Podcasts about oral arguments

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

Thank you so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show, celebrating over 14 years broadcasting on the internet. On Friday's show, we visit with Pacific Legal Foundation Senior Fellow William Yeatman about the pursuit of a resolution to the government shutdown. We visit with Maggie Anders with the Foundation for Economic Education about her latest episode of “Undoctrination,” which highlights Milei's solutions to the problems in Argentina. We visit with Landmark Legal Foundation Vice President Michael O'Neill about the oral arguments in the Supreme Court over Trump's tariffs. We also visit with Professor Larry Bell about the Mamdani's Mayoral victory in New York City and implications not only for New Yorkers, but also for national politics. We have terrific guests on Monday's show including historian Marc Schulman and author Jim McTague. Access this or past shows at your convenience on my web site, social media platforms or podcast platforms.

Thank you so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show, celebrating over 14 years broadcasting on the internet. On Friday's show, we visit with Pacific Legal Foundation Senior Fellow William Yeatman about the pursuit of a resolution to the government shutdown.  We visit with Maggie Anders with the Foundation for Economic Education about her … The post The Supreme Court’s Oral Arguments on Tariffs appeared first on Bob Harden Show.

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

Today on Truth in Politics and Culture, exit polling data in New York City, New Jersey, and Virginia reveal a growing radicalism among younger voters as women, independents, and immigrants fuel democrat victories. What, if anything, does this mean for the 2026 midterm elections? Also, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the constitutionality of Trump's tariff policies. What is the likely outcome and how will it affect Americans in the short term and the long term?

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

ReferencesElizabeth Floreani, Legal Editing: The Art of Precision, Clarity, and Professionalism, Texas Bar Practice Blog (July 12, 2023) texasbarpractice.comtexasbarpractice.com.Bluebook citation Quick Guide with Examples (2025), Academic Research Hub (Oct. 2023) academicresearchhub.comacademicresearchhub.com.Gocha Okreshidze, Academic Citation in Legal Scholarship: An Overview, AI Law LLC (Dec. 10, 2024) ailaw.llc.Jeffrey M. Anderson, “Says Who? Why Good Citation Matters (and Why It's Easier Than You Think)”, Alabama Lawyer (July 21, 2022) alabar.orgalabar.org.Thomas R. Newman & Steven J. Ahmuty Jr., The Basics of Oral Argument, New York Law Journal (Mar. 1, 2022) duanemorris.comduanemorris.com.“May It Please the Court? The Oral Argument Component”, Georgetown University Law Center (2019) law.georgetown.edu.This conversation delves into the essential skills required for legal competence, focusing on effective legal writing, precise citation, and persuasive oral argument. The discussion emphasizes clarity, structure, and the importance of editing in legal documents, as well as the nuances of navigating the Blue Book citation system. It culminates in strategies for mastering oral arguments, highlighting the need for preparation and adaptability in court settings.In the world of law, the ability to communicate effectively is paramount. Whether you're preparing for law school finals or the bar exam, mastering the art of legal writing, citation, and oral argument is crucial. This blog post explores the essential skills needed to transform complex legal concepts into clear, persuasive communication.Crafting Persuasive Legal Writing: The foundation of any legal argument is strong writing. Clarity over complexity is key. As legal writing expert Brian Garner puts it, "Good legal writing makes the reader feel smart." This means avoiding jargon and focusing on clear, concise language that guides the reader effortlessly through your argument. Remember, simplicity shows confidence.The Importance of Precise Citation: Legal citation is more than just a formality; it's a critical component of legal writing that ensures clarity and credibility. The Blue Book, despite its complexity, provides a standardized system that allows readers to assess the weight of authority instantly. Accurate citation is non-negotiable, as it reflects the writer's attention to detail and respect for the legal process.Delivering Effective Oral Arguments: Oral argument is where preparation meets performance. It's not a monologue but a conversation with the court. The key is to engage with the judges, anticipate their questions, and respond directly. A well-prepared lawyer knows the record inside out and can pivot gracefully when faced with unexpected questions. The goal is to make the judges want to rule in your favor by presenting a compelling, credible story.Mastering these skills—writing, citing, and presenting—requires dedication and practice. They are not just academic exercises but essential tools for any legal professional. By honing these abilities, you can reduce cognitive load in high-stress situations and focus on the substance of your argument. Remember, the goal is to make it all look effortless, even though it takes incredible effort.Subscribe now to stay updated on more insights into the world of law and legal communication.TakeawaysKnowing the law is only half the job.Clarity in writing is paramount for persuasion.Structure your arguments logically to guide the reader.Editing is crucial; no first draft is perfect.Citations must be accurate and consistent to maintain credibility.Active voice enhances clarity and directness in writing.Simplicity in language reflects confidence and competence.Oral arguments should be conversational, not monologues.Anticipate judges' questions and be prepared to pivot.legal writing, oral argument, citation, clarity, law school, persuasive writing, editing, legal, bar exam, legal communication

