Podcasts about plessy

This Day in Legal History: Plessy v. FergusonOn June 7, 1896, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation in the United States. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court ruled 7-1 that states could require separate facilities for Black and white people as long as those facilities were “separate but equal.” Homer Plessy, a man of mixed race, had violated a Louisiana law by sitting in a “whites only” railroad car. When arrested, he challenged the law as unconstitutional. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote for the majority that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed political and legal equality but not social equality, and that the law was reasonable. Justice John Marshall Harlan issued a lone dissent, famously writing: “Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens.”This doctrine of “separate but equal” stood for nearly 60 years, providing legal cover for Jim Crow laws and racial apartheid across the South. Schools were drastically unequal in funding and resources. Hotels, restaurants, bathrooms, and water fountains were segregated by race. The doctrine was finally overturned in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which acknowledged that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Plessy v. Ferguson represents one of the most consequential wrong turns in Supreme Court history. What made it so damaging was not just the ruling, but the Court's apparent good faith in the “separate but equal” framework—a comfort with the idea that segregation could be constitutional if resources were distributed evenly, a comfort the Court itself never actually required states to achieve. The case shows how courts can legitimize injustice through neutral-sounding language and deference to legislatures.A federal appeals court ruled this week that California schools cannot keep secret a student's gender identity transition from their parents. Think of it this way: California had passed a law giving schools discretion to withhold from parents information about changes to a student's gender expression or identity, reasoning that this protected students from potentially harmful family reactions. But the court found this violated parents' constitutional rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children. The Supreme Court has long recognized that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. This includes decisions about their education and health.California's policy attempted to create an exception to parental notification by allowing schools to conceal information about gender identity changes from parents without parental knowledge or consent. The court said California went too far. The judges acknowledged that student safety is a legitimate concern, but concluded that blanket policies allowing schools to hide information from parents violate the constitutional rights that parents have.This case sits at the intersection of three important values: parental rights, student privacy, and student safety. On one side, parents argue they need information to support their children's development and health. On the other, supporters of the California policy argued that some students face rejection or harm from parents if they learn about gender transitions, and that schools need confidentiality to protect vulnerable youth. The court sided with parental notification rights, but left open the question of whether schools can still withhold information in specific cases where there's evidence of abuse or danger. The ruling doesn't mean schools must immediately report every aspect of a student's identity; rather, it means they generally cannot have a blanket policy of concealing gender-related information from parents.California Gender Transition Parental Notification CaseThe Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case with potentially enormous implications for citizenship law in America. Here's what's at stake: On his first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order attempting to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents entered the country illegally or are living and working in the U.S. on temporary visas. This directly challenges the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.”For over 150 years, the United States has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to mean that virtually anyone born on U.S. soil becomes a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Trump's order says the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of illegal aliens and temporary visa holders. The administration argues that these children are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the way the amendment requires. Legal scholars and immigration advocates counter that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” simply means not immune from U.S. law—which applies to everyone in the country, citizen and non-citizen alike.This case could affect millions of people. The U.S. currently grants automatic citizenship to roughly 250,000 to 375,000 children born to undocumented immigrants each year. If Trump v. Barbara succeeds, those children would not automatically be citizens. The case will require the Supreme Court to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment—one of the most fundamental provisions in the Constitution. The Court hasn't definitively ruled on the citizenship status of children born to undocumented immigrants in modern times. The outcome will reshape American immigration law and the path to citizenship for generations to come.Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration ActionsA Senate Judiciary Committee advanced two bipartisan bills that would expand camera access in the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courtrooms. The bills, the Cameras in the Courtroom Act and the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, now move to the full Senate for possible consideration. Supporters say the measures would make the judiciary more transparent by allowing the public to see important proceedings without having to attend in person. Senator Chuck Grassley, who chairs the committee and co-sponsored both bills, argued that Americans should be able to observe cases that affect the whole country, especially at the Supreme Court. Senator Amy Klobuchar also supported the effort, comparing courtroom access to the public's ability to watch Congress on C-SPAN.The federal judiciary opposes the proposals and warned that cameras could create problems for jury trials, witness safety, courtroom security, and the administration of justice. The Supreme Court has traditionally barred video coverage, although it began offering live audio of oral arguments during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Cameras in the Courtroom Act would require televised coverage of public Supreme Court proceedings unless a majority of justices found that cameras would violate due process. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act would give federal judges broader discretion to allow photography, recording, broadcasting, or televising of court proceedings. That bill also includes safeguards for jurors and witnesses, limits coverage of private conversations, and would expire after three years unless Congress renews it.US Senate panel advances bills allowing cameras in US Supreme Court, lower courts | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Description:As we celebrate Juneteenth, Jen sits down with writer, activist, theologian, and longtime friend Lisa Sharon Harper for a conversation that's equal parts history lesson, spiritual challenge, and call to action. Together, they explore the often-overlooked story of Juneteenth—not just the delayed news of emancipation in Texas, but the deeper history of freedom promised, denied, and fought for across generations.Fresh from a powerful march across Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge, Lisa reflects on what it means to stand in the footsteps of civil rights heroes while confronting the realities of the present moment. Drawing from her own family's legacy of resistance, she shares why her hope no longer rests in institutions, laws, or political systems, but in ordinary people willing to bend the arc of history toward justice.The conversation moves from the unfinished work of voting rights to the spiritual courage required for this cultural moment. As Lisa puts it, perhaps our task is not simply to recover what has been lost, but to become “the architects of the next America.”Whether you're marking Juneteenth, wrestling with questions about democracy and belonging, or searching for hope in uncertain times, this conversation is a timely reminder that freedom has always depended on people willing to imagine—and build—something better.Thought-provoking Quotes:★ “The Supreme Court has effectively placed us back into the time of Plessy vs Ferguson, which said separate and equal is okay, the time of even Dred Scott, which says a black man has no rights that a white man need abide by. That's what they're gunning for.”★ In the past, my hope was in the law. In the past, my hope was in the dream of America. My hope was in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights. My hope was in the church. But what I'm learning is that the arc of the moral universe has bent toward justice because people have bent it.”★ “What can they do to us? What can they do? They can put us in jail. God is there. They can deport us. God will be there. They can kill us. And God will be there. So what can they do? They can't do anything to us. Not really.” Resources Mentioned in This Episode:➢ (The Gospel of Shalom) Unequally Saved: The Church's Role in Racism with Lisa Sharon Harper - https://jenhatmaker.com/podcasts/series-08/unequally-saved-the-churchs-role-in-racism-with-lisa-sharon-harper/➢ Fortune: How Race Broke My Family and the World--and How to Repair It All by Lisa Sharon Harper - https://amzn.to/43LTXW1➢ “All Roads Lead To The South” Rally - https://blackpowerwarroom.com/dayofaction/➢ A Resistance History of the United States by Tad Stoermer - https://amzn.to/4dK3RNS➢ Amazing Grace | William Wilberforce film - https ...

This Day in Legal History: Plessy v. FergusonOn May 18, 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Plessy v. Ferguson, a case that became one of the most infamous constitutional decisions in American history. The dispute arose from a Louisiana law requiring separate railroad cars for Black and white passengers. Homer Plessy, who was of mixed race, deliberately sat in a whites-only rail car to challenge the law. After he was arrested, Plessy argued that the statute violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and held that racial segregation did not violate the Constitution as long as the separate facilities were considered equal. This became known as the “separate but equal” doctrine.In practice, the doctrine gave legal cover to segregation across the South and helped support the broader Jim Crow system. The Court treated segregation as a matter of public policy rather than as a badge of racial inferiority imposed by law. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote the majority opinion, reasoning that enforced separation did not necessarily imply inequality. Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented, warning that the Constitution should be color-blind and that the ruling would become as harmful as the Court's decision in Dred Scott. His dissent later became one of the most important statements in American civil-rights law. For nearly six decades, Plessy allowed governments to maintain racially separate schools, transportation, and public facilities.The decision was finally undermined in 1954, when the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education and rejected segregation in public education. Plessy remains a stark example of how constitutional interpretation can either protect civil rights or help entrench systems of inequality.A proposed class action filed in Washington federal court accuses Amazon of keeping money it allegedly collected from customers through prices inflated by now-invalidated Trump administration tariffs. The plaintiffs say Amazon could seek refunds from the federal government after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the tariffs, but has refused to do so because it wants to stay in President Trump's good graces. The lawsuit claims Amazon passed tariff costs on to shoppers, then failed to commit to returning that money even though other retailers have allegedly pursued refunds. The customers point to Amazon's abandoned plan to show tariff-related price increases on product pages as evidence that the company can identify both the tariff amounts and the consumers who paid them. They also claim Amazon backed away from that plan after criticism from the Trump administration and a call involving Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.The complaint alleges violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The plaintiffs say Amazon misled consumers by suggesting tariffs were not increasing prices, while allegedly raising prices on certain low-cost goods after the tariffs took effect. They also argue Amazon failed to tell customers it would not seek tariff refunds even if the tariffs were later found unlawful. The proposed class would include Amazon customers who paid tariff-related surcharges from February 4, 2025, through February 20, 2026. The suit estimates the class could include tens of millions of buyers and seeks to recover money the plaintiffs say belongs to consumers. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other major companies, including Nike, Sony, Nintendo, Costco, Temu, and FedEx.Amazon Skipped Tariff Refunds To Appease Trump, Suit Says - Law360The Federal Circuit held its biennial judicial conference in Washington, D.C., bringing together its active judges, agency leaders, district judges who have recently sat by designation, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Solicitor General D. John Sauer. Chief Judge Kimberly Ann Moore opened the event with lighter moments, including praise for Senior Judge Raymond C. Clevenger and the debut of an AI-generated Federal Circuit theme song meant to make the court feel more accessible. The conference did not address the ongoing suspension of Judge Pauline Newman, although she attended the event while continuing to challenge the suspension at the Supreme Court. Judge Moore said the court issued 630 opinions in 2025, its highest total in a decade, and noted an effort to use fewer one-line Rule 36 affirmances. Still, court leaders and practitioners criticized Rule 36 decisions, especially because they give lower courts and litigants little explanation.The judges also discussed en banc arguments, emphasizing that lawyers must stay focused because full-court arguments leave little time for extended exchanges with any one judge. A major theme was the renewed use of district judges sitting by designation, with 23 visiting judges helping decide nearly 200 cases since February 2024. Visiting district judges said the experience gave them a new appreciation for appellate work, the quality of Federal Circuit advocacy, and the process of narrowing trial records into appealable issues. Federal Circuit judges also described sitting on other courts, including in criminal sentencing matters, which several said gave them a deeper appreciation for the workload and human stakes faced by district judges. The judges offered practical advice to lawyers, urging them to narrow issues, address weaknesses directly, provide full context for citations, and make appropriate concessions. USPTO Director John Squires also appeared and defended his approach to discretionary denials of inter partes review petitions, saying he is returning the process to what Congress intended under the America Invents Act.Fed. Circ. Drops A Theme Song, Talks Guest Judges - Law360President Donald Trump has dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury Department, a move linked to discussions about creating a $1.8 billion compensation fund for people who claim they were unfairly investigated by prior administrations. The court filing did not describe any settlement, but Trump's lawyers said the case was still early enough that he could dismiss it without court permission or IRS approval.The dismissal was filed “with prejudice,” meaning Trump cannot bring the same claim again. Trump and his sons filed the lawsuit in January, accusing the IRS of failing to protect confidential tax information after his tax records were leaked. A former IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, was sentenced to prison for leaking Trump's tax information as well as records belonging to many others. Trump brought the case as a private citizen, not in his official role as president. The federal judge overseeing the case had already questioned whether a sitting president could properly seek personal monetary damages from an agency inside the executive branch.The dismissal follows settlements in lawsuits brought by Trump allies, including Michael Flynn and Carter Page. Shortly after Trump's filing, House Democrats submitted a brief accusing him of self-dealing and arguing that any attempt to use the court process to support a settlement should be closely reviewed.Trump drops lawsuit against IRS amid talks of establishing a $1.8 billion fund for allies | CNN Politics This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Chuck Todd delivers an analysis of the Virginia Supreme Court's decision tossing out the Democratic redistricting map — arguing Democrats pissed away enormous political capital for absolutely nothing and that the reaction on the left has been wildly out of proportion, treating the ruling like an election loss when it was actually a predictable consequence of trying to fight fire with fire. He notes that Democrats passed the Virginia map without ever bothering to figure out how the courts would rule, and that both Obama and Governor Spanberger spent serious political capital pushing a referendum that was always legally vulnerable. He pushes back hard on left-wing commentary framing the ruling as partisan: the Virginia Supreme Court isn't full of partisans — they're technocrats, and Democrats just spent years arguing for norms and process and then ignored norms and process. His central argument is that Democrats will never win a race to the bottom with Trump's GOP, that the "fight fire with fire" mentality is a huge strategic mistake, and that Democrats can absolutely win in newly created swing districts with the right candidates if they go back to persuading voters and building coalitions rather than treating voters as the problem. He argues that Democrats are still likely to win both the House and Senate in the midterms — proof that Trump has done nothing to improve the GOP's image and that the path back to a winning Democratic coalition is still wide open if the party chooses to take it. Then, acclaimed music biographer Bob Spitz — author of definitive biographies of The Beatles and Led Zeppelin and now The Rolling Stones: The Biography, his five-year deep dive into the world's greatest rock and roll band — joins the Chuck Toddcast for a deeply enjoyable conversation about why the Stones have endured for over six decades and what their longevity says about the state of music itself. Spitz argues that the Stones gave us the foundation of the rock and roll sound and that, in many ways, there is no rock and roll today — modern musicians are producers more than performers, and now in their 80s the Stones are essentially one of the last bands keeping the form alive. He explains why their decision to flirt with politics in the 60s and then back off actually helped them endure, traces their close friendship with The Beatles , and describes Mick and Keith's strange but enduring marriage as the central engine of the band — held together by their shared love of playing live. The conversation digs into the surprising musical and cultural backstory of how the Stones became the Stones — including the fascinating history of how white British kids embraced the blues more than American kids did. Spitz pays beautiful tribute to drummer Charlie Watts as the heart and soul of the group — a jazz lover who only played rock because it paid the bills and who, along with Ian Stewart, kept the band in line for decades — and discusses the profound effect of losing him on the band's chemistry. He explains why the Stones keep playing well into their 80s, why great guitarists are now a rare commodity with no real innovators emerging, and why Mick has stayed in such great shape. Spitz offers his verdict on the Stones' place in music history — they've come to understand themselves as the greatest rock band, and he agrees — and reveals what's next for him: a book about John Lennon's second act. He closes with a fascinating thought experiment posed by Chuck: if Mick Jagger had been killed and John Lennon had lived, would the trajectories of the two bands have completely switched? Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit the Supreme Court’s Brown vs. Board of Education decision and explains that the courts have been forced to rule on major structural changes to American society when congress refuses to legislate. He also answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Try ShipStation free for 60 days with full access to all features, No credit card needed! Go to https://ShipStation.com and use code TODDCAST for 60 days for free! Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 01:45 Democrats pissed away political capital in VA, then map was tossed 05:30 Reaction on the left to Virginia ruling has been like an election loss 07:00 It’s understandable that Democrats wanted to fight fire with fire 07:45 Democrats passed VA map without knowing how the courts would rule 08:30 Obama and Spanberger wasted political capital for nothing 09:45 Dems have argued for norms + process that court said they didn’t follow 10:30 Electing the judiciary is terrible for the rule of law 11:15 The VA Supreme Court aren’t partisans, they’re technocrats 12:30 Left wing commentary assumes it was a partisan decision… it wasn’t 14:00 Dem leadership in VA misled the party & the public on referendum 15:45 We still don’t know what the maps will look like in the south after redistricting 16:30 GOP has the redistricting advantage now, but courts may intervene 17:30 VA court may give courage to other courts to stop the gerrymandering 18:45 Democrats will never win a race to the bottom with Trump’s GOP 20:15 Democrats can win in newly created swing districts with right candidates 22:00 The “fight fire with fire” mentality is a huge mistake by the Dems 23:00 Democracy is eroded when both parties play scorched earth politics 24:15 Dems should be trying to persuade and coalition build 26:00 Republicans treat voters as the problem, Dems shouldn’t do the same 27:15 Dems want to be held to a higher standard, but don’t like it when they are 28:30 Dems did real damage to their credibility with Virginia redistricting 30:00 Trump has done nothing to improve the GOP’s image, Dems can still win 31:45 Democrats know what they’re against, but not what they’re for 33:30 Spanberger was put in an impossible position by her party 35:00 Spanberger knew that swing voters didn’t like the redistricting chaos 36:15 Dems practiced politics of addition under Obama, now in survival mode 37:45 Voters viewed the Democratic party as more principled, VA jeopardizes that 38:30 Dems still more likely to win both house and senate despite the ruling 46:00 Bob Spitz (Rolling Stones Biographer) joins the Chuck ToddCast 48:00 How long have you been thinking about writing this biography? 49:15 Keith Richards biography was a phenomenal book, but only Keith’s view 50:30 The Stones longevity as a group makes them more compelling 52:00 The Stones gave us the foundation of the rock and roll sound 53:15 There is no rock and roll today, musicians are producers now 55:15 In their 80’s, the Stones are still keeping rock and roll alive 56:30 The Stones flirted with being political, then backed off 57:15 Their lack of taking a stand actually helped them endure 58:45 The Stones became great friends with the Beatles 1:00:00 Mick Jagger & Paul McCartney explored joint business ventures 1:01:30 Without Paul or Mick, both bands may not have been financially viable 1:02:15 Mick & Keith seemed like a strange marriage, but they made it work 1:04:15 The music kept the band together, they love to play and perform 1:05:30 You have to see the Stones in concert to truly appreciate them 1:06:45 They’ve had countless “Farewell Tours” and always come back 1:08:00 Mick has kept in great shape, his father was a fitness celebrity 1:09:30 Fans pitted the Beatles vs. The Stones, but the bands never did 1:11:30 How did white British kids embrace the blues more than American kids? 1:12:15 American GI’s left their blues records behind in the UK 1:13:45 Chuck Berry was a massive influence on the Stones becoming rock 1:14:30 Charlie Watts was the heart and soul of the band 1:16:00 Charlie loved jazz, only played rock because it paid the bills 1:17:30 Charlie and Ian Stewart kept the band in line 1:18:45 The effect of losing Charlie Watts on the Stones 1:20:45 They keep playing because it sustains them as humans, not for the money 1:22:15 Does it bother Keith that everyone sits down when Jagger isn’t performing? 1:23:30 Great guitarists are a rare commodity these days, no innovators 1:24:30 Modern music doesn’t emphasize live instrumental performance 1:26:45 What is the Stones' place in the music universe? 1:27:15 They’ve come to understand themselves as the greatest rock band 1:28:15 Secret to the Stones longevity? 1:30:00 The Stones wouldn’t participate in an extended “Dead & Company” style 1:30:45 Mick is about to have great grandkids, and has a 30 year old girlfriend 1:31:15 Next project is a book about John Lennon’s second act 1:32:30 Beatles had an aversion to talking to the press 1:33:30 If Jagger had been killed & Lennon lived, would the bands switch trajectories? 1:38:15 ToddCast Time Machine - May 17th, 1954 1:39:00 Brown vs. Board was the court pushing back against a legal fiction 1:39:30 Plessy vs. Ferguson was the foundation for segregation 1:40:15 Segregation had to end via the courts, congress refused to end it 1:41:30 Southern Democrats held enormous power in the 50s 1:42:00 The system challenged by Brown had too much power in congress 1:42:45 The NAACP was chipping away at segregation one case at a time 1:43:30 The court needed a unanimous decision for Brown to have legitimacy 1:44:30 The US was championing freedom abroad while segregated at home 1:45:00 Without the cold war, we don’t desegregate or pass the Voting Rights Act 1:45:30 Court rules 9-0 on Brown, didn’t end segregation but delegitimized it 1:46:30 Southern politicians organized massive resistance 1:47:00 Federal troops sent into Little Rock to escort black students into school 1:47:45 Brown changed how Americans thought about the power of the court 1:48:30 Courts became more like political actors in decades after Brown 1:49:45 The ruling in Brown was definitive, its implementation was not 1:50:30 Ask Chuck 1:50:45 How much could voter suppression affect juiced Democratic turnout? 1:57:00 What if Trump never becomes a lame duck president? 2:01:30 Is gerrymandering creating better chances for moderates? 2:08:00 What are the most realistic options for scaling back entitlements? 2:13:15 Predictions for the political futures of Nikki Haley & Ron DeSantis? 2:19:15 Is there a scenario for a bipartisan impeachment to avoid bad pardons? 2:24:00 Greg Olsen was commencement speaker at Chuck’s daughters graduation 2:25:30 Thoughts on the NBA playoffs & NCAA tournament expansionSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chuck Todd delivers an analysis of the Virginia Supreme Court's decision tossing out the Democratic redistricting map — arguing Democrats pissed away enormous political capital for absolutely nothing and that the reaction on the left has been wildly out of proportion, treating the ruling like an election loss when it was actually a predictable consequence of trying to fight fire with fire. He notes that Democrats passed the Virginia map without ever bothering to figure out how the courts would rule, and that both Obama and Governor Spanberger spent serious political capital pushing a referendum that was always legally vulnerable. He pushes back hard on left-wing commentary framing the ruling as partisan: the Virginia Supreme Court isn't full of partisans — they're technocrats, and Democrats just spent years arguing for norms and process and then ignored norms and process. His central argument is that Democrats will never win a race to the bottom with Trump's GOP, that the "fight fire with fire" mentality is a huge strategic mistake, and that Democrats can absolutely win in newly created swing districts with the right candidates if they go back to persuading voters and building coalitions rather than treating voters as the problem. He argues that Democrats are still likely to win both the House and Senate in the midterms — proof that Trump has done nothing to improve the GOP's image and that the path back to a winning Democratic coalition is still wide open if the party chooses to take it. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit the Supreme Court’s Brown vs. Board of Education decision and explains that the courts have been forced to rule on major structural changes to American society when congress refuses to legislate. He also answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Try ShipStation free for 60 days with full access to all features, No credit card needed! Go to https://ShipStation.com and use code TODDCAST for 60 days for free! Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 01:45 Democrats pissed away political capital in VA, then map was tossed 05:30 Reaction on the left to Virginia ruling has been like an election loss 07:00 It’s understandable that Democrats wanted to fight fire with fire 07:45 Democrats passed VA map without knowing how the courts would rule 08:30 Obama and Spanberger wasted political capital for nothing 09:45 Dems have argued for norms + process that court said they didn’t follow 10:30 Electing the judiciary is terrible for the rule of law 11:15 The VA Supreme Court aren’t partisans, they’re technocrats 12:30 Left wing commentary assumes it was a partisan decision… it wasn’t 14:00 Dem leadership in VA misled the party & the public on referendum 15:45 We still don’t know what the maps will look like in the south after redistricting 16:30 GOP has the redistricting advantage now, but courts may intervene 17:30 VA court may give courage to other courts to stop the gerrymandering 18:45 Democrats will never win a race to the bottom with Trump’s GOP 20:15 Democrats can win in newly created swing districts with right candidates 22:00 The “fight fire with fire” mentality is a huge mistake by the Dems 23:00 Democracy is eroded when both parties play scorched earth politics 24:15 Dems should be trying to persuade and coalition build 26:00 Republicans treat voters as the problem, Dems shouldn’t do the same 27:15 Dems want to be held to a higher standard, but don’t like it when they are 28:30 Dems did real damage to their credibility with Virginia redistricting 30:00 Trump has done nothing to improve the GOP’s image, Dems can still win 31:45 Democrats know what they’re against, but not what they’re for 33:30 Spanberger was put in an impossible position by her party 35:00 Spanberger knew that swing voters didn’t like the redistricting chaos 36:15 Dems practiced politics of addition under Obama, now in survival mode 37:45 Voters viewed the Democratic party as more principled, VA jeopardizes that 38:30 Dems still more likely to win both house and senate despite the ruling 42:15 ToddCast Time Machine - May 17th, 195443:00 Brown vs. Board was the court pushing back against a legal fiction43:30 Plessy vs. Ferguson was the foundation for segregation44:15 Segregation had to end via the courts, congress refused to end it45:30 Southern Democrats held enormous power in the 50s46:00 The system challenged by Brown had too much power in congress46:45 The NAACP was chipping away at segregation one case at a time47:30 The court needed a unanimous decision for Brown to have legitimacy48:30 The US was championing freedom abroad while segregated at home49:00 Without the cold war, we don’t desegregate or pass the Voting Rights Act49:30 Court rules 9-0 on Brown, didn’t end segregation but delegitimized it50:30 Southern politicians organized massive resistance51:00 Federal troops sent into Little Rock to escort black students into school51:45 Brown changed how Americans thought about the power of the court52:30 Courts became more like political actors in decades after Brown53:45 The ruling in Brown was definitive, its implementation was not54:30 Ask Chuck54:45 How much could voter suppression affect juiced Democratic turnout?1:01:00 What if Trump never becomes a lame duck president?1:05:30 Is gerrymandering creating better chances for moderates?1:12:00 What are the most realistic options for scaling back entitlements?1:17:15 Predictions for the political futures of Nikki Haley & Ron DeSantis?1:23:15 Is there a scenario for a bipartisan impeachment to avoid bad pardons?1:28:00 Greg Olsen was commencement speaker at Chuck’s daughters graduation1:29:30 Thoughts on the NBA playoffs & NCAA tournament expansionSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This past week we discussed the Plessy v Ferguson case, which helped open the door to the Jim Crow era in the American South. Today, a story from 1951 about the efforts to dismantle it -- starting with a group of students walking out of their school over unfair conditions.Jody, NIki, and Kellie discuss how this effort mirrored some of the elements of The Marshall Plan in Europe — and why US attempts to support Latin America generally fell short.Join our America250 newsletter community! Subscribe for free to get the latest news and analysis of how America250 is playing out. Paying subscribers get access to early, ad-free versions of the show. Plus bonus features throughout the year. To support our work and get access to everything, subscribe now.This Day is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX.Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories.If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.comGet in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Follow us on social @thisdaypodOur team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Our conversation about Plessy vs Ferguson continues with a look at the world that the ruling helped usher in: Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, the rise of the KKK and more.Join our America250 newsletter community! Subscribe for free to get the latest news and analysis of how America250 is playing out. Paying subscribers get access to early, ad-free versions of the show. Plus bonus features throughout the year. To support our work and get access to everything, subscribe now.This Day is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX.Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories.If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.comGet in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Follow us on social @thisdaypodOur team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Mark Levin, Dinesh D'Souza - The Democrat Party Embodies Marxism and Jihadist Influences and Big Supreme Court Win!  Mark Levin Podcast The Best Of Mark Levin - 5/2/26  May 02 2026   This week on the Mark Levin Show, Democrats, their media, and podcast surrogates will quickly resumed attacks despite the third assassination attempt on President Trump. Their rhetoric reveals Marxist and Islamist ideologies, falsely labeling Trump Hitler and a dictator. The Democrat Party embodies Marxism and jihadist influences, unlike Republicans who purge their extremists. Next, the AP article reporting James Comey's second indictment was grotesque propaganda - an opinion piece that leads with accusations of vindictive prosecution by the Trump administration's Justice Department. The piece notes Comey's history feuding with Trump and his role in the Russia investigation but these details are irrelevant to the charge. Comey's explanation for the 8647 seashells is unbelievable—especially for a former FBI director.   Dinesh D'Souza 808K subscribers 1,594 views The Supreme Court's racial gerrymandering decision isn't just a big win for the midterms and beyond. It also represents the full-scale implementation of the color-blind principle for the first time in US history. Also author Danny Burmawi, a Jordanian who lived in Lebanon, gives us an insider view of the Islamic project to dismantle the West, one that Tucker Carlson and others are trying to conceal and whitewash. (1:58) Plessy's Colorblind Dissent (3:53) Racial Gerrymandering Exposed (6:39) SCOTUS Levels Playing Field (9:03) Calais: End of Race Law (12:00) Democrats Never Switched (14:09) Democracy Should Be Colorblind (19:07) Guest Intro: Danny Burmwawi (21:26) Tucker's Islamic Blind Spot (26:18) Tucker's Staged Interviews (28:18) Rebranding Islamic Jihad (53:07) No Equal Rights in Islam (56:15) Jihad After the Caliphate (58:35) Islam Never Gives Back

For the eighteenth installment of “50 Weeks That Shaped America” we talk about a landmark Supreme Court case, Plessy v Ferguson, which in 1896 codified the idea of “separate but equal” accomodations for Black and White Americans. We trace the brief moment during Reconstruction when Black citizens in the South gained real rights, and how legislatures and White power structures began to push back. Then we discuss the case itself and the impact of the ruling, including the lone dissent.Join our America250 newsletter community! Subscribe for free to get the latest news and analysis of how America250 is playing out. Paying subscribers get access to early, ad-free versions of the show. Plus bonus features throughout the year. To support our work and get access to everything, subscribe now.This Day is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX.Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories.If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.comGet in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Follow us on social @thisdaypodOur team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The Supreme Court’s racial gerrymandering decision isn’t just a big win for the midterms and beyond. It also represents the full-scale implementation of the color-blind principle for the first time in US history. Also author Danny Burmawi, a Jordanian who lived in Lebanon, gives us an insider view of the Islamic project to dismantle the West, one that Tucker Carlson and others are trying to conceal and whitewash. (1:58) Plessy's Colorblind Dissent(3:53) Racial Gerrymandering Exposed(6:39) SCOTUS Levels Playing Field(9:03) Calais: End of Race Law(12:00) Democrats Never Switched(14:09) Democracy Should Be Colorblind(19:07) Guest Intro: Danny Burmwawi(21:26) Tucker's Islamic Blind Spot(26:18) Tucker's Staged Interviews(28:18) Rebranding Islamic Jihad(53:07) No Equal Rights in Islam(56:15) Jihad After the Caliphate(58:35) Islam Never Gives Back Leave the old “buy and hold” crypto strategy behind at https://DineshCrypto.com ! Purchase crypto with military grade encryption and American customer service. Hundreds of crypto holders have saved MILLIONS thanks to BlockTrustIRA’s Animus AI. Visit https://DineshCrypto.com and receive up to $2,500 in FREE bonus crypto! America has nearly 39 trillion dollars in debt! Are you protected from this pending disaster? Go to http://DineshGold.com and get up to 10% in bonus gold or silver. I’m on substack! Check out what I have to say here: https://dineshdsouza.substack.com/ Dinesh D'Souza is an author and filmmaker. A graduate of Dartmouth College, he was a senior domestic policy analyst in the Reagan administration. He also served as a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of many bestselling books, including "Illiberal Education," "What's So Great About Christianity," "America: Imagine a World Without Her," "The Roots of Obama's Rage," "Death of a Nation," and "United States of Socialism." His documentary films "2016: Obama's America," "America," "Hillary's America," "Death of a Nation," and "Trump Card" are among the highest-grossing political documentaries of all time. He and his wife Debbie are also executive producers of the acclaimed feature film "Infidel." — Want to connect with Dinesh D'Souza online for more hard-hitting analysis of current events in America? Here’s how: Get Dinesh unfiltered, uncensored and unchained on Locals: https://dinesh.locals.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dsouzadinesh Twitter: https://twitter.com/dineshdsouza Rumble: https://rumble.com/dineshdsouza Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dineshjdsouzaSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bienvenue dans FIFTY STATES SUPREME !!Nouveau numéroNouvel épisodeNouvel arrêt de la Cour suprême :PLESSY VS FERGUSONUn arrêt CAPITAL : c'est le point de départ de la ségrégation raciale aux Etats-UnisEn 1896, la justice "autorise" les Etats à séparer les gens entre les Blancs et les NoirsEntre les "WHITE" et les "COLORED"Parmi ceux qui ont voulu se battre contre cette injusticeOn trouve Homer PlessyPour tout savoir sur sa vie et son combat Pour tout savoir sur l'expression "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL" qui va définir l'Amérique pendant de longues annéesUne seule adresse,Le podcast FIFTY STATES !!!Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

The Supreme Court has no army, no budget, and no way to enforce its own rulings. Its power rests entirely on the credibility of its words. Attorney and author Peter Cohen joins Dr. Katie Crawford Lackey to explore what happens when you go straight to the source — reading the justices' opinions directly rather than relying on outside interpretation. Drawing on his book In the Supreme Court's Own Words, Cohen walks through two centuries of landmark decisions in which the court checked presidential power, explains why dissenting opinions like Justice Harlan's in Plessy v. Ferguson can become the law of the land decades later, and makes the case that Supreme Court decisions are far more accessible than most people assume. From Lincoln and habeas corpus to Truman and the steel mills to the constitutional questions playing out in real time today, this conversation is a reminder that the framers feared monarchy — and built a system designed to prevent it. 

Demander à des artistes de dessiner sur du papier toilette ?Oui, c'est vraiment un projet de curatrice.Dans cet épisode, Margaux Plessy nous raconte comment on transforme une idée improbable en véritable concept artistique. Partie pour un tout autre avenir, c'est une nuit au Centre Pompidou qui a fait basculer son destin.De son travail avec JR à la création de TalkArt, elle nous plonge dans le quotidien d'une curatrice : imaginer, provoquer, relier les artistes au public.Un épisode pour comprendre comment naissent les idées… même sur du PQ.#podcast  #art  #curatrice  #culture  #lejobshowHébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

In 1896, Justice John Marshall Harlan proved what judicial courage looks like. While the Supreme Court upheld segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson, Harlan wrote a dissent that declared: “The Constitution is color-blind.” He stood alone. In this episode of Trey's Table, we examine: ⚖️ The legal reasoning behind Plessy ⚖️ Harlan's constitutional philosophy ⚖️ The long road to Brown v. Board ⚖️ What dissent really means in American law This one is for anyone who believes the law can evolve toward justice.

In the United States, the stoicism and importance of the “working class” is part of the national myth. The term is often used to conjure the contributions and challenges of the white working class – and this obscures the ways in which Black workers built institutions like the railroads and universities – but also how they transformed unions, changed public policy, and established community.  In Black Folk: The Roots of the Black Working Class (LIveright, 2023), Dr. Blair LM Kelley restores the Black working class to the center of the American story by interrogating the lives of laundresses, Pullman porters, domestic maids, and postal workers. The book is both a personal journey and a history of Black labor in the United States from enslavement to the present day with a focus on a critical era: after Southern Emancipation to the early 20th century, when the first generations of Black working people carved out a world for themselves. Dr. Kelley captures the character of the lives of Black workers not only as laborers, activists, or members of a class but as individuals whose daily experiences mattered – to themselves, to their communities, and to “the nation at large, even as it denied their importance.” As she weaves together rich oral histories, memoirs, photographs, and secondary sources, she shows how Black workers of all genders were “intertwined with the future of Black freedom, Black citizenship, and the establishment of civil rights for Black Americans.” She demonstrates how her own family's experiences mirrors this wider history of the Black working class – sometimes in ways that she herself did not realize before writing the book. Even as the book confronts violence, poor working conditions, and a government that often legislated to protect the interests of white workers and consumers, Black Folk celebrates the ways in which Black people “built and rebuilt vital spaces of resistance, grounded in the secrets that they knew about themselves, about their community, their dignity, and their survival.” Black Folk looks back but also forward. In examining the labor and challenges of individuals, Dr. Kelley sheds light on reparations and suggests that Amazon package processing centers, supermarkets, and nursing homes can be spaces of resistance and labor activism in the 21st century. Dr. Blair LM Kelley is the Joel R. Williamson Distinguished Professor of Southern Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and incoming director of the Center for the Study of the American South, the first Black woman to serve in that role in the center's thirty-year history. She is also the author of Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship in the Era of Plessy v. Ferguson from the University of North Carolina Press. Dr. Kelley mentions Dr. Tera W. Hunter's To ‘Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women's Lives and Labors After the Civil War, Duke University's Behind the Veil oral history project, and Philip R. Rubio's There's Always Work at the Post Office: African American Postal Workers and the Fight for Jobs, Justice, and Equality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

In the United States, the stoicism and importance of the “working class” is part of the national myth. The term is often used to conjure the contributions and challenges of the white working class – and this obscures the ways in which Black workers built institutions like the railroads and universities – but also how they transformed unions, changed public policy, and established community.  In Black Folk: The Roots of the Black Working Class (LIveright, 2023), Dr. Blair LM Kelley restores the Black working class to the center of the American story by interrogating the lives of laundresses, Pullman porters, domestic maids, and postal workers. The book is both a personal journey and a history of Black labor in the United States from enslavement to the present day with a focus on a critical era: after Southern Emancipation to the early 20th century, when the first generations of Black working people carved out a world for themselves. Dr. Kelley captures the character of the lives of Black workers not only as laborers, activists, or members of a class but as individuals whose daily experiences mattered – to themselves, to their communities, and to “the nation at large, even as it denied their importance.” As she weaves together rich oral histories, memoirs, photographs, and secondary sources, she shows how Black workers of all genders were “intertwined with the future of Black freedom, Black citizenship, and the establishment of civil rights for Black Americans.” She demonstrates how her own family's experiences mirrors this wider history of the Black working class – sometimes in ways that she herself did not realize before writing the book. Even as the book confronts violence, poor working conditions, and a government that often legislated to protect the interests of white workers and consumers, Black Folk celebrates the ways in which Black people “built and rebuilt vital spaces of resistance, grounded in the secrets that they knew about themselves, about their community, their dignity, and their survival.” Black Folk looks back but also forward. In examining the labor and challenges of individuals, Dr. Kelley sheds light on reparations and suggests that Amazon package processing centers, supermarkets, and nursing homes can be spaces of resistance and labor activism in the 21st century. Dr. Blair LM Kelley is the Joel R. Williamson Distinguished Professor of Southern Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and incoming director of the Center for the Study of the American South, the first Black woman to serve in that role in the center's thirty-year history. She is also the author of Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship in the Era of Plessy v. Ferguson from the University of North Carolina Press. Dr. Kelley mentions Dr. Tera W. Hunter's To ‘Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women's Lives and Labors After the Civil War, Duke University's Behind the Veil oral history project, and Philip R. Rubio's There's Always Work at the Post Office: African American Postal Workers and the Fight for Jobs, Justice, and Equality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

In the United States, the stoicism and importance of the “working class” is part of the national myth. The term is often used to conjure the contributions and challenges of the white working class – and this obscures the ways in which Black workers built institutions like the railroads and universities – but also how they transformed unions, changed public policy, and established community.  In Black Folk: The Roots of the Black Working Class (LIveright, 2023), Dr. Blair LM Kelley restores the Black working class to the center of the American story by interrogating the lives of laundresses, Pullman porters, domestic maids, and postal workers. The book is both a personal journey and a history of Black labor in the United States from enslavement to the present day with a focus on a critical era: after Southern Emancipation to the early 20th century, when the first generations of Black working people carved out a world for themselves. Dr. Kelley captures the character of the lives of Black workers not only as laborers, activists, or members of a class but as individuals whose daily experiences mattered – to themselves, to their communities, and to “the nation at large, even as it denied their importance.” As she weaves together rich oral histories, memoirs, photographs, and secondary sources, she shows how Black workers of all genders were “intertwined with the future of Black freedom, Black citizenship, and the establishment of civil rights for Black Americans.” She demonstrates how her own family's experiences mirrors this wider history of the Black working class – sometimes in ways that she herself did not realize before writing the book. Even as the book confronts violence, poor working conditions, and a government that often legislated to protect the interests of white workers and consumers, Black Folk celebrates the ways in which Black people “built and rebuilt vital spaces of resistance, grounded in the secrets that they knew about themselves, about their community, their dignity, and their survival.” Black Folk looks back but also forward. In examining the labor and challenges of individuals, Dr. Kelley sheds light on reparations and suggests that Amazon package processing centers, supermarkets, and nursing homes can be spaces of resistance and labor activism in the 21st century. Dr. Blair LM Kelley is the Joel R. Williamson Distinguished Professor of Southern Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and incoming director of the Center for the Study of the American South, the first Black woman to serve in that role in the center's thirty-year history. She is also the author of Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship in the Era of Plessy v. Ferguson from the University of North Carolina Press. Dr. Kelley mentions Dr. Tera W. Hunter's To ‘Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women's Lives and Labors After the Civil War, Duke University's Behind the Veil oral history project, and Philip R. Rubio's There's Always Work at the Post Office: African American Postal Workers and the Fight for Jobs, Justice, and Equality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In the United States, the stoicism and importance of the “working class” is part of the national myth. The term is often used to conjure the contributions and challenges of the white working class – and this obscures the ways in which Black workers built institutions like the railroads and universities – but also how they transformed unions, changed public policy, and established community.  In Black Folk: The Roots of the Black Working Class (LIveright, 2023), Dr. Blair LM Kelley restores the Black working class to the center of the American story by interrogating the lives of laundresses, Pullman porters, domestic maids, and postal workers. The book is both a personal journey and a history of Black labor in the United States from enslavement to the present day with a focus on a critical era: after Southern Emancipation to the early 20th century, when the first generations of Black working people carved out a world for themselves. Dr. Kelley captures the character of the lives of Black workers not only as laborers, activists, or members of a class but as individuals whose daily experiences mattered – to themselves, to their communities, and to “the nation at large, even as it denied their importance.” As she weaves together rich oral histories, memoirs, photographs, and secondary sources, she shows how Black workers of all genders were “intertwined with the future of Black freedom, Black citizenship, and the establishment of civil rights for Black Americans.” She demonstrates how her own family's experiences mirrors this wider history of the Black working class – sometimes in ways that she herself did not realize before writing the book. Even as the book confronts violence, poor working conditions, and a government that often legislated to protect the interests of white workers and consumers, Black Folk celebrates the ways in which Black people “built and rebuilt vital spaces of resistance, grounded in the secrets that they knew about themselves, about their community, their dignity, and their survival.” Black Folk looks back but also forward. In examining the labor and challenges of individuals, Dr. Kelley sheds light on reparations and suggests that Amazon package processing centers, supermarkets, and nursing homes can be spaces of resistance and labor activism in the 21st century. Dr. Blair LM Kelley is the Joel R. Williamson Distinguished Professor of Southern Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and incoming director of the Center for the Study of the American South, the first Black woman to serve in that role in the center's thirty-year history. She is also the author of Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship in the Era of Plessy v. Ferguson from the University of North Carolina Press. Dr. Kelley mentions Dr. Tera W. Hunter's To ‘Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women's Lives and Labors After the Civil War, Duke University's Behind the Veil oral history project, and Philip R. Rubio's There's Always Work at the Post Office: African American Postal Workers and the Fight for Jobs, Justice, and Equality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

In the United States, the stoicism and importance of the “working class” is part of the national myth. The term is often used to conjure the contributions and challenges of the white working class – and this obscures the ways in which Black workers built institutions like the railroads and universities – but also how they transformed unions, changed public policy, and established community.  In Black Folk: The Roots of the Black Working Class (LIveright, 2023), Dr. Blair LM Kelley restores the Black working class to the center of the American story by interrogating the lives of laundresses, Pullman porters, domestic maids, and postal workers. The book is both a personal journey and a history of Black labor in the United States from enslavement to the present day with a focus on a critical era: after Southern Emancipation to the early 20th century, when the first generations of Black working people carved out a world for themselves. Dr. Kelley captures the character of the lives of Black workers not only as laborers, activists, or members of a class but as individuals whose daily experiences mattered – to themselves, to their communities, and to “the nation at large, even as it denied their importance.” As she weaves together rich oral histories, memoirs, photographs, and secondary sources, she shows how Black workers of all genders were “intertwined with the future of Black freedom, Black citizenship, and the establishment of civil rights for Black Americans.” She demonstrates how her own family's experiences mirrors this wider history of the Black working class – sometimes in ways that she herself did not realize before writing the book. Even as the book confronts violence, poor working conditions, and a government that often legislated to protect the interests of white workers and consumers, Black Folk celebrates the ways in which Black people “built and rebuilt vital spaces of resistance, grounded in the secrets that they knew about themselves, about their community, their dignity, and their survival.” Black Folk looks back but also forward. In examining the labor and challenges of individuals, Dr. Kelley sheds light on reparations and suggests that Amazon package processing centers, supermarkets, and nursing homes can be spaces of resistance and labor activism in the 21st century. Dr. Blair LM Kelley is the Joel R. Williamson Distinguished Professor of Southern Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and incoming director of the Center for the Study of the American South, the first Black woman to serve in that role in the center's thirty-year history. She is also the author of Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship in the Era of Plessy v. Ferguson from the University of North Carolina Press. Dr. Kelley mentions Dr. Tera W. Hunter's To ‘Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women's Lives and Labors After the Civil War, Duke University's Behind the Veil oral history project, and Philip R. Rubio's There's Always Work at the Post Office: African American Postal Workers and the Fight for Jobs, Justice, and Equality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the United States, the stoicism and importance of the “working class” is part of the national myth. The term is often used to conjure the contributions and challenges of the white working class – and this obscures the ways in which Black workers built institutions like the railroads and universities – but also how they transformed unions, changed public policy, and established community.  In Black Folk: The Roots of the Black Working Class (LIveright, 2023), Dr. Blair LM Kelley restores the Black working class to the center of the American story by interrogating the lives of laundresses, Pullman porters, domestic maids, and postal workers. The book is both a personal journey and a history of Black labor in the United States from enslavement to the present day with a focus on a critical era: after Southern Emancipation to the early 20th century, when the first generations of Black working people carved out a world for themselves. Dr. Kelley captures the character of the lives of Black workers not only as laborers, activists, or members of a class but as individuals whose daily experiences mattered – to themselves, to their communities, and to “the nation at large, even as it denied their importance.” As she weaves together rich oral histories, memoirs, photographs, and secondary sources, she shows how Black workers of all genders were “intertwined with the future of Black freedom, Black citizenship, and the establishment of civil rights for Black Americans.” She demonstrates how her own family's experiences mirrors this wider history of the Black working class – sometimes in ways that she herself did not realize before writing the book. Even as the book confronts violence, poor working conditions, and a government that often legislated to protect the interests of white workers and consumers, Black Folk celebrates the ways in which Black people “built and rebuilt vital spaces of resistance, grounded in the secrets that they knew about themselves, about their community, their dignity, and their survival.” Black Folk looks back but also forward. In examining the labor and challenges of individuals, Dr. Kelley sheds light on reparations and suggests that Amazon package processing centers, supermarkets, and nursing homes can be spaces of resistance and labor activism in the 21st century. Dr. Blair LM Kelley is the Joel R. Williamson Distinguished Professor of Southern Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and incoming director of the Center for the Study of the American South, the first Black woman to serve in that role in the center's thirty-year history. She is also the author of Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship in the Era of Plessy v. Ferguson from the University of North Carolina Press. Dr. Kelley mentions Dr. Tera W. Hunter's To ‘Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women's Lives and Labors After the Civil War, Duke University's Behind the Veil oral history project, and Philip R. Rubio's There's Always Work at the Post Office: African American Postal Workers and the Fight for Jobs, Justice, and Equality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the United States, the stoicism and importance of the “working class” is part of the national myth. The term is often used to conjure the contributions and challenges of the white working class – and this obscures the ways in which Black workers built institutions like the railroads and universities – but also how they transformed unions, changed public policy, and established community.  In Black Folk: The Roots of the Black Working Class (LIveright, 2023), Dr. Blair LM Kelley restores the Black working class to the center of the American story by interrogating the lives of laundresses, Pullman porters, domestic maids, and postal workers. The book is both a personal journey and a history of Black labor in the United States from enslavement to the present day with a focus on a critical era: after Southern Emancipation to the early 20th century, when the first generations of Black working people carved out a world for themselves. Dr. Kelley captures the character of the lives of Black workers not only as laborers, activists, or members of a class but as individuals whose daily experiences mattered – to themselves, to their communities, and to “the nation at large, even as it denied their importance.” As she weaves together rich oral histories, memoirs, photographs, and secondary sources, she shows how Black workers of all genders were “intertwined with the future of Black freedom, Black citizenship, and the establishment of civil rights for Black Americans.” She demonstrates how her own family's experiences mirrors this wider history of the Black working class – sometimes in ways that she herself did not realize before writing the book. Even as the book confronts violence, poor working conditions, and a government that often legislated to protect the interests of white workers and consumers, Black Folk celebrates the ways in which Black people “built and rebuilt vital spaces of resistance, grounded in the secrets that they knew about themselves, about their community, their dignity, and their survival.” Black Folk looks back but also forward. In examining the labor and challenges of individuals, Dr. Kelley sheds light on reparations and suggests that Amazon package processing centers, supermarkets, and nursing homes can be spaces of resistance and labor activism in the 21st century. Dr. Blair LM Kelley is the Joel R. Williamson Distinguished Professor of Southern Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and incoming director of the Center for the Study of the American South, the first Black woman to serve in that role in the center's thirty-year history. She is also the author of Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship in the Era of Plessy v. Ferguson from the University of North Carolina Press. Dr. Kelley mentions Dr. Tera W. Hunter's To ‘Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women's Lives and Labors After the Civil War, Duke University's Behind the Veil oral history project, and Philip R. Rubio's There's Always Work at the Post Office: African American Postal Workers and the Fight for Jobs, Justice, and Equality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-south

OA1226 - We begin with a review of the unprecedented lawsuit that Minnesota has filed against ICE with the extreme leftist radical demand that they obey the law and U.S. Constitution. How much power do states have to limit federal operations, and what are the chances a court order might put some guardrails on the largest enforcement operation in ICE history? We then consider the legal and political merits of articles of impeachment filed against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. Finally: we honor the passing of civil rights hero Claudette Colvin, whose bravery as a 15-year-old on a Montgomery, Alabama bus nine months before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat put the final nail into the “separate but equal” justification for racial segregation established by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson. State of Minnesota v. Noem, complaint filed 1/12/2026 “House Resolution 935: Impeaching Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense for the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors,” Rep. Shri Thaneder (12/9/2025) “House Resolution 944: Impeaching Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services  for high crimes and misdemeanors,” Rep. Haley Stevens (12/10/2025) “House Resolution ___: Impeaching Kristi Lynn Arnold Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, for high crimes and misdemeanors,” Rep. Robin Kelly (1/13/2026) “Firm Tied to Kristin Noem Secretly Got Money from $220 Million DHS Ad Contracts,” ProPublica (11/14/2025) “Impeachment: The Constitution's Fiduciary Meaning of ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors,'” Robert G. Natelson, The Federalist Society (6/19/2018) “Claudette Colvin, who refused to move seats on a bus at start of civil rights movement, dies” (NPR, 1/13/2026)  Browder v. Gayle, 142 F.Supp. 707 (1956)(aff'd per curiam by U.S. Supreme Court 12/20/1956) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

This Day in Legal History: John Marshall Harlan DiesOn October 14, 1911, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan I died, closing the chapter on one of the Court's most powerful voices of dissent. Appointed in 1877 by President Rutherford B. Hayes, Harlan served for 34 years and left an indelible mark on constitutional law—not through majority opinions, but through unwavering dissents that often read as moral indictments of the Court's direction.Most famously, Harlan stood alone in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), rejecting the Court's embrace of “separate but equal” and warning that the Constitution is “color-blind.” At a time when the legal system was ratifying segregation, Harlan insisted that racial classifications violated both the spirit and letter of the Fourteenth Amendment. His lone dissent—widely criticized at the time—would later become foundational to the Court's reversal in Brown v. Board of Education more than half a century later.But Harlan's commitment to constitutional principles extended beyond race. He defended civil liberties in United States v. E.C. Knight Co., supported expansive readings of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and warned against unchecked corporate power. His approach was rooted in a belief that the Reconstruction Amendments were designed not just to end slavery, but to secure full legal equality.Though his views often put him in the minority, time has proven Harlan prophetic. His jurisprudence helped shift the constitutional center of gravity in the 20th century, as future courts took up the causes he championed alone. Remarkably, his grandson, John Marshall Harlan II, would go on to sit on the Court as well, carving out his own legacy in cases like Katz v. United States and Reynolds v. Sims.Justice Harlan I's death marked the loss of a constitutional conscience—one that held firm against the tide of his era. His dissents remain a blueprint for principled judging, reminding us that sometimes the most enduring legal influence comes not from prevailing, but from refusing to go along.In a massive trial that began this week in London's High Court, over 1.6 million claimants are suing several major carmakers—including Mercedes-Benz, Ford, Nissan, Renault, Peugeot, and Citroën—over allegations that they used illegal “defeat devices” to cheat diesel emissions tests. The lawsuit, one of the largest in UK legal history, follows in the wake of Volkswagen's 2015 “dieselgate” scandal and targets vehicles manufactured between 2012 and 2017.Claimants argue that these manufacturers deliberately programmed cars to meet legal nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions standards only under lab testing, while on-the-road emissions were allegedly up to 12 times higher—harming the environment and misleading consumers. They seek compensation for what they claim was a systemic, industry-wide choice to cheat rather than comply with the law.The defendants deny any wrongdoing, rejecting comparisons to VW and maintaining that emissions systems are legally and justifiably calibrated to function differently under certain conditions for technical and safety reasons. A central point of contention is whether the sample vehicles in the case contain prohibited defeat devices.The trial currently focuses on 20 vehicles, but its outcome will set a precedent for nearly 850,000 claims and influence another 800,000 similar suits against other carmakers, including Vauxhall/Opel and BMW. The court's decision on liability is expected by mid-2026, with damages to be determined separately.Carmakers accused in huge UK lawsuits of cheating diesel emissions tests | ReutersVisa and Mastercard have agreed to a $199.5 million settlement to resolve a class action brought by merchants who alleged the companies colluded to shift fraud-related costs onto businesses. Filed in federal court in Brooklyn, the settlement—still awaiting judicial approval—stems from a lawsuit first initiated in 2016, challenging rule changes that made merchants liable for chargebacks when they hadn't upgraded to chip-enabled point-of-sale systems.The plaintiffs argued this policy shift violated antitrust laws, claiming Visa and Mastercard moved in parallel to implement changes that benefited the networks while leaving merchants exposed to fraud losses without any offsetting fee reductions. According to the proposed agreement, Visa will pay $119.7 million and Mastercard will contribute $79.8 million. Discover and American Express, also named in the litigation, previously agreed to a $32.2 million settlement.While all four companies deny wrongdoing, plaintiffs' lawyers praised the deal, saying it recovers around 13% of the best-case damages scenario and over half of a more conservative estimate. Mastercard stated the settlement supports its broader efforts to increase security through technological upgrades, while Visa and the plaintiffs' counsel did not comment.This case is separate from the larger $5 billion settlement Visa and Mastercard reached in 2019 over allegations of fixing credit and debit card fees.Visa, Mastercard agree to $199.5 million settlement in merchants' class action | ReutersFederal courts in California and Alabama recently fined two attorneys thousands of dollars for submitting legal filings that contained fake case citations generated by AI. These sanctions highlight a persistent problem: despite repeated warnings, some lawyers continue to rely uncritically on generative AI tools that produce fictitious case law, a phenomenon known as “hallucination.” Judges in both cases criticized the attorneys for failing to verify the AI-generated content, calling the misconduct more serious than simple oversight.In Alabama, Judge Terry F. Moorer imposed a $5,000 sanction on James A. Johnson, a court-appointed criminal defense attorney, who filed a motion containing fabricated citations. The judge noted that Johnson used a Microsoft Word plugin called Ghostwriter Legal and submitted the motion during a holiday weekend while caring for a relative, but emphasized that such explanations do not excuse the lack of basic diligence. Johnson must now disclose the sanctions order in all cases he handles for the next year, and his client—visibly upset in court—requested new counsel, delaying the case.In California, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín fined attorney Edward A. Quesada $1,000 after his civil filing contained at least three false citations. Quesada admitted he had run out of time and may have accidentally copied one fake citation from an AI-generated web summary. He was also ordered to complete a CLE course on responsible AI use, with the judge citing his failure to stay informed about relevant legal technologies as a violation of professional conduct rules.Fake AI Citations Produce Fines for California, Alabama LawyersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I examine the property rights implications at the heart of Pung v. Isabella County, a case the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear. I argue that when the government seizes and sells property for unpaid taxes, “just compensation” shouldn't be defined by whatever price the property fetches at a government-run auction. That process—entirely designed and controlled by local officials—often prioritizes administrative efficiency over fair market value, turning tax sales into what I describe as “clearance rack” events.The problem is structural. Local treasurers are incentivized to close the books quickly rather than ensure former owners recover equity. That means the government may undersell a home, pay itself the back taxes, and call it a day—leaving the former owner uncompensated for the true value of what they lost. Worse, when courts treat the auction price as constitutionally adequate, they allow the taker to set the value of what it took.I draw a comparison to Tyler v. Hennepin County, where the Court ruled the government can't pocket surplus proceeds from a tax sale. Pung asks the natural follow-up: what rules apply when determining how much surplus exists? If courts accept fire-sale auction prices as “just compensation,” they effectively endorse an end-run around the Fifth Amendment.As a compromise, I propose a clear rule: auction prices should only be presumed fair if they fall within 10% of an appraised value. Outside that range, the burden should shift to the government to prove the sale was legitimate. After all, if local governments want the legitimacy of a market sale, they need to run a sale that looks like one. Otherwise, taxpayers are left holding the bag—punished not for failing to pay taxes, but for the government's indifference to recovering real value from their property. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Steve Luxenberg has created an unusual history of the famous Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson and the 19th century's segregationist practices in his book Separate: The Story of Plessy v. Ferguson, and America's Journey from Slavery to Segregation (Norton, 2019)  It is unusual because it is chiefly an ensemble biography of Henry Brown, John Marshall Harlan, and Albion Tourgee, three men intimately connected with the Plessy case.  The book covers the Antebellum period youth of the three men, each from a different part of the young nation and each encountering freedmen, slaves, and the institution of slavery in different social and political contexts.  We follow these men through the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the post-Reconstruction period leading up to the Plessy decision.  The Plessy case helped solidify official, state-enforced segregationist practices throughout the United States.  It made the now-infamous phrase “separate but equal” a constitutional doctrine that was the law of the land until the 1950s and 1960s. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Steve Luxenberg has created an unusual history of the famous Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson and the 19th century's segregationist practices in his book Separate: The Story of Plessy v. Ferguson, and America's Journey from Slavery to Segregation (Norton, 2019)  It is unusual because it is chiefly an ensemble biography of Henry Brown, John Marshall Harlan, and Albion Tourgee, three men intimately connected with the Plessy case.  The book covers the Antebellum period youth of the three men, each from a different part of the young nation and each encountering freedmen, slaves, and the institution of slavery in different social and political contexts.  We follow these men through the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the post-Reconstruction period leading up to the Plessy decision.  The Plessy case helped solidify official, state-enforced segregationist practices throughout the United States.  It made the now-infamous phrase “separate but equal” a constitutional doctrine that was the law of the land until the 1950s and 1960s. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Steve Luxenberg has created an unusual history of the famous Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson and the 19th century's segregationist practices in his book Separate: The Story of Plessy v. Ferguson, and America's Journey from Slavery to Segregation (Norton, 2019)  It is unusual because it is chiefly an ensemble biography of Henry Brown, John Marshall Harlan, and Albion Tourgee, three men intimately connected with the Plessy case.  The book covers the Antebellum period youth of the three men, each from a different part of the young nation and each encountering freedmen, slaves, and the institution of slavery in different social and political contexts.  We follow these men through the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the post-Reconstruction period leading up to the Plessy decision.  The Plessy case helped solidify official, state-enforced segregationist practices throughout the United States.  It made the now-infamous phrase “separate but equal” a constitutional doctrine that was the law of the land until the 1950s and 1960s. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

Steve Luxenberg has created an unusual history of the famous Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson and the 19th century's segregationist practices in his book Separate: The Story of Plessy v. Ferguson, and America's Journey from Slavery to Segregation (Norton, 2019)  It is unusual because it is chiefly an ensemble biography of Henry Brown, John Marshall Harlan, and Albion Tourgee, three men intimately connected with the Plessy case.  The book covers the Antebellum period youth of the three men, each from a different part of the young nation and each encountering freedmen, slaves, and the institution of slavery in different social and political contexts.  We follow these men through the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the post-Reconstruction period leading up to the Plessy decision.  The Plessy case helped solidify official, state-enforced segregationist practices throughout the United States.  It made the now-infamous phrase “separate but equal” a constitutional doctrine that was the law of the land until the 1950s and 1960s. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Steve Luxenberg has created an unusual history of the famous Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson and the 19th century's segregationist practices in his book Separate: The Story of Plessy v. Ferguson, and America's Journey from Slavery to Segregation (Norton, 2019)  It is unusual because it is chiefly an ensemble biography of Henry Brown, John Marshall Harlan, and Albion Tourgee, three men intimately connected with the Plessy case.  The book covers the Antebellum period youth of the three men, each from a different part of the young nation and each encountering freedmen, slaves, and the institution of slavery in different social and political contexts.  We follow these men through the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the post-Reconstruction period leading up to the Plessy decision.  The Plessy case helped solidify official, state-enforced segregationist practices throughout the United States.  It made the now-infamous phrase “separate but equal” a constitutional doctrine that was the law of the land until the 1950s and 1960s. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Give to help Chris continue Truce. Update: I would like to apologize for an error I made in the original version of this story. I stated that tuition payments to private schools are tax-exempt on the federal level. They are not. They sometimes are on the state level. The episode has been edited to reflect the correct information. When Brown v. Board of Education passed the Supreme Court in 1954, segregationists stepped up their efforts to keep black children out of their schools. If they couldn't use public schools, they'd establish their own private academies. In the 60's the Supreme Court struck down mandatory Bible reading and prayer in schools, causing some Christians to establish private Christian schools. This movement had unfortunate timing in that it lined up with the segregation academy movement. To our shame, many Protestant schools were segregation academies. But this story isn't so easy. In this episode and the next, we'll explore the strange twists and turns of the private school movements of the 1960s and 70s. They illustrate just how tangled evangelicals are with schools, taxes, and racism. Sources: In Search of Another Country by Joseph Crespino Reaganland by Rick Perlstein The Evangelicals by Frances Fitzgerald Article on Jeffersonian Ideology The Years of Lyndon Johnson by Robert Caro (especially books 1 and 2) Oyez.org article about the McCullum Case Interview with Austin Steelman, professor at Clemson University Oyez.org article about the Plessy case Oyez.org article about Brown v. Board Department of Labor article about the 1964 Civil Rights Act Oyez.org article about the Green case Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Peter Canellos, Managing Editor of Politico and author of The Great Dissenter, joins host Renee Rothauge to explore the lasting impact of dissenting opinions in the U.S. Supreme Court through the legacy of Justice John Marshall Harlan. Highlighting landmark decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson, Canellos explains how Harlan's once-overlooked dissents became guiding principles for civil rights advocates and helped shape American jurisprudence. The conversation also touches on the power of dissents to influence future decisions, inspire legislative change, and reflect shifts in public opinion, while affirming the vital role of fact-based, trustworthy journalism in supporting democratic discourse.

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Tonight Producer Swati Rayasam showcases a community panel of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech.   Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – “Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us” SHOW TRANSCRIPT Swati Rayasam: You are tuned in to APEX Express on KPFA. My name is Swati Rayasam and I'm back as your special producer for this episode. Tonight we have an incredible community panel titled Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison. This panel explores the history of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and [00:01:00] safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech. I'll pass it on to UC Berkeley Ethnic Studies Professor Mike Chang to kick us off. Mike and Harvey: We're starting on Berkeley time, right on time at three 10, and I want to introduce Harvey Dong. Harvey Dong: Okay. The sponsors for today's event include, AADS- Asian American and Diaspora studies program, uc, Berkeley, Asian American Research Center, the Center for Race and Gender Department of Ethnic Studies- all part of uc, Berkeley. Off campus, we have the following community groups. Chinese for Affirmative Action, Asian Law Caucus, [00:02:00] Asian Prisoners Support Committee, and East Wind Books. Okay, so that's, quite a few in terms of coalition people coming together. My name is Harvey Dong and I'm also a lecturer in the AADS program and part of the ethnic studies department. I can say that I exist here as the result of birthright citizenship won by Ancestor Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Otherwise, I would not be here. We want to welcome everyone here today, for this important panel discussion titled: Deport, Exclude, Revoke, Imprison – Immigration and citizenship rights during crisis. Yes, we are in a deep crisis today. The Chinese characters for crisis is way G in Mandarin or way gay in [00:03:00] Cantonese, which means danger and opportunity. We are in a moment of danger and at the same time in a moment of opportunity. Our communities are under attack from undocumented, documented, and those with citizenship. We see urgency in coming together. In 1898, the US Supreme Court case, US versus Wong Kim Ark held that under the 14th Amendment birthright, citizenship applies to all people born in the United States. Regardless of their race or their parents' national origin or immigration status. On May 15th this year, the Supreme Court will hear a President Donald Trump's request to implement an executive order that will end birthright citizenship already before May 15th, [00:04:00] deportations of US citizen children are taking place. Recently, three US citizen children, one 2-year-old with cancer have been deported with their undocumented parents. The numbers of US citizen children are much higher being deported because it's less covered in the press. Unconstitutional. Yes, definitely. And it's taking place now. Also today, more than 2.7 million southeast Asian Americans live in the US but at least 16,000 community members have received final orders of deportation, placing their lives and families in limbo. This presents a mental health challenge and extreme economic hardship for individuals and families who do not know whether their next day in the US will be their last. Wong Kim Ark's [00:05:00] struggle and the lessons of Wong Kim Ark, continue today. His resistance provides us with a grounding for our resistance. So they say deport, exclude, revoke, imprison. We say cease and desist. You can say that every day it just seems like the system's gone amuk. There's constant attacks on people of color, on immigrants and so forth. And our only solution, or the most important solution is to resist, legally resist, but also to protest, to demand cease and desist. Today brings together campus and community people. We want you all to be informed because if you're uninformed , you can't do anything. Okay? You have to know where things are at. It's nothing new. What they're trying to do, in 1882, [00:06:00] during times of economic crisis, they scapegoated Asian Americans. Today there's economic, political crisis. And the scapegoating continues. They're not doing anything new. You know, it's old stuff, but we have to realize that, and we have to look at the past in terms of what was done to fight it and also build new solidarities today. Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. He went through, lots of obstacles. He spent three months in Angel Island he was arrested after he won his case because he was constantly being harassed wherever he went. His kids when they came over were also, spotted as being Wong Kim Ark's, children, and they too had to spend months at Angel Island. So Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. We need to learn from him today. Our [00:07:00] next, special guest is Mr. Norman Wong, a good friend of mine. He was active here in the third world Liberation Front strike that led to ethnic studies. He did a lots of work for the development of Asian American studies and we've been out in touch for about, what, 40 years? So I'm really happy that he's able to come back to Berkeley and to talk about yourself, if you wish, maybe during the Q and a, but to talk about , the significance of your great-grandfather's case. Okay, so Norman Wong, let's give him a hand. Norman Wong: Hello, my name's Norman Wong. I'm the great grandson, Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was [00:08:00] born in the USA, like my great-grandfather. I, too was born American in the same city, San Francisco, more than 75 years after him. We are both Americans, but unlike him, my citizenship has never been challenged. His willingness to stand up and fight made the difference for his struggles, my humble thanks. Wong Kim Ark however, was challenged more than once. In late 1889 as an American, he traveled to China in July, 1890. He returned to his birth city. He had his papers and had no problems with reentry. In 1895, after a similar trip, he was stopped from disembarking and was placed into custody for five months aboard ship in port. [00:09:00] Citizenship denied, the reason the Chinese exclusion Act 1882. He had to win this case in district court, provide $250 bail and then win again in the United States Supreme Court, March 28th, 1898. Only from these efforts, he was able to claim his citizenship granted by birthright from the 14th Amendment and gain his freedom. That would not be the last challenge to his being American. My mother suffered similar treatment. She like my great-grandfather, was born in America. In 1942, she was forced with her family and thousands of other Japanese Americans to relocation camps an experience unspoken by her family. [00:10:00] I first learned about Japanese American internment from history books. Executive order 9066 was the command. No due process, citizenship's rights stripped. She was not American enough. Now we have executive order 14160. It is an attack on birthright citizenship. We cannot let this happen. We must stand together. We are a nation of immigrants. What kind of nation are we to be with stateless children? Born to no country. To this, I say no. We as Americans need to embrace each other and [00:11:00] cherish each new life. Born in the USA. Thank you. Harvey Dong: Thank you, Norman. And Annie Lee, will moderate, the following panel, involving campus and community representatives who will be sharing their knowledge and experience. Annie Lee, Esquire is an attorney. She's also the, managing director of policy for Chinese Affirmative Action, and she's also, heavily involved in the birthright citizenship issue. Annie Lee: Thank you so much Harvey for that very warm welcome and thank you again to Norman for your remarks. I think it's incredible that you're speaking up at this moment, to preserve your ancestors' legacy because it impacts not just you and him, but all of us [00:12:00] here. So thank you. As Harvey said, my name is Annie Lee and I have this honor of working with this amazing panel of esteemed guest we have today. So I will ask each of them to introduce themselves. And I will start, because I would love to hear your name, pronouns. Title and organization as well as your personal or professional relationship with the US Immigration System. So my name's Annie. I use she her pronouns. I'm the managing Director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action, which is a non-profit based in San Francisco Chinatown. We provide direct services to the monolingual working class Chinese community, and also advocate for policies to benefit all Asian Americans. My relationship with the immigration system is I am the child of two Chinese immigrants who did not speak English. And so I just remember lots of time spent on the phone when I was a kid with INS, and then it became U-S-C-I-S just trying to ask them what happened to [00:13:00] a family member's application for naturalization, for visas so I was the interpreter for them growing up and even today. I will pass it to Letty. Leti Volpp: Hi everybody. Thank you so much, Annie. Thank you Harvey. Thank you, Norman. That was profoundly moving to hear your remarks and I love the way that you framed our conversation, Harvey. I'm Leti Volpp. I am the Robert d and Leslie k Raven, professor of Law and Access to Justice at the Berkeley Law, school. I'm also the director of the campus wide , center for Race and Gender, which is a legacy of the Third World Liberation Front, and the 1999, student movement, that led to the creation of the center. I work on immigration law and citizenship theory, and I am the daughter, second of four, children of my mother who was an immigrant from China, and my father who was an immigrant [00:14:00] from Germany. So I'll pass it. Thank you. Ke Lam: Thank you. Thank you all for being here. Thank you, Norman. So my name's Key. I go by he, him pronouns or Nghiep “Ke” Lam, is my full name. I work for an organization called Asian Prison Support Committee. It's been around for like over two decades now, and it started behind three guys advocating for ethics study, Asian and Pacific Islander history. And then it was starting in San Quent State Prison. All three of them pushed for ethics study, hard and the result is they all was put into solitary confinement. And many years later, after all three got out, was Eddie Zang, Mike Romero and Mike no. And when they got out, Eddie came back and we pushed for ethics study again, and we actually got it started in 2013. And it's been going on to today. Then the programs is called Roots, restoring our Original True Self. So reconnecting with who we are. And one of Eddie's main, mottos that really stuck with me. He said, we need to all connect to our chi, right? And I'm like, okay, I understand what chi is, and he said no. He [00:15:00] said, you need to connect to your culture, your history, which result to equal your identity, who you are as a person. So, the more we study about our history and our culture, like, birthright citizen, it empower us to know, who we are today. Right? And also part of that is to how do we take down the veil of shame in our community, the veil of trauma that's impacting our community as well. We don't talk about issue that impact us like immigration. So I'm a 1.5 generation. So I was born in Vietnam from Chinese family that migrant from China to Vietnam started business after the fall of Vietnam War. We all got kicked out but more than that, I am directly impacted because I am a stranded deportee, somebody that got their, legal status taken away because of criminal conviction. And as of any moment now, I could actually be taken away. So I live in that, right at that threshold of like uncertainty right now. And the people I work with, which are hundreds of people, are fixing that same uncertainty.[00:16:00] Annie Lee: Thank you, Ke. I'm gonna pass it to our panelists who are joining us virtually, including Bun. Can you start and then we'll pass it to Chris after. Bun: Hey everybody, thank you for having me. My name is Bun. I'm the co-director of Asian Prison Support Committee. I'm also, 1.5 generation former incarcerated and under, direct impact of immigration. Christopher Lapinig: Hi everyone. My name is Christopher Lapinig, my pronouns are he, him and Sha. I am a senior staff attorney on the Democracy and National Initiatives Team at Asian Law Caucus, which you may know is the country's first and oldest legal aid in civil rights organization, dedicated to serving, low income immigrant and underserved AAPI communities. In terms of my connection to the immigration system, I am, I also am a beneficiary of a birthright citizenship, and my parents are both immigrants from the Philippines. I was born in New York City. My [00:17:00] extended family spans both in the US and the Philippines. After graduating law school and clerking, my fellowship project was focused on providing litigation and immigration services to, survivors of labor trafficking in the Filipino community. While working at Asian Americans Advancing Justice Los Angeles, I also was engaged in, class action litigation, challenging the first Trump administration's practices, detaining immigrants in the Vietnamese and Cambodian communities. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Thank you Bun. Let's start off by talking about birthright citizenship since it's a big topic these days. On the very, very first day of Trump's administration, he issued a flurry of executive orders, including one that would alter birthright citizenship. But I wanna take us back to the beginning because why do we have this right? It is a very broad right? If you were born in the United States, you are an American citizen. Where does that come from? So I wanna pose the first question to Letty to talk about the [00:18:00] origins of birthright citizenship., Leti Volpp: Very happy to. So what's being fought about is a particular clause in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, which says, all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Okay, so that's the text. There's been a very long understanding of what this text means, which says that regardless of the immigration status of one's parents, all children born here are entitled to birthright citizenship with three narrow exceptions, which I will explain. So the Trump administration executive order, wants to exclude from birthright citizenship, the children of undocumented immigrants, and the children of people who are here on lawful temporary visas. So for example, somebody here on an [00:19:00] F1 student visa, somebody on a H one B worker visa, somebody here is a tourist, right? And basically they're saying we've been getting this clause wrong for over a hundred years. And I will explain to you why I think they're making this very dubious argument. Essentially when you think about where the 14th amendment came from, in the United States, in the Antebellum era, about 20% of people were enslaved and there were lots of debates about citizenship. Who should be a citizen? Who could be a citizen? And in 1857, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case called Dread Scott, where they said that no person who was black, whether free or enslaved, could ever be a citizen. The Civil War gets fought, they end slavery. And then the question arose, well, what does this mean for citizenship? Who's a citizen of the United States? And in 1866, Congress [00:20:00] enacts a law called the Civil Rights Act, which basically gave rights to people that were previously denied and said that everybody born in the United States is a birthright citizen. This gets repeated in the 14th Amendment with the very important interpretation of this clause in Norman's great-grandfather's case, the case of Wong Kim Ark. So this came before the Supreme Court in 1898. If you think about the timing of this, the federal government had basically abandoned the reconstruction project, which was the project of trying to newly enfranchised, African Americans in the United States. The Supreme Court had just issued the decision, Plessy versus Ferguson, which basically legitimated the idea that, we can have separate, but equal, as a doctrine of rights. So it was a nation that was newly hostile to the goals of the Reconstruction Congress, and so they had this case come before them, whereas we heard [00:21:00] from Norman, we have his great-grandfather born in San Francisco, Chinatown, traveling back and forth to China. His parents having actually left the United States. And this was basically presented as a test case to the Supreme Court. Where the government tried to argue, similar to what the Trump administration is arguing today, that birthright citizenship, that clause does not guarantee universal birthright citizenship saying that children of immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because their parents are also not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Supreme Court took over a year to decide the case. They knew that it would be controversial, and the majority of the court said, this provision is clear. It uses universal language. It's intended to apply to children of all immigrants. One of the things that's interesting about [00:22:00] what the, well I'll let Chris actually talk about what the Trump administration, is trying to do, but let me just say that in the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Supreme Court makes very clear there only three narrow exceptions to who is covered by the 14th Amendment. They're children of diplomats. So for example, if the Ambassador of Germany is in the United States, and, she has a daughter, like her daughter should not become a birthright citizen, right? This is why there's diplomatic immunity. Why, for example, in New York City, there are millions of dollars apparently owed to the city, in parking tickets by ambassadors who don't bother to pay them because they're not actually subject to the jurisdiction in the United States. Okay? Second category, children of Native Americans who are seen as having a sovereign relationship of their own, where it's like a nation within a nation, kind of dynamic, a country within a country. And there were detailed conversations in the congressional debate about the [00:23:00] 14th Amendment, about both of these categories of people. The third category, were children born to a hostile invading army. Okay? So one argument you may have heard people talk about is oh, I think of undocumented immigrants as an invading army. Okay? If you look at the Wong Kim Ark decision, it is very clear that what was intended, by this category of people were a context where the hostile invading army is actually in control of that jurisdiction, right? So that the United States government is not actually governing that space so that the people living in it don't have to be obedient, to the United States. They're obedient to this foreign power. Okay? So the thread between all three of these exceptions is about are you having to be obedient to the laws of the United States? So for example, if you're an undocumented immigrant, you are subject to being criminally prosecuted if you commit a crime, right? Or [00:24:00] you are potentially subjected to deportation, right? You have to obey the law of the United States, right? You are still subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Okay? But the Trump administration, as we're about to hear, is making different arguments. Annie Lee: Thank you so much, Leti for that historical context, which I think is so important because, so many different communities of color have contributed to the rights that we have today. And so what Leti is saying here is that birthright citizenship is a direct result of black liberation and fighting for freedom in the Civil War and making sure that they were then recognized as full citizens. And then reinforced, expanded, by Wong Kim Ark. And now we are all beneficiaries and the vast majority of Americans get our citizenship through birth. Okay? That is true for white people, black people. If you're born here, you get your ci. You don't have to do anything. You don't have to go to court. You don't have to say anything. You are a US citizen. And now as Leti referenced, there's this fringe legal theory that, thankfully we've got lawyers like [00:25:00] Chris who are fighting this. So Chris, you're on the ALC team, one of many lawsuits against the Trump administration regarding this unlawful executive order. Can you tell us a little bit about the litigation and the arguments, but I actually really want you to focus on what are the harms of this executive order? Sometimes I think particularly if you are a citizen, and I am one, sometimes we take what we have for granted and you don't even realize what citizenship means or confers. So Chris, can you talk about the harms if this executive order were to go through? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. As Professor Volpp sort of explained this executive order really is an assault on a fundamental constitutional right that has existed for more than a hundred years at this point, or, well, about 125 years. And if it is allowed to be implemented, the harms would really be devastating and far reach. So first, you know, children born in the us, the [00:26:00] parents without permanent status, as permissible said, would be rendered effectively stateless, in many cases. And these are of course, children, babies who have never known any other home, yet they would be denied the basic rights of citizen. And so the order targets a vast range of families, and not just undocument immigrants, but also those with work visas, student visas, humanitarian productions like TPS, asylum seekers, fleeing persecution, DACA recipients as well. And a lot of these communities have deep ties to Asian American community. To our history, and of course are, essential part, of our social fabric. In practical terms, children born without birthright citizenship would be denied access to healthcare through Medicaid, through denied access to snap nutritional assistance, even basic IDs like social security numbers, passports. And then as they grow older, they'd be barred from voting, serving on juries and even [00:27:00] working. And then later on in life, they might be, if they, are convicted of a crime and make them deportable, they could face deportation to countries that they never stepped, foot off basically. And so this basically is this executive order threatened at risk, creating exactly what the drafters of the 14th Amendment wanted to prevent the creation of a permanent underclass of people in the United States. It'll just get amplified over time. If you can imagine if there's one generation of people born without citizenship, there will be a second generation born and a third and fourth, and it'll just get amplified over time. And so it truly is just, hard to get your mind around exactly what the impact of this EO would be. Annie Lee: Thanks, Chris. And where are we in the litigation right now? Harvey referenced, a hearing at the Supreme Court on May 15th, but, tell us a little bit about the injunction and the arguments on the merits and when that can, when we can expect [00:28:00] that. Christopher Lapinig: Yeah, so there were a number of lawsuits filed immediately after, the administration issued its exec order on January 20th. Asian Law Caucus we filed with the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project. Literally we were the first lawsuit, literally hours after the executive order was issued. By early February, federal judges across the country had issued nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking implementation of the order. Our case is actually not a nationwide injunction. And so there're basically, I believe three cases that are going up to the Supreme Court. And, the Trump administration appealed to various circuit courts to try to undo these injunctions. But all circuit courts upheld the injunctive relief and and so now the Supreme Court is going to be hearing arguments on May 15th. And so it has not actually ruled on whether or not the executive order is constitutional, but it's going to. I mean, it remains to be seen exactly what they're going to decide but may [00:29:00] 15th is the next date is the big date on our calendar. Annie Lee: Yeah. So the Trump administration is arguing that these judges in a particular district, it's not fair if they get to say that the entire country, is barred from receiving this executive order. Is that procedurally correct. Judges, in order to consider whether to grants an injunction, they have a whole battery of factors that they look at, including one, which is like likelihood of winning on the merits. Because if something is unconstitutional, it's not really great to say, yeah, you can let this executive order go through. And then like later when the court cases finally worked their way, like a year later, pull back from that. And so that's, it's very frustrating to see this argument. And it's also unfair and would be very messy if the states that had republican Attorneys General who did not litigate, why would you allow the executive order to go forward in those red states and not in these blue state? It really, I would say federalism run terribly amuck. Swati Rayasam: [00:30:00] You are tuned in to APEX Express on 94.1 KPFA, 89.3 KPFB in Berkeley,. 88.1. KFCF in Fresno and online@kpfa.org. Annie Lee: But anyway, let's see back off from the actual case because I think what we're really talking about and what Chris has alluded to is, these cases about birthright citizenship, all the immigration policy is essentially determining who belongs here. Who belongs here. That's what immigration policy is at its heart. And we see that the right wing is weaponizing that question, who belongs here? And they are going after very vulnerable populations, undocumented people, people who are formerly incarcerated. So Bun if you can talk about how, is the formerly incarcerated community, like targeted immigrants, targeted for deportation? What is going on with this community that I feel like most people might not know about? Thank [00:31:00] you. Bun: Yes. For our folks that are incarcerated and former incarcerated, we are the easiest target for deportation because we are in custody and in California, CDCR colludes with ICE and on the day that we are to be paroled they're at the door, cuffing us up and taking us to detention. I'm glad to hear Harvey say, this is a time of fear for us and also opportunity. Right now, our whole community, the Southeast Asian community, mainly are very effective with immigration. In the past 25 years, mostly it was the Cambodian community that was being targeted and deported. At this moment, they are targeting, all of the Southeast Asian community, which historically was never deported because of the politics and agreements, of the Vietnamese community. And now the Laos community thats more concerning, that are being targeted for deportation. Trump have opened a new opportunity for us as a community to join [00:32:00] together and understand each other's story, and understand each other's fear. Understand where we're going about immigration. From birthright to crimmagration. A lot of times folks that are under crimmigration are often not spoken about because of our cultural shame, within our own family and also some of our community member felt safe because the political agreements. Now that everybody's in danger, we could stand together and understand each other's issue and support each other because now we could see that history has repeated itself. Again, we are the scapegoat. We are here together fighting the same issue in different circumstances, but the same issue. Annie Lee: But let me follow up. What are these, historical agreements that you're talking about that used to feel like used to at least shield the community that now aren't in place anymore? Bun: Yeah. After the Clinton administration, uh, passed the IRA [immigration reform act] a lot of Southeast Asian nations were asked to [00:33:00] take their nationals back. Even though we as 1.5 generation, which are the one that's mostly impacted by this, had never even stepped into the country. Most of us were born in a refugee camp or we're too young to even remember where they came from. Countries like Cambodian folded right away because they needed the financial aid and whatever, was offering them and immediately a three with a MOU that they will take their citizens since the early two thousands. Vietnam had a stronger agreement, which, they would agree to only take folks that immigrated here after 1995 and anybody before 1995, they would not take, and Laos have just said no until just a few months ago. Laos has said no from when the, uh, the act was passed in 1995, the IRRIRA. Mm-hmm. So the big change we have now is Vietnam had signed a new MOU saying that they will take folks after 1995 [00:34:00] in the first administration and more recently, something that we never thought, happened so fast, was Laos agreeing to take their citizen back. And then the bigger issue about our Laos community is, it's not just Laos folks. It's the Hmong folks, the Myan folks, folks, folks that are still in danger of being returned back 'cause in the Vietnam War, they colluded and supported the Americans in the Vietnam War and were exiled out and kicked out, and were hunted down because of that. So, at this moment, our folks are very in fear, especially our loud folks, not knowing what's gonna happen to 'em. Ke Lam: So for folks that don't know what IRR means it means, illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. It actually happened after the Oklahoma bombing, which was caused by a US citizen, a white US citizen. Yeah. But immigration law came out of it. That's what's crazy about it. Annie Lee: Can you tell us, how is APSC advocating to protect the community right now because you [00:35:00] are vulnerable? Ke Lam: So we had to censor a lot of our strategies. At first we used to use social media as a platform to show our work and then to support our community. But the government use that as a target to capture our people. So we stopped using social media. So we've been doing a lot of on the ground movement, such as trying to get local officials to do resolutions to push Governor Newsom to party more of our community members. The other thing is we hold pardon workshops, so try and get folks to get, either get a pardon or vacate their sentence. So commute their sentence to where it become misdemeanor is not deportable anymore. Support letters for our folks writing support letters to send to the governor and also to city official, to say, Hey, please help pardon our community. I think the other thing we are actually doing is solidarity work with other organizations, African American community as well as Latin communities because we've been siloed for so long and we've been banned against each other, where people kept saying like, they've taken all our job when I grew up. That's what they told us, right? [00:36:00] But we, reality that's not even true. It was just a wedge against our community. And then so it became the good versus bad narrative. So our advocacy is trying to change it it's called re-storying you know, so retelling our story from people that are impacted, not from people, not from the one percenters in our own community. Let's say like we're all good, do you, are there's parts of our community that like that's the bad people, right? But in reality, it affects us all. And so advocacy work is a lot of different, it comes in a lot of different shapes and forms, but definitely it comes from the community. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. You teed me up perfectly because there is such a good versus bad immigrant narrative that takes root and is really hard to fight against. And that's why this administration is targeting incarcerated and formerly incarcerated folks and another group that, are being targeted as people who are accused of crimes, including Venezuelan immigrants who are allegedly part of a gang. So, Leti how is the government deporting [00:37:00] people by simply accusing them of being a part of a gang? Like how is that even possible? Leti Volpp: Yeah, so one thing to think about is there is this thing called due process, right? It's guaranteed under the constitution to all persons. It's not just guaranteed to citizens. What does it mean? Procedural due process means there should be notice, there should be a hearing, there should be an impartial judge. You should have the opportunity to present evidence. You should have the opportunity to cross examinee. You should have the opportunity to provide witnesses. Right? And basically Trump and his advisors are in real time actively trying to completely eviscerate due process for everybody, right? So Trump recently said, I'm doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our country. But the courts don't seem to want me to do that. We cannot give everyone a trial because to do so would take without exaggeration, 200 years. And then Stephen Miller said the judicial process is for Americans. [00:38:00] Immediate deportation is for illegal aliens. Okay. Quote unquote. Right. So I think one thing to notice is, as we're hearing from all of our speakers are like the boxes, the categories into which people are put. And what's really disturbing is to witness how once somebody's put in the box of being quote unquote criminal gang banger terrorists, like the American public seems to be like, oh, okay you can do what you want to this person. There's a whole history of due process, which exists in the laws which was created. And all of these early cases actually involved Asian immigrants, right? And so first they were saying there's no due process. And then in a case called Yata versus Fisher, they said actually there is due process in deportation cases, there's regular immigration court proceedings, which accord with all of these measures of due process. There's also a procedure called expedited removal, [00:39:00] which Congress invented in the nineties where they wanted to come up with some kind of very quick way to summarily exclude people. It was motivated by a 60 Minutes episode where they showed people coming to Kennedy Airport, who didn't have any ID or visa or they had what seemed to be fake visas and they were let into the United States. And then they disappeared, right? According to the 60 Minutes episode. So basically Congress invented this procedure of, if you appear in the United States and you have no documents, or you have what an immigration inspector thinks are false documents, they can basically tell you, you can leave without this court hearing. And the only fail safe is what's called a credible fear screening. Where if you say, I want asylum, I fear persecution, I'm worried I might be tortured, then they're supposed to have the screening. And if you pass that screening, you get put in regular removal [00:40:00] proceedings. So before the Trump administration took office, these expedited removal proceedings were happening within a hundred miles of the border against people who could not show that they had been in the United States for more than two weeks. In one of his first executive orders. Trump extended this anywhere in the United States against people who cannot show they've been in the United States for more than two years. So people are recommending that people who potentially are in this situation to carry documentation, showing they've been physically in the United States for over two years. Trump is also using this Alien Enemies Act, which was basically a law Congress passed in 1798. It's only been used three times in US history it's a wartime law, right? So it was used in 1812, World War I, and World War II, and there's supposed to be a declared war between the United States and a foreign nation or government, or [00:41:00] there's an incursion threatened by a foreign nation or government, and the president makes public proclamation that all natives of this hostile nation, 14 and up shall be liable to be restrained and removed as alien enemies. Okay? So we're obviously not at war with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, right? They have not engaged in some kind of invasion or predatory incursion into the United States, but the Trump administration is claiming that they have and saying things like, oh, they're secretly a paramilitary wing of the Venezuelan government, even as the Venezuelan government is like cracking down on them. It's not a quasi sovereign, entity. There's no diplomatic relationships between Tren de Aragua and any other government. So these are legally and factually baseless arguments. Nonetheless, the administration has been basically taking people from Venezuela on the basis of tattoos. A tattoo of a crown of a [00:42:00] rose, right? Even when experts have said there's no relationship between what Tren de Aragua does and tattoos, right? And basically just kidnapping people and shipping them to the torture prison in El Salvador. As I'm sure you know of the case of Kimber Abrego Garcia, I'm sure we'll hear more about this from Christopher. There's a very small fraction of the persons that have been sent to this prison in El Salvador who actually have any criminal history. And I will say, even if they had a criminal history, nobody should be treated in this manner and sent to this prison, right? I mean, it's unbelievable that they've been sent to this prison allegedly indefinitely. They're paying $6 million a year to hold people there. And then the United States government is saying, oh, we don't have any power to facilitate or effectuate their return. And I think there's a struggle as to what to call this. It's not just deportation. This is like kidnapping. It's rendition. And there are people, there's like a particular person like who's completely [00:43:00] disappeared. Nobody knows if they're alive or dead. There are many people in that prison. People don't know if they're alive or dead. And I'm sure you've heard the stories of people who are gay asylum seekers, right? Who are now in this situation. There are also people that have been sent to Guantanamo, people were sent to Panama, right? And so I think there questions for us to think about like, what is this administration doing? How are they trying to do this in a spectacular fashion to instill fear? As we know as well, Trump had said oh, like I think it would be great when he met with Bukele if you build four more or five more facilities. I wanna house homegrown people in El Salvador, right? So this is all the more importance that we stick together, fight together, don't, as key was saying, don't let ourselves be split apart. Like we need a big mass coalition right? Of people working together on this. Annie Lee: So thank you leti and I think you're absolutely right. These Venezuelans were kidnapped [00:44:00] in the middle of the night. I mean, 2:00 AM 3:00 AM pulled out of bed, forced to sign documents they did not understand because these documents were only available in English and they speak Spanish, put on planes sent to El Salvador, a country they've never been to. The government didn't even have to prove anything. They did not have to prove anything, and they just snatch these people and now they're disappeared. We do have, for now the rule of law. And so Chris, there are judges saying that, Kimber Abrego Garcia has to be returned. And despite these court orders, the administration is not complying. So where does that leave us, Chris, in terms of rule of law and law in general? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. So, I'm gonna make a little personal. So I graduated from Yale Law School in 2013, and you might know some of my classmates. One of my classmates is actually now the Vice President of the United States. Oh man. [00:45:00] Bless you. As well as the second lady, Usha Vance. And a classmate of mine, a good friend Sophia Nelson, who's a trans and queer, was recently on, I believe CNN answering a question about, I believe JD Vice President Vance, was asked about the administration's sort of refusal to comply with usual orders. Yeah. As we're talking about here and JD had said something like, well, courts, judges can't tell the president what he can't do, and sophia, to their credit, said, you know, I took constitutional law with JD, and, we definitely read Marbury Versus Madison together, and that is the semial sort of Supreme Court case that established that the US Supreme Court is the ultimate decider, arbiter, interpreter, of the US Constitution. And so is basically saying, I know JD knows better. He's lying essentially, in all of his [00:46:00] communications about, judicial orders and whether or not a presidential administration has to comply , with these orders. So, to get to your question though, it is of course unprecedented. Really. It is essentially, you know, it's not, if we not already reached. The point of a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional crisis. I think it's become clear to many of us that, democracy in the US has operated in large part, and has relied on, on, on the good faith in norms, that people are operating good faith and that presidents will comply when, a federal judge issues an injunction or a decision. It kind of leaves us in an interesting, unprecedented situation. And it means that, lawyers, we will continue to litigate and, go to court, but we can't, lawyers will not save the country or, immigrants or communities. We need to think extensively and creatively. [00:47:00] About how to ensure, that the rule of law is preserved because, this administration is not, abiding by the longstanding norms of compliance and so we have to think about, protests, advocacy, legislatively. I don't have the answers necessarily, but we can't rely on the courts to fix these problems really. Annie Lee: Oof. That was very real, Chris. Thank you. But I will say that when there is resistance, and we've seen it from students who are speaking up and advocating for what they believe is right and just including Palestinian Liberation, that there is swift retaliation. And I think that's partly because they are scared of student speech and movement and organizing. But this is a question to all of you. So if not the courts and if the administration is being incredibly retaliatory, and discriminatory in terms of viewpoint discrimination, in people and what people are saying and they're scouring our social [00:48:00] media like, Ke warns, like what can everyday people do to fight back? That's for all of you. So I don't know who, which of you wants to take it first? Ke Lam: Oh man. I say look at history, right? Even while this new president, I wanna say like, this dude is a convicted felon, right? Don't be surprised at why we country is in the way it is, because this dude's a convicted felon, a bad business person, right? And only care about the billionaires, you know? So I'm not surprised how this country's ending up the way it is 'cause it is all about money. One way that we can stand up is definitely band together, marched on the streets. It's been effective. You look at the civil right movement, that's the greatest example. Now you don't have to look too far. We can actually, when we come together, they can't fight us all. Right? It is, and this, it's like you look at even nature in the cell. When things band together, the predators cannot attack everyone. Right? They probably could hit a few of us, but in the [00:49:00] long run, we could change the law. I think another thing is we, we, as the people can march to the courts and push the courts to do the job right, despite what's going on., We had judges that been arrested for doing the right thing, right? And so, no matter what, we have to stand strong just despite the pressure and just push back. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. Chris? Christopher Lapinig: What this administration is doing is you know, straight out of the fascist playbook. They're working to, as we all know, shock and awe everyone, and make Americans feel powerless. Make them feel like they have no control, make them feel overwhelmed. And so I think first and foremost, take care of yourself , in terms of your health, in terms of your physical health, your mental health. Do what you can to keep yourself safe and healthy and happy. And do the same for your community, for your loved ones, your friends and family. And then once you've done that do what you can in terms of your time, treasure, [00:50:00] talent to, to fight back. Everyone has different talents, different levels of time that they can afford. But recognize that this is a marathon and not necessarily a sprint because we need everyone, in this resistance that we can get. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Leti Volpp: There was a New Yorker article called, I think it was How to Be a Dissident which said, before recently many Americans, when you ask them about dissidents, they would think of far off countries. But they interviewed a lot of people who'd been dissidents in authoritarian regimes. And there were two, two things in that article that I'm taking with me among others. One of them said that in surveying like how authoritarian regimes are broken apart, like only 3.5% of the population has to oppose what's going on. The other thing was that you should find yourself a political home where you can return to frequently. It's almost like a religious or [00:51:00] spiritual practice where you go and you get refreshed and you're with like-minded people. And so I see this event, for example as doing that, and that we all need to find and nurture and foster spaces like this. Thank you. Annie Lee: Bun, do you have any parting words? Bun: Yeah. Like Ke said, to fight back, getting together, understanding issues and really uplifting, supporting, urging our own communities, to speak Up. You know, there's folks that can't speak out right now because of fear and danger, but there are folks here that can speak out and coming here learning all our situation really give the knowledge and the power to speak out for folks that can't speak down [unclear] right now. So I appreciate y'all Annie Lee: love that bun. I was gonna say the same thing. I feel like there is a special obligation for those of us who are citizens, citizens cannot be deported. Okay? Citizens have special rights based [00:52:00] on that status. And so there's a special responsibility on those of us who can speak, and not be afraid of retaliation from this government. I would also urge you all even though it's bleak at the federal level, we have state governments, we have local governments. You have a university here who is very powerful. And you have seen, we've seen that the uni that the administration backs down, sometimes when Harvard hit back, they back down and that means that there is a way to push the administration, but it does require you all putting pressure on your schools, on your local leaders, on your state leaders to fight back. My boss actually, Vin taught me this. You know, you think that politicians, lead, politicians do not lead politicians follow. Politicians follow and you all lead when you go out further, you give them cover to do the right thing. And so the farther you push and the more you speak out against this administration, the more you give them courage to do the right thing. And so you absolutely have to do that. A pardon [00:53:00] is critical. It is critical for people who are formerly incarcerated to avoid the immigration system and deportation. And so do that. Talk to your family, talk to your friends. My parents, despite being immigrants, they're kinda old school. Okay guys, they're like, you know, birthright citizenship does seem kind of like a loophole. Why should people like get like citizenship? I'm like, mom, we, I am a birthright citizen. Like, um, And I think for Asian Americans in particular, there is such a rich history of Asian American civil rights activism that we don't talk about enough, and maybe you do at Berkeley with ethnic studies and professors like Mike Chang. But, this is totally an interracial solidarity movement. We helped bring about Wong Kim Ark and there are beneficiaries of every shade of person. There's Yik wo, and I think about this all the time, which is another part of the 14th Amendment equal protection. Which black Americans fought for that in San Francisco. [00:54:00] Chinatown made real what? What does equal protection of the laws even mean? And that case was Seminole. You've got Lao versus Nichols. Another case coming out of San Francisco. Chinatown about English learner rights, the greatest beneficiary of Lao v Nichols, our Spanish speakers, they're Spanish speaking children in schools who get access to their education regardless of the language they speak. And so there are so many moments in Asian American history that we should be talking about, that we should educate our parents and our families about, because this is our moment. Now, this is another one of those times I wanna pass it to Mike and Harvey for questions, and I'm so excited to hear about them. Mike and Harvey: Wow, thank you so much. That's a amazing, panel and thank you for facilitating annie's wanna give it of a great value in terms of that spiritual home aspect. Norm how does your great grandfather's , experience in resistance, provide help for us [00:55:00] today? Norman Wong: Well, I think he was willing to do it. It only took one, if no one did it, this, we wouldn't be having the discussion because most of us would've never been here. And we need to come together on our common interests and put aside our differences because we all have differences. And if we tried, to have it our way for everything, we'll have it no way for us. We really need to, to bond and bind together and become strong as a people. And I don't mean as a racial or a national group. Mm-hmm. I mean, we're Americans now. We're Americans here think of us as joining with all Americans to make this country the way it's supposed to be. The way [00:56:00] we grew up, the one that we remember, this is not the America I grew up believing in. I'm glad he stood up. I'm proud that he did that. He did that. Him doing that gave me something that I've never had before. A validation of my own life. And so yes, I'm proud of him. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. It's not for me to own. Yeah. Wow. Really not. Thank you so much. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. And, and , talking about the good , that we have here and, the optimism that Harvey spoke about, the opportunity, even in a moment of substantial danger. Thank you so much everybody. Mike and Harvey: This was amazing and really appreciate sharing this space with you and, building community and solidarity. Ke Lam: But is there any, can I leave with a chant before we close off? Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. Thank you so much. So this is a chant that we use on the ground all the time. You guys probably heard it. When I said when we fight, you guys said we [00:57:00] win when we fight. We win when we fight, we win. When we fight, we win up. Swati Rayasam: Thanks so much for tuning into APEX Express. Please check out our website at kpfa.org/program/apexexpress to find out more about the show tonight and to find out how you can take direct action. We thank all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating, and sharing your visions with the world. Your voices are important. APEX Express is produced by Miko Lee, along with Jalena Keene-Lee, Ayame Keene-Lee, Preeti Mangala Shekar, Anuj Vaida, Cheryl Truong, Isabel Li, Ravi Grover, and me Swati Rayasam. Thank you so much to the team at KPFA for their support, and have a good [00:58:00] night.   The post APEX Express – 6.26.25-Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us appeared first on KPFA.

In 1892, Homer Plessy, a mixed race shoemaker in New Orleans, was arrested, convicted and fined $25 for taking a seat in a whites-only train car. This was not a random act. It was a carefully planned move by the Citizen's Committee, an activist group of Free People of Color, to fight a new law being enacted in Louisiana which threatened to re-impose segregation as the reforms made after the Civil War began to dissolve.The Citizen's Committee recruited Homer Plessy, a light skinned black man, to board a train and get arrested in order to push the case to the Supreme Court in hopes of a decision that would uphold equal rights. On May 18, 1896 the Supreme Court ruled on the Plessy v. Ferguson case establishing the "separate but equal" doctrine, upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation. The case sharply divided the nation racially and its defeat “gave teeth” to Jim Crow. The “separate but equal” decision not only applied to public transportation it spread into every aspect of life — schools, public toilets, public eating places. For some 58 years it was not recognized as unconstitutional until the Brown v. Public Education case was decided in 1954.Homer Plessy died in 1925 and his conviction for breaking the law remained on his record. In 2022, 125 years after his arrest, the Louisiana Board of Pardons voted unanimously to recommend that Homer Plessy be pardoned for his crime. The pardon was spearheaded by Keith Plessy, a descendent of Homer Plessy, and Phoebe Ferguson, the great-great granddaughter of John Howard Ferguson, the convicting judge in the case. The two have joined forces digging deep into this complex, little known story – setting the record straight, and working towards truth and reconciliation in the courtrooms, on the streets and in the schools of New Orleans and across the nation.The Plessy and Ferguson Foundation is responsible for erecting plaques throughout New Orleans commemorating African American historic sites and civil rights leaders.  

In the third installment of our series Living at Odds, How To!'s Courtney Martin examines what it's like being in conflict with your family history. She talks with ancestors of the famous names in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court decision that affirmed racial segregation in the U.S. as "separate but equal." Later, researcher Kellie Farrish explains how reparative genealogy can unlock family history that's been lost or erased—and bring together descendants of enslaved people and their enslavers into conversations about the past, present, and future. If you're enjoying Living at Odds, check out this How To! episode: How To 'Do the Work' of Racial Justice. Do you have a problem that needs solving? Send us a note at howto@slate.com or leave us a voicemail at 646-495-4001 and we might have you on the show. Subscribe for free on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen. This episode was produced by Maura Currie and Rosie Belson. Our technical director is Merritt Jacob, who composed original music for this series. Our supervising producer is Joel Meyer. Thank you to Dahlia Lithwick of Amicus and Sophie Summergrad for their help with this episode. Special thanks to The Hearthland Foundation, which provided funding for Living at Odds.

In the third installment of our series Living at Odds, How To!'s Courtney Martin examines what it's like being in conflict with your family history. She talks with ancestors of the famous names in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court decision that affirmed racial segregation in the U.S. as “separate but equal.” Later, researcher Kellie Farrish explains how reparative genealogy can unlock family history that's been lost or erased—and bring together descendants of enslaved people and their enslavers into conversations about the past, present, and future. If you're enjoying Living at Odds, check out this How To! episode: How To ‘Do the Work' of Racial Justice.  Do you have a problem that needs solving? Send us a note at howto@slate.com or leave us a voicemail at 646-495-4001 and we might have you on the show. Subscribe for free on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen. This episode was produced by Maura Currie and Rosie Belson. Our technical director is Merritt Jacob, who composed original music for this series. Our supervising producer is Joel Meyer. Thank you to Dahlia Lithwick of Amicus and Sophie Summergrad for their help with this episode. Special thanks to The Hearthland Foundation, which provided funding for Living at Odds. Want more How To!? Subscribe to Slate Plus to unlock exclusive bonus episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of the How To! show page. Or, visit slate.com/howtoplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the third installment of our series Living at Odds, How To!'s Courtney Martin examines what it's like being in conflict with your family history. She talks with ancestors of the famous names in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court decision that affirmed racial segregation in the U.S. as “separate but equal.” Later, researcher Kellie Farrish explains how reparative genealogy can unlock family history that's been lost or erased—and bring together descendants of enslaved people and their enslavers into conversations about the past, present, and future. If you're enjoying Living at Odds, check out this How To! episode: How To ‘Do the Work' of Racial Justice.  Do you have a problem that needs solving? Send us a note at howto@slate.com or leave us a voicemail at 646-495-4001 and we might have you on the show. Subscribe for free on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen. This episode was produced by Maura Currie and Rosie Belson. Our technical director is Merritt Jacob, who composed original music for this series. Our supervising producer is Joel Meyer. Thank you to Dahlia Lithwick of Amicus and Sophie Summergrad for their help with this episode. Special thanks to The Hearthland Foundation, which provided funding for Living at Odds. Want more How To!? Subscribe to Slate Plus to unlock exclusive bonus episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of the How To! show page. Or, visit slate.com/howtoplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the third installment of our series Living at Odds, How To!'s Courtney Martin examines what it's like being in conflict with your family history. She talks with ancestors of the famous names in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court decision that affirmed racial segregation in the U.S. as “separate but equal.” Later, researcher Kellie Farrish explains how reparative genealogy can unlock family history that's been lost or erased—and bring together descendants of enslaved people and their enslavers into conversations about the past, present, and future. If you're enjoying Living at Odds, check out this How To! episode: How To ‘Do the Work' of Racial Justice.  Do you have a problem that needs solving? Send us a note at howto@slate.com or leave us a voicemail at 646-495-4001 and we might have you on the show. Subscribe for free on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen. This episode was produced by Maura Currie and Rosie Belson. Our technical director is Merritt Jacob, who composed original music for this series. Our supervising producer is Joel Meyer. Thank you to Dahlia Lithwick of Amicus and Sophie Summergrad for their help with this episode. Special thanks to The Hearthland Foundation, which provided funding for Living at Odds. Want more How To!? Subscribe to Slate Plus to unlock exclusive bonus episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of the How To! show page. Or, visit slate.com/howtoplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) isn't holding back. CBC Chair Yvette Clarke and members of the caucus issued a fiery statement condemning President Trump's latest move to gut the Department of Education. A decision they say will devastate communities across the country, especially Black and Brown students. It comes just days after the firing of nearly half of the department's staff and an executive order aimed at tearing down the agency further. The caucus says this is a direct attack on students, civil rights, and decades of progress. They warned that dismantling will undercut protections for vulnerable students while crippling the government's ability to enforce laws that ban racial and gender discrimination. “In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that the ‘separate but equal' doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson was unconstitutional. In the decades since, the Department of Education has played a vital role in ensuring equal access to education and enforcing desegregation laws,” Clarke said.  The CBC warned that President Trump's executive actions "will make our schools more segregated and unequal." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Your two favorite JIT-heads are BACK as the Jeopardy! Invitational Tournament rides once again. We have a couple of stunning upsets, the return of many of our sweeties from years' past, and we get very distracted talking about the television show Reacher on this podcast about the television show Jeopardy!. Plus, Roger Craig returns in a big way with an ode to his legendary ToC moment and some news about his love life (which Jeopardy! fans also find a way to fume about, as is their wont), we get some very nice updates about our contestants' lives (Hannah Wilson owns a yarn shop! Troy is a dad now!), and we dive deep on a very unfortunate part of America's history, the Plessy v. Ferguson case. A reminder you can now donate to support the show and get our first-ever bonus episodes for your troubles! Head on over to patreon.com/jeopardypodcast and you'll get us talking about the first two weeks of this year's Celebrity Jeopardy!, access to our Discord, and more fun stuff. See you there! SOURCE: National Archives: "Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)"; Legal Information Institute: "Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)" A special thank you as always to The Jeopardy! Fan and J-Archive. This episode was produced by Producer Dan. Music by Nate Heller. Art by Max Wittert.

This Morning's Baking Ingredients Black in the News- "Racism and Fascism" by Toni Morrison via In These Times Kwanzaa Recollection Black Predictions for 2025 Quincy Jones Music Video Interlude @sireu Plessy v Zuckerberg and the new separate but equal The Paul Robeson Negro of the Week: @sza Burning Question for the Roach Join the conversation Tuesday & Thursday, at 8 am-ish on Instagram Live, YouTube, and Facebook. Follow us on Instagram @WakeNBakeWithBeMo! Learn more about the host of Wake N Bake With BeMo on BeMoauthentic.com. The Wake N Bake With BeMo Podcast is proudly presented by the Bridge Podcast Network. For more information about the Washington Informer and The Bridge visit WIBridgeDC.comCheck Out Sir EU "E He He Hahaha" Music Video.This week's Jam of the Week is brought to us by Detroit Rivers' Black Boy JoyIf you are interested in being a sponsor for Wake N Bake with BeMo, visit our insights page and shoot us an email.

A Forgotten Migration: Black Southerners, Segregation Scholarships, and the Debt Owed to Public HBCUs (UNC Press, 2024) tells the little-known story of "segregation scholarships" awarded by states in the US South to Black students seeking graduate education in the pre-Brown v. Board of Education era. Under the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, decades earlier, southern states could provide graduate opportunities for African Americans by creating separate but equal graduate programs at tax-supported Black colleges or by admitting Black students to historically white institutions. Most did neither and instead paid to send Black students out of state for graduate education. Crystal R. Sanders examines Black graduate students who relocated to the North, Midwest, and West to continue their education with segregation scholarships, revealing the many challenges they faced along the way. Students that entered out-of-state programs endured long and tedious travel, financial hardship, racial discrimination, isolation, and homesickness. With the passage of Brown in 1954, segregation scholarships began to wane, but the integration of graduate programs at southern public universities was slow. In telling this story, Sanders demonstrates how white efforts to preserve segregation led to the underfunding of public Black colleges, furthering racial inequality in American higher education. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

J. Craig Williams believes empathy is an important quality to be a trial lawyer. It's served him in his profession, and it's a tool he has also been using as an author trying to get into the minds of people from past eras. In How Would You Decide? 10 Famous Trials That Changed History, Book One, Williams examines cases and trials from history through the lens of a modern trial lawyer. He uses the accounts of the historical proceedings to illustrate current principles of litigation and civil rights, and explains what each can tell us about the rule of law.  In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Williams tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles that empathy was key in trying to understand the people involved in events like the Salem Witch trials, and figuring out how injustices could be perpetrated. He realized there were parallels to be drawn between society in late-17th century Salem and American society today. The 10 trials featured in this first volume of How Would You Decide? are: The Trial of Jesus The Salem Witch Trials Boston Massacre Trial Civil War Tipping Point and Aftermath Trials (Dred Scott, John Brown, Plessy v. Ferguson) O.K. Corral Shootout Trial of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday The Black Sox Trial The Scopes “Monkey Trial” The Lindy Chamberlain Trial The McMartin Preschool Trial The O.J. Simpson Murder Trial The case that most readers bring up when speaking with Williams is the Boston Massacre trial. Williams, who grew up in New England, says he was surprised to find during his research that there was much he hadn't known about the case himself. Founding Father and future president John Adams was the attorney who successfully defended the British soldiers who fired into the Massachusetts crowd, an extremely risky professional and social decision. Williams and Rawles discuss Adams's representation and what it meant for the establishment of the rule of law in the United States. Listeners might best know Williams from his Lawyer2Lawyer podcast, which he launched in 2005, making him a pioneer in legal podcasting. Since Williams was already familiar with audio production, How Would You Decide? was a natural fit for multimedia. He launched a companion website, 10FamousTrials.com, making available more of the source material he relied on to write the book. He also partnered with Legal Talk Network to release a miniseries podcast, which is currently in production. In Dispute covers one of the 10 trials each episode, featuring commentary and reenactments drawn from trial transcripts and historical documents. In this episode, Williams and Rawles discuss his research process, how he selected which trials to feature, and what might make it into Book Two. They also get into the holiday spirit by talking about The Sled, a Christmas story Williams and his wife wrote for their grandchildren.

J. Craig Williams believes empathy is an important quality to be a trial lawyer. It's served him in his profession, and it's a tool he has also been using as an author trying to get into the minds of people from past eras. In How Would You Decide? 10 Famous Trials That Changed History, Book One, Williams examines cases and trials from history through the lens of a modern trial lawyer. He uses the accounts of the historical proceedings to illustrate current principles of litigation and civil rights, and explains what each can tell us about the rule of law.  In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Williams tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles that empathy was key in trying to understand the people involved in events like the Salem Witch trials, and figuring out how injustices could be perpetrated. He realized there were parallels to be drawn between society in late-17th century Salem and American society today. The 10 trials featured in this first volume of How Would You Decide? are: The Trial of Jesus The Salem Witch Trials Boston Massacre Trial Civil War Tipping Point and Aftermath Trials (Dred Scott, John Brown, Plessy v. Ferguson) O.K. Corral Shootout Trial of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday The Black Sox Trial The Scopes “Monkey Trial” The Lindy Chamberlain Trial The McMartin Preschool Trial The O.J. Simpson Murder Trial The case that most readers bring up when speaking with Williams is the Boston Massacre trial. Williams, who grew up in New England, says he was surprised to find during his research that there was much he hadn't known about the case himself. Founding Father and future president John Adams was the attorney who successfully defended the British soldiers who fired into the Massachusetts crowd, an extremely risky professional and social decision. Williams and Rawles discuss Adams's representation and what it meant for the establishment of the rule of law in the United States. Listeners might best know Williams from his Lawyer2Lawyer podcast, which he launched in 2005, making him a pioneer in legal podcasting. Since Williams was already familiar with audio production, How Would You Decide? was a natural fit for multimedia. He launched a companion website, 10FamousTrials.com, making available more of the source material he relied on to write the book. He also partnered with Legal Talk Network to release a miniseries podcast, which is currently in production. In Dispute covers one of the 10 trials each episode, featuring commentary and reenactments drawn from trial transcripts and historical documents. In this episode, Williams and Rawles discuss his research process, how he selected which trials to feature, and what might make it into Book Two. They also get into the holiday spirit by talking about The Sled, a Christmas story Williams and his wife wrote for their grandchildren. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

J. Craig Williams believes empathy is an important quality to be a trial lawyer. It's served him in his profession, and it's a tool he has also been using as an author trying to get into the minds of people from past eras. In How Would You Decide? 10 Famous Trials That Changed History, Book One, Williams examines cases and trials from history through the lens of a modern trial lawyer. He uses the accounts of the historical proceedings to illustrate current principles of litigation and civil rights, and explains what each can tell us about the rule of law.  In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Williams tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles that empathy was key in trying to understand the people involved in events like the Salem Witch trials, and figuring out how injustices could be perpetrated. He realized there were parallels to be drawn between society in late-17th century Salem and American society today. The 10 trials featured in this first volume of How Would You Decide? are: The Trial of Jesus The Salem Witch Trials Boston Massacre Trial Civil War Tipping Point and Aftermath Trials (Dred Scott, John Brown, Plessy v. Ferguson) O.K. Corral Shootout Trial of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday The Black Sox Trial The Scopes “Monkey Trial” The Lindy Chamberlain Trial The McMartin Preschool Trial The O.J. Simpson Murder Trial The case that most readers bring up when speaking with Williams is the Boston Massacre trial. Williams, who grew up in New England, says he was surprised to find during his research that there was much he hadn't known about the case himself. Founding Father and future president John Adams was the attorney who successfully defended the British soldiers who fired into the Massachusetts crowd, an extremely risky professional and social decision. Williams and Rawles discuss Adams's representation and what it meant for the establishment of the rule of law in the United States. Listeners might best know Williams from his Lawyer2Lawyer podcast, which he launched in 2005, making him a pioneer in legal podcasting. Since Williams was already familiar with audio production, How Would You Decide? was a natural fit for multimedia. He launched a companion website, 10FamousTrials.com, making available more of the source material he relied on to write the book. He also partnered with Legal Talk Network to release a miniseries podcast, which is currently in production. In Dispute covers one of the 10 trials each episode, featuring commentary and reenactments drawn from trial transcripts and historical documents. In this episode, Williams and Rawles discuss his research process, how he selected which trials to feature, and what might make it into Book Two. They also get into the holiday spirit by talking about The Sled, a Christmas story Williams and his wife wrote for their grandchildren.

This Day in Legal History: Gong Lum v. RiceOn November 21, 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Gong Lum v. Rice, a landmark case concerning racial segregation in public education. The case arose when Martha Lum, a nine-year-old Chinese American girl, was denied entry to a school for white children in Mississippi. Local authorities directed her to attend a school designated for Black students under the state's racially segregated education system. Her father, Gong Lum, challenged the decision, arguing that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The Supreme Court, however, ruled unanimously that Mississippi's actions were constitutional. It extended the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) to include Asian Americans, thereby reinforcing the legality of segregated schools. The Court maintained that states had the authority to classify students by race and assign them to separate schools, as long as the facilities were deemed equal. This decision effectively placed Chinese Americans and other non-White groups under the same discriminatory segregation laws applied to African Americans in the Jim Crow South.The ruling was a significant blow to the Lum family and a stark reminder of the pervasive racial hierarchies embedded in U.S. law at the time. It also illustrated how the "separate but equal" doctrine legitimized widespread exclusion and inequality, beyond Black and White racial dynamics. The precedent set by Gong Lum v. Rice remained unchallenged for decades, contributing to the entrenchment of racially segregated education across the United States.This decision underscored the systemic nature of racial discrimination in early 20th-century America. It wasn't until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 that the Supreme Court overruled the doctrine of "separate but equal," marking a pivotal shift toward dismantling segregation in public education. Gong Lum v. Rice remains a critical case in the history of American civil rights law, reflecting the broader struggles of minority groups against institutionalized racism.The latest round of year-end bonuses at major law firms reflects a cautious approach to associate compensation as firms prioritize protecting partner profits amid rising revenues. Milbank LLP initiated the bonus announcements, offering payments up to $140,000, including special bonuses introduced earlier in the year. At least five firms have matched Milbank's bonus structure, with others expected to follow. However, the stagnant bonus scale, unchanged since 2021, indicates a broader effort to manage costs while maintaining profitability.This year, firms are separating special bonuses from regular ones to avoid setting new precedents for higher compensation scales. Recruiters note that Milbank's early announcements help attract associate attention, a valuable branding strategy. The firm's financial success, with $1.5 billion in gross revenue and over $5.1 million in profits per equity partner last year, underscores its robust position, even as it faces some high-profile departures and lateral hires.Despite the cautious bonus adjustments, top law firms are thriving. A Wells Fargo survey revealed a 15% revenue increase and a 25% net income rise among the 50 largest firms, driven by higher demand, productivity, and billing rates. Still, associate productivity has only slightly improved from record lows, and firms are increasingly focusing on partner-level recruitment to sustain profitability. Traditional leaders like Cravath remain influential in finalizing bonus decisions, reinforcing long-standing industry customs.Big Law Hedges Associate Bonuses to Protect Partner ProfitsIndian billionaire Gautam Adani has been charged by U.S. prosecutors in a $265 million bribery scheme involving payments to Indian officials to secure power contracts and develop India's largest solar power project. The indictment, which includes securities fraud and conspiracy charges, also implicates Adani's nephew, Sagar Adani, and former Adani Green Energy CEO Vneet Jaain. The scheme allegedly defrauded American investors by concealing corruption in financial materials for bond offerings, including one that raised $750 million in 2021.The U.S. has issued arrest warrants for Gautam and Sagar Adani, intending to involve foreign authorities under an extradition treaty with India. Adani's conglomerate, already under scrutiny after a critical report by Hindenburg Research in 2023, saw its market value plunge by $20 billion following the indictment. Adani Green Energy canceled a $600 million bond sale, and shares of Adani-related firms dropped sharply.Indian regulators, including SEBI, have yet to comment on the U.S. charges, while opposition parties in India demand further investigations into the group. The Adani Group denies the allegations and plans to challenge the charges, but the scandal has intensified scrutiny over the company's operations and political connections.Indian tycoon Gautam Adani charged in US over $265 million bribery scheme | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed sweeping measures to address what it calls Google's illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising. Prosecutors argue that Google must divest its Chrome browser, share search data with competitors, and potentially sell its Android operating system to restore competition. The proposals aim to dismantle Google's dominant market position, as it processes 90% of U.S. searches.Other recommendations include banning Google from exclusive agreements with device makers like Apple, ending its preference for its search engine on Chrome and Android, and restricting acquisitions of search rivals or AI products. A five-member technical committee would oversee compliance for up to a decade, with powers to review documents, interview staff, and inspect software code.Chrome and Android are central to Google's business, as they collect user data crucial for targeted advertising. Prosecutors claim these platforms unfairly entrench Google's dominance by limiting rivals' market access. The DOJ also proposes mandatory licensing of search results to competitors at low cost and unrestricted data-sharing unless privacy laws prevent it. Google opposes the measures, calling them government overreach that would harm consumers and innovation. A trial is scheduled for April 2025, during which Google can present alternative proposals. These measures could reshape the digital landscape and are being closely watched by competitors like DuckDuckGo, which supports the DOJ's initiatives.Google must divest Chrome to restore competition in online search, DOJ says | ReutersThe U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has finalized a rule to regulate major technology firms like Apple Inc. that offer digital wallets and payment apps. Companies processing more than 50 million U.S.-dollar transactions annually will now face oversight similar to banks. This rule significantly raises the initial threshold of 5 million transactions proposed last year. It empowers the CFPB to supervise these firms regularly, not just when legal violations occur, as digital payments become increasingly essential to consumers.CFPB Director Rohit Chopra emphasized that digital payments are now a necessity, warranting heightened oversight. The shift comes as digital wallet usage in the U.S. surged to 62% in 2023, up from 47% the previous year, with Apple Pay maintaining dominance in the sector.The new regulatory environment follows global scrutiny of tech firms. Apple recently agreed with European regulators to open its near-field communication technology to competitors, a notable change in its approach. Other firms, like PayPal, are also cooperating with the CFPB on compliance questions regarding digital wallet features.The rule, set to take effect 30 days after its publication, introduces a significant shift in how large tech firms are governed. However, it remains an open question how these regulations will fare under the Trump administration, given the potential for policy shifts in the new political climate.Apple Pay, Other Tech Firms Come Under CFPB Regulatory Oversight This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Supreme Court didn't JUST rule that presidents have absolute presidential immunity. They actually ruled that presidents have absolute presidential immunity PLUS.Constitutional scholars left, right, and center are excoriating the new Supreme Court opinion that 1. contradicts the expressed language of our constitution, 2. actually repeals portions of our constitution, and, in essence, 3. declares the constitution is unconstitutional. Yes, that is illogical, but that is precisely what Chief Justice Roberts and the radical right-wing block of justices did in Trump vs. United States.This ruling gives Donald Trump a blueprint to convert America into a banana republic. And Donald Trump is exactly the kind of day-one-dictator who will do it. This ruling not only excuses lawless conduct by a corrupt president, it endorses such conduct, and thereby encourages future presidents to act lawlessly and to direct others to to the same then simply exercise his core constitutional power of the presidential pardon to pardon all of his criminal associates who carry out his unlawful commands. This is not just absolute presidential power. It is absolute presidential power PLUS. And like Dred Scott, Korematsu, and Plessy vs. Ferguson, this opinion must not stand.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Supreme Court didn't JUST rule that presidents have absolute presidential immunity. They actually ruled that presidents have absolute presidential immunity PLUS.Constitutional scholars left, right, and center are excoriating the new Supreme Court opinion that 1. contradicts the expressed language of our constitution, 2. actually repeals portions of our constitution, and, in essence, 3. declares the constitution is unconstitutional. Yes, that is illogical, but that is precisely what Chief Justice Roberts and the radical right-wing block of justices did in Trump vs. United States.This ruling gives Donald Trump a blueprint to convert America into a banana republic. And Donald Trump is exactly the kind of day-one-dictator who will do it. This ruling not only excuses lawless conduct by a corrupt president, it endorses such conduct, and thereby encourages future presidents to act lawlessly and to direct others to to the same then simply exercise his core constitutional power of the presidential pardon to pardon all of his criminal associates who carry out his unlawful commands. This is not just absolute presidential power. It is absolute presidential power PLUS. And like Dred Scott, Korematsu, and Plessy vs. Ferguson, this opinion must not stand.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

By granting Donald Trump immunity for the crimes he committed against the American people; the radical, right-wing block of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, actually encourages presidents to commit crimes.Eventually, this Supreme Court opinion will go the way of Dred Scott vs. Sanford, and Plessy vs. Ferguson - it will be reversed and will go down in American history as an opinion that sought to destroy honest and honorable governing, and accountability for crimes a president commits against the American people.But given that the opinion is in effect at the moment, President Joe Biden needs to exercise the powers the Supreme Court has given him to hold treasonous actors accountable and protect American democracy from the likes of Donald Trump and those who support his efforts to destroy American democracy.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Supreme Court just can't quit Donald Trump. Interestingly, the Supreme Court does nothing to help Trump's criminal flunkies: Steve Bannon just reported to prison; Peter Navarro is serving a prison term; and Rudy Giuliani was just disbarred in New York and is facing multiple criminal prosecutions. Yet the Supreme Court just bestowed absolute presidential immunity on presidents, unleashing them to commit crimes against the American people with impunity and immunity. In a very real sense, the Court gave Trump a blueprint for totalitarianism.Glenn reviews the democracy-ending implications of this new Supreme Court ruling. Like Dread Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson, this new Supreme Court ruling must not be allowed to stand.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week on The Learning Curve co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and DFER’s Alisha Searcy interview POLITICO’s Peter Canellos, biographer of Justice John Marshall Harlan. Mr. Canellos delves into Harlan’s upbringing in a prominent slaveholding family, his Civil War service in the Union Army, and his rapid rise in Kentucky politics as a Republican. He highlights John Harlan's mixed-race half-brother Robert Harlan and key legal precedents like the notorious Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which influenced Harlan’s […]

Lochner v New York, a 1905 Supreme Court case about working hours and contracts, is considered anti-canon. Right up there with Dred Scott, Plessy and Korematsu. The question is, how did it get there? Why do people think it's so bad? And what does this decision, and the era that followed, say about politics and the Supreme Court?Our guides to this case and what came after are Rebecca Brown, Rader Family Trustee Chair in Law at USC Gould School of Law and Matthew Lindsay, Associate Professor of Law at University of Baltimore School of Law. CLICK HERE: Visit our website to donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more!