Podcasts about oral arguments

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:14 – 09:28)Ending the Term with Thunder: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Relationship Between the Executive and Judicial BranchesUnited States v. Skrmetti by Supreme Court of the United StatesTrump v. CASA, Inc. by Supreme Court of the United StatesPart II (09:28 – 20:21)Big Wins for Parents at the Supreme Court: Nation's Highest Court Defends Parental Authority in Two Crucial CasesMahmoud v. Taylor – Opinion by Supreme Court of the United StatesMahmoud v. Taylor – Oral Arguments by Supreme Court of the United StatesJustices Let Parents Opt Children Out of Classes With L.G.B.T.Q. Storybooks by New York Times (Adam Liptak)Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton by Supreme Court of the United StatesPart III (20:21 – 22:50)A Landmark Case in the Defense of Human Life: SCOTUS Sides with South Carolina Against Planned ParenthoodMedina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic by Supreme Court of the United StatesPart IV (22:51 – 29:03)Stigma is Just Dead? Celebrity Frenzy Reaches New Heights at Bezos Wedding and What the Lavish Venetian Wedding Reveals about (Re)Marriage in 2025You Only Get Married a Few Times. Why Not Go All Out? by New York Times (Sarah Lyall)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.

An initiative petition to change Oklahoma's primary elections goes before the state's high court.Oklahoma City celebrates the NBA champion Thunder.An experimental farming practice could help with increased rainfall from climate change.You can find the KOSU Daily wherever you get your podcasts, you can also subscribe, rate us and leave a comment.You can keep up to date on all the latest news throughout the day at KOSU.org and make sure to follow us on Facebook, Blue Sky and Instagram at KOSU Radio.This is The KOSU Daily, Oklahoma news, every weekday.

A case with a thin record is raising plenty of questions at the Supreme Court. In this episode, Amanda and Holly examine the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, which involves parents who want to opt their children out of public school curriculum they say conflicts with their religious beliefs. But, what's the difference between expected exposure and unconstitutional coercion? Does age matter? What happens when opt-out options become too burdensome and overwhelming to accommodate? Amanda and Holly examine the issues in this case as well as the challenges for the school district and for the parents. They also share what the oral arguments revealed about the justices' interest in the books and discussions outside of the courtroom.     SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 01:50): Remembering Justice David Souter Amanda and Holly released a live mini-episode on Tuesday, May 27, to review the Supreme Court decision in the religious charter school case, the voucher proposal in the budget reconciliation bill, and a court decision halting the dismantling of the Department of Education. Hear the episode at this link or in your podcast feed, or watch it on YouTube. Amanda and Holly mention the other two church-state cases this term addressed in previous episodes: Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin in Ep. 12: Back to SCOTUS: Regular business in disturbing times Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, et al. v. Drummond in Ep. 14: The blockbuster SCOTUS case over religious charter schools BJC Executive Director Emeritus J. Brent Walker wrote a reflection piece on Justice David Souter when the justice retired in 2009: Walker reflects on Souter's Supreme Court tenure Amy Howe wrote a piece on Justice Souter for SCOTUSblog: David Souter, retired Supreme Court justice, dies at 85   Segment 2 (starting at 06:58): The facts (that we know) in the case and what's at stake BJC has a post on our website describing Mahmoud v. Taylor: In oral argument, U.S. Supreme Court wrestles with the limits of public school parents' opt-out rights The U.S. Supreme Court has a transcript of oral arguments and the audio recording of oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor available on its website.   Segment 3 (starting 25:54): The two big substantive points from the oral argument We played two clips from the oral argument in this segment: Justice Elena Kagan and Eric Baxter, who argued on behalf of the group of parents (the petitioners)  Justice Samuel Alito and Eric Baxter Amanda and Holly talked about the Texas Bible curriculum in episode 2 of this season: Oklahoma and Texas try to force Bible teaching in public schools Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child's birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged […]

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government has appealed all of these, and the question of whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' preliminary injunctions (except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states) was argued on May 15. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its argument before the Supreme Court, and the broader issues at play.Featuring:Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West VirginiaModerator: Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP--To register, click the link above.

