Podcasts about oral arguments

Alina Habba has finally tapped out. No more cosplaying as US Attorney for New Jersey for her! Attorney General Pam Bondi promptly declared victory and vowed to appeal. But strangely that vow was not followed by any federal filings. Subscribers will get a deep dive into the Supreme Court's wild hearing in Trump v. Slaughter, as they gleefully contemplated a world where the president staffs his entire administration with hacks.   Links:   Halligan Continues as U.S. Attorney, Prompting Criticism From Judges https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/05/us/politics/halligan-us-attorney-judiciary.html   Oral Argument, Supreme Court, Trump v. Slaughter https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-332_p8k0.pdf   J.G.G. v. Trump https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/?order_by=desc   Escobar v. Molina v. DHS https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71452519/escobar-molina-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/?order_by=desc   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

The Court of Appeals of Indiana has scheduled oral arguments in the case of Richard Allen, who was convicted of murdering Liberty German and Abigail Williams.Listen to our past discussion of oral arguments with attorney George W. Hicks: https://art19.com/shows/murder-sheet/episodes/45360e81-5ebc-439a-bf17-789b8c5b4879Listen to our past discussion of the oral arguments in this case: https://art19.com/shows/murder-sheet/episodes/d787e682-57e2-4c7c-87da-b1ebcfafc8baCheck out our upcoming book events and get links to buy tickets here: https://murdersheetpodcast.com/eventsPre-order our book on Delphi here: https://bookshop.org/p/books/shadow-of-the-bridge-the-delphi-murders-and-the-dark-side-of-the-american-heartland-aine-cain/21866881?ean=9781639369232Or here: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Shadow-of-the-Bridge/Aine-Cain/9781639369232Or here: https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Bridge-Murders-American-Heartland/dp/1639369236Join our Patreon here! https://www.patreon.com/c/murdersheetSupport The Murder Sheet by buying a t-shirt here: https://www.murdersheetshop.com/Check out more inclusive sizing and t-shirt and merchandising options here: https://themurdersheet.dashery.com/Send tips to murdersheet@gmail.com.The Murder Sheet is a production of Mystery Sheet LLC.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

It happened on a Wednesday… Investigative journalists Mandy Matney and ⁠Liz Farrell⁠ break down the 27-page Alex Murdaugh murder conviction reversal that essentially boils down to two words: Blame Becky. They wrestle with the uncomfortable truth that money seems to help a defendant's chances at the state's highest court — while sticking to their belief that the evidence still points to one person who went down to the kennels and lied about it. In a unanimous 5-0 decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed Alex Murdaugh's double-murder conviction, ruling that Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill "placed her fingers on the scales of justice."  They also unpack the court's new guardrails on financial-crimes testimony at retrial, including the gutting decision to call Tony Satterfield's words unfairly prejudicial.  Plus: reactions from Eric Bland, Mark Tinsley, AG Alan Wilson, and AG candidate David Pascoe.  Same case. Same evidence. Same liar. Round Two starts now. Let's Dive in…

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cisco Systems v. Doe I, Docket No. 24-856, on April 28, 2026. In this video, we look at the key context behind the case, why the oral argument matters, and what the Court's eventual decision could mean going forward. This case places major legal questions before the justices involving corporate responsibility, accountability, and the role of federal courts in high-stakes disputes. Listen to the official Supreme Court oral argument audio here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-856 Subscribe for more Supreme Court case breakdowns, legal analysis, and major U.S. law updates. #SupremeCourt #CiscoSystems #DoeI #SCOTUS #LegalAnalysis

CannCon and Ashe in America are back in their new Tuesday time slot with a loaded show. First up, a full Tina Peters case update: Judge Barrett refuses to disqualify himself, a renewed bond motion is pending, the habeas petition is in the Tenth Circuit, and presidential pardon arguments are heading to SCOTUS. Then the show moves to Texas' mid-decade redistricting maps, upheld by the Supreme Court and driven by what CannCon argues was a deliberately skewed 2020 census. California's voter ID initiative qualifying for the ballot via one million signatures gets a brief, skeptical celebration. A viral Rosa DeLauro clip brings some comic relief as EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin exposes her total ignorance of Loper Bright and West Virginia v. EPA on camera. The back half is dedicated entirely to CannCon's deep-dive breakdown of Virginia Supreme Court oral arguments on the "Restore Fairness" redistricting amendment, including the two-thirds special session shell game, the definition of "election," and why he is confident the court will overturn it.

On April 27, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Chatrie v. United States, centering on a Fourth Amendment challenge to the use of geofence warrants, which allow investigators to obtain location data stored by a service provider within a specific geographic area and time period. Over the course of two hours, the justices questioned Petitioner's Counsel Adam G. Unikowsky and Deputy Solicitor General Eric J. Feigin on how such geofence warrants comport with the Fourth Amendment's Reasonable Expectation of Privacy and its Search and Seizures Clause, the role of service providers' disclosures and data storage processes, how the challenge fits with precedent set in the Court's 2017 decision in Carpenter v. U.S., and more. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Episode 5330: Strait Of Hormuz Remains On Alert; Virginia Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments On Redistricting

Does anyone who is born on our land automatically receive citizenship? Not according to the Fourteenth Amendment, but that hasn't stopped the courts from messing this up. Which is exactly what I expect from the Supreme Court in the case Trump v. Barbara.

On April 1, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Trump v. Barbara, which centered on a challenge to the president's executive order signed on Jan. 20, 2025, that attempted to end birthright citizenship. Over the course of two hours, the justices questioned U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer and the ACLU's Cecillia Wang on how the order comports with the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, the ambassadors and tribal exceptions, the Immigration and Nationality Act, precedent set in the Court's 1898 decision in Wong Kim Ark, and more. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

8. John Yoo examines the landmark *United States v. Wong Kim Ark* case and the debate over "jurisdiction". He analyzes the Supreme Court's oral arguments and potential hurdles for the government's narrow interpretation of citizenship. (8)1890 LOUISIANA

Hawk breaks down a clip from Steve Bannon's War Room featuring MAGA attorney Mike Davis, who repeatedly misrepresents what was actually before the court, falsely framing the case as being about undocumented immigrants and Chinese birth tourists rather than the actual constitutional question. Davis, who clerked for Neil Gorsuch and helped confirm both Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, is called out for being deliberately misleading to his audience despite clearly knowing better. The 14th Amendment states plainly that anyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. No executive order can override that language. Meanwhile, Trump's gold citizenship cards, selling U.S. citizenship for $5 million, highlight the selective and racially motivated nature of his immigration agenda. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

PREVIEW FOR LATER. GUESTS: John Batchelor and Professor Richard Epstein. SUMMARY: John Batchelor and Richard Epstein discuss Supreme Court oral arguments regarding birthright citizenship. Epstein predicts the court will uphold statutes for illegal aliens' children but may strike down birthright tourism due to potential abuses. (1)1922 SCOTUS

Sarah Isgur is joined by David French, Amanda Tyler, Akhil Amar, and SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe to react to the oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, Donald Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship.Watch the livestream here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is presented by Create A Video – The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning for almost two and a half hours over whether the Constitution actually grants citizenship to children born here to parents that are illegal aliens. Plus, another judge has gone crazy. Subscribe to the podcast at: https://ThePetePod.com/ All the links to Pete's Prep are free: https://patreon.com/petekalinershow Media Bias Check: GroundNews promo code! Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.comGet exclusive content here!: https://thepetekalinershow.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Get the stories from today's show in THE STACK: https://justinbarclay.comJoin Justin in the MAHA revolution - http://HealthWithJustin.comProTech Heating and Cooling - http://ProTechGR.com New gear is here! Check out the latest in the Justin Store: https://justinbarclay.com/storeKirk Elliott PHD - FREE consultation on wealth conservation - http://GoldWithJustin.comTry Cue Streaming for just $2 / day and help support the good guys https://justinbarclay.com/cueUp to 80% OFF! Use promo code JUSTIN http://MyPillow.com/JustinPatriots are making the Switch! What if we could start voting with our dollars too? http://SwitchWithJustin.com

This Day in Maine Wednesday, April 1st, 2026

The RUNDOWN S6 E51: SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments in Birthright Citizenship CasePlease Support Our Sponsors:HITMAN INDUSTRIES - Visit them at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.hitmanindustries.net/⁠⁠⁠⁠THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLY - Visit them at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://cragop.org/⁠USCOMBATGEAR.COM⁠⁠⁠ - Visit them at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.uscombatgear.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HAWG HOLSTERS - Visit them at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.hawgholsters.com/

April 1st, 2026

David Lat—founder of Above the Law and author and host of Original Jurisdiction blog and podcast—explains what these stories reveal about a legal profession navigating ideological warfare, economic disruption, and the enduring craft of persuasion.Paul Clement delivered what SCOTUSblog called "a master class in oral argument" in Trump v. Cook. Lat dissects what made it a master class—by listening for the bench's emotional temperature, pivoting through backup arguments without undercutting his primary position, and admitting to Justice Alito that his framing was "heads I win, tails you lose."Key points:VanDyke's dissental as a direct call to the public? Lat describes the theory that VanDyke is practicing "postmodern jurisprudence," calling out what he views as liberal colleagues imposing policy preferences while cloaking them in legal doctrine.For California practitioners, ask yourself: are you appearing before a lightning-rod judge on your panel? Your case might become less about the merits and more about signaling beyond your case.The BigLaw executive orders worked—not through litigation, but through capitulation: Four firms fought Trump's security clearance revocations in court and won. But nine firms settled, committing to political non-discrimination and nearly $1 billion in administration-favored pro bono work.A Washington Post study confirms the chilling effect: large firms have dramatically curtailed challenges to Trump policies compared to the first administration. Smaller boutiques are picking up the slack, but they lack BigLaw's resources. Lat predicts the government will lose in the D.C. Circuit and SCOTUS won't take the case—but the damage is already done.Jack Smith's boutique launched with a Costco run for paper towels—and it's part of a broader trend: AI and co-counseling arrangements now enable small firms to handle discovery-heavy work previously requiring armies of associates. But success still depends on established reputations; fresh graduates need BigLaw's name recognition.Clement's oral argument techniques translate to any appellate court: Listen not just for questions but for the bench's emotional temperature—”the vibes.” Stay nimble with backup arguments framed as "We stand by X, but if you're not persuaded..." Keep it conversational and candid—breaking the fourth wall builds credibility.

Can states hold pesticide companies accountable — or does federal law preempt? In this episode of People, Places, Planet, host Sebastian Duque Rios sits down with Patti Goldman, Senior Attorney at Earthjustice, and Cecilia Diedrich, Staff Attorney at ELI, to unpack one of the most consequential environmental law cases of the Supreme Court's current session: Monsanto v. Darnell. At its core, this case asks whether federal pesticide law — the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) — preempts state-based failure-to-warn claims, potentially shielding pesticide manufacturers like Monsanto from liability for harms caused by products like Roundup (glyphosate). With oral arguments scheduled for April 27, 2026, the stakes couldn't be higher — not just for pesticide litigation, but for the future of toxics accountability across the board. We break down the science behind pesticide risks, the role of tort litigation in driving corporate accountability and regulatory reform, and why the Court's ruling could have far-reaching implications for PFAS litigation, microplastics liability, and chemical safety regulation more broadly. We also explore how recent Supreme Court decisions, including Loper Bright, are reshaping the landscape of federal agency deference and what that means for environmental and public health protections. If you're interested in learning about toxics litigation more broadly, ELI's Toxics Litigation Project recently published a landscape analysis of toxics litigation and how scientific advancement and uncertainty, state and federal law, and judicial doctrine intersect in the ongoing effort to address the risks and consequences of toxic exposures in the United States and abroad titled, "Current Trends in Toxics Litigation." Additionally, for more information on FIFRA, check out our FIFRA, Explained episode. Introduction: Pesticides & FIFRA (3:17)Role of Tort Litigation in Accountability (13:44)The Roundup Litigation: Failure to Warn, Glyphosate, and the Road to the Supreme Court (19:07)Monsanto v. Durnell: Preemption and the Circuit Split (25:13)Beyond Roundup: Implications for the Future of Toxics Litigation (40:15)Concluding Thoughts: Science, Oral Arguments, and How to Protect Communities Going Forward (48:55) ★ Support this podcast ★

The law allows Liberty University to require employees to act consistent with its Christian doctrine. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Hemani. This case explores whether a federal law that criminalizes possession of firearms by an individual who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" violates the Second Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held this law unconstitutional as applied to most drug users, determining it could only be applied consistent with the Second Amendment to "those presently impaired." Hemani is the latest in a series of challenges the courts have confronted since the Supreme Court announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that laws burdening firearms possession must comport with our nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will recap and analyze the oral argument at the Supreme Court. Featuring:Prof. F. Lee Francis, Associate Professor, Widener Law CommonwealthMarc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime(Moderator) John Ohlendorf, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC

This week, we're taking a deep dive into the Supreme Court's latest Second Amendment case. The Court spent nearly two hours debating the merits of US v. Hemani. They were trying to figure out whether the modern ban on drug users, even just those who smoke weed, is relevantly similar to Founding Era laws related to "habitual drunkards." The back-and-forth seemed to create some interesting splits among the justices and scrambled the Court's usual ideological coalitions. To analyze the fallout from oral arguments, we have the Independence Institute's David Kopel back on the show. He has been one of the most influential Second Amendment scholars over the past 30 years, being cited in cases from the Supreme Court on down the federal judiciary. He filed a brief with the National Rifle Association arguing that the justices should side with Hemani in his challenge to the ban. Kopel said he was a bit surprised at how oral arguments seemed to go for Hemani. He had expected greater pushback from more of the justices, especially the liberal bloc. He said the majority of the Court appeared skeptical of the law's constitutionality. However, he said it is always possible that a justice doesn't vote the way their questions might imply. It's possible the liberals side with the government or Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who were most skeptical of Hemani, end up going the other way. Still, he concluded that whatever the Court does in the case, it'll likely have a major impact just on the basis of how fresh Second Amendment jurisprudence is at this moment.Special Guest: David Kopel.

In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, argued on Wednesday, March 4, the court  considers whether a federal law initially designed to deal with state trucking regulations supersedes state common-law claims holding freight brokers liable for negligently selecting dangerous motor carriers or drivers. That may not sound particularly fascinating, but the issue before the court, which involves the scope of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, could have broad liability implications for transportation logistics and the freight broker industry.These are the oral arguments before SCOTUS. Link here to the full transcript. This program is brought to you by DAT Freight & Analytics. Since 1978, DAT has helped truckers & brokers discover more available loads. Whether you're heading home or looking for your next adventure, DAT is building the most trusted marketplace in freight. New users of DAT can save 10% off for the first 12 months by following the link below. Built on the latest technology, DAT One gives you control over every aspect of moving freight, so that you can run your business with speed & efficiency. This program is also brought to you by our newest sponsor, GenLogs. GenLogs is setting a new standard of care for freight intelligence. Book your demo for GenLogs today at www.genlogs.io today!

Send a textThis episode breaks down excerpts from a Supreme Court oral argument about whether federal law 18 USC 922(g)(3) can categorically bar “unlawful” marijuana users from Second Amendment rights under the Bruin historical-tradition test and in light of Rahimi's dangerousness focus. It highlights Justice Gorsuch questioning whether “habitual user” is defined too loosely compared to historical “habitual drunkard” laws, and similar concerns from Justices Sotomayor and Barrett about whether scheduling decisions reflect individualized dangerousness. Justice Thomas presses distinctions between marijuana and other drugs (including anabolic steroids) and notes the DEA's ongoing rescheduling process, while Justice Alito emphasizes the founders' lack of experience with modern drugs. Justice Kagan poses an ayahuasca hypothetical, and the host predicts a likely 6–3 or 7–2 outcome against the government's position, with a decision expected by late June.Shout out to this channel, here's the whole thing: https://youtu.be/iMow-Yt1sJo?si=JU1zmjqVxBAgOk_l00:00 Supreme Court Preview00:34 Gorsuch Questions Habitual Use02:14 Founding Era Context03:57 Sotomayor Ambien Analogy05:08 Thomas on Illegality07:24 Alito History Problem09:01 Kavanaugh Mens Rea12:13 Gorsuch Rescheduling Pushback16:19 Barrett Demands Dangerousness23:15 Jackson on Bruin Limits25:25 Kagan Ayahuasca Hypothetical29:02 Predicted Vote Count30:22 Wrap Up and SponsorSupport the showGet our newsletter: https://bit.ly/3VEn9vu

The weed case was heard today by the Supreme Court. Will the liberals rule for gun owners and weed smokers? We’ll find out soon enough and Mark and Andy make predictions. You might be surprised!

The South Carolina Supreme Court heard Alex Murdaugh's double murder appeal today — and the justices came prepared to challenge the state. Across ninety minutes of oral arguments covering jury tampering and evidentiary errors, the bench directed its hardest questions at prosecutor Creighton Waters and gave the defense room to build its case. The jury tampering track opened with Justice James asking whether the court could consider the egg juror's affidavit — testimony Justice Toal excluded during the 2024 hearing. Chief Justice Kittredge escalated, noting that Toal's order failed to address the specific allegation that Becky Hill told jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony. He described the corroboration between juror accounts and independent witnesses as "striking." Hill is now a convicted perjurer — guilty of perjury, obstruction, and misconduct in charges that weren't part of the record when Toal ruled. Justice Few went straight at Waters: how do you call someone "not completely credible" when her guilty plea is proof she lied under oath? Dick Harpootlian framed the central argument: Justice Toal asked the wrong question. She evaluated whether Hill changed the verdict. The constitutional standard is whether she compromised the right to an impartial jury. Harpootlian argued those are fundamentally different inquiries — and the wrong one was applied. That legal standard dispute may be the fulcrum of the entire appeal. On evidence, Chief Justice Kittredge told Waters that Rule 404(b) is a rule of exclusion, not inclusion, and that the trial court left the gate wide open. He said he couldn't identify a single piece of financial evidence the trial judge excluded. He pressed on why emotionally charged testimony from victims of Murdaugh's financial crimes — people who lost life savings — was placed before a murder jury. Waters attempted to compare the case to the movie Fargo. Justice Few shut the analogy down. Jim Griffin argued what the state's case looks like without the financial testimony: no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, and no biological transfer evidence despite a close-range shotgun blast. If the court rules the 404(b) evidence was improperly admitted, the trial record fundamentally changes. Criminal defense attorney and former felony prosecutor Eric Faddis provides a full breakdown of the hearing — the specific exchanges that revealed the justices' thinking, the moments Waters struggled to hold ground, and the body language from the bench that tells its own story. He analyzes the three possible outcomes: conviction affirmed, new trial on jury tampering, or new trial on evidentiary grounds. He explains which outcome today's hearing most clearly pointed toward, what the timeline looks like, and whether Murdaugh retains a viable federal Sixth Amendment claim regardless of the state court's ruling. The court took the case under advisement. A decision is expected within sixty days. What happened in that courtroom today suggests this conviction is no longer the certainty it once appeared to be.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #CreightonWaters #DickHarpootlian #EricFaddis #JimGriffin #JuryTampering #HiddenKillersJoin 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.

Listen to the tariffs argument held by the U.S. Supreme Court in November of 2025 when you have a couple of hours to listen to long form content, such as your favorite podcasts.I am reposting the argument today because of the Breaking News that the Supreme Court has reached a decision. After considering the arguments of counsel and the law, today a majority of the Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court reportedly struck down the tariffs in a ruling.The Presidential administration has reportedly responded that it will seek to apply tariffs under other legal authorities, so stay tuned for more news on whether tariffs will continue to be imposed, in light of the ruling.I am not sure when the ruling was handed down. I happened to be on LinkedIn around 11:00 am or so, when the press started reporting that a ruling had been handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.I always find it interesting when an important ruling is handed down on a Friday morning. Often markets are open and trading shifts in real time, in response to the ruling. This is not inevitable.It's possible to release significant rulings, or reports, in a way that doesn't kick off an immediate reaction, like imagine that today's tariff news came out after close of business. On the other hand, with a Friday release of an important ruling there is a chance to triage over the weekend and stabilize markets.I don't know why… I am reminded of the handling of the Mueller report, over a weekend, where there was somewhat of a catch and kill, helpful to the President. I suppose this leads to the observation you really never know how a response to the Supreme Court tariff ruling can play out, much as the tariff ruling seems momentous.Making things more interesting in the current market conditions is that Crypto and other assets trade 24/7, and prices of Bitcoin and other assets that have experienced some volatility of late could respond to the tariff ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court today.—The audio in this post/podcast is the official court audio of the oral argument on tariffs, from the U.S. Supreme Court's website:supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-1287

A male informed the university after his 90-day probationary employment period expired that he wanted to change his name to “Ellenor.” Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

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.

#lawyeryouknow #alexmurdaughtrial #murdaughmurders

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

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

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!

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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