Podcasts about oral arguments

The South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Alex Murdaugh's appeal today, and Creighton Waters had a rough morning. From the opening moments, the five justices made clear they had serious questions about both the jury tampering ruling and the evidentiary decisions at trial. Justice George James immediately asked whether the court could consider the egg juror's affidavit — the juror Justice Toal refused to let testify in 2024. Harpootlian told the court he couldn't explain why she was excluded. On the Becky Hill issue, Chief Justice Kittredge pointed out that Toal's order didn't even mention the allegation that Hill told jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony, and that corroboration between juror accounts and an independent witness was striking. Justice Few asked Waters how you call someone not completely credible when she's now a convicted perjurer. The second phase turned to evidentiary errors, where Jim Griffin argued five categories of trial court mistakes. Kittredge told Waters that South Carolina's Rule 404(b) is a rule of exclusion, not inclusion, and that the gate was left wide open for financial crimes evidence — he couldn't find a single piece that was kept out. Waters tried to use a Fargo movie reference to illustrate financial motive and Justice Few shut him down. Defense attorney Phillip Barber argued in rebuttal that the financial evidence was used to paint Murdaugh as a person capable of anything rather than to prove motive. The court took the case under advisement. A decision could come within 60 days. The three possible outcomes: affirm the conviction, order a new trial, or remand for further proceedings. Today's hearing laid bare the fault lines in this case.#MurdaughTrial #AlexMurdaugh #OralArguments #BeckyHill #CreightonWaters #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #JuryTampering #TrueCrimeToday #NewTrial #TrueCrimeJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

The South Carolina Supreme Court heard Alex Murdaugh's appeal today and the bench came loaded. Most of the hardest questions went straight at prosecutor Creighton Waters. Criminal defense attorney and former felony prosecutor Eric Faddis joins Hidden Killers Live to break down the key exchanges and what they reveal about the court's thinking.The hearing opened with Justice James asking about the egg juror affidavit that Toal refused to admit. Chief Justice Kittredge went after the jury tampering issue, pointing out that Toal's order skipped the allegation that Becky Hill directly told jurors not to believe Murdaugh. With Hill now a convicted perjurer — something that wasn't true when Toal ruled — Justice Few pressed Waters on how the state can defend her credibility at all.On the evidence front, Kittredge told Waters the trial court let every piece of financial crime evidence in and excluded nothing, calling Rule 404(b) a rule of exclusion that wasn't treated as one. Griffin argued there's no direct evidence connecting Murdaugh to the murders — no eyewitnesses, no weapons, no transfer evidence from a close-range shotgun blast.Faddis reads the justices' questions as a roadmap and explains what outcome they're most likely driving toward — and what happens next regardless of which way they rule.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughOralArguments #SCSupremeCourt #BeckyHill #CreightonWaters #EricFaddis #EggJuror #HiddenKillersLive #MurdaughAppeal #JuryTamperingJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