SCOTUS spent two and a half hours hearing oral argument on Friday in the birthright-citizenship cases consolidated in Trump v. CASA—not about birthright citizenship, but about whether district courts should be issuing nationwide injunctions. Many justices, and commentators on both sides, have criticized nationwide injunctions as a judicial incursion into executive policymaking in both Republican and Democratic administrations. But will the Court use this case to impose limits?We discuss:Plaintiffs in this case include 22 states. Absent a nationwide injunction, half the country would be under a different rule of birthright citizenship until the case resolves.CJ Roberts suggested that, in true emergencies, the Court can resolve a case fast, in as little as a month. Does this cut for or against nationwide injunctions?What does the Court think about using Rule 23 class actions as a substitute vehicle for nationwide relief?Are we heading toward a “guidance-free” 5–4 non-decision?Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the Supreme Court oral argument today on Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship. Wild Alaskan: Go to https://WildAlaskan.com/meidas for $35 OFF your first box of premium, wild-caught seafood. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For the oral argument audio and transcript see https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2024/24A884Trump's birthright order gets frosty reception, but justices appear ready to limit nationwide blocks - POLITICO

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (05/15/2025) 3:05pm- During a business roundtable in Doha, Qatar, President Donald Trump revealed that the domestic investments he has secured while visiting the Middle East could result in as many as 4 million new American jobs and an estimated $3.5 to 4 trillion. 3:30pm- Rich is broadcasting from Washington D.C. today—he's scheduled to be on Fox News with Laura Ingraham tonight at 7pm and he has also been invited to go to the home of the United States Ambassador to Switzerland. Rich wonders what kind of cocktails might be served. Matt suggests they may only serve hot chocolate… 3:40pm- Prior to President Donald Trump delivering remarks to U.S. troops at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, comedian and podcaster Theo Von performed—apparently, he improvised the entire performance. 3:50pm- While performing in Manchester, England, Bruce Springsteen went after President Trump, claiming that America “is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous administration.” 4:05pm- Mark Miller—Senior Attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss Supreme Court oral argument in Trump v. CASA, Washington, New Jersey which will determine if there are constitutional limitations to birthright citizenship as well as the legality of nationwide injunctions on executive orders via district court judge rulings. Miller “has litigated several high-profile cases, including Weyerhaeuser v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, which resulted in a unanimous win for property rights at the Supreme Court of the United States, and served as second chair in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., another unanimous win at SCOTUS for property owners against federal government overreach.” 4:30pm- Is a massive trade agreement with India about to be announced? Plus, a disturbing new report from The Telegraph suggests Chinese manufacturers may have secretly installed “kill switches” on U.S. solar farms. 5:00pm- Dr. Victoria Coates—Former Deputy National Security Advisor & the Vice President of the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss President Donald Trump's “grand slam” trip to the Middle East. Dr. Coates is author of the book, “The Battle for the Jewish State: How Israel—and America—Can Win.” You can find it here: https://a.co/d/iTMA4Vb. 5:40pm- On Friday, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka alongside Congressmembers Bonnie Watson-Coleman, LaMonica McIver, and Rob Menendez visited the Delaney Hall Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in New Jersey—at one point trespassing which led to a confrontation with ICE officials and the eventual arrest of Mayor Baraka. ICE has released bodycam footage of the altercation which shows Rep. McIver attempting to physically shove past ICE agents. Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez threatened Republicans with retaliation if Democrat lawmakers are charged with crimes for their involvement in the Delaney Hall incident. 6pm Hour- Tom Azelby in for Rich

Fox News Radio's Tonya J Powers joins the show to talk about the Supreme Court hearing birthright citizenship oral arguments.

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments related to the birthright citizenship dispute. Also, POLITICO breaks down the governor's May Revision and budget shortfall. Finally, the monthly storytelling series “In a Nutshell.” Birthright Citizenship Oral Arguments

May 15, 2025 ~ The Supreme Court heard oral arguments over birthright citizenship. Matthew Schneider joins Kevin to discuss this case.

Preview: Colleague Richard Epstein comments on the SCOTUS hearing oral arguments re the authority of judges to issue temporary restraining orders nationwide. More. 1923 SCOTUS

On October 20, 2023, the Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board for signing a contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, claiming that St. Isidore cannot participate in the charter school program because it is a religious school. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed, holding that the contract […]

On October 20, 2023, the Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board for signing a contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, claiming that St. Isidore cannot participate in the charter school program because it is a religious school. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed, holding that the contract […]

On October 20, 2023, the Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board for signing a contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, claiming that St. Isidore cannot participate in the charter school program because it is a religious school. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed, holding that the contract […]

On October 20, 2023, the Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board for signing a contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, claiming that St. Isidore cannot participate in the charter school program because it is a religious school. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed, holding that the contract violated the Establishment Clause.The United States Supreme Court is hearing this case to address 1) if the teaching decisions of a private school are considered state action when the school contracts with the state to provide free education and 2) if a state is prohibited from excluding a religious school from its charter school program because of the Free Exercise Clause or if it can justify the exclusion under the Establishment Clause. Arguments are scheduled for April 30.Featuring:Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

USU researchers hope to better understand Wasatch Fault -- SCOTUS hears oral arguments on religious schools

Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of the Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute to talk about the Supreme Court oral arguments in the Oklahoma Religious Charter School case and his book Lawless: The Miseducation of America's Elites.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson goes solo to break down the latest in legal and political news. She starts by analyzing fresh polling data on President Trump's approval ratings at the 100-day mark of his second term, noting significant public disapproval and discussing what drives this administration's bold use of executive power. Jessica then turns to the Supreme Court's current docket, spotlighting two major education-related cases: one about the legal standard for disability discrimination in schools, and another questioning whether a religious school can be established as a taxpayer-funded charter school. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Presidential Approval Down, But Base Remains Loyal: Despite approval ratings hovering around 39–43%, President Trump's core supporters (about 33–35%) aren't likely to abandon him, illustrating a growing divide between the general public and a steadfast political base.Economic Policies & Tariffs Fuel Discontent: Many respondents reported feeling worse off economically since Trump's reelection and a majority expressing disapproval of new tariffs and federal agency cuts.Supreme Court Watch—Education and Religious Freedom on the Line: Two major cases could redefine legal standards for disability discrimination in schools and determine whether religious institutions can operate publicly funded charter schools.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew California’s previously-granted waiver to implement its Advanced Clean Car Program. This program had been in effect since 2013 and required that car companies reduce carbon dioxide emissions and produce fleets that are at least 15% electric vehicles. The waiver was withdrawn due to a lack of “compelling and extraordinary conditions” and because California could not show a direct connection between greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.In 2022, however, the EPA reinstated the waiver. This prompted legal challenges from several states and fuel companies who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed most of their claims, finding that these parties did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor. This case now asks whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by pointing to the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case, the argument, and its possible outcomes.Featuring:Mark Pinkert, Partner, Holtzman VogelModerator: Mohammad Jazil, Partner, Holtzman Vogel--To register, click the link above.

In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. the Supreme Court will consider "Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision."In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., several Christian-owned businesses, along with six individuals in Texas, brought suit alleging that the Affordable Care Act's preventative services coverage requirement was illegal and unconstitutional. They contend it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as the ACA required them to fund preventative services that conflicted with their religious beliefs, and that it violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, given the controlling effect of a non-appointed advisory body over which preventative treatments were required. Given those issues, the case sits at an interesting intersection of health law, religious liberty law, and administrative procedure, and the Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument on April 21, 2025.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyse how oral argument went before the Court.Featuring:Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court will decide whether parents have the right to be notified and opt their children out of classroom lessons on gender and sexuality that violate their religious beliefs.In 2022, the Montgomery County, Maryland, School Board introduced storybooks for pre-K through fifth-grade classrooms covering topics like gender transitions and pride parades. Maryland law and the Board’s own policies provide parents the right to receive notice and opt their kids out of books that violate their religious beliefs. However, when parents attempted to exercise this right, the School Board eliminated notice and opt-outs altogether. In response, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, sued the School Board in federal court. The parents argue that storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their kids, and inconsistent with their beliefs.Last year, the Fourth Circuit upheld the School Board’s policy, ruling that the removal of notice and opt-outs does not impose a legally cognizable burden on parents’ religious exercise. The parents appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in January 2025, and arguments are scheduled for April 22nd.The question before the court is: Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt-out?Featuring:Eric Baxter, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

WarRoom Battleground EP 752: SCOTUS Oral Arguments On LGBTQ Books In School; Fear Mongering From 60 Minutes On Bird Flu

