Podcasts about oral arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for March 24, 2025US Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments March 24th in Louisiana v. Callais with Protections for Minority Voters Hanging in the BalanceThe U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments March 24th in Louisiana v. Callais, in one of the most important voting rights cases of the year.   Voting Rights Act rules allowing minority Americans to elect the candidate of their choice hang in the balance.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:American Democracy Minute - Majority-Minority Voting Districts Give Minority Voters a Fair Chance to Elect Proper Representation. The Equal Protection Clause is Now Being Used to Try to End ThemSCOTUS Blog - Effort to block second majority-Black district in Louisiana comes to Supreme CourtBrennan Center for Justice – Black Louisianians Fight in Court to Preserve Fair Voting MapU.S. Supreme Court – BRIEF OF ALABAMA AND 12 OTHER STATES American University Law Review  – (2024) The Twists and Turns of A Map that Captured National Attention – Robinson v. CallaisAmerican Redistricting Project - Louisiana v. Callais U.S. Supreme Court - Live Stream for Oral Arguments March 24, 10 AMGroups Taking Action:Power Coalition for Equity and Justice,  ACLU of LouisianaPlease 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#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #Louisiana #VoterSuppression #RacialGerrymandering #VotingRightsAct #SCOTUS #USSupremeCourt

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

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

Mexico sued the US gun manufacturers and the case is before the Supreme Court. We listen to the oral arguments. Become a LPR memberOdysee: https://odysee.com/@LPR:b?view=membershipSpotify: https://anchor.fm/libertypodreview/subscribeSupport the show with a purchase from Fox n Sons coffee. Use the promo code "Review" for 18% off an order of $25 or more. www.foxnsons.comLPR On Other PlatformsRumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-1988814Spotify: https://anchor.fm/libertypodreviewLocals: https://libertarianpodcastreview.locals/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LPR:bSubstack: tylerjanke.substack.comThis show is an attempt to review the libertarian and libertarian adjacent podcasts or video podcasts. Send us your favorite podcasts or ones that you would like to have us critique it.

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

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

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

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

Today InPerspective with Dr. Harry Reeder March 4, 2025

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

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

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

Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court Director for the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and decorated civil rights advocate joins co-host Tamya Anderson to discuss the ins and outs of effective oral advocacy. From how to prepare for argument to the importance of effective legal writing, Kelsi shares essential tips for all future litigators. Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations.Want to get ahead of the pack? Joining the D.C. Bar Law Student Community (LSC) can get you there. Your LSC membership will provide resume and skills boosting opportunities and one-on-one access to local practicing attorneys. To learn more, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), operated by the Department of Energy, plays a critical role in maintaining the safety and reliability of the nation's nuclear stockpile. Central to this mission is the Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility (RLWTF), which was constructed in the early 1960s to treat, store, and dispose of radioactive and hazardous liquids

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

In Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court is set to address a circuit split concerning the context courts should consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment.Is the correct rubric the "moment of threat" doctrine (which was applied by the Fifth Circuit here and has been adopted by several other circuits including the Second, Fourth, and Eighth), which considers only whether there was imminent danger creating a reasonable fear for one's life in the immediate moment(s) preceding the use of force? Alternately, should a court consider the "totality of circumstances" (along the lines of the precedent of the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits) when assessing if it was a justified use of force?Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.Featuring:Matthew P. Cavedon, Robert Pool Fellow in Law and Religion, Emory University School of Law

In TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, the Court was asked to consider whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment. The PAFACA requires that TikTok either cease operations in the United States or have its parent company ByteDance sell off the American segment of the company by January 19, 2025. Petitioners challenged the law as unconstitutionally abridging their freedom of speech, and after a lower court decision upholding the law, the Supreme Court granted cert on December 18, 2024.Oral Argument was heard on January 10, 2025, and a decision came out on January 17, 2025.Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we analyze the decision and likely effects.Featuring:Darpana Sheth Nunziata, Public Interest Litigator

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

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton concerns Texas Law H.B. 1181, and what precedent should apply in considering its impact on free speech.Passed in 2023, the law requires commercial entities, including social media platforms, "that knowingly and intentionally publish or distribute material on an Internet website... more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors" to age-gate their content, and to verify the age of their users, ensuring they are 18 years of age or older.Soon after the law passed, plaintiffs, including the Free Speech Coalition, "a trade association for the adult industry", sued, claiming the law violated their right to free speech. Drawing on a line of cases including Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), the plaintiffs argued that since the law impacted constitutionally protected speech, strict scrutiny should be applied and the TX law failed that test. In reviewing the case, the Fifth Circuit denied that argument, instead applying a rational basis test, drawing from the precedent of Ginsburg v. New York (1968).Thus, the Supreme Court is set to consider a relatively narrow question: whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program following oral argument on January 15, 2025, where we break down and analyze how arguments went before the Court.Featuring:Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP

This is why your teenagers are anxious: TikTok's fate hangs in the balance at the Supreme Court. We discuss the recent oral arguments, and Donald Trump's amicus brief asking the Court to sit tight and he'll make a fantastic deal that will be fantastic and make the Court very happy and everyone will be very happy. (That is the best Trump impression I can do in written form