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

Hugh discusses the Israel-Gaza cease fire deal, Katie Porter's meltdowns, the SCOTUS voting rights oral arguments, and talks with Amit Segal, Nadav Eyal, Salena Zito, Dan Senor, Rich Lowry, Sarah Bedford, and Shermichael Singleton.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Oct. 17, 2025Outlook for the Voting Rights Act Dims, as Court's Conservatives Appear to Turn Away From Their Own PrecedentThe conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to agree Oct. 15th with arguments that the Voting Rights Act Section 2's majority-minority voting districts conflicted with the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.  A decision is expected next year. Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:NAACP Legal Defense Fund – Louisiana v. Callais:  Protecting fair representation for Black voters in Louisiana and safeguarding the Voting Rights ActU.S. Supreme Court - Transcript of Oral Arguments in Louisiana v. CallaisSupreme Court Oral Arguments - Audio with transcript on Louisiana v. Callais  SCOTUS Blog - Court appears ready to curtail major provision of the Voting Rights Act BallotPedia - Majority Minority Districts Groups Taking Action:Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, ACLU, Legal Defense Fund, Power Coalition for Equity and JusticeRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #USSupremeCourt #SCOTUS #Louisiana #LouisianavCallais #RacialGerrymandering, #VotingRightsAct #VRA 

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.

Rachel Frank is a senior associate at Quinn Emanuel who focuses on appellate litigation. She discusses the journey from summer associate to working on cases before the Supreme Court. Rachel explains what appellate practice actually involves, from preparing partners for oral arguments through intensive moot courts to crafting persuasive appellate briefs. She discusses how she uses AI as a thinking partner, the value of her federal appellate clerkship, and how her work has evolved over time. Rachel reflects on some of her firm's cultural quirks and why they matter to her. She also candidly discusses managing work-life balance. Rachel is a graduate of Yale Law School.This episode is hosted by Kyle McEntee.Mentioned in this episode:Colorado LawLearn more about Colorado LawAccess LawHub today!

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

Hour 3 for 10/7/25 Dr. Susan Hanssen discusses how to reclaim Christopher Columbus with guest-host Ed Morrissey (1:00), why Columbus matters (9:56), and why he inspires enmity (16:11). Then, Prof. Richard Garnett covers today's SCOTUS oral arguments on 'conversion therapy' (27:09), how the case will be decided (38:01), and a Colorado test case (44:24). Link: https://x.com/rickgarnett

Congress has failed to pass a short-term funding bill by the deadline, and the government has shut down. We take a look at how the shutdown may affect you.The Supreme Court issued an order on Wednesday indicating that it would hear oral argument over Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook's challenge to President Donald Trump's attempt to fire her. “The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument in January 2026,” an order from the court reads.

For the precedential ruling handed down by the US Court of Appeals in the Yellow Corp appeal on September 16, 2025 - see the Court's website at https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/251421p.pdf

A few years ago, flight attendants Lacey and Marli were investigated, questioned and fired by Alaska Airlines for asking faith-based questions on an employee-only website about the company's support of the Equality Act. That's why we have asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to fix this issue. Specifically, we asked the court to honor Lacey and Marli's right to have their day in court and have the merits of their case argued before a jury of their peers. Watch a short preview of today's proceedings with First Liberty's David Hacker and then we'll send you into the 9th Circuit courtroom for all of the action.

Greg Bishop talks with gun rights advocate Todd Vandermyde about the latest filing from the state defending Illinois' gun ban in the federal appeals court. Read the filing here: https://www.thecentersquare.com/pdf_3b203fae-9997-44ca-83ef-61e6ff877717.html

re executive order limiting union rights based on alleged national security considerations

The Supreme Court's term is long since complete, but we turn back the clock and take a deep dive into one of the major cases of the term, United States v. Skrmetti.  This case addressed questions of gender dysphoria treatment and transgender rights, but fundamentally, it was a case about the law of equality, say the brothers Amar.  Yes, Vik Amar is back as a guest, and our two experts go back and listen to the oral argument and react to the Justices and the advocates as they present.  It turns out that this is an excellent case for learning about how the law attempts to implement the equality promises of the Constitution, and you will hear the Justices engage in this action, or inaction.  Our experts add more than their take on the arguments - they have theories that go beyond anything said in Court that day or written in the opinions that followed.  This is part one of a multi-part summer treat from Amarica's Constitution.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Content warning: suicidal ideation, suicide, image-based sexual abuse, coercion, intimate partner violence, and human trafficking.  Norma Buster is a survivor, speaker, podcaster, and Chief of Staff at C.A. Goldberg Law, a Brooklyn-based victims rights law firm. Norma grew up with a passion for fashion, but after experiencing harassment and image-based sexual abuse at a pivotal point in her life, Norma was inspired to help other victims. She does so in her position at the legal firm, and she also continues that mission with her speaking and podcasting efforts. Her show, Oral Arguments, is geared towards sex positivity and empowerment, especially in relation to tech and victims rights. The Broken Cycle Media team is incredibly grateful for Norma's advocacy work, as well as her candidness throughout this very empowering, illuminating conversation.  Norma's Website: https://www.normabuster.com/ Norma on Instagram: http://https://www.instagram.com/normabuster_ CA Goldberg Law: https://www.cagoldberglaw.com/ CA Goldberg Law on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cagoldberglaw/ Oral Arguments Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/3R4xGDNE4p6oLxjaXS2scs Oral Arguments Podcast on IG: https://www.instagram.com/oralargumentspodcast/ For additional resources and a list of related non-profit organizations, please visit http://www.somethingwaswrong.com/resources

Still in Denver, Tore talks with lawyer Grant on the latest moves in the Tina Peters case. They also touch on other important and related issues. Then it's off to New York City and more preparation for what comes next.

Each week, the leading journalists in legal tech choose their top stories of the week to discuss with our other panelists.   This week's topics: 00:00 Clio Acquires vLex Selected by Bob Ambrogi 08:24 Key Takeaways from the Future of Professionals Report: AI Awareness, Hesitation, and ROI Selected by Niki Black 17:18 SCOTUS Oral Argument with AI Selected by Joe Patrice 28:02 Georgia Court Cites AI Hallucinations Selected by Joe Patrice

Greg Bishop reports out the latest in the challenge against Illinois' gun ban with the appeals court scheduling oral arguments for Sept. 22, 2025.

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.

Disclaimer: This podcast is in now way meant to influence or intimidate witnesses. If you do not like the show, please find another show to your liking. In this episode we recap the oral arguments hearing that took place in court. Please do not listen if you do not wish to hear what we discuss. If you feel threatened, this is not the show for you. We do not create the podcast with any intent to scare or intimidate anyone. If that's how you feel, stop following the show. Raees puts on an elaborate show of witness intimidation. Brandon Rafi tells his cronies reach out to Gil. Brandon texts Gil suggesting the two bury the hatchet. 4th Notice of Depositions Go Out. 

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 […]

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

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

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 […]

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

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

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 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