MP3 from the Oyez websitehttps://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205

In July of 2018, Governor Henry McMaster of South Carolina issued an executive order to terminate the inclusion of Planned Parenthood in the Medicaid program. The Department of Health and Human Services then informed Planned Parenthood that they were no longer qualified to provide services to Medicaid beneficiaries, which prompted lawsuits both from Planned Parenthood and beneficiaries seeking to enforce their right to “free-choice-of-provider,” included in a 1967 Medicaid provision. This case, argued on April 2, asks whether this provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Join this Courthouse Steps webinar as we discuss this case and the oral arguments presented in court.Featuring:Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney GeneralModerator: Ryan Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom--To register, click the link above.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is authorized by Congress to regulate interstate and international communications and, as part of that, to maintain a universal service fund that requires telecommunications carriers to contribute quarterly based on their revenues. In order to calculate these contribution amounts, the FCC contracts the help of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC).The constitutionality of these delegations of power—to the FCC by Congress and to USAC by the FCC—are now being challenged in court by Consumers’ Research. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case’s oral argument, delivered on March 26, 2025.Featuring:Prof. Chad Squitieri, Assistant Professor of Law, Catholic University of AmericaModerator: Adam Griffin, Separation of Powers Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation--To register, click the link above.

On March 25th, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument to resolve two circuit splits arising under the Clean Air Act (CAA) provision regarding judicial venue: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. (23-1229), and Oklahoma v. EPA (23-1067). The outcome of these cases will hinge on the Court’s interpretation of the CAA’s unique venue provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). The CAA states that challenges to “nationally applicable” actions may be filed only in the D.C. Circuit. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Conversely, challenges to CAA actions that are “locally or regionally applicable” may generally be filed only in the appropriate circuit court for the region. Id. But there is an exception: actions that are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” must be filed in the D.C. Circuit “if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” Id.What is the meaning and scope of this exception? How far may EPA go in picking where to litigate its final actions? And what does this mean for denials of State Implementation Plans (SIPs), small oil refineries seeking Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) exemptions, and other EPA actions affecting the regulated community? Tune in as Jimmy Conde and Garrett Kral offer their initial impressions following oral argument.Featuring:James Conde, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCModerator: Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney To register, click the link above.

On March 31, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission.Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance program provides financial assistance to those who have lost their job through no fault of their own. Under state law, certain nonprofit organizations can opt out of the program, including those operated primarily for religious purposes. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior—a religious ministry that serves people with disabilities, the elderly, and the impoverished—requested an exemption from the state’s program so that it could enroll in the Wisconsin Bishops’ Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP), which provides the same level of unemployment benefits.Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not receive an exemption because its charitable work was not “typical” religious activity. The court said that Catholic Charities could only qualify for an exemption if, for example, it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served. Catholic Charities appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in December 2024.Does a state violate the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior?Featuring: Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties(Moderator) Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Louisiana’s congressional districts, which it redrew following the 2020 census, currently sit in a state of legal uncertainty.The map initially only had one majority-black district. However, following a 2022 case called Robinson v. Ardoin (later Laundry), which held that it violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana re-drew the map to include two […]

I talk about the intricacies of oral arguments in the appellate process. What happens during oral arguments at the court of appeals? It's not about calling witnesses or retrying the case; it's about presenting compelling legal arguments to a panel of judges. I explain the importance of highlighting inequities in the trial and making a persuasive case for why the appeal should succeed. I also share insights into the dynamic nature of these proceedings, including how judges' questions play a pivotal role. Whether you're curious about the appeal process or want to explore some fascinating US Supreme Court arguments, this episode has you covered. What can you expect to learn?The unique dynamics of presenting an oral argument and how it differs from trial court proceedings.My top strategies for making a compelling case during an oral argument, focusing on the importance of pointing out inequities in the trial process.Why oral arguments are not just about reiterating written briefs but about adding "meat on the bone" to reinforce your points effectively.Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

Louisiana's congressional districts, which it redrew following the 2020 census, currently sit in a state of legal uncertainty.The map initially only had one majority-black district. However, following a 2022 case called Robinson v. Ardoin (later Laundry), which held that it violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana re-drew the map to include two majority-black congressional districts.In January 2024, a different set of plaintiffs sued alleging the new map violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. A 2-1 panel agreed the new map violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and enjoined the new map. Given the timing, the case briefly went up to the Supreme Court which granted an emergency application for stay, citing Purcell v. Gonzalez. That allowed the 2022 map to be used for the 2024 elections.Now the case is before the Supreme Court again, this time with a range of issues for the court to address including: (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

Today on Lawfare No Bull: On March 24, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments on whether to stay a temporary restraining order issued on March 15—which bars summary removals of alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan criminal gang—under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The panel, composed of Judge Patricia Millet, Judge Justin Miller, and Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, asked attorneys about the lack of notice and process given to migrants, why the migrants couldn't have just filed habeas petitions, and why the lawyers filed in D.C. rather than Texas.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On today's episode, Andy & DJ discuss Trump receiving thunderous applause as he arrives at the NCAA wrestling championship, Rolls-Royce planning to shift production to the United States to avoid Trump's tariffs, and the Court of Appeals to hear oral arguments in a high-profile deportation suit involving Venezuelan nationals.

On today's Top News in 10, we cover: A federal judge says Nazis were treated better than Venezuelan gang members as the Boasberg hearings continue. SCOTUS hears Oral Arguments in a major case regarding congressional redistricting along racial lines. A Trump administration group chat scandal raises several questions. Full interview with Hans Von Spakovsky: https://youtube.com/live/KYY_W-SjcqY Keep Up With The Daily Signal Sign up for our email newsletters: https://www.dailysignal.com/email     Subscribe to our other shows:  The Tony Kinnett Cast: https://www.dailysignal.com/the-tony-kinnett-cast  Problematic Women: https://www.dailysignal.com/problematic-women  The Signal Sitdown: https://www.dailysignal.com/the-signal-sitdown    Follow The Daily Signal:  X: https://x.com/DailySignal  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thedailysignal/  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/  Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@DailySignal  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/DailySignal  Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/TheDailySignal    Thanks for making The Daily Signal Podcast your trusted source for the day's top news. Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform and never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's Top News in 10, we cover: A federal judge says Nazis were treated better than Venezuelan gang members as the Boasberg hearings continue. SCOTUS hears Oral Arguments in a major case regarding congressional redistricting along racial lines. A Trump administration group chat scandal raises several questions.   Full interview with Hans Von Spakovsky: […]

Even if you technically can't use an electronic recording to create the appellate record, trial courts do provide them for us in your closing argument PowerPoint. Jeff shares his experience.And after spending most of a morning watching oral arguments waiting for his case, Jeff offers these tips:It took 20 minutes of argument time just for the panel to get its head around who was who in a case full of alphabet-soup entities. If you're spending a third of oral argument time in front of a confused panel, you're doing it wrong.Try this:If your case has lots of “ABC LLCs” and “ABC Holdings LLCs,” try using functional names instead—like “the management company,” and “the holding company,” "investor", "bank", "assignee," etc.Anticipate this confusion in your briefs. Include a clear chart in the brief that helps track the parties, preferably directly in the brief or as a supplemental exhibit.The goal is to reduce "friction." If you've used up all panel's brain synapses just to understand the players, you're going to have a poor time once you get to the merits.We also get to a couple cases, including a trap on appellate briefing extensions.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Are employees immune from paying discovery fees?A stipulated dismissal is appealable, but not a voluntary dismissal?

This week, we've got a longer episode than usual. That's because we're doing a deep dive into oral arguments for the Supreme Court's latest gun case, Smith & Wesson v. Mexico. Most observers, including me, thought Mexico faired poorly in its attempt to move forward with liability claims against American gunmakers over cartel violence south of the border. However, Professor Dru Stevenson, who studies gun policy at Southern Texas College of Law, had a bit of a different take. So, I wanted to have him on the show to go through why he thought the justices may be more sympathetic toward Mexico's claims than most other people thought. While he still believes Mexico's suit is unlikely to make it through the Supreme Court unscathed, Stevenson argued the justices might allow part of it to proceed. And, even if not, he said The Court may end up laying out what amounts to a framework for how to successfully pierce gun industry liability protections in future suits. Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utmsource=thereload&utmmedium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0125 Special Guest: Dru Stevenson.

On March 5th, 2025, Karen Read had a Hearing for the Motions to Dismiss. The ongoing debate about the Sallyport videos: Are they exculpatory? Why were they not disclosed earlier? And where are the missing portions of the footage? Note from Canton Police Chief: "That is how it records, LOL. No Tampering."Getting an Evidentiary Hearing is the best outcome to clarify what happened to the videos and who was involved. This can lead to the case being dismissed or provide grounds for appeal. Judge Cannone has to determine if the videos are exculpatory. If not, an evidentiary hearing will likely not be granted.In the first trial, someone told Lieutenant Fanning that there were rumors that a juror was expressing opinions about the trial. The juror denied it but was removed anyways. The defense wants to know who told Fanning about the rumors and how they knew to contact him.Karen Read will be back in court on Tuesday, March 18th, 2025.Watch the full coverage: https://youtube.com/live/DspEzUu2lGMThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Marlean Ames, a straight woman, was denied promotion and later demoted in her role at the Ohio Department of Youth Services by her lesbian supervisor. The position she sought and her former position were then given to a lesbian woman and a gay man respectively. This prompted Ames to file suit under Title VII of […]

In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos Mexico brought suit against several U.S. gun manufacturers including Smith & Wesson, alleging, among other things, that they were in part liable for the killings perpetrated by Mexican cartels. Mexico argued that the gun manufacturers know the guns they sell are/may be illegally sold to the cartels and thus are the proximate causes of the resulting gun violence. The manufacturers argued that they were immune from such suits under the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects U.S. gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, though not universally, as it contains a predicate exception for manufacturers who knowingly violate applicable federal (and potentially international) law. The district court ruled in favor of the manufacturers and Mexico appealed. The First Circuit agreed that while the protections of PLCAA were applicable to the manufacturer, they might still be liable under the predicate exception. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on March 4, 2025. Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the case and analyze how oral arguments went before the Court. Featuring: Brian W. Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC

Marlean Ames, a straight woman, was denied promotion and later demoted in her role at the Ohio Department of Youth Services by her lesbian supervisor. The position she sought and her former position were then given to a lesbian woman and a gay man respectively. This prompted Ames to file suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that she was unlawfully discriminated against based on her sexual orientation because she is heterosexual. The Sixth Circut Court of Appeals affirmed the district court in holding that because Ames was part of the majority group, she had the additional requirement of demonstrating the "background circumstances" that the employer discriminates against majority group members.The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to answer the question of whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim, a majority-group plaintiff must show background circumstances to support the suspicion that the employer discriminates against the majority group. Oral argument is scheduled for February 26th.Featuring:Nicholas Barry, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

Today InPerspective with Dr. Harry Reeder March 4, 2025

Law Nerd App - https://LawNerdApp.comThe Karen Read case is speedrunning filings! In this episode, I break down the defense's motion to dismiss for "Extraordinary Governmental Misconduct," the Commonwealth's response, and the key arguments surrounding withheld video evidence and more.Spoiler Alert: A new Sally Port video emerges! Will the Judge push back the Oral Arguments for the Motion to Dismiss? It's going to be a busy week, and I've got you covered with everything you need to know before we head into court!RESOURCESContinued Motions Hearings - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1MFo7kn6g8Trial 1: Day 20 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ565TtjXW4Expert Related Expenses Hearing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUswAe3_dKATrial 1: Day 25 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHGmNszEmIMThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we explore the Supreme Court's decision to abstain from ruling on a Trump emergency appeal about firing Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel. Jessica Levinson and Katie Buehler, Law360's Supreme Court reporter, analyze the nuances of presidential power and the debate over the constitutionality of restricting executive authority. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Supreme Court Decision on Trump Emergency Appeal: The episode discusses the Supreme Court's recent decision not to review an emergency appeal concerning the firing of Hampton Dellinger from his position as the head of the Office of Special Counsel. The court allowed the temporary restraining order, which pauses the firing, to run its course and expire. Legal Arguments and Statute Constitutionality: The legal argument centers on whether President Trump had to provide a reason for Dellinger's firing, as required by federal law. Trump's administration argues that the statute requiring a reason is unconstitutional and that the president should have the power to fire at will. This theme explores the larger question of presidential authority and statutory constraints.Significant Supreme Court Cases: Katie Buehler highlights other significant Supreme Court cases beyond the Trump-related decision, including a case involving the Federal Communications Commission's authority and executive power, as well as cases on religious rights such as opting-out of LGBTQ-related education and funding for religious charter schools. Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica@bykatiebuehler

What if your most intimate moments were weaponized against you—and no one cared?At 19, Norma Buster thought she was just ending a relationship. Instead, she became the target of relentless stalking, threats, and the ultimate violation: her private photos exposed online. She turned to the law for justice. It failed her, but she didn't back down. Now, as Chief of Staff at CA Goldberg and host of Oral Arguments, Norma is fighting tech-facilitated abuse, exposing legal loopholes, and demanding change.In this episode, we dive into her harrowing journey from victim to advocate. Why do abusers get more protection than victims? How do tech platforms keep enabling harm? And what can we do about it?We'll also explore the blurred lines between online sex work and exploitation, the problem with calling it “revenge porn,” and how Norma found power in the unlikeliest of places—including OnlyFans.This isn't just a story. It's a wake up call. Are you ready? Let's get into it!Timestamps:(00:39) Introduction to Norma Buster(01:50) Norma's story: Surviving stalking and image-based abuse from ex-boyfriend(04:48) The legal fight: How laws fail victims of revenge porn(09:04) Tech-facilitated abuse: When the internet becomes a weapon(11:03) Why sex workers need legal protection/Sex Work and Decriminalization(14:44) Is OnlyFans legal?(15:00) The difference between legalization and decriminalization(16:36) Norma's journey to OnlyFans(20:12)The therapeutic aspect of sex work(24:07) How her advocacy impacts dating and relationships(27:01) Norma's definition of sexAbout the Guest:Norma Buster is a sex-positive victim's rights advocate and the Chief of Staff at CA Goldberg, a law firm specializing in tech-facilitated abuse. Once a victim of image-based sexual abuse, she now fights for others in similar situations, advocating for stronger legal protections and digital safety. She's also the creator and host of Oral Arguments, a podcast that explores the intersections of sex, tech, and the law.You can find Norma here:WebsiteLinkedInInstagramCA Goldberg Law FirmKaren Bigman, a Sexual Health Alliance Certified Sex Educator, Life, and Menopause Coach, tackles the often-taboo subject of sexuality with a straightforward and candid approach. We explore the intricacies of sex during perimenopause, post-menopause, and andropause, offering insights and support for all those experiencing these transformative phases.This podcast is not intended to give medical advice. Karen Bigman is not a medical professional. For any medical questions or issues, please visit your licensed medical provider.Looking for some fresh perspective on sex in midlife? You can find me here:Email: karen@taboototruth.comWebsite: https://www.taboototruth.com/Instagram:

In Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court is set to address a circuit split concerning the context courts should consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment. Is the correct rubric the “moment of threat” doctrine (which was applied by the Fifth Circuit here and has been adopted by several other […]

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton concerns Texas Law H.B. 1181, and what precedent should apply in considering its impact on free speech. Passed in 2023, the law requires commercial entities, including social media platforms, “that knowingly and intentionally publish or distribute material on an Internet website… more than one-third of which is sexual material […]

In TikTok, Inc. v. Garland (consolidated with Firebaugh v. Garland) the Court is set to consider whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA)(enacted by Congress in April 2024), as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment. Put forward as a law focused on national security, PAFACA would require that TikTok either […]

Karen Read and her legal team are back in court for the second day of the Daubert Hearing. They are evaluating the Defense 'dog bite expert' to determine what testimony will be permitted in the re-trial and the scope of Dr. Russell's testimony.We also learned that the prosecution actually went and found the dog, Chloe, and did measurements on her claws and paws and did molds of her jaws and bites as well.Karen Read is scheduled to go back to court for Oral Arguments with another Daubert Hearing regarding the Digital Defense Expert, Rule 14 Discovery Motions with regard to the ARCA Experts on January 31st, 2025 at 9am ET. Based on how that goes, then possibly we will have an Evidentiary Hearing on February 6th, 2025, at 9am ET that could run into the 7th.Watch the full coverage: https://youtube.com/live/mqwz88FkNm8RESOURCESCatch up on Day 1 Quickly - https://youtu.be/587k95WaryI?si=l7QZKWLVnXmBz1mO Day 1 Full Court Day - https://youtube.com/live/MjU4nGT3TSsThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy