Podcasts about presidential immunity

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing Texas to use its gerrymandered congressional map in the 2026 midterms, handing a redistricting win to Republicans. Mary and Andrew begin here, pointing to this decision as an example of the conservative majority's disregard for opinions made by lower courts. Then, they turn to a Virginia grand jury's refusal to re-indict Letitia James after a federal judge dismissed the initial criminal case against her — showing, in the hosts' estimation, how weak the reasoning must be for this indictment to be declined. This, before turning to the declarations filed by Kristi Noem, among others, in Judge Boasberg's contempt case, and highlighting Judge Beryl Howell's scathing decision barring immigration arrests without a warrant in DC. And before they wrap, Andrew and Mary give a quick nod to the Pentagon's IG report on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's use of the Signal chat app.Further reading:HERE is Judge Beryl Howell's 88-page decision against DHS over warrantless immigration arrests.HERE is the Pentagon's IG report on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's use of the ‘Signal' chat app to communicate war plans. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Listeners, in courtrooms across America, Donald Trump's legal saga is still unfolding, and the past few days have shown how tightly his political future is tied to these trials.In New York, the hush money criminal case that led to Donald Trump's felony convictions earlier this year continues to shape what happens next. After a jury in Manhattan found him guilty of falsifying business records connected to payments to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, the focus has shifted from the drama of trial testimony to the grind of appeals and sentencing strategy. Major outlets like the New York Times and CNN have reported that Trump's lawyers are pressing arguments that the case was politically motivated and that key testimony from Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer, should never have been trusted. At the same time, New York prosecutors under District Attorney Alvin Bragg are emphasizing to the courts that a jury heard the evidence and spoke clearly.In Georgia, the election interference case brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis remains a slow burn rather than a daily spectacle. According to reporting from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Associated Press, recent hearings have focused less on the explosive racketeering charges and more on pretrial motions: what evidence can come in, which co-defendants will be tried alongside Trump, and how quickly a trial could realistically happen in the thick of a presidential election cycle. Judges in Georgia have been acutely aware, as those outlets note, that every scheduling decision may be read as a political act, even though it is rooted in criminal procedure and logistics.On the federal side, two major criminal cases still hang over Donald Trump: the classified documents case in Florida and the 2020 election interference case in Washington, D.C. The Washington Post and NBC News report that the election interference case, brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, has been slowed by endless pretrial fights over presidential immunity, privileged communications, and the scope of what jurors would be allowed to hear about January 6. In Florida, in the classified documents case before Judge Aileen Cannon, recent hearings reported by Politico and CBS News have focused on how to handle highly sensitive national security material at trial, with Trump's team arguing for broad access and delays, while prosecutors push to keep the schedule moving.Even the Supreme Court has been pulled into the Trump legal orbit again. CBS News and SCOTUSblog have been covering arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case testing whether President Trump can fire Federal Trade Commission commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without the usual “for cause” protections that shield many independent agency officials. In oral arguments, several conservative justices suggested that limiting a president's power to remove such officials may violate the Constitution's separation of powers, while the liberal justices warned that giving Trump nearly unchecked removal power could destabilize agencies far beyond the FTC. A ruling expected in the coming months could reshape how future presidents, not just Trump, control independent regulators.Taken together, these court battles show a former president and current political force fighting on every legal front: criminal, civil, state, federal, and even constitutional at the Supreme Court. Every hearing date, every ruling on evidence, every appellate brief now doubles as both a legal move and a political message, with Trump portraying himself as a target of what he calls a weaponized justice system, and prosecutors and judges insisting they are simply applying long-standing law to an unusually powerful defendant.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The week in Donald Trump's legal world has felt less like a series of isolated hearings and more like one long, rolling courtroom drama, shifting from New York to Washington and back again, with judges, jurors, and prosecutors all pulling on different threads of the same story.In New York, the civil fraud case that once delivered that massive judgment against Donald Trump and the Trump Organization is now in its post-trial grind, but it is far from over. New York Attorney General Letitia James is still pressing to enforce the judgment, while Trump's lawyers are working every angle on appeal, arguing that Judge Arthur Engoron overreached when he found that Trump, his adult sons, and senior executives systematically inflated the value of properties like Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago to secure better loans and insurance. Outlets like the New York Times and the Associated Press have noted that the appeal filings in the past few days sharpened their focus on what they call “political bias” by New York state officials, framing the entire case as an effort to drive Trump out of business in his home state. At the same time, the state has been quietly filing its own responses to keep pressure on Trump's assets, setting up a long appellate fight.Down in federal court in Washington, the special counsel election interference case remains technically on track but practically bogged down in pretrial maneuvering. According to recent reporting by CNN and Politico, Trump's team has been leaning heavily on arguments of presidential immunity and First Amendment protection, trying to narrow what Special Counsel Jack Smith can present to a future jury about Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the fake electors plan, and the chaos leading up to January 6 at the United States Capitol. Judges on the D.C. Circuit have been working through dense briefing on whether a former president can ever be criminally prosecuted for “official acts,” and in the last few days, legal analysts at Lawfare and Just Security have been dissecting how those arguments might ripple into other Trump cases.At the same time, the classified documents prosecution in Florida has been crawling forward under Judge Aileen Cannon. NBC News and the Washington Post report that the most recent hearings have focused on what evidence can be excluded because of alleged mishandling by the FBI during the search at Mar-a-Lago, and how to protect national security secrets while still giving Trump's team access to the material they say they need to defend him. Prosecutors have kept pressing the core claim: that Trump knowingly kept highly sensitive documents at his private club and then obstructed efforts by the National Archives and the Department of Justice to get them back. Trump's lawyers, in turn, have tried to reframe the case as a dispute over records that should have been handled under the Presidential Records Act rather than as a crime scene.Meanwhile, in Georgia, the state election interference case in Fulton County remains a looming threat even as no trial has begun. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, defense lawyers for Trump and several co-defendants have spent these last days filing motions to limit the racketeering charges brought by District Attorney Fani Willis, arguing that normal political advocacy is being criminalized. The pressure there is less about a trial date and more about whether the sweeping racketeering structure survives early challenges.Stack all of this together, and what you have over these past few days is a picture of Donald Trump not in a single courtroom showdown, but in a legal siege on multiple fronts, each case feeding into the political and personal narrative he presents to his supporters as he continues to seek power again.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

There has been a lot happening around Donald Trump's time in court, so let's jump straight into the action from the listener's point of view, with an eye on the last several days and the broader arc those days fit into.Picture walking into a courthouse where a former president, now again President Donald Trump, is not just a political figure but a criminal and civil defendant in multiple jurisdictions. In New York, listeners have watched Trump fight civil claims over the way his business valued properties and represented its finances, a saga that has turned routine numbers on balance sheets into front-page drama. Judges there have heard testimony about Trump Organization practices, property valuations, and internal emails, all while Trump alternates between sitting stone-faced in court and stepping outside to attack prosecutors and judges in front of cameras. In those hallways, reporters cluster around, noting every word as Trump calls the cases witch hunts and insists that the real verdict will come from voters, not juries.At the same time, federal criminal cases have loomed in the background, especially those tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 election and Trump's conduct around January 6 at the United States Capitol. Listeners have heard references to sprawling indictments that describe fake electors, pressure campaigns on state officials, and efforts to use the machinery of government to cling to power. In those cases, the legal fight in recent days has often been less about witnesses on the stand and more about high‑stakes motions: Trump's lawyers arguing that a president should enjoy broad immunity for acts in office, and prosecutors countering that no one, not even a president, is above the law. Judges have been pressed to decide whether Trump's status as a current president changes how quickly these trials should move or how far immunity should stretch over his past conduct.Layered on top of that are cases over classified documents found at Mar‑a‑Lago, where federal prosecutors have claimed Trump mishandled national security secrets and obstructed efforts to retrieve them. In hearings linked to that prosecution, lawyers have clashed over how sensitive evidence is handled, whether the government is overreaching, and whether the case can realistically be brought to trial while Secret Service details, political schedules, and national security clearances all hover over every practical decision. Listeners are reminded again and again that the same man at the defense table is commanding federal agencies from the Oval Office.Recent days have also kept attention on the political and legal collision course these trials represent. Court calendars have brushed up against campaign rallies and official events, raising the question of whether judges should delay proceedings to avoid interfering with a sitting president's duties, or whether delay would itself be a kind of special treatment no other defendant would receive. Prosecutors have argued that justice delayed is justice denied, while Trump's team has claimed that rushing to trial would amount to election interference by other means. Outside the courthouses, supporters shout that the system is rigged, while critics insist that accountability is finally catching up with decades of behavior.All of this has turned the courts into a kind of second campaign trail, one paved with subpoenas instead of yard signs. Listeners have watched as familiar names—prosecutors, former aides, state attorneys general, and federal judges—become recurring characters in an unfolding story about power, responsibility, and consequence. Every filing, every ruling, and every brief hearing becomes another data point in the question that hangs over all of this: can the United States legal system put a sitting president to the test in the same way it would any other citizen.Thanks for tuning in and staying with this unfolding story of Donald Trump's trials in America's courts. Come back next week for more as these cases develop and new chapters are written in real time. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

“What was said, when was it said, and who was observing the operation as it was ongoing?” These questions are top of mind this week for Todd Huntley, Director of Georgetown's National Security Law Program and a former active-duty Judge Advocate for the Navy. He joins Mary and Andrew to lend his unique expertise to what the Washington Post reported as a “kill them all” order from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. This order reportedly led to a second strike, killing two remaining survivors and, in Huntley's view, violating the laws of naval warfare and international law, which “give a protected status to shipwrecked personnel.” Mary and Andrew then take a moment to reflect on the tragic shooting of two National Guard members last week and an appellate court ruling affirming a lower court finding that Alina Habba's appointment as acting US Attorney in New Jersey was unlawful.Further reading: Todd Huntley's interview in The New Yorker: The Legal Consequences of Pete Hegseth's “Kill Them All” Order. A former military judge on the Trump Administration's contradictory—and likely unlawful—justifications for its Caribbean bombing campaign.Here is the original reporting on the 2nd strike by the Washington Post: Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all.  Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Amid an abundance of legal issues Mary and Andrew are keeping tabs on, this episode begins with the dismissal of the cases against both James Comey and Letitia James over the unlawful appointment of interim U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan. The co-hosts work through the judge's decision before reviewing some of the procedural missteps made by Halligan in the Comey case. Next comes the news that the Pentagon is investigating Senator Mark Kelly over a video he and other lawmakers made assuring military personnel they are not obligated to follow illegal orders. As Andrew notes, “Isn't that the law? And isn't that what a president and the head of the Department of Defense want?” And last up, Andrew and Mary touch on a double standard over redistricting efforts, as the Justice Department sues California under a pretense of racial gerrymandering, while notably refraining from leveling similar challenges to Texas' redistricting plans. Further reading/watching:Here is the Washington Post piece Mary and Andrew referred to: White House blew past legal concerns in deadly strikes on drug boats.WATCH: Here is the video from Sen. Kelly and others: We want to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community... Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This past weekend — after months of deflection from the Trump administration — came a sudden tone shift from President Trump himself, who urged House Republicans to support a measure compelling the Justice Department to release the Epstein files. Mary and Andrew begin here, noting that Trump could just as easily release the files himself without a vote. Next, they review an order to release all grand jury material in James Comey's case, after the judge blasted the Justice Department for potential misconduct. And before wrapping up, Mary and Andrew head to the latest in the JGG case and Judge Boasberg's contempt proceeding, after a district court ruled to allow the case before him to proceed.  Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The past week has felt like history unfolding in real time as the legal battles surrounding Donald Trump reached new levels of intensity. On November 5, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a consolidated case officially captioned Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. versus V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al. The energy outside the Court that morning was electric—reporters crammed along the steps, protesters mixing with supporters, and everywhere the sense that the stakes were nothing short of monumental for American law and politics.Inside, Solicitor General D. John Sauer represented the federal government, with the private parties represented by Neal Katyal, and state officials argued by Oregon's Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman. The arguments themselves were brisk and sharp, with justices pressing all sides on technical legal points—but everyone knew that far more was at issue than the particularities of statutory interpretation or regulatory procedure. The docket has been moving at lightning speed since September when the writ of certiorari was granted and motions to expedite were quickly approved. The records from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Court of International Trade were all submitted electronically, ensuring nothing would delay decision-making heading into the final stretch of the year.Meanwhile, Trump's legal calendar continues to look like a maze of overlapping cases and critical deadlines, according to the tracker maintained by Just Security. The Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, which has already seen Judge Cannon dismiss the superseding indictment on the controversial ground of unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith, is now in the hands of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefs from both sides keep piling up, with government replies due in mid-November—not a moment for rest if you are in Trump's legal team or the Justice Department.Crucially, the Supreme Court has set aside time in the first week of November for argument on these cases, signaling just how urgent and consequential the Court considers them. This scheduling urgency means that Trump's fate in several high-profile matters could reverberate throughout the nation well before the next round of campaign events truly ramps up.In the background, courtroom drama continues elsewhere—New York and Georgia, among other jurisdictions, stay active with election interference and fraud cases. Trump's attorneys juggle appeals, motions for dismissal based on presidential immunity, and arguments about federal and state powers. Each proceeding brings new headlines and fuels around-the-clock coverage on every major network.As the Supreme Court weighs its decision and other appellate courts deliberate, the only certainty is more twists and more turbulence ahead. The legal world and political observers alike are bracing for impact as we wait for rulings that could define not just Donald Trump's future, but the shape of presidential powers and accountability for years to come.Thanks for tuning in. Be sure to come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

“Leave aside the cruelty of not giving these funds out,” Andrew says, reflecting on the SNAP benefits case now before the Supreme Court. “What does it say that we're not prioritizing hunger as an issue?” Then, Mary brings listeners up to speed on the dizzying chain of events since Friday and where the SNAP case stands, even as the Senate and House appear to be moving towards reopening the government. And in honoring Veterans Day, Mary and Andrew dig into several issues affecting service members, including the latest filing in Trump v Illinois, and how to think about the term "regular forces", plus Judge Immergut's final order prohibiting the National Guard deployment in Portland. And finally, Just Security's co-editor in chief, Tess Bridgeman, joins to analyze what the law says— and doesn't say-- about blowing up boats in international waters without a clear justification or congressional authorization.Further reading: Judge Wolf's piece in The Atlantic: Why I Am Resigning. A federal judge explains his reasoning for leaving the bench.Just Security's collection of information around the boat strikes: Collection: U.S. Lethal Strikes on Suspected Drug TraffickersWant to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Supreme Court's landmark decision granting presidential immunity for official acts has reverberated in unprecedented ways since its issuance. One consequence, as Mary and Andrew note in their recent New York Times essay, is that rather than “preventing the weaponization of prosecutions, the court has unleashed it.” The co-hosts begin here, offering insights into the ongoing prosecutions of James Comey, Letitia James and the suspension of two assistant U.S. attorneys in DC. Next, they move to some updates on the National Guard domestic deployments, as several cases wind their way through the courts. And rounding out this episode, Mary and Andrew turn to the litigation around SNAP benefits and preview Wednesday's tariff argument before the Supreme Court.Further Reading:Here is Mary and Andrews' New York Times Essay: How the Supreme Court Paved the Way for Revenge ProsecutionsAnd as Mary and Andrew discussed, note the difference between the government's first Sentencing Memorandum in the Taylor Franklin Taranto case compared with the second Sentencing Memo.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Barely a day seems to pass without Donald Trump's name in the headlines, and the courtroom drama over the past week has been nothing short of remarkable. Right now, as we find ourselves on October 31, 2025, the former president is juggling a trio of active criminal cases, not to mention the aftermath of his high-profile conviction in New York back in May 2024. The Brennan Center for Justice reports that these are not just legal battles; they've become central to the country's political discourse and national mood.Let's get right to it—the New York criminal case, where Trump was convicted of multiple felonies related to falsification of business records, continues to cast a long shadow. To this day, his legal team is deep into appeals, but that conviction sent shockwaves through both legal circles and politics, signaling that no one, not even a former president, sits above the law.But that's only the tip of the iceberg. Down in Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is still aggressively pursuing Trump and his associates for their alleged roles in attempting to overturn the state's 2020 election results. Courtrooms have become stages for heated arguments over evidence, witness lists, and the ever-present question of whether a trial might bleed dangerously close to the next presidential election cycle.Meanwhile, the federal courts are staying busy. Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecution concerning Trump's role in the January 6 Capitol events is ongoing. Testimony from former aides and Capitol security experts dominated recent proceedings. Legal analysts point out that the intersection of free speech, presidential power, and criminal responsibility is right at the heart of these hearings.Lawfare Media has been closely tracking nearly 300 active cases that challenge Trump administration actions, from immigration enforcement in sanctuary cities—such as the recent denied injunction in City of Chelsea v. President Trump, decided earlier this month—to ongoing litigation over executive orders, national security issues, and challenges brought all the way to the Supreme Court. Some cases, like those invoking the Alien Enemies Act, are still pending, with states and civil rights groups arguing over the scope of presidential authority during perceived national emergencies.Amid all this legal maneuvering, names like Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington D.C., defense attorney Todd Blanche, and prosecutors from both state and federal offices are appearing on airwaves and in headlines almost daily. Court dates, delays, and rulings all slip easily from legal language into everyday conversation, as Americans wait to see whether any outcome will deliver closure or only add to the division.For many, the thicket of cases—spanning the Supreme Court dockets, federal courts, and local criminal trials—highlights a fundamental moment for the country's legal system. Are the courts delivering justice, or is politics warping the process? That's the debate echoing across living rooms, campaign rallies, and, of course, social media.Thanks for tuning in to this week's whirlwind through the Trump trials. Be sure to come back next week for more developments and insights. This has been a Quiet Please production—if you want more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

SEASON 4 EPISODE 29: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (2:30) SPECIAL COMMENT: The correct question has been lying there, invisible in the forest, for the trees. It was Mary Trump who finally saw it – and asked it: “Why the hell (do) they KEEP giving him cognitive tests?” That’s IT - isn’t it? THAT'S the question. None of the details, none of the giraffes versus elephants, none of his stupid boastful insults about it, none of the small stuff. It's the big picture. Why the hell DO they keep giving him cognitive tests? And I’ll add a corollary to Mary Trump's burst of simple genius: Why the hell do they KEEP giving him cognitive tests almost exactly six months apart? Friday October 10, 2015 at Walter Reed, which he boasted about on board Air Force One this week. And Friday April 11, 2015, which he had also boasted about on board Air Force One last spring. Those dates are almost six months apart. 182 days. If they’re not giving him pre-scheduled cognitive tests every six months that’s a helluva coincidence. Why the hell do they keep giving him cognitive tests? And I’ll add a second corollary to Mary Trump’s question: why did they give him an MRI? Is it the first MRI to accompany a cognitive test? What was it an MRI of? I mean it may be irrelevant (I once had an MRI to see how my sinuses were draining correctly). You really CAN get MRIs for almost trivial stuff. But you don’t get cognitive tests for trivial stuff. Why the hell do they keep giving him cognitive tests? PLUS: Trump says the Constitution prohibits him from running for president again. Again, mid-flight, after boasting about things that aren't real, he said: “If you read it it’s pretty clear. I’m not allowed to run." So that’s that, huh? That’s what all the experts say. The same experts who said there was no Presidential Immunity. So – what happens next? He just changes his mind? Or decides this term is eight years not four? Or he just cancels the 2028 election? This isn't bluster and it isn't trolling. They might get away with it and they might not, but there are plans. And the more we're convinced they can never pull them off, the more likely we are to see another "presidential immunity" ruling from The Supreme Court. Or another Aileen Cannon. Or another January 6. B-Block (24:00) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Steve Bannon wants to expel Zohran Mamdani from this country. Hell, we should expel Bannon. If we can find a truck that can carry that much blubber. There's a media writer named Rich Greenfield who has extrapolated from the possibility that Comcast might buy CNN and merge it with MSNBC and he has the exact right person to run it: Charlie Kirk's widow (a bible student). And as ludicrous as that sounds, the guy now running CNN wasn't even home from his visit to the White House to try to butter up Trump and the Trumpists when one of the Trumpists mocked him on twitter for visiting. Today, appeasers not only lose, they get flamed on social media. C-Block (36:00) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: With the Dodgers in the World Series again it is time to hurry back to the greatest moment in their Los Angeles history: Kirk Gibson's pinch-hit homer even though three-quarters of his body was barely movable, to win Game One of the 1988 World Series and set them on the path to one of the greatest upsets in baseball history, over the vaunted Oakland A's. Gibson's homer was a surprise to everybody. Except me. Because I predicted it just before the first pitch of that final inning began. And there's a WITNESS.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When the National Guard shows up in American cities, it's usually after hurricanes, fires, or floods, not political fights. But recent federal deployments have changed the landscape and raised pressing questions about how far a president's domestic military powers can go. In this episode of Stanford Legal, host Pam Karlan talks with Professor Bernadette Meyler about the growing use of the National Guard for domestic law enforcement and what it reveals about shifting boundaries of presidential power.  Links:Bernadette Meyler >>> Stanford Law pageTheaters of Pardoning >>> Stanford Law publications pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Overview of National Guard Deployment (00:06:01) Changes in Immigration Enforcement (00:13:01) Continuous Deployment and Monitoring Elections (00:18:01) Training and Law Enforcement Activities of National Guard (00:24:31) Presidential Powers and Constraints (00:29:38) Ninth Circuit Panel's Decision and Future Prospects Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The bulldozing of the East Wing of the White House late last week was shocking to much of the nation, Mary and Andrew included. They begin there with concerns, not only about preserving its rich history, but the ethical and legal questions that arise from the president using private donations to fund this ballroom build, and how the Anti-Deficiency Act might apply. Next, an update on National Guard deployments in the California case and the 9th Circuit's issue of a temporary stay in Portland as they consider an en banc review. And last up, the boat strikes keep coming in the Caribbean -- and now in the Pacific, as the president continues to escalate tensions. Mary and Andrew address the thorny legal issues at play when the U.S. military kills suspected traffickers in international waters.A note to listeners: Since this episode was recorded, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced another set of boat strikes in the Pacific ocean that killed 14 people. Further reading: Here is the Letter from several Democratic Senators raising concerns about donations to the ballroom that Mary and Andrew spoke about. Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Walking through the world these past few days, it's impossible not to feel the weight of history as Donald Trump's courtroom battles command headlines and conversations alike. As of October 24th, 2025, Trump's legal saga has reached an intensity few could have predicted, with trials spanning from district courts all the way to the Supreme Court. Each proceeding has the energy of a high-stakes drama, with new twists at every session.Just this week, we saw the federal courtroom in Washington, D.C., become a stage for discussions on Trump's actions while in office. In the criminal case involving alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, prosecutors brought forward fresh evidence—including testimonies from former aides—that put a spotlight on conversations inside the White House during January 2021. Supporters and protestors have crowded the courthouse steps daily, their voices creating a constant backdrop for the legal action inside.Meanwhile, in New York, former President Trump faced a different kind of scrutiny. The civil fraud trial there continues to dominate headlines as Letitia James, the state's Attorney General, pushes forward her claim that Trump and his company repeatedly misrepresented their finances to banks and insurers. This week's testimony from Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's former chief financial officer, gripped the courtroom and brought a new layer of detail to the allegations. Reporters from CNN and the Associated Press have described the cross-examinations as relentless, with both sides fiercely contesting what constitutes “inflating values.”Over on the West Coast, yet another courtroom drama is playing out. On October 3rd, according to the Lawfare Project's Litigation Tracker, the Northern District of California delivered a ruling in City of Chelsea v. President Trump regarding immigration enforcement in so-called sanctuary cities. Here, the judge denied Trump's push to expand federal control, a legal defeat that quickly reverberated through cable news.The Supreme Court's docket, tracked in detail on its official website, shows multiple pending appeals connected to Trump, including disputes over executive privilege and the boundaries of presidential immunity. Legal scholars from around the country are debating in newspapers and on air what these cases could mean for the future balance of power and for future presidents themselves.And through it all, Donald Trump remains a presence both in and outside the courtroom. He's been vocal on Truth Social, insisting that each case is politically motivated, even as the judiciary methodically moves forward. Every day, journalists from outlets like the New York Times and Reuters file updates on depositions, sidebars, and the constant parade of witnesses.Thank you for tuning in to this whirlwind week of legal battles, firsthand drama, and American history in the making. Be sure to come back next week for more, and remember—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Mary and Andrew begin this week with the latest in the Trump administration's attempt to send National Guard troops into American cities. From the 9th Circuit comes a 2-1 decision lifting a lower court's temporary block on deployments into Portland, Oregon. Plus: the government has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the use of National Guard troops in Chicago. Mary and Andrew analyze the legal repercussions of both, then move to reporting on a Trump administration promise to betray U.S. informants in order to secure a prison deal with El Salvador. And while a week feels like a year these days, the co-hosts review both John Bolton's indictment last Thursday and James Comey's recent motion to dismiss his case based on vindictive and selective prosecution. Before wrapping up this week, Mary and Andrew take a beat on last week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Louisiana v Calláis that dealt directly with the Voting Rights Act and whether redrawing districts can be used to remedy disenfranchising voters in Louisiana.Further Listening/Reading: Here is Andrew's conversation with former Special Counsel Jack Smith at an event at UCL in London: The State of the United States: A Conversation with Jack SmithHere is the reporting from The Washington Post Mary and Andrew spoke about: Rubio promised to betray U.S. informants to get Trump's El Salvador prison deal.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Last Thursday, New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted by a grand jury on two counts. This, on the heels of former FBI Director James Comey's arraignment, where pre-trial motions were granted around vindictive and selective prosecution. Mary and Andrew use these two examples to explain why targeting individuals instead of crimes violates some of the Justice Department's most sacred norms. Next, they walk through the latest court battles around federalized National Guard troops in Oregon and Illinois, with a 7th Circuit ruling in Chicago and oral arguments in the 9th circuit over the Portland deployment. Last comes a notable article from Professor Caleb Nelson, one of the nation's foremost originalist legal scholars, who questions granting increasing executive authority to the presidency.    Further reading:Here is Professor Nelson's article written for NYU Law's Democracy Project: Special Feature: Must Administrative Officers Serve at the President's Pleasure?Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Troops on America's streets, threats of “plenary powers”, and extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean have prompted members of the military past and present to say that we are in the biggest civil/military crisis since the Civil War. On this week's Amicus, how SCOTUS' immunity decision in Trump v. United States helped deliver us to this scary moment. Dahlia Lithwick speaks to Yale Law School military justice expert Eugene Fidell and former JAG Maj. General Steven J. Lepper about the impossible position the military's been put in by Trump and SCOTUS and how bad that is for all of us. The Crisis in Uniform: The Danger of Presidential Immunity for the U.S. Military. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Troops on America's streets, threats of “plenary powers”, and extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean have prompted members of the military past and present to say that we are in the biggest civil/military crisis since the Civil War. On this week's Amicus, how SCOTUS' immunity decision in Trump v. United States helped deliver us to this scary moment. Dahlia Lithwick speaks to Yale Law School military justice expert Eugene Fidell and former JAG Maj. General Steven J. Lepper about the impossible position the military's been put in by Trump and SCOTUS and how bad that is for all of us. The Crisis in Uniform: The Danger of Presidential Immunity for the U.S. Military. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Troops on America's streets, threats of “plenary powers”, and extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean have prompted members of the military past and present to say that we are in the biggest civil/military crisis since the Civil War. On this week's Amicus, how SCOTUS' immunity decision in Trump v. United States helped deliver us to this scary moment. Dahlia Lithwick speaks to Yale Law School military justice expert Eugene Fidell and former JAG Maj. General Steven J. Lepper about the impossible position the military's been put in by Trump and SCOTUS and how bad that is for all of us. The Crisis in Uniform: The Danger of Presidential Immunity for the U.S. Military. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Wednesday, October 8th, 2025, late morning, and for those following Donald Trump's latest legal battles, the pace has barely slowed. If you've been glued to the news these past few days, courtrooms from California all the way to Washington, D.C. have seen Trump's lawyers and prosecutors trading volleys over his actions as president and well into his post-presidency.The big headline out west came from California, where a federal judge issued a strongly worded ruling against Donald Trump after his attempt to deploy the California National Guard into Oregon. According to the governor's office, the judge—ironically appointed by Trump himself—rebuked the idea that a president could override state authority this way, reminding all parties that the “historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.” In her order, she found the Trump administration's arguments “simply untethered to the facts” and declared that statements justifying the deployments “were not conceived in good faith.” That resulted in a direct rebuke to Trump's approach and another layer of judicial reinforcement of state rights.Meanwhile, on the federal front, the Supreme Court's October term is shaping up to be a blockbuster for Trump-related litigation. SCOTUSblog reported on Monday that the justices added five new cases to their docket for the 2025-26 term. While the full list hasn't dropped yet, legal analysts expect at least one to touch directly on former President Trump's use and possible abuse of executive powers—Marc Elias and Neal Katyal have both appeared on cable news speculating about how these cases could clarify ambiguous boundaries around presidential immunity and what's meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors.”Lawfare's Litigation Tracker, which has become almost a reference Bible for the ‘Trump trial industrial complex,' continues to log new lawsuits and appeals nearly every week. National security-related executive actions, especially around border policy and federal troop deployment, remain hotly contested in district and appellate courts. Just yesterday, reporters in D.C. spotted Trump's legal team in the courthouse, trying to negotiate further delays by arguing that the core issues have ‘never before been tested by the courts.' That's turned the federal judiciary into an arena not just for Trump's legal future but also for the broader definition of presidential power in America.If you think the story's about to wind down, think again. With upcoming hearings and new filings announced daily, this remains the most scrutinized courtroom saga in modern history.Thanks for tuning in today. Make sure to come back next week for more updates—this has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Military action is a stark theme this week, as Oregon and Illinois sue the Trump administration over its attempts to federalize National Guard troops for deployment into both states. Mary and Andrew break down not one, but two temporary restraining orders that block deployments to Oregon, as Trump appointed Judge Karin Immergut cites Trump's own words to show the facts don't support what he alleges about “war ravaged” cities. Then, they dig into the administration's fourth deadly boat strike on alleged drug traffickers near Venezuela, highlighting how the lack of apparent legal authority might play out, as Attorney General Pam Bondi answered questions from the Senate Judiciary committee Tuesday. Last up, Andrew and Mary turn to two consequential decisions that don't bode well for the Trump administration: one decision out of Boston, barring efforts to deport non-citizen activists; and a second finding of a “likelihood of vindictive prosecution” from a Nashville judge as it relates to the seeming retaliatory charges against Kilmar Abrego-Garcia.Further reading: MSNBC's Carol Leonnig and Ken Dilanian report: Top prosecutor is rejecting Trump pressure to charge New York AGMary And Tess Bridgeman's piece for Just Security:  What the Senate Judiciary Committee Should Ask A.G. Bondi on Drug Cartel StrikesJudge Karin Immergut's two decisions in Oregon:Immergut's First TRO blocking federalization of the Oregon National Guard. Immergut's Second TRO blocking deployment of any “federalized members of the National Guard” to the state.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

It's Friday, October 3, 2025, and the legal drama swirling around Donald Trump is at a fever pitch once again. For listeners who have been following every twist and turn, the past few days have been loaded with developments across federal courtrooms, appellate panels, and even the Supreme Court. Let's jump right to the heart of the matter.Earlier this week, a major story unfolded as the Supreme Court formally consolidated two headline cases involving Donald Trump—one titled “Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al.” The Court granted a motion to expedite these cases, fast-tracking them for oral argument the first week of November this year. The eyes of the country, political analysts included, are already zeroing in on November 5, when those arguments will hit center stage in the nation's highest court.These Supreme Court cases aren't happening in isolation. They stem from recent decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and also from the ongoing legal battles over claims tied to presidential immunity, Trump's 2020 election interference allegations, and disputes over the appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith. The litigation landscape is as broad as ever—with criminal indictments, civil fraud appeals, and constitutional questions all converging.Just days ago, the Supreme Court declined to take immediate action on Trump's unusual request regarding firing a sitting Fed governor. This non-decision keeps the issue simmering, hinting at possible future conflicts over the extent of presidential power—a subject at the core of Trump's legal defense in several other cases.Meanwhile, in federal courts, new briefs and motions are flooding in. Trump's legal team is vigorously pushing arguments about presidential immunity and contesting the legitimacy of Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment. These questions fuel both legal debate and political intrigue, as deadlines for briefs and responses keep stacking up on the master calendar. For example, Trump's next major opening brief in his Second Circuit appeal regarding the New York case is due October 14.Political allies and opponents alike are watching, as each court ruling has ripple effects on Trump's standing, campaign ambitions, and broader constitutional precedents. What's especially dramatic now is that deadlines for amicus curiae briefs and oral arguments across several circuits are colliding with arguments in the Supreme Court—a rare, high-octane moment in legal history.Every day seems to bring a new motion, a fresh appeal, or another layer to these battles. From consolidating appeals in the New York civil fraud case to new filings aimed at Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution, Trump's legal calendar looks more crowded than ever.To all those tuning in, thank you for sticking with this intricate, high-stakes story. Join me again next week as these cases unfold and fresh developments emerge. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

In Mary and Andrew's estimation, there is no effort from the Trump administration to say things softly, the quiet part is very much out loud. They begin with the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey by Trump's newly installed U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, noting how much these targeted charges upend the tradition of a separation between the White House and the Justice Department. The next stop is Portland Oregon, where the president announced his intent to deploy troops to the city in a Saturday Truth Social post, calling it “war ravaged”. Oregon immediately sued to stop the national guard deployment, so Mary and Andrew catch listeners up on where this stands and what to expect. And last, they turn to Trump's domestic terror memorandum, announcing his intent to investigate left-leaning groups he suggests may be funding political violence. Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

It's been another remarkable stretch in the world of courtrooms where Donald Trump's legal battles have made headlines across the country. Here we go right to what's happened for Donald Trump in the past few days and right up to this moment, September 28, 2025.Just days ago, the Supreme Court issued an order in Trump v. Slaughter—this case is all about Trump's removal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause earlier in the year. That's significant because it challenged an almost century-old precedent from the Supreme Court's decision in Humphrey's Executor, which restricts a president's ability to remove FTC commissioners unless there's proven inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. President Trump didn't claim any of those grounds, just policy differences. A federal judge had ordered Slaughter to be reinstated. The lower court's ruling was then stayed by the Supreme Court. The justices decided, in a 6-3 vote, that Trump's action could stand, at least for now, while the case moves forward. They ordered the parties to prepare for oral arguments this December. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a dissent, pointing to the statutory protection Congress gave FTC commissioners and warning about threats to the independence of agencies like this. The implications could be dramatic if the Court ends up narrowing or overturning the protection set in 1935, potentially reshaping not just the FTC but other independent agencies.Meanwhile, Trump's legal schedule remains packed with deadlines and developments. In the D.C. election interference case, Trump has been filing motions on presidential immunity and on dismissing charges using a slew of statutory arguments. Most deadlines for pretrial filings have been put on pause until October 24, as Judge Tanya Chutkan, who returned to jurisdiction after the Supreme Court's ruling on immunity, issued a scheduling order. The battle continues over whether Trump should be shielded from prosecution for acts taken while in office. These are questions the courts are wrestling with right now, and will be through the end of this year.In Florida, the classified documents case has advanced after Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the superseding indictment, arguing that the appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith was unlawful. The government appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and now both sides are filing briefs, with friends of the court chiming in too. Oral arguments and decisions from that appeal could affect the timeline for any trial, or even its scope.Trump is also tangled up in New York—with appeals on last year's civil fraud judgment and the criminal conviction, where Justice Juan Merchan is now weighing a motion to set aside the jury's verdict, citing presidential immunity in light of the Supreme Court's recent guidance. A decision is expected from Justice Merchan in November.In Georgia, Trump and his codefendants are pushing appeals about disqualifying District Attorney Fani Willis, and all those appeals will be heard together, with oral arguments scheduled soon at the Court of Appeals.There has even been a class action suit filed by groups like the ACLU and NAACP, following a Supreme Court decision in CASA v. Trump, challenging aspects of the Trump administration's policy actions.As you can hear, it's a legal whirlwind that touches multiple corners of the country and asks fundamental questions about presidential power, agency independence, and the limits of the law. Come back next week for more, and thanks again for tuning in. This has been a Quiet Please production and for more check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The U.S. Supreme Court has vastly reshaped American democracy — rolling back voting rights, enabling secret money in politics and expanding presidential power. These decisions have a real impact on all Americans by making it harder for citizens to exercise their freedom to vote, easier for wealthy interests to sway elections and more difficult to hold leaders accountable.In this episode, host Simone Leeper speaks with law professor and co-host of the Strict Scrutiny Podcast Leah Litman, Campaign Legal Center Senior Vice President Bruce V. Spiva and Campaign Legal Center Campaign Finance Senior Counsel David Kolker. Together, they unpack the real-world impact of landmark Supreme Court decisions — from voting rights cases like Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. DNC to campaign finance rulings like Citizens United — and explore what reforms could restore balance, accountability and trust in the Court.Timestamps:(00:05) — What do Americans really think about the Supreme Court?(02:18) — Why does the Supreme Court's power matter for democracy?(07:01) — How did Shelby County v. Holder weaken voting rights?(16:39) — What was the impact of Brnovich v. DNC?(23:39) — How has the Supreme Court reshaped campaign finance?(29:24) — Why did Citizens United open the floodgates for money in politics?(32:37) — How have super PACs changed elections?(34:02) — How have wealthy special interests reshaped U.S. elections?(35:44) — What does presidential immunity mean for accountability?(37:30) — How do lifetime seats protect the Supreme Court from accountability?(39:22) — What role can Congress play in restoring trust and democracy?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Leah Litman is a professor of law at the University of Michigan and a former Supreme Court clerk. In addition to cohosting Strict Scrutiny, she writes frequently about the Court for media outlets including The Washington Post, Slate, and The Atlantic, among others, and has appeared as a commentator on NPR and MSNBC, in addition to other venues. She has received the Ruth Bader Ginsburg award for her “scholarly excellence” from the American Constitution Society and published in top law reviews. Follow her on Bluesky @LeahLitman and Instagram @ProfLeahLitman.Bruce V. Spiva is Senior Vice President at Campaign Legal Center. He is an attorney and community leader who has spent his over 30-year career fighting for civil rights and civil liberties, voting rights, consumer protection, and antitrust enforcement.Over the past three decades, he has tried cases and argued appeals in courtrooms across the country, including arguing against vote suppression in the United States Supreme Court in 2021. In 2022, in his first run for public office, Bruce mounted a competitive run in the primary election for Washington, D.C. Attorney General. In addition to founding his own law firm where he practiced for eleven years, Bruce has held several leadership and management positions as a partner at two national law firms. Most recently, Bruce served as the Managing Partner of the D.C. Office and on the firm-wide Executive Committee of Perkins Coie LLP, where he also had an active election law practice. He first-chaired twelve voting rights and redistricting trials across the country, and argued numerous voting rights appeals in U.S. circuit courts and state supreme courts during his tenure at Perkins. David Kolker is Campaign Finance Senior Counsel at Campaign Legal Center. He focuses on both short- and long-term strategies to improve campaign finance laws across the country, and precedent interpreting those laws. David has spent decades litigating cases in both the public and private sectors. He worked for nearly 20 years at the Federal Election Commission, where he litigated cases on federal campaign finance law and for several years led the agency's Litigation Division. He represented the government in dozens of oral arguments, including the government's defense in SpeechNow.org v. FEC before the D.C. Circuit sitting en banc. He litigated many cases decided by the Supreme Court, including the landmark cases of McConnell v. FEC and Citizens United v. FEC. David joined CLC from the Federal Communications Commission, where he served as the deputy bureau chief, Enforcement Bureau. He previously was a partner at the law firm Spiegel and McDiarmid in Washington. Early in his career, David worked as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. Links:The Supreme Court Needs to Start Standing Up for Democracy – CLCThe Supreme Court's Role in Undermining American Democracy  – CLCSupreme Court's Impact on Voting Rights Is a Threat to Democracy  – CLCWhy the Current U.S. Supreme Court Is a Threat to Our Democracy  – CLCU.S. Supreme Court Reinstates Illegal Virginia Voter Purge at the Eleventh Hour – CLCWhat Does the U.S. Supreme Court's Recent Arizona Decision Mean for Voters? – CLCAlito Flags the Fatal Flaw of the Supreme Court Ethics Code – CLCU.S. Supreme Court Reinstates Illegal Virginia Voter Purge at the Eleventh Hour – CLCImproving Ethics Standards at the Supreme Court – CLCSupreme Court tossed out heart of Voting Rights Act a decade ago, prompting wave of new voting rules – The HillU.S. Supreme Court Significantly Limits Restraints on Unconstitutional Presidential Actions – CLCCampaign Legal Center Responds to SCOTUS Ruling Limiting Court Restraints on Unconstitutional Presidential Actions – CLCProtecting the Promise of American Citizenship – CLCBringing the Fight for Fair Voting Maps to the U.S. Supreme Court – CLCThe Supreme Court Must Uphold Fair Voting Maps for Fair Representation – CLCAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Listeners, the whirlwind of legal action surrounding Donald Trump has barely slowed as we move through September 2025. Just days ago, the Supreme Court made headlines yet again by stepping directly into a case involving Trump and the removal protections of Federal Trade Commission members. On September 22, Chief Justice John Roberts granted Trump's application for a stay, effectively pausing the District Court's order from July and elevating the matter to a landmark petition for certiorari before judgment. That means the Justices will be reviewing, arguably for the first time at this stage, whether statutory removal protections for FTC officials breach the separation of powers—and even whether Humphrey's Executor, the historic 1935 case defining those powers, may be overturned. The case will be heard in December and has already sparked dissent from Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, who sharply criticized the immediate empowerment of the President to discharge a sitting FTC member.But that Supreme Court drama is just one thread. The past several weeks have been thick with new filings, deadline jockeying, and complicated appeals spanning federal and state courts. The Master Calendar, as continually updated by Just Security, lays out an intense series of deadlines. October alone promises major swings in several pivotal criminal and civil cases. Trump's legal team is preparing filings for challenges in the D.C. election interference case, with supplemental motions and redaction objections, arguing—once again—about the boundaries of presidential immunity. The government, meanwhile, is sharpening its own responses, aiming to block or overturn Trump's renewed bids to avoid prosecution under immunity doctrines.New York is also in the spotlight. Trump's appeal from Judge Alvin Hellerstein's rejection of his attempt to move the criminal case out of Manhattan is due by October 14. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has been relentless, and Trump is fighting tooth-and-nail to keep his hearings away from local courts, banking on the hope that federal judges might prove more favorable.And in Georgia, things are just as fiery. Mark Meadows, Trump's former Chief of Staff, has petitioned the Supreme Court after the Eleventh Circuit dashed his hopes of moving his own criminal case out of state to the federal level. Trump, alongside other defendants, is also challenging Judge McAfee's decision not to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis—expect oral arguments on that tangled issue in early December before the Georgia Court of Appeals.Behind the scenes, the fallout from that major Supreme Court presidential immunity decision in August is still echoing. Judge Tanya Chutkan in D.C. now holds jurisdiction once again. All pretrial deadlines are stayed through late October, pushing the calendar further into the campaign season and setting up a tense winter for Trump, his attorneys, and prosecutors alike.With appeals stacking up—on everything from the funding and appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith in Florida to the consolidated appeals in the New York civil fraud case brought by Attorney General Letitia James—the months ahead are set to be a constitutional reckoning that could redefine not only Trump's fate, but the boundaries of presidential authority and accountability in America.Thank you for tuning in today. Come back next week for more of the latest legal developments—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

President Trump's pressure campaign to take action against perceived adversaries is unrelenting. Mary and Andrew start this week by breaking down a public push for Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute Trump's political foes, just as Virginia's U.S. Attorney was ousted for failing to bring charges against Letitia James and Jim Comey. The focus then turns to the government's attempt to control critics and silence opposition after last week's abrupt suspension of Jimmy Kimmel, backed by FCC Chair Brendan Carr, as well as what the president designating ANTIFA as a “terrorist organization” actually means. On the flip side comes the effort to dismiss investigations into those aligned with Trump's cause. See MSNBC's reporting on the FBI bribery investigation into “Border Czar” Tom Homan that was shut down after Trump returned to office. And last up: Mary shares the reasoning behind a court's decision to block the removal of dozens of Guatemalan children, citing that the governments explanation "crumbled like a house of cards.”  And a reminder: There are still tickets available for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

It's been a whirlwind few days in the world of U.S. courtrooms, and Donald Trump remains firmly at the center of the storm. Nearly every headline I've caught since the middle of the week has opened with the latest twist in Trump's sprawling legal calendar—a saga stretching from New York streets to Washington, D.C. federal offices, and onward to Florida's district courts. You'd think by now folks might slow down, but the cases keep coming at a dizzying pace.Right now, listeners, several major cases demand Trump's attention. The stakes are extraordinary—not just for him personally, but for the American judicial system. According to Just Security, Trump's legal schedule for fall and winter has been crowded with deadlines and appeals. On October 24, Trump is due to submit a request to dismiss one of the most talked-about cases: the D.C. Election Interference prosecution. His lawyers argue the indictment should be tossed based on the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses, naming Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment and funding as suspect. The following day, October 25, Trump's legal team faces the federal government in Florida, defending Judge Aileen Cannon's earlier move to dismiss the classified documents case over similar concerns about Special Counsel Smith's legitimacy.That's not all. Late last month Trump tried—unsuccessfully—to move his Manhattan criminal case, led by District Attorney Alvin Bragg, to federal court. Judge Alvin Hellerstein wasn't convinced, rejecting Trump's request and delivering a setback. The push for federal jurisdiction continues, with Trump appealing to the Second Circuit, his opening brief now due October 14.Meanwhile, in Georgia, Trump is linked to broader appeals as his co-defendants challenge the fairness of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis's role. All oral arguments are scheduled together, making Atlanta another courtroom buzzing with activity.But possibly the most significant legal moment this summer came in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court vacated the D.C. Circuit's ruling that had previously denied Trump's presidential immunity argument. This sent the whole affair back to Judge Tanya Chutkan in the district court, where all pretrial deadlines are on pause until late October, a move that will shape the next pivotal months of proceedings.Experts like Max Yoeli at Chatham House warn that these intertwining court battles could be a prelude to a constitutional crisis if the judiciary cannot effectively check Trump's actions—especially with appeals mounting and deadlines extended whenever a new wrinkle appears.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more and remember, this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Last week's fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk was deeply disturbing, and as Andrew establishes at the start, “murder is murder” and those responsible must be held to account. So Mary and Andrew begin with where the investigation stands and how the FBI has handled the case, as well as the lawsuit filed against FBI Director Kash Patel over alleged politically motivated firings at the Bureau. Then, co-editor-in-chief of Just Security, Ryan Goodman stops in to share his research around the end of “the presumption of regularity” in the Trump era, amid growing frustration from many lower courts. And lastly, Andrew and Mary dig into the latest twists and turns in the President's attempt to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook.A note to listeners: After today's recording, Tyler Robinson was charged with felony aggravated murder, among other charges.Further reading:  Here is Ryan Goodman's research in Just Security: The “Presumption of Regularity” in Trump Administration LitigationAnd a reminder: There are still tickets available for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode begins with Mary and Andrew digesting the 2-1 decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals halting the Trump administration's ability to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals accused of being members of Tren de Aragua. Andrew calls the administration's recent arguments “outlandish” before moving to the questionable legality of the U.S. military's deadly boat strike last week – an unprecedented action which left eleven dead. Next, they move to Monday's Supreme Court decision undoing limits set by a lower court on how ICE conducts immigration raids. Plus, a federal judge issues a win for Harvard University on the topic of frozen and terminated funds. Further reading:  The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport VenezuelansAnd a reminder: tickets are on sale now for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

You wouldn't believe the whirlwind the courts have become with Donald Trump at the center stage these past few days. Just as September started, a major moment landed when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a 7-4 decision, struck down Trump's broad use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on nearly all imported goods. The judges ruled that Trump simply didn't have Congressional authority for such sweeping actions, but interestingly enough, the government has until October 14 to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in. On September 4, Trump's team went ahead and petitioned for that expedited Supreme Court review, and now the cases are set for arguments in the Supreme Court's early November session, starting November 3, putting Trump's trade legacy directly on the line.But tariffs aren't even the hottest legal fire Trump's grappling with. On Monday, September 8, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals out of New York cemented a staggering $83.3 million judgment against Trump for defaming E. Jean Carroll. Carroll, the former magazine columnist, accused Trump of sexual assault dating back to the 1990s, and his public denials—combined with reckless disregard for the truth—landed him in legal jeopardy. The appeals panel wasn't swayed by Trump's efforts to invoke presidential immunity or claim excessive damages. Instead, they declared the jury's awards both fair and reasonable, highlighting how Trump's statements about Carroll, calling her a liar and denying her allegations, were made with, at the very least, reckless disregard. And this follows a separate $5 million jury award Carroll won after Trump was found liable for sexual abuse. Trump's legal team has vowed to push that appeal to the Supreme Court, but for now, the massive judgment stands.Outside the courtroom, the Supreme Court itself is preparing for more Trump-centered drama. Not only are his tariffs and broader powers as the executive on the chopping block—his capacity to ramp up deportations and even send military troops into U.S. cities is now being tested in front of the highest bench. There's real tension over just how much power the President can wield, especially with a Supreme Court super majority that often leans toward a very expansive view of executive authority.Listeners, the wheels of justice are cranking at a furious pace. Court calendars have become minefields, filled with dates, stays, appeals, and new developments erupting almost daily. For Donald Trump, each week seems to bring a fresh legal cliffhanger, with the nation watching every twist and turn. That's it for this wild week in Trump's legal saga. Thank you so much for tuning in. Don't forget to come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

After a Labor Day weekend that saw a judge halt the Trump administration's attempt to deport dozens of Guatemalan children already loaded onto airplanes, Andrew and Mary had planned to start their conversation there. But just this morning, Judge Charles Breyer ruled the administration cannot deploy U.S. military to carry out law enforcement operations, as this violates the Posse Comitatus Act. Andrew and Mary provide historical context for the act and walk us through the rationale of this latest ruling. Then, they take a beat on moves to oust two more Trump appointed U.S. Attorneys in California and Nevada who have yet to be congressionally approved. And last up, they review several big cases on tariffs, Lisa Cook, and cuts to foreign aid.Further reading:  Here is Judge Thomas T. Cullen's opinion dismissing Trump's lawsuit against Maryland federal judges.And here is Judge Charles Breyer's ruling on the Posse Comitatus Act: Opinion granting injunctive reliefAnd a reminder: tickets are on sale now for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

I'm tuning in just after one of the most dramatic stretches in recent American political history, as the legal storm surrounding former President Donald Trump's court trials hits new highs. Let's jump right in—the courtroom battles featuring Trump have been exploding across national headlines, from Washington D.C. to California and beyond.Over the past few days, the nation's attention has been gripped by a federal judge's ruling out in California. California Attorney General Rob Bonta confirmed that President Trump's deployment of federalized California National Guard troops and Marines for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles was in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, that foundational law limiting the military's role on our soil. According to Bonta, the District Court not only found Trump's actions unlawful, but also permanently blocked the administration from engaging in similar behavior in future, whether for arrests, riot control, or evidence gathering. The judge's order is stayed only until September 12th, making this a pivotal moment for executive reach and civil liberties.Meanwhile, the legal calendars covering Trump's trials have become almost as tangled as the cases themselves. After the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on Trump's presidential immunity claims in early August, the D.C. Circuit Court handed jurisdiction back to Judge Tanya Chutkan. However, the most recent scheduling order—coming just this week—has paused all pretrial deadlines until late October, essentially putting everything on hold in the Washington election subversion case. With time ticking away under the Speedy Trial Act, legal experts say this delay throws uncertainty over the proceedings, especially as appeals and procedural wrangling continue.It's not just criminal matters. On the civil side, Trump's legal team is still grappling with the fallout from previous verdicts, notably those involving E. Jean Carroll's defamation suits. The appeals are underway at the Second Circuit, but movement has slowed as defense attorneys look for openings in the appeals process. These cases, filed back in 2020 and 2022, have been persistent thorns in Trump's side, flaring up anew with each ruling.Also in the mix is the Democratic National Committee's lawsuit, challenging Trump's use of Executive Order 14215 to sway the Federal Election Commission. The U.S. District Court in D.C. dismissed the challenge earlier this summer, citing a lack of concrete injury. Still, with the FEC's independence on the line, insiders expect the issue to resurface as the end of election season nears.With Trump back in office, there's no shortage of Supreme Court petitions—over four dozen right now—ranging from immigration to telemarketing, tax laws, and challenges to federal policy moves dating back years. The administration is wielding the emergency docket as a powerful tool, regularly pressing to overturn lower court decisions and keep executive power front and center.So, as the clock moves forward, these cases are more than just legal drama—they're signposts of where America's institutions stand and how the rule of law will look in a rapidly shifting political landscape. Thanks for tuning in. Join me again next week for another Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

On Monday, after Kilmar Abrego Garcia was taken into ICE custody, Judge Paula Xinis temporarily barred the Trump administration from deporting him to Uganda. Mary and Andrew begin here, reminding listeners that the origin of his case stems from a mistake made by our government. Next, they detail the questionable nature of the FBI raid on former National Security Advisor John Bolton's home and office before diving into some 30+ letters sent by Attorney General Pam Bondi to blue-leaning jurisdictions, with the aim of ending their sanctuary policies. Last up, Mary and Andrew drill down on Trump's latest executive order related to a rapidly deployable National Guard unit, as he sharpens threats to send troops into more cities.Further reading: Trump's Executive Order: ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE CRIME EMERGENCY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAGarrett Graff's piece Mary referred to: America Tips Into FascismAnd a reminder: tickets are on sale now for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

The world of Donald Trump's legal battles has shifted yet again over these past few days, with courtrooms buzzing from Atlanta to Washington, D.C. and even all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Let me walk you through what's unfolded, because the headlines haven't stopped and the stakes keep rising.Just last week, Trump claimed victory after a court threw out a massive civil fraud penalty that was hanging over him. That multimillion-dollar judgment stemmed from years of litigation around alleged financial misstatements in his business empire. While Trump declared this a vindication, things remain anything but quiet. There are still plenty of legal clouds on the horizon—especially when it comes to criminal charges tied to the 2020 election.Let's zoom in on the federal election obstruction case, one of the country's most closely watched trials. Jack Smith—the special counsel with the Department of Justice—charged Trump with conspiracy to overturn his loss to Joe Biden. This all ties back to the January 6th Capitol riot, and the allegation is that Trump spread lies about election fraud to pressure state officials and even tried to get then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject the results. Trump pleaded not guilty, but the case became tangled in questions about presidential immunity. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in early 2024 that Trump wasn't immune. He pushed it up to the Supreme Court, which decided in July 2024 that former presidents do have some immunity for their official acts, but not everything.Things took another twist when Jack Smith filed an updated indictment last August, only to later drop the charges in November after Trump won reelection—in part because as a sitting president, he'd be immune from prosecution on at least some charges. By January of this year, Smith issued a detailed report saying there was enough evidence to convict, but action has stalled.Meanwhile in Georgia, the election interference case has been bogged down by drama surrounding Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis—her personal relationship with a special prosecutor even led to her removal by a state appeals court last December. While Georgia's Supreme Court still has to decide if it'll take up an appeal on her removal, six counts have already been thrown out, and Trump still faces ten counts there. Whether that case goes forward during his presidency is completely up in the air.But Trump's legal teams aren't just fighting on criminal fronts. As of yesterday, the Trump administration jumped back into the Supreme Court ring, appealing a federal judge's order demanding that billions in foreign aid be paid out—foreign aid that was frozen by Trump's executive order back in January. Solicitor General John Sauer warned that if the court doesn't intervene, Trump's government will have no choice but to quickly spend billions they want to keep frozen under a review led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.That is the whirlwind—the cases are overlapping, the legal arguments are novel, and with Trump back in the White House, every trial is a political earthquake. For now, all eyes are on higher courts, and we're all waiting to see what the next headline brings. Thanks for tuning in. Come back next week for more updates. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

It's been another wild week, after the D.C. Attorney General sued the government for attempting to install the head of the D.E.A. as D.C.'s emergency police commissioner. Following an emergency hearing, US Attorney General Pam Bondi backed down and re-wrote the directive. But Andrew and Mary highlight why that's just the start: it's no longer just the D.C. National Guard being deployed in the nation's capital, National Guard units from five other red states are being sent to the city, making a complicated stew of who's in charge and who has jurisdiction. Next, they weave this thread into last week's trial over whether California's National Guard performed law enforcement operations in Los Angeles, a potential violation of The Posse Comitatus Act. And with Russia and Ukraine so much in the news, Andrew offers some reflections from the 2019 Special Counsel's report that exposes Russia's long-held goal of taking over the Donbas region. And last up, Andrew and Mary fill listeners in on two DC Circuit cases that have their attention: a decision allowing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be dismantled and another that allows Trump to withhold billions in foreign aid.And a reminder: tickets are on sale now for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

When “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength” we are living in an era of alternate facts. Mary and Andrew apply this Orwellian concept to what's happening this week, after President Trump cited section 740 of the Home Rule Act to federalize the DC police force and send in the national guard to the nation's capital. They detail how the president was able to do this and why Congress will be the ultimate arbiter of this move. Then, they highlight some litigation befitting this theme, with Judge Breyer's trial starting this week on the use of the national guard in Los Angeles, and some decisions including not to unseal grand jury testimony in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, plus an Appeals court blocking contempt proceedings in JGG. Last up, Andrew and Mary take a look at Judge Henderson's opinion in the OMB case and why it deserves more attention than it's received. Further reading: Here is President Trump's letter to Congress citing section 740, courtesy of the New York Times.And some exciting news: tickets are on sale now for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Accountability or weaponization? That's the question Andrew and Mary tackle in their 150th episode together, starting with the distraction of the Office of the Special Counsel's investigation into Jack Smith for possible Hatch Act violations. In other DOJ related matters, they give some context to the Trump administration's continued battle to keep Alina Habba, a Trump ally, as New Jersey U.S. Attorney, just as The Legal Accountability Center filed bar complaints against lawyers who have represented Trump's White House in court. In another sideshow, Andrew and Mary break down what to make of a report on the “Clinton Plan” emails, declassified amid the Epstein controversy. And last up, they detail the decision out of the 9th Circuit Court which upheld a pause on ICE raids in California.  Further Reading: Here is the piece Andrew and his colleague Ryan Goodman wrote for Just Security in October 2024: Refuting the Latest Baseless Attacks Against Special Counsel Jack SmithHere is the 9th Circuit Court decision on ICE Raids: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California And some exciting news: tickets are on sale now for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger Picture Countries limited their CO2 production to save the planet, all they did was. shift everything to China, Trump is now shutting down Obama's climate programs. Trump's economy explodes and the D's/fake news/Fed don't know how to counter the narrative, they tried but it failing. Trump is dividing the Fed and setting everything up for the new economy. Hawaii was going to get hit with a Tsunami because of a major earthquake. Did Trump post Tsunami to let us know that a massive amount of info is going to be dropped? Different countries and the US have have been hit by a cyber attack. The fake news/D's are trying their best to spin the Russia evidence and they are losing to the facts. Did Trump trap Obama with Presidential immunity?   Economy https://twitter.com/Geiger_Capital/status/1950545248825798729 Trump Axes Obama's Endangerment Finding During his two terms, Obama enacted several policies that subsidized uncompetitive, unneeded, and unwanted green energy while placing onerous regulations on fossil fuels. During his first term, Trump tried to reverse much of the Obama administration's anti-fossil fuel actions. However, there was only so much that could be done given the constant distractions Trump faced throughout his first term. One of the most consequential environmental regulations that Trump was unable to eliminate was Obama's “Endangerment Finding.” Most Americans have probably never heard of the Endangerment Finding. But this obscure rule has effectively allowed the federal government to label carbon dioxide a harmful “pollutant” that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Unfortunately, a U.S. Supreme Court decision allowed the Obama administration to enact the rule in the first place. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that “greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act and that EPA must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Although this is the standard reading of the ruling, it is not totally accurate. According to the majority opinion, written by former Justice John Paul Stevens, “We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA's actions in the event that it makes such a finding. We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.” So, the 2007 decision did not determine that carbon dioxide is a harmful air pollutant. Rather, it granted that the EPA has the authority to determine if carbon dioxide is a harmful greenhouse gas based solely upon unequivocal data. Trump's EPA Administrator, Lee Zeldin, has made rescinding the Endangerment Finding a priority. “A lot of people are out there listening, they might not know what the endangerment finding is. If you ask congressional Democrats to describe what it is, the left would say that it means that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, carbon dioxide is an endangerment to human health. They might say methane is a pollutant, methane is an endangerment to human health,” Zeldin said on the Ruthless podcast. “That's an oversimplified, I would say inaccurate way to describe it,” Zeldin added. “The Obama administration said that carbon dioxide, when mixed with a bunch of other well-mixed gases, greenhouse gases, that it contributes to climate change. How much?

If it's customary, it's probably not happening in this Justice Department. Starting with the latest from the Epstein controversy, Andrew and Mary unpack what to make of the two days Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche spent interviewing Ghislaine Maxwell. This, after a Florida judge denied the release of Epstein grand jury transcripts last Wednesday.And in immigration related news, three decisions came through in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia saga, just as the first claim is filed against the U.S. over one man's deportation to El Salvador without due process. Then, in an eye-popping move, Attorney General Pam Bondi's office filed a misconduct complaint against Judge James Boasberg for “making improper public comments” about the President and his administration. And before wrapping up this week, Mary and Andrew give some context to the former J6 prosecutor who's suing the administration over his abrupt firing.Further Reading: Here is the misconduct complaint filed against Judge Boasberg: Complaint Against United States District Court Chief Judge James E. BoasbergAnd some exciting news: tickets are on sale now for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

-Carson breaks down the latest revelations linking Barack Obama and other top officials to the Russia collusion hoax. -Tulsi Gabbard and Jim Jordan call for criminal referrals, reporter Mike Davis says Obama is not shielded by Presidential Immunity in this case. Today's podcast is sponsored by : BIRCH GOLD - Protect and grow your retirement savings with gold. Text ROB to 98 98 98 for your FREE information kit! To call in and speak with Rob Carson live on the show, dial 1-800-922-6680 between the hours of 12 Noon and 3:00 pm Eastern Time Monday through Friday…E-mail Rob Carson at : RobCarsonShow@gmail.com Musical parodies provided by Jim Gossett (www.patreon.com/JimGossettComedy) Listen to Newsmax LIVE and see our entire podcast lineup at http://Newsmax.com/Listen Make the switch to NEWSMAX today! Get your 15 day free trial of NEWSMAX+ at http://NewsmaxPlus.com Looking for NEWSMAX caps, tees, mugs & more? Check out the Newsmax merchandise shop at : http://nws.mx/shop Follow NEWSMAX on Social Media:  -Facebook: http://nws.mx/FB  -X/Twitter: http://nws.mx/twitter -Instagram: http://nws.mx/IG -YouTube: https://youtube.com/NewsmaxTV -Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/NewsmaxTV -TRUTH Social: https://truthsocial.com/@NEWSMAX -GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/newsmax -Threads: http://threads.net/@NEWSMAX  -Telegram: http://t.me/newsmax  -BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/newsmax.com -Parler: http://app.parler.com/newsmax Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (07/21/2025): 3:05pm- A kiss cam moment during Coldplay's concert in Boston has gone viral—for all the wrong reasons. The clip features a man and woman immediately distancing themselves from one another and hiding their faces the moment they're placed on the big screen. The band's frontman, Chris Martin, joked that they must be “having an affair.” Turns out, they were! The couple was identified as Astronomer CEO Andy Byron and the company's head of H.R. Kristin Cabot. Did the video blow up because it was funny—or because it captured everything people hate about corporate H.R. hypocrisy? 3:35pm- In a profanity-laced interview with YouTube personality Andrew Callaghan, Hunter Biden lashed out at the Democratic Party for forcing his father to withdraw from the 2024 presidential election—specifically George Clooney and the Pod Save America hosts. During the interview, Hunter also denied being responsible for the cocaine found at the White House during his father's presidency and referred to Donald Trump as a “dictator thug.” 4:05pm- Bill D'Agostino—Senior Research Analyst at Media Research Center—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to breakdown some of the best (and worst) moments from corporate media: Hunter Biden sits down for a profanity-laced interview with a popular YouTube personality, the Russia collusion narrative is being debunked once and for all, and Brian Stelter claims Stephen Colbert's late show being cancelled is evidence that America “is not a free country.” Can Stelter get fired from CNN for a second time? 4:30pm- Justin saw Superman over the weekend, Rich insists butter is healthy, and Matt says In & Out is sort of overrated (except for the milkshakes). Plus, Pepsi vows to remove artificial dyes from Doritos! 5:05pm- According to a report from Fox News reporter Brooke Singman the “Obama administration ‘manufactured' intelligence to create the 2016 Russian election interference narrative.” Appearing on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard stated: “Accountability is essential for the future of our country.” She continued: "There must be indictments. Those responsible, no matter how powerful they are and were at that time, no matter who was involved in creating this treasonous conspiracy against the American people—they all must be held accountable.” You can read the bombshell report here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-admin-manufactured-intelligence-create-2016-russian-election-interference-narrative-documents-show. 5:10pm- While appearing on Benny Johnson's podcast, Mike Davis—of the Article III Project—explained that former President Barack Obama may not have presidential immunity related to the Russia collusion hoax: “when he's participating in the coverup of this conspiracy, he doesn't have presidential immunity.” 5:30pm- On Monday, Border Czar Tom Homan spoke at a news conference on the New York City border agent who was shot by a migrant residing in the country illegally. Homan stated: “Sanctuary cities are now our priority. We're going to flood the zone.” 5:40pm- In a profanity-laced interview with YouTube personality Andrew Callaghan, Hunter Biden lashed out at the Democratic Party for forcing his father to withdraw from the 2024 presidential election—specifically George Clooney and the Pod Save America hosts. During the interview, Hunter also denied being responsible for the cocaine found at the White House during his father's presidency and referred to Donald Trump as a “dictator thug.” 6:05pm- Jimmy Failla—Host of “Fox News Saturday with Jimmy Failla” & “Fox Across America”—joins The Rich Zeoli Show. Jimmy reacts to the viral Coldplay Kiss Cam video, Stephen Colbert's late-night show being canceled by CBS, and attending his high school reunion over the weekend. Failla will be performing at SoulJoel's in Montgomery County, PA on August 9th. You can find information about tickets here: https://radio.foxnews.com/fox ...

Following the emergence of new evidence from messages submitted by the Department of Justice's whistleblower, Erez Reuveni, Andrew and Mary discuss its potential implications for the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and the confirmation process of Emil Bove III. They also examine a Southern California ruling to halt immigration stops based on race. On the other coast, they look at a temporary block of Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship—a case where Mary has particular expertise via her role in a related birthright citizenship case: CASA v. Trump. Finally, SCOTUS paves way for mass layoffs of federal workers, and DOJ opens investigations into former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan.Listener Note: This podcast was recorded several hours before the Supreme Court decision allowing for the dismantling of the Department of Education. Andrew and Mary will discuss on next week's episode.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

This week's episode begins with a Supreme Court decision to allow the deportation of eight migrants to South Sudan without due process, despite it not being their country of origin. And after a comparative review of the new beefed-up ICE budget and what it means for deportation operations moving forward, Andrew and Mary spotlightthe latest from Kilmar Abrego Garcia's civil and criminal cases. Also not to be missed: the newly disclosed letters Attorney General Pam Bondi sent to tech firms assuring them they would not be penalized for supporting TikTok operations in the US, despite a federal ban. Plus: how a pardoned J6 defendant received a life sentence for plotting to kill the agents who investigated him, and what led to FBI agent Michael Feinberg's forced resignation.Further reading: Here are the letters sent from Attorney General Pam Bondi to Google, Apple and Amazon, among others. And here is a write up from former FBI agent Michael Feinberg, explaining his coerced resignation. Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

After Friday's Supreme Court ruling to limit nationwide injunctions, Mary and Andrew begin by breaking down what it means for future challenges to executive actions as they make their way through the courts, and what's next for Mary's birthright citizenship case. They also tackle the DHS lawsuit against all federal judges on the district court in Maryland, before reviewing the Justice Department's plans to prioritize cases revoking citizenship—aka ‘denaturalizing' US citizens. This, along with their discussion of ICE targeting migrant workers and using routine traffic stops to check legal status, shines a light on the legal limits of ICE's tactics.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

The United States entered the conflict between Israel and Iran this weekend after bombing three Iranian nuclear sites. Andrew and Mary start this week's episode here, discussing the scope of presidential war powers and the norms of international law following the strikes. After, they shift focus to immigration, zeroing in on a whistleblower complaint from a former DOJ lawyer against Principal Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove among others, as well as the releases of Mahmoud Khalil and Kilmar Abrego Garcia. And after a nod to the Supreme Court's decision on removing immigrants to countries other than their own, Mary and Andrew touch on the 9th Circuit decision allowing Trump to retain control of the California National Guard, and what happens next.Further reading: Here is the compliant from the Justice Department whistleblower (courtesy New York Times): Protected Whistleblower Disclosure of Erez Reuveni Regarding Violation of Laws, Rules & Regulations, Abuse of Authority, and Substantial and Specific Danger to Health and Safety at the Department of Justice and here is more on the dissent from the Supreme Court's recent decision: Supreme Court allows Trump to swiftly deport certain immigrants to 'third countries'Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Political violence is never OK. So after the horrible news out of Minnesota, Mary and Andrew begin with a breakdown of the federal charges against the man accused of murdering a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband and attempting to murder several others.Next, they move to an explainer of an appeals court ruling that temporarily blocked a lower court decision ordering the control of the California National Guard back to the state, while tying in the scuffle during Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's press conference last week as Senator Alex Padilla was forcibly removed and handcuffed. And rounding out this episode, Andrew and Mary note Trump's failed attempt to appeal the $5 million judgement in the E Jean Carroll case, and the arguments heard last week on his attempt to remove his NY state hush money case to a federal court.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Protests intensified in Los Angeles and around the country after the Trump administration stepped up ICE raids largely targeting immigrants working in service industries. And after Trump deployed the National Guard without any buy-in from the state, California sued. So what now? That's where Andrew and Mary begin this week, parsing the legality of using the military domestically, and how responsibilities shift when the National Guard is federalized. The rest of this episode is focused on the intertwined news of Judge Boasberg's sweeping decision to ensure due process for the Venezuelan immigrants deported to El Salvador, with Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return to the US, as he faces charges of human smuggling in Tennessee.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Media coverage over the economic impact of President Trump's tariffs has been robust,but not a ton of attention has been paid to the actual legality of them. So that's where Andrew and Mary begin, after two court decisions in the last week questioned the merits and where jurisdiction lies. Then they turn to the president's significant use of the pardon power to commute sentences and override convictions of some friends and allies, and what it says about maintaining a belief in blind justice. And after some great reporting from the New York Times, Mary and Adnrew detail some changes happening within Director Kash Patel's FBI, as bureau leaders are taken down a peg and emphasis on public corruption is dialed back.Further reading: Here is the New York Times reporting concerning the FBI: Unease at F.B.I. Intensifies as Patel Ousts Top OfficialsWant to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.