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

In TikTok, Inc. v. Garland (consolidated with Firebaugh v. Garland) the Court is set to consider whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA)(enacted by Congress in April 2024), as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.Put forward as a law focused on national security, PAFACA would require that TikTok either cease operations in the United States or have its parent company ByteDance sell off the American segment of the company by January 19, 2025. The government contends that TikTok poses a notable national security threat given the data it, as a foreign-owned company, collects on American users and the extent to which it could be used to control information (or disinformation) flow to American users. TikTok, along with several users, on the other hand, challenged the law, contending that while there may be a legitimate government interest in national security, the means employed in this case violate the free speech rights of both TikTok and its American users who use the platform to create content. The DC Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Ginsburg, upheld the law against a First Amendment challenge.The Supreme Court granted cert on December 18, 2024, and oral argument is set for January 10, 2025. Join us for a panel Courthouse Steps program following oral argument.Featuring:Corbin K. Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel and Director of Appellate Litigation, TechFreedomChristian Corrigan, Solicitor General, Montana Attorney General's Office(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together

--

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) heard oral arguments on the appeal for the Section 301 cases, where Plaintiffs are challenging the Court of International Trade's (CIT) decision. Listen to today's Two Minutes in Trade for more information on this court case.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard arguments in our Bangor Christian Schools case. We urged the First Circuit to reverse a lower court ruling that upheld a Maine law preventing religious schools from participating in the state's school choice program. First Liberty's Jeremy Dys joins us on First Liberty Live! to give an update on what happened inside the court room and why this case is important for the future of religious freedom.

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

Welcome back to the Curious Clinicians! In today's episode, Tony asks an important question: "Why don't we administer insulin orally?" Read the show notes here! Click here to obtain AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ (0.5 hours), Non-Physician Attendance (0.5 hours), or ABIM MOC Part 2 (0.5 hours).

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we analyze the high-stakes TikTok ban case as it heads to the Supreme Court on an accelerated timeline. Host Jessica Levinson explains the key arguments: ByteDance claims the ban violates First Amendment rights, while the government cites national security concerns over TikTok's Chinese ownership. With oral arguments set for January 10th, Jessica discusses potential outcomes and actions President Trump might take once in office. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1️⃣ Overview of the Legislation: The law in question mandates that TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, divest its U.S. operations by January 19th, 2024, or face a nationwide ban. The ban would affect app stores and Internet providers, eventually causing TikTok to stop working as updates and downloads would be prohibited.2️⃣ Lower Court Rulings: The DC Circuit upheld the law as constitutional. A three-judge panel determined that the national security concerns cited by Congress justify the legislation. Judges generally defer to the political branches on national security issues.3️⃣ Arguments by ByteDance and TikTok: ByteDance argues that the law violates the First Amendment by eliminating a mode of communication without a compelling government interest. They contend that the national security concerns are baseless and accuse the U.S. government of targeting TikTok based on its content, which is potentially a content-based restriction—a key concern in First Amendment law.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

A Supreme Court case on medical care for transgender youth could have major ramifications – not only for children who have gender dysphoria and their families but also for how other statutes are reviewed under the Equal Protection Clause. In this episode, Amanda and Holly examine the oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, breaking down key moments in the heated courtroom exchanges, examining the specific constitutional question in this case, and discussing the broader implications of the possible ruling. While the specific question in this case involves the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and not the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, religion and religious arguments often loom large in cases that involve sexual orientation or gender identity.  SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The stakes of Skrmetti and the specific question presented For more on the atmosphere surrounding the case, read this piece from Mark Walsh for SCOTUSblog: Inside the Supreme Court arguments on transgender care Visit the website of the National Archives for more information on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.    Segment 2 (starting at 07:17): The heated oral arguments The U.S. Supreme Court heard U.S. v. Skrmetti on Dec. 4, 2024. The Supreme Court's website has links to listen to the oral arguments or read a transcript of the arguments. We played four clips from the courtroom: The opening argument of Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States (from 00:00:10 in the oral argument) A question and statement from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (from 01:41:25 in the oral argument) The opening argument of Matthew Rice, Solicitor General for the state of Tennessee (from at 01:45:26 in the oral argument) An exchange between Matthew Rice and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (from 02:10:17 in the oral argument) Holly mentioned the Bostock v. Clayton County decision from 2020, which interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Holly and Amanda discussed the decision in episode 17 of season 1, titled “A landmark case for LGTBQ rights: What's next for religious liberty?”   Segment 3 (starting 39:57): Thank you to our listeners  Our most-listened to episode in 2024 was episode 21 of season 5, titled “But … is it Christian nationalism?”  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.

This case concerns the question of whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. When the Surface Transportation Board granted a petition from the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition to construct and operate an 80-mile Utah […]

In the last several years, numerous minors who identify as transgender have undergone surgery and other medical procedures to mirror common physical features of the opposite sex. In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a […]

USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent Maureen Groppe gives some of the main takeaways from Wednesday's oral arguments debating whether bans on puberty blockers for transgender minors are discriminatory.Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy may be exempt from ethics rules as Donald Trump's advisors. Plus, Donald Trump DEA pick Chad Chronister withdraws from consideration, and Trump taps Paul Atkins as SEC chairman.The search for a shooter continues after UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was killed in New York.USA TODAY Reporter Andrea Riquier discusses the housing crisis, the American Dream and what the next Trump administration can do about it.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA must approve new tobacco products. Wages and White Lion Investments (dba Trion Distribution) and Vapetasia manufacture and sell flavored nicotine-containing liquids for use in refillable e-cigarette systems. They applied for FDA approval in 2020; about ten months later the FDA announced new requirements for […]

Delligatti v. United States concerns whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. Known by some as the “non-violent murder case” Delligatti ties into a larger conversation on the […]