Diese Podcastfolge behandelt einen Aspekt der Verfahrenspraxis des Internationalen Gerichtshofs, der in jüngerer Zeit verstärkt diskutiert wird: die Interventionen von Drittstaaten. Grundsätzlich stehen Staaten zwei Wege der Intervention offen: entweder auf Grundlage von Artikel 62 oder von Artikel 63 des Statuts des IGH. Während Art. 62 des IGH-Statuts Staaten den Beitritt zu einem Verfahren aufgrund eines möglichen „rechtlichen Interesses“ ermöglicht, „das durch die Entscheidung der Sache berührt werden könnte“, regelt Art. 63 des IGH-Statuts die Voraussetzungen einer Intervention bei der Auslegung von Verträgen. Wir analysieren die prozessualen Anforderungen, die an Interventionsgesuche gestellt werden und anhand welcher Kriterien deren Zulässigkeit bestimmt wird. Anschließend gehen wir der Frage nach, welche konkreten Möglichkeiten sich Staaten eröffnen, sofern ihre Intervention als zulässig erachtet wird. Interventionen von Drittstaaten führen in der Praxis durchaus zu Kontroversen, wie sowohl abgeschlossene als auch laufende Verfahren zeigen. Grundsätzlich stellt sich die Frage, ob die Intervention als verfahrensrechtliches Instrument einen „Mehrwert“ bietet oder vielmehr einen „ungerechtfertigten Verfahrenseingriff“ darstellt, der die bilaterale Streitbeilegung zwischen den Hauptparteien behindert. Vor dem Hintergrund der zuletzt beobachteten „Welle von Interventionen“ stellt sich zudem die Frage, ob diese Entwicklung eventuell zu einer weiteren Politisierung der Verfahren beiträgt.Um sich diesen Diskussionen vertieft zu widmen, hat der Völkerrechtspodcast Jane Hofbauer eingeladen, die den Hörer*innen das Instrument der Intervention näherbringt. Ergänzend beleuchtet Isabel Lischewski im Grundlagenteil die historische Entwicklung der Intervention. Wir sind gespannt auf eure Rückmeldungen! Lob, Anmerkungen und Kritik sind herzlich willkommen an ⁠podcast@voelkerrechtsblog.org⁠. Abonniert unseren Podcast ⁠via RSS⁠, über ⁠Spotify⁠ oder überall dort, wo es Podcasts gibt. Es gibt die Möglichkeit, auf diesen Plattformen den Völkerrechtspodcast zu bewerten, wir freuen uns über 5 Sterne!HintergrundinformationenAmmar Bustami & Verena Kahl, Intervention auf Irrwegen: Der Fall Südafrika gegen Israel und die problematische Rolle Deutschlands im Hauptverfahren, Verfassungsblog (2024).Khaled El Mahmoud, Measuring with Double Legal Standards Germany's Intervention in Support of Israel before the ICJ, Verfassungsblog (2024). Jane Hofbauer, Proceedings: Intervention in International Proceedings Expanding the Bilateral Dispute Settlement Model of International, in: Joanna Gomula & Stephan Wittich (Hrsg.), Research Handbook on International Procedural Law (2024), pp. 426-447. Haris Huremagić, Intervening for the community?—The law and politics of third-party intervention before the International Court of Justice, Journal of International Dispute Settlement 17 (2026).Juliette McIntyre, Less a Wave Than a Tsunami Procedural Implications for the ICJ of the Article 63 Interventions in Ukraine v. Russia, Völkerrechtsblog (2022). Penelope Ridings & Antonio José Guzmán Mutis, In Conversation with Dr Penelope Ridings, Völkerrechtsblog (2025).Bruno Simma, When “Community Interest” Intervenes: Article 62 of the ICJ Statute Facing Obligations erga omnes (partes), The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (2025). Moderation: ⁠Jasmin Wachau ⁠ & ⁠Rouven Diekjobst⁠Grundlagen: ⁠Dr. Isabel Lischewski⁠ ⁠Interview: Dr. Jane Hofbauer & Jasmin WachauSchnitt: ⁠Daniela RauCredits: United Nations, ICJ: Ukraine v. Russian Federation: Allegations of Genocide | 1st Round of Oral Arguments by Russia, 19 September 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTjit5jmTYU.  

Here's your local news for Wednesday, February 11, 2026:We detail today's legal back and forth over a grant program that helps students of color attend college,Learn how some employers are filling the gaps in the health insurance marketplace,Meet an incumbent supervisor who says rural voters deserve an experienced representative on the county board,Reflect on the legacy of outgoing UW-Madison Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin,Broadcast the most comprehensive weather report on the airwaves,Travel back in time to 1969,And much more.

In this special bonus episode, we bring you the complete audio from today's South Carolina Supreme Court hearing on Alex Murdaugh's appeal of his double murder convictions. From the defense's arguments to the State's response, you'll hear the full, unedited proceedings as they unfolded in Columbia. Investigative Journalists Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell will break down everything you heard in this bonus episode on tomorrow's episode of True Sunlight Podcast, offering the deep analysis, legal context, and accountability reporting you've come to expect. (03:07) Denial of New Trial Argument by Dick Harpootlian / Appellant (25:45) Denial of New Trial Argument by Creighton Waters / Respondent (01:01:39) Underlying Trial Evidentiary Issues by Jim Griffin / Appellant (01:33:04) Underlying Trial Evidentiary Issues by Creighton Waters / Respondent (02:06:18) Combined Reply Issues by Phil Barber / Appellant *Audio quality (but not content) has been enhanced for optimal clarity. Lot's to learn… Let's Dive in…

#lawyeryouknow #danmarkel #charlesadelson

Two cases came before the Supreme Court for oral arguments asking the same basic question. Can states prohibit men from participating in women's sports?

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

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. The case rose to SCOTUS and was heard as a part of the OT24 term. The issues before the Court included (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.On June 27, 2025, rather than issue a decision on the case, the Supreme Court issued an order restoring the case to the OT 25 calendar for reargument. This time, the Court has explicitly granted the question of "Whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution." Oral argument (round 2) is set for October 15, 2025.Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how this oral argument went before the Court.Featuring:Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School(Moderator) Brad A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group

This week, we're taking a deep dive into the Supreme Court oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez. To do that, we have one of the people who was directly involved: Wolford's lawyer, Alan Beck. He joined the show to give us a preview of the case before oral arguments. Now, he's back to give us a rundown of how everything went from his perspective. Beck said being in the room was an entirely different experience from listening to arguments online or reading a transcript. He said the justices were more expressive than many of the other federal judges he's argued in front of before, and it gave him extra insight into how arguments were going. He noted that at different points some of them even became visibly exasperated with some of what his opponent was saying, especially during the portion where they discussed a Black Code as evidence for Hawaii's modern gun-carry restriction. Beck said he believes a majority of the justices favored his position. He said Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared skeptical of his view about Second Amendment rights on private property, but he believes she came to understand his position after a long back-and-forth. Meanwhile, he said he thought his argument about the incompatibility of Hawaii's restrictions with American history won over a lot of the justices, perhaps even Justice Elana Kagan.Special Guest: Alan Beck.

SEGMENT 13: SCOTUS HEARS WARTIME OIL EXTRACTION LIABILITY CASE Guest: Michael Toth (Civitas Institute) Toth reports from Supreme Court oral arguments on Louisiana's claim that World War II oil and gas extraction damaged coastlines and quality of life. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement defends energy companies, arguing wartime production faced no limits given the existential threat requiring maximum resource extraction for national survival.1875 MARDI GRAS

SEGMENT 3: LISA COOK CASE DRAWS FED GIANTS TO SCOTUS Guest: Richard Epstein Epstein analyzes oral arguments in the Lisa Cook case with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and former Chair Ben Bernanke attending the Supreme Court proceedings. Discussion examines the legal questions at stake, implications for Federal Reserve independence and appointments, and why this case attracted such extraordinary central banking attention.1919 PACIFIC PALISADES

VLOG 2 Jan 22: After Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni et al oral argument on motions (for summary judgment, and Lively seeking sanctions for using auto-delete on Signal), Inner City Press live tweeted it all: https://x.com/innercitypress/status/2014348058088046925and book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DWC8BH55

I think it’s a fair bet to say the SCOTUS will defeat HI’s near total ban on carrying on “private property” aftet today’s oral arguments. Look for an easy 6-3 win, possibly 8-1? Either way, we win, they LOSE!

January 30, 2026 marks the 50th anniversary of Buckley v. Valeo, a landmark First Amendment speech clause case. While the podcast normally airs current oral arguments, we thought that it would be interesting to spotlight the oral arguments in this landmark case during month of its anniversary.Episode 44: Buckley v. ValeoJames L. Buckley, et al. v. Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al. argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 10, 1975 and decided on January 30, 1976. Argued by Ralph K. Winter, Joel M. Gora, Brice M. Claggett, and  (on behalf of James L. Buckley) and Daniel M. Friedman, Archibald Cox, Lloyd N. Cutler, and Ralph S. Spritzer (on behalf of Francis R. Valeo).   Case Background [from the Federal Election Commission]:On January 2, 1975, the suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Senator James L. Buckley of New York, Eugene McCarthy, Presidential candidate and former Senator from Minnesota, and several others. The defendants included Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the Senate and Ex officio member of the newly formed Federal Election Commission, and the Commission itself. The plaintiffs charged that the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), under which the Commission was formed, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act were unconstitutional on a number of grounds.On January 24, 1975, pursuant to Section 437h(a) of the FECA, the district court certified the constitutional questions in the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On August 15, 1975, the appeals court rendered a decision upholding almost all of the substantive provisions of the FECA with respect to contributions, expenditures and disclosure. The court also sustained the constitutionality of the method of appointing the Commission.On September 19, 1975, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, which reached its decision on January 30, 1976. Questions Presented, from the Appellants' Brief: 1. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitations imposed by FECA on expenditures by political candidates and organizations are constitutional?2. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitation imposed by FECA on expenditures by any person relative to a clearly identified candidate are constitutional?3. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitations imposed by FECA on contributions to political candidates and organizations are constitutional?4. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the disclosure requirements imposed on political candidates, organizations and individuals by FECA are constitutional?5. Did the courts below correctly conclude that the public financing provisions of FECA and Subtitle H of the Internal Revenue Code are constitutional?6. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the method provided by FECA for appointing members of the Federal Election Commission is constitutional?7. Did the Court of Appeals properly decline to decide whether certain powers conferred upon the Federal Election Commission by FECA are constitutional?8. Are the powers conferred upon the Federal Election Commission by FECA constitutional?Resources:   Supreme Court OpinionInstitute for Free Speech AnalysisC-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 1C-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 2C-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 3The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases about Idaho and West Virginia laws protecting girls' sports from male athletes claiming to be female. We also look at influencers being used in middle schools to promote trans ideology. Jeff Johnston, Issues Analyst for Focus on the Family, joins us to discuss both!

Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard oral argument on a pair of cases involving men playing in women's sports—Little v. Hecox, and West Virginia v. BPJ.As usual the justice line up appeared to be Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts on the side of reason and law, and the three SCOTUS crones—Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—as the liberal lunatics in the conversation. And once again Justice Ketanji “I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a woman is” Jackson presents herself as the dumbest Supreme Court justice to have ever existed. 

Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard oral argument on a pair of cases involving men playing in women's sports—Little v. Hecox, and West Virginia v. BPJ.As usual the justice line up appeared to be Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts on the side of reason and law, and the three SCOTUS crones—Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—as the liberal lunatics in the conversation. And once again Justice Ketanji “I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a woman is” Jackson presents herself as the dumbest Supreme Court justice to have ever existed. 

Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard oral argument on a pair of cases involving men playing in women's sports—Little v. Hecox, and West Virginia v. BPJ.As usual the justice line up appeared to be Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts on the side of reason and law, and the three SCOTUS crones—Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—as the liberal lunatics in the conversation. And once again Justice Ketanji “I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a wom

In today's explosive episode, we dive headfirst into the battle for America's election integrity, starting with President Trump's fiery stop in Michigan where he calls out the absurdity of no voter ID laws in blue states. Trump warns that our entire system has been hijacked by those who encourage voting without verification, teasing a wave of election fraud revelations through his recent videos. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Join us as we uncover the deep-rooted schemes threatening our republic and what must be done to reclaim it before the midterms.Shifting to the heartland, we discuss the massive fraud uncovered in Minnesota, directly linked to ramped-up ICE enforcement and escalating confrontations with agitators. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent drops a bombshell that tapes allegedly showing MN AG Ellison taking money to halt investigations into Somali communities. Hear from Tom Homan on why blue cities and states are blocking ICE from jails, forcing agents into perilous street operations designed to vilify them and distract from immigrant fraud rings. Stephen Miller delivers a powerful message to embattled ICE agents, while Ilhan Omar brazenly vows Democrats will block all ICE funding. These aren't isolated incidents, they're a coordinated assault fueled by radical left rhetoric, and we've got the cuts to prove it.But the deception doesn't stop there: protests erupting across the nation, from Minneapolis ICE clashes to New York rallies over Maduro's extraction, are far from organic. An agitator openly admits to Laura Ingraham they're being paid, and investigative reporters reveal pre-printed signs that scream astroturf operation. In Colorado, Secretary of State Jena Griswold urges Governor Polis not to release Tina Peters amid her high-stakes appeal hearing. We'll have her hearing streaming live for Joe to provide his thoughts. This is the radical left's playbook of useful idiots and funded chaos, and today, we expose the complete op we're living in. Tune in for the truth that could change everything.

Our Supreme Court Case Oral Arguments Does a law-abiding citizen have as many rights as a rapist, drug-dealer, or murderer? Can a city violate your 4th amendment rights, invade your privacy & enter your home without a warrant just because you are a tenant? Can they do this even if they have no proof of any possible violations? We talk about our experience at the Ohio Supreme Court as well as some of the information and questions that were brought up. We talk about problems in the real estate market and how some government officials are treating tenants like second-class citizens. We also talk about two organizations, 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and Pacific Legal Foundation. These groups focus on helping citizens fighting against unconstitutional laws. If you want to help stand up against government overreach, donating to these groups can be a great way to do that. In order to hold our government officials accountable, we need to be willing to stand up when they take actions that are unconstitutional. https://ohioconstitution.org/donate/ https://pacificlegal.org/donate/ Sponsors: American Gold Exchange Our dealer for precious metals & the exclusive dealer of Real Power Family silver rounds. Get your first, or next bullion order from American Gold Exchange like we do. Tell them the Real Power Family sent you! Click on this link to get a FREE Starters Guide. Or Click Here to order our new Real Power Family silver rounds. 1 Troy Oz 99.99% Fine Silver Abolish Property Taxes in Ohio: www.AxOHTax.com  Get more information about abolishing all property taxes in Ohio. Our Links: www.RealPowerFamily.com Info@RealPowerFamily.com 833-Be-Do-Have (833-233-6428)

In this episode of the National Crawford Roundtable podcast the guys talk about the shooting of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis by an ICE agent. They also discuss the unrest and protests in Iran, and the SCOTUS hearing oral arguments about transgenders playing in women's sports.

In National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) the Court is set to consider “whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37.”.The case kicked off in 2022 when two Republican party committees brought suit against the FEC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. They contended the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) imposed unconstitutional restrictions on their capacity to coordinate campaign advertising with candidates, and that FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) which had upheld the restrictions as constitutional, had been made unsound by developments in law, facts, and precedent in the intervening time.As required by FECA for constitutional challenges, the district court certified the legal question to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc which upheld FECA. The Supreme Court granted cert. and Oral Argument is set to be heard on December 9, 2025.Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.Featuring:Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Learning Resources v. Trump, a case examining the scope of presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and its use to impose tariffs. This program will break down the argument, highlight how the Justices probed IEEPA’s limits, and discuss what the Court’s decision may mean for executive power, trade policy, and the future deployment of emergency economic tools. Featuring:Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law, William & Mary Law SchoolAdam White, Laurence H. Silberman Chair in Constitutional Governance and Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Show (12/10/2025): 3:05pm- Have technological advances over the last decade negatively impacted the mental health of young Americans? In an essay for the Free Press, Jonathan Haidt argues that Gen Z has lost its ability to focus, think critically, and often replaces meaningful relationships with simulations. If smartphones and apps have been psychologically damaging—what will the rise of artificial intelligence do? 3:15pm- On Wednesday, President Donald Trump held a roundtable discussion from the White House with several business leaders where he announced the launch of the Trump Gold Card: "The company can keep [employees] here, and they have a path to citizenship. Obviously, they have to be perfect people in America—and having passed the vetting, after 5 years, they'll be available to become citizens." 3:50pm- Is anyone answering the phones at the studio? Probably not. Plus, President Trump takes questions from the press. 4:05pm- While speaking from the White House, President Trump confirmed that the United States has seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela. While speaking with Politico on Tuesday, Trump said that dictator Nicolas Maduro's “days are numbered” and would not rule out a ground invasion. 4:40pm- President Trump told Politico that his goal for Venezuela is to make sure its people are finally “treated well.” 4:45pm- Speaker Mike Johnson said he is “absolutely delighted that Jasmine Crockett is running for Senate in Texas” and that “it's one of the greatest things to happen to the Republican Party.” 4:50pm- Artificial intelligence is being used for strategic “price surging”—Matt has worthless knowledge and he's excited to share it. Plus, did the limited-edition holiday Coca Cola live up to expectations? It wasn't quite as “smooth” and “creamy” as Coke had promised. 5:05pm- Daniel Turner—Founder and Executive Director of Power the Future—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to recap President Donald Trump's speech in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania. Are the president's policies leading to lower energy prices? 5:30pm- Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath—Neuroscientist, Educator, & Best-Selling Author—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his latest essay for The Free Press, “We Gave Students Laptops and Took Away Their Brains.” Dr. Horvath responds to claims that “our children are less cognitively capable than we were at their age”—noting that “starting around the year 2000, something changed. For the first time in the history of standardized cognitive measurement, Generation Z is consistently scoring lower than their parents on many key measures of cognitive development—from literacy and numeracy to deep creativity and general IQ. And the early data from Generation Alpha (born after 2012) suggests the downturn isn't slowing—it's accelerating.” So, what's to blame? “The tools we are using.” He has conducted research and taught at Harvard University and Harvard Medical School. You can read the full article here: https://www.thefp.com/p/we-gave-students-laptops-and-took. And find Dr. Horvath's book, “The Digital Delusion: How Classroom Technology Harms Our Kids' Learning—And How To Help Them Thrive Again,” here: https://a.co/d/5jeoZwz. You can learn more here: lmeglobal.com. 6:05pm- On Tuesday, President Donald Trump held a rally in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania where he addressed American affordability challenges and the economy. During his speech he mocked former President Joe Biden and Rep. Ilhan Omar and noted that since his inauguration “we've created nearly 60,000 new Pennsylvania jobs, including 4,000 Pennsylvania manufacturing jobs.” 6:30pm- Carrie Severino—President of the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) & Co-Author of the book, “Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court”—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in the National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Committee, a case involving limits on coordi ...

In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the Supreme Court is set to determine whether an internet service provider can be held liable—and deemed to have acted willfully—for copyright infringement based solely on its knowledge of user misconduct and its failure to terminate those users’ access. Sony Music and a group of music publishers sued Cox, alleging that its subscribers illegally downloaded copyrighted works through Cox’s network. The Supreme Court will review a 4th Circuit ruling holding that an internet service provider could be liable for vast copyright damages because it took insufficient steps to disconnect IP addresses accused of downloading copyrighted material. Oral argument is set for December 1. Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how this oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Devlin Hartline, Senior Fellow, Forum for Intellectual Property, Hudson Institute (Moderator) Prof. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law

Damon Landor, a state prisoner and practicing Rastafarian, refused to cut his hair as an expression of his faith. After prison officials forcibly restrained and shaved him, Landor sued under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which prohibits governments from imposing unnecessary “substantial burdens” on inmates’ religious exercise. The district court, and later the Fifth Circuit, rejected his claim, holding that monetary damages were not an available form of “appropriate relief” under the statute.The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to decide whether RLUIPA allows prisoners to seek damages against government officials in their personal capacities for violations of religious rights. Oral argument is set for November 10, 2025.Featuring:Meredith Holland Kessler, Managing Attorney, Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic and Term Teaching Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Joshua C. McDaniel, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law & Director, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School

In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, the New Jersey Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, issued a subpoena to a faith-based, pro-life, nonprofit, requiring that it turn over years of sensitive information, including the names and contact information of its donors. First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which provides free medical services and is funded by private donations, refused to comply with the demand for donor information, alleging that the subpoena chilled its rights of association and speech.First Choice filed an action in federal court, but the district court twice dismissed the case, finding it "unripe" and requiring that the constitutional issues first be adjudicated in state court. The Third Circuit affirmed this decision.The Supreme Court will consider whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court. This case addresses broader issues, including the power of state officials and the role of federal courts in protecting First Amendment rights from chilling effects caused by state action.Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.Featuring:Christopher E. Mills, Principal, Spero Law LLC(Moderator) Christopher Bates, Shareholder, Kirton McConkie

Gabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who often shares his faith in public. In May 2021, when sharing his faith near an amphitheater in a public park in Brandon, Mississippi, the city’s chief of police confronted Olivier with a recently amended city ordinance requiring “protests” to occur in a designated area. Olivier repositioned himself but soon returned when the designated area proved remote and isolating. The city charged Olivier for violating the ordinance, and he pled nolo contendere and agreed to pay a fine. Olivier then challenged the ordinance under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking an injunction prohibiting future enforcement of the law against his expressive activity. The district court barred Olivier’s request for injunctive relief, applying the preclusion doctrine from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As a result, Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance, even though he alleges that it continues to restrict his speech and risks future penalties. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, splitting from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and deepening a circuit split on whether Heck applies to noncustodial plaintiffs who cannot access habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote, over dissents arguing Olivier’s plea should not bar future constitutional protection. In July, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.Featuring:Nathan Kellum, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Steven Burnett, Clinical Instructional Fellow, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School

Humphrey's Executor v. United States, decided in 1935, upheld the Federal Trade Commission Act, declaring that a president can remove an FTC commissioner only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In March 2025, FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter was notified of her removal by President Trump, who stated in a letter that for her to remain an FTC commissioner was “inconsistent with [the] Administration’s priorities.” Slaughter won in district court, which ordered her reinstatement. After the D.C. Court of Appeals denied the government’s request for a stay, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and stayed the lower court’s ruling. Join us for a discussion of oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter and the questions it presents about separation of powers, for-cause removal, and the future of Humphrey's Executor. Featuring:Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP(Moderator) Bilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Hugh discusses Minnesota’s Somali community ‘Feeding Our Future’ fraud scandal, the SCOTUS arguments regarding Trump on president’s power to fire FTC commissioner, and talks with Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn, Bethany Mandel of The Mom Wars, Scott Johnson of Power Line Blog, Vic Matus of the Free Beacon, Adm. Mark Montgomery (USN, Ret.), and Doug Lesmerises of The Bill & Doug Show.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

News of the Bogus: 0:43 – BREAKING: Georgia case brought by Fani Willis against President Trump officially DROPPED https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-georgia-case-brought-by-fani-willis-against-president-trump-officially-dropped 6:18 – Oral Argument – Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-171 21:14 – DDoS Guard: LaLiga’s Piracy Blocks Test Whether Anyone Will Protect the Internet https://torrentfreak.com/ddos-guard-laligas-piracy-blocks-test-whether-anyone-will-protect-the-internet-251203/ 25:58 – Biggest Bogon Emitter: Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton is still blaming TikTok https://reason.com/2025/12/04/hillary-clinton-is-still-blaming-tiktok/ 31:30 – Idiot Extraordinaire: The UK UK cops to scale facial recognition despite privacy backlash https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/05/uk_cops_facial_recognition/ This Week’s Quote: “Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order and the like.” —William Douglas 🔊Pᴏᴅᴄᴀꜱᴛ: https://podcast.bogosity.tv/💬Dɪꜱᴄᴏʀᴅ: https://discord.bogosity.tv/▶️YᴏᴜTᴜʙᴇ: https://www.youtube.com/shanedk▶️Oᴅʏsᴇᴇ: https://odysee.com/%24/invite/@shanedk:4▶️Rᴜᴍʙʟᴇ https://rumble.com/c/shanedk💰Dᴏɴᴀᴛᴇ ᴏʀ ꜱᴜʙꜱᴄʀɪʙᴇ: https://donate.bogosity.tv

Full audio of the Supreme Court oral argument in Rutherford v. United States (No. 24-820), argued November 12, 2025. In this case, the Justices consider whether federal judges may treat nonretroactive sentencing changes in the First Step Act—including the end of mandatory "stacking" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)—as "extraordinary and compelling reasons" to grant compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Listen as the Court presses both sides on sentencing disparities, the Sentencing Commission's new policy statement, and what fairness looks like for people serving decades-long terms under outdated law. Check out the official Crime Talk merch at the Crime Talk Store: scottreisch.com/crime-talk-store #RutherfordvUnitedStates #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #FirstStepAct #SentencingReform #CrimeTalk        

Tax Notes managing legal reporter Caitlin Mullaney explores the Supreme Court's oral arguments in V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources and predicts whether the Court will strike down President Trump's tariffs. For related tax news, read the following in Tax Notes:Michigan Agencies Forecast Tariff Impacts on Prices, JobsSupreme Court Justices Question Trump's IEEPA TariffsTrump-Xi Summit Yields Lower Tariffs All Around**This episode is sponsored by Avalara. For more information, visit avalara.com.***CreditsHost: David D. StewartExecutive Producers: Jeanne Rauch-Zender, Paige JonesProducers: Jordan Parrish, Peyton RhodesAudio Engineers: Jordan Parrish, Peyton Rhodes****Nominate someone for the Tax Analysts Award of Distinction in U.S. Federal Taxation! For more information, visit awards.taxanalysts.org.

In a live conversation on November 5, Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Lawfare Contributing Editor Peter Harrell and Georgetown Law Professors Marty Lederman and Kathleen Claussen to discuss what occurred during oral arguments in the legal challenge to President Trump's tariffs at the Supreme Court and how the justices may rule.This episode is a part of Lawfare's new livestream series, Lawfare Live: The Now. Subscribe to Lawfare on Substack or YouTube to receive an alert for future livestreams.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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alan Tonelson discusses the Supreme Court oral arguments concerning the President's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The administration argues the President can invoke IEEPA due to emergencies like fentanyl and trade deficits. Tonelson finds arguments against including tariffs under IEEPA's regulatory language "jaw-dropping." He stresses that the President must have sole control over declaring foreign policy emergencies, necessary for rapid response. If rejected, the President has other longstanding tariffing powers. 1883 WALL STREET

Episode 4905: SCOTUS Listens To Oral Arguments On Trump's Tariffs

Episode 4903: Blowout Across America's Elections; SCOTUS Hear Oral Arguments On Tariffs

Following the Supreme Court oral arguments in President Donald Trump's tariff case, Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, Sarah Isgur is joined by David French, David Lat, and Latham & Watkins LLP partner Roman Martinez to explain where the legal battle will go from here. SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe also joins from the steps of the Supreme Court to relay her observations from inside the courtroom. Watch the livestream here.  Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

PREVIEW. The Continuing Power of Presidential Tariffs. Alan Tonelson discusses the Supreme Court's pending oral arguments concerning the president's "Liberation Day tariffs." Tonelson argues the tariffs are likely to stay, and presidential power will continue. Even if the court strikes down the tariffs under the 1977 statute, the president possesses many other established tariffing authorities under US trade law. Retry

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we tackle the Supreme Court battle over Louisiana's redistricting and its far-reaching implications for voting rights. Host Jessica Levinson and NPR's Hansi Lo Wang unpack the legal fight over Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, explaining how redistricting shapes the power of racial minorities and the future of partisan gerrymandering. Join us as we break down what's at stake for Congress, the states, and the promise of equal representation.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Redistricting = Real Voting Power: How district lines are drawn can dramatically dilute or amplify your vote. Redistricting is a complex, often opaque process with huge, tangible consequences for representation.Supreme Court Decisions Have National Impact: The outcome of Louisiana's case (and similar cases) could directly affect minority representation in Congress and potentially lock in partisan advantages for years to come.Tension Between Race & Partisan Politics: The debate isn't just about protecting minority voters. The Court is grappling with whether racial considerations in redistricting are required or unconstitutional, especially since partisan gerrymandering is now out of reach for federal courts.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson welcomes Jan Wolfe of Reuters to break down a major Supreme Court case that could reshape voting rights nationwide. They discuss how a challenge to Louisiana's congressional map escalated into a broader attack on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—one of the remaining federal protections against racial discrimination in voting. Jan and Jessica unravel the complexities of the case, the Supreme Court's skepticism, and the potential consequences: from narrowing how race can be considered in redistricting, to making it much harder to bring successful claims under Section 2. The episode also takes a look at other high-profile cases on the Supreme Court's docket, including questions of executive power and social issues, highlighting the legal and political stakes at play this term.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is at a crossroads:Following the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby County decision (which gutted Section 5 preclearance provisions), Section 2 remains the primary tool to challenge racially discriminatory voting practices. This case could either hobble or maintain its effectiveness, depending on how the justices rule.The current dispute reflects broader battles over race and "colorblindness":The case sits at the intersection of redistricting and the recent trend in the Court toward a “colorblind” constitutional interpretation—reminiscent of last year's affirmative action ruling. The outcome could make it significantly harder to prove voting power is being diluted due to race, with huge consequences for minority representation.The Court's decision may have national ripple effects—or remain narrow:While the justices have options ranging from a sweeping redefinition of Section 2 to a narrow ruling specific to Louisiana, the oral arguments showed splintering among conservatives and uncertainty about the ultimate path forward. Watch for possible “off ramps” that limit the case's impact nationally.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In breaking news, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, to Alina Habba's face, seems poised to bounce her as US Attorney for NJ and finding she was illegally appointed by Trump, impacting at least 26 other Trump picks while she's at it. Michael Popok brought the receipts with today's Oral Argument hearing clips, that went so bad for Habba that posted a social media post that actually lied to the American People and implied that SHE argued the case today when she didn't, and in a moment that undermines her whole case, FORGOT that Trump pulled her nomination for US Attorney a couple of months ago! OneSkin: Get 15% off OneSkin with the code LEGALAF at https://oneskin.co/hair #oneskinpod 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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hear the official Supreme Court oral argument in Louisiana v. Callais, argued on October 15, 2025. This audio presents the direct exchanges between the Justices and attorneys as they examine the constitutional questions and implications of this pivotal case.   #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #OralArgument #LouisianavCallais #LegalPodcast #ConstitutionalLaw

On this special episode of Native Land Pod, host Angela Rye is joined by attorney for the Legal Defense Fund, Janai Nelson. Ms. Nelson joins us just after leaving the Supreme Court, where she argued a case which could have radical implications for the Voting Rights Act and redistricting across the country: Louisiana v. Callais. In 2024, Louisiana was found to be in violation of the VRA and was forced to redraw their congressional map. The original map created only one majority Black district out of six total districts, in a state where roughly 1/3rd of the population is Black. Ms. Nelson and the Legal Defense Fund argued in favor of the new map, which created two majority Black districts, in the Supreme Court back in March of 2025. The highest court has called them back to hear arguments AGAIN, a move rarely taken, except for with the most consequential of cases (Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board, etc.). If Louisiana’s original map is allowed to stand, with only one majority Black district, it would effectively gut the Voting Rights Act, and lead to a reduction in representation for Black people across the country. Read more: https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/louisiana-v-callais-faq/ https://www.justice.gov/crt/section-2-voting-rights-act Watch Oral Arguments: https://www.c-span.org/program/public-affairs-event/supreme-court-hears-case-on-racial-gerrymandering-voting-rights/664542 Want to ask Angela a question? Subscribe to our YouTube channel to participate in the chat. Welcome home y’all! —--------- We want to hear from you! Send us a video @nativelandpod and we may feature you on the podcast. Instagram X/Twitter Facebook NativeLandPod.com Watch full episodes of Native Land Pod here on YouTube. Native Land Pod is brought to you by Reasoned Choice Media.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, we bring you the full oral arguments from the Supreme Court case Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections (Docket No. 24-568). At the heart of this dispute lies a critical question about voting rights, state election procedures, and the constitutional boundaries of electoral oversight. The Justices engage with counsel on whether Illinois' ballot access rules impose undue burdens on candidates and voters, testing the balance between state authority and federal protections under the Constitution. Listen as the arguments unfold — a window into how the nation's highest court examines questions that shape the future of democratic participation in America.   #SupremeCourt #BostvIllinois #VotingRights #OralArguments #USConstitution #ElectionLaw #SCOTUS #Democracy #CivilRights #Podcast

In this episode, we present the full oral arguments from the Supreme Court case Chiles v. Salazar (Docket No. 24-539), argued on October 7, 2025. At issue in this case are profound questions about the scope of federal authority, individual rights, and the limits of governmental power under the Constitution. Listen as the advocates lay out their positions and the Justices challenge their reasoning in a high-stakes exchange that could shape future constitutional doctrine. Experience the Supreme Court in action — unfiltered, analytical, and at the heart of American jurisprudence.   #SupremeCourt #SCOTUS #ChilesvSalazar #ConstitutionalLaw #FederalPower #CivilRights #OralArguments #LegalPodcast #USConstitution #Justice