up in Alberta; losing a parent at a very young age; Plato an early inspiration; growing tired of the Straussians; the decline of religion under liberalism; Locke; Rousseau; Nietzsche; Fukuyama; the resurgence of the illiberal left and illiberal right; the Claremont Institute and Harry Jaffa; Jaffa's extreme homophobia and hatred of divorce; Allan Bloom; Lincoln fulfilling the Founding; Hobbes; the role of virtue in a republic; Machiavelli; Michael Anton's “Flight 93 Election”; John Eastman and “Stop the Steal”; Curtis Yarvin and The Cathedral; Adrian Vermeule's Common Good Constitutionalism; Catholic conversion; Pope Leo; Obergefell, debating Harvey Mansfield over marriage; Woodrow Wilson's expansion of the state; Thatcher and Reagan slimming it down; the pros and cons of technocratic experts; DOGE vs federal workers; “queer” curricula and the 1619 Project; edge-lords; Bronze Age Pervert and pagan masculinity; Fuentes and Carlson; and debating the dangers of wokeness.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Claire Berlinski on America's retreat from global hegemony, Jason Willick on trade and conservatism, and Vivek Ramaswamy on the right's future. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

This is the nightmare scenario: incurring all the policy and political liabilities of GOP control while all the initial promises — from the DOGE and health care reform to immigration restriction and American jobs — are disintegrating. One of the big reasons why we are failing on immigration is because we refuse to fight the premise of judicial supremacism. We're joined today by Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, for a discussion about recent egregious court cases shredding our biblical and constitutional values. Mat is defending a mother in Maine after a state court ordered her daughter, at the behest of the girl's father, to divest from all contact with church or religious material. Mat also discusses how even the conservative judges are extremely political and refused to overturn Obergefell in the Kim Davis case. He believes that states need to force the issue by directly contradicting Obergefell in the same way they did with abortion. Finally, we discuss how the only authority of courts comes from the respect of the people and the other branches. If we are to believe that every decision is the unquestionable "law of the land," then there is no way to dig our way out of this tyranny. You cannot comply your way out of judicial supremacism.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Erin is dehydrated after her visit to Austin, Bryan befriends his Erewhon-going seatmates on a flight to New York, plus some balm/SPF talk and a celebration of the results from last week’s elections. Erin discusses the NYT Opinion interview with three feminist conservative bootlickers titled “Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace”. Bryan brings us some cautious optimism with Kim Davis’ defeat with the Supreme Court declining to take up her case against Obergefell v. Hodges and the right to same-sex marriage, but how it doesn’t necessarily set a precedent and could still be brought up again in the future. For hours of bonus content visit www.patreon.com/attitudes See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.On today's edition of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler discusses SCOTUS's declination to take case that could have led to overturning of Obergefell, SCOTUS's allowance of Trump's transgender passport policy, and the 16 states suing the Trump administration over ‘morality of harm.'Part I (00:14 – 06:10)Supreme Court Declines to Take Case That Could Have Led to the Overturning of Obergefell: But This Does Not Mean SCOTUS Won't Take Up the Issue in the FuturePart II (06:10 – 11:51)Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration's Transgender Passport Policy to Proceed: Just Look at the ArgumentsSupreme Court Clears Way for Trump Transgender Passport Policy by The New York Times (Abbie VanSickle)Part III (11:51 – 19:50)No, Biological Designation is Not Meaningless and Useless: The LGBTQ Argument on Gender Identity Reveals the IdeologyThe Ruling About Passports Isn't About ID. It's About Social Control. by The New York Times (M. Gessen)Part IV (19:50 – 26:20)16 States Sue the Trump Administration Over ‘Morality of Harm': Christians Certainly Care About a Genuine Morality of Harm, But That Cannot Be Defined by LGBTQ IdeologiesUS judge to block Trump directive to cut ‘gender ideology’ from states’ sex ed materials by USA Today (Reuters)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

We begin by showing how Democrats will win in the long run on the government shutdown, even though it looks like they are capitulating this week.  Plus, the Supreme Court's refusal to overturn Obergefell shows that even the GOP appointees are hopelessly political. Next, we're joined by mortgage finance expert Melody Wright, who explains why Trump's plan to create a 50-year mortgage not only is debt slavery but will continue to fuel the housing crisis. In fact, Wright explains how the entire history of the 30-year mortgage was a folly. We actually need to return to the exact opposite dynamic: shorter mortgages, less debt, and less government involvement, which will allow home ownership to become affordable for the median income with shorter-term debt. She also warns that the AI data-center bubble is not only unsustainable but a ruse to prop up the economy.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices