Podcast appearances and mentions of Ilya Somin

The White House has been boasting that President Trump's partial pause in the trade war with China is a historic breakthrough. But two new reports, one from The New York Times and the other from the non-liberal Wall Street Journal editorial page, neatly expose what a monstrous scam this notion truly is, in and of itself. As they detail, Trump has put the global economy through major turmoil and uncertainty, but without winning any serious concessions from China. This will get worse for Trump: In addition to being terrible policy, the tariffs are a massive abuse of power. And once the lawsuits against them get going, this, too, will be fully aired out. We spoke to George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, who's helping spearhead one of the most important legal challenges. He explains why the tariffs are on weak legal ground, what the prospects are for reversing them, and how they reflect a much deeper lawlessness on Trump's part.  Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The White House has been boasting that President Trump's partial pause in the trade war with China is a historic breakthrough. But two new reports, one from The New York Times and the other from the non-liberal Wall Street Journal editorial page, neatly expose what a monstrous scam this notion truly is, in and of itself. As they detail, Trump has put the global economy through major turmoil and uncertainty, but without winning any serious concessions from China. This will get worse for Trump: In addition to being terrible policy, the tariffs are a massive abuse of power. And once the lawsuits against them get going, this, too, will be fully aired out. We spoke to George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, who's helping spearhead one of the most important legal challenges. He explains why the tariffs are on weak legal ground, what the prospects are for reversing them, and how they reflect a much deeper lawlessness on Trump's part.  Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Friday, May 9, senior White House official Stephen Miller said: "The Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended at a time of invasion. So I would say that's an action we're actively looking at." CNN later reported that President Donald Trump has been personally involved in discussions in the administration over potentially suspending habeas.In this episode of the podcast, Ryan Goodman discusses the constitutional law on suspension of habeas, the context of Rümeysa Öztürk's release on a habeas petition on Friday shortly before Miller's remarks, and how the courts may respond.Show notes:1. Amy Coney Barrett, Suspension and Delegation, 99 Cornell Law Review 251 (2014) 2. Case of Rümeysa Öztürk Link to case summary and key court documents: https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/?js_filter=003743. Ryan Goodman and Dani Schulkin, A Pyrrhic Victory: Initial Supreme Court Gain for Trump on Alien Enemies Act May End in Administration's Loss, Just Security, May 9, 20254. Ilya Somin, What Just Happened: The “Invasion” Executive Order and Its Dangerous Implications, Just Security, January 28, 20255. Ryan Goodman, The Actual Threat: Attacks on Habeas and Citizenship Rights, YouTube

An audio of Ilya Somin's Just Security article, which has become more topical by the day. The title: "What Just Happened: The Invasion Executive Order and Its Dangerous Implications." Somin is a Professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, the B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, and author of Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration and Political Freedom (Oxford University Press).

President Donald Trump faces lawsuits over his actions on immigration, mass firings, funding threats and tariffs. But are his administration's showdowns with the courts are heading to a constitutional crisis? Scott and Marisa are joined by Ilya Somin, who teaches law at George Mason University and is the chair of constitutional studies at the Libertarian Cato think tank in Washington. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

El Salvador is receiving prisoners snatched by the US federal government. The Supreme Court has ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" the return of one prisoner. Ilya Somin details some of the more troubling aspects of this struggle. We spoke April 11, 2025. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs use emergency powers from a statute that makes no mention of tariffs. Ilya Somin explains why that's one reason the tariffs are on shaky legal/constitutional ground and why a new lawsuit is challenging them. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How California’s state and local governments act in the wake of the devastating wildfires will be a harbinger of whether America can deal with its housing issues. California’s housing crisis was dire before the Southern California wildfires were sparked. As Jim Burling has recounted in his new book, Nowhere to Live, half of the nation’s homeless population lives in California. And between 2020 and 2023, California’s homeless population increased by 5.8 percent.Some argue that this housing crisis has only been exacerbated by errant government policies like exclusionary zoning and restrictive permitting conditions because these stifle the production of affordable housing. Others contend, however, that these restrictions are necessary not only to promote the orderly development of California’s land, but also to help prevent and avoid destruction done by wildfires and other natural disasters.Now, after so much property has been razed to the ground, how are California’s state and local governments addressing the needs of displaced landowners? What effect will Gov. Newsom’s emergency orders suspending the California Coastal Act’s requirements have on rebuilding? Will the California Coastal Commission comply with the Governor’s directives and how will it respond to rebuilding efforts? What implications will California’s response to the fires have on housing going forward?Join a panel of expert scholars, Jennifer Hernandez, Ilya Somin, and Nolan Gray, who will address these questions and much more.Speakers:Nolan Gray, Senior Director of Legislation and Research, California YIMBY Jennifer Hernandez, Partner, Holland & KnightProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Stephen Davis, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation

Trump has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime authority, to summarily deport suspected members of a Venezuelan gang. He also invoked a Cold War-era statute to deport a student activist at Columbia University. In this episode, Adam Cox of New York University and Ilya Somin of George Mason University join to discuss the scope of the president's deportation power and to evaluate whether the administration violated the due process or speech rights of the deportees.  Resources  Adam Cox and Cristina Rodríguez, The President and Immigration Law (2020)  Ilya Somin, Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom (2021)  Adam Cox and Ahilan Arulanantham, “Explainer on First Amendment and Due Process Issues in Deportation of Pro-Palestinian Student Activist(s),” Just Security (March 12, 2025)  Ilya Somin, “The Case Against Deporting Immigrants for ‘Pro-Terrorist' Speech,” Volokh Conspiracy (March 10, 2025)  Ilya Somin, “What Just Happened: The “Invasion” Executive Order and Its Dangerous Implications” Just Security (January 28, 2025)  Adam Cox, “The Invention of Immigration Exceptionalism,” Yale Law Review (November 2024)  Bridges v. Wixon (1945)  Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to whisk alleged gang members to an El Salvador prison should not be allowed to stand for a variety of reasons. Ilya Somin explains why it might put Americans at risk. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Donald Trump's showdown with the courts reached a new level this week when it appeared that the US government defied a judge's order blocking the deportation of hundreds of Venezuelan migrants. The US president invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to send alleged gang members to El Salvador where they're being held in a harsh prison. It seems that planes were in the air when the judge made the ruling, so why weren't they turned around? Today, what happens if the Trump administration ignores the courts.Ilya Somin, law professor at George Mason University, on the risks of a constitutional crisis in the United States. Featured: Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University in Virginia and the B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute

Immigration is a spotlight issue, especially heading into the next administration. Some say the United States is under attack—that the entrance of millions of immigrants, some of whom intend to and do cause harm to Americans, constitutes an “invasion” or "predatory incursion" of the sort mentioned in Article I of the Constitution and the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). Others contend, however, that allowing the term “invasion” or "predatory incursion" to apply to illegal immigration is both wrong and dangerous, and would allow for the possibility of states engaging in war or mounting hostility with neighboring countries. Is the US under invasion or predatory incursion by illegal immigrants? Can illegal immigration be an instrument to diminish the sovereignty of a nation? Join us in discussing these important questions and more.Featuring:Hon. Ken Cuccinelli, Former Acting Deputy Secretary for the Department of Homeland SecurityProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Joseph Humire, Executive Director, Center for a Secure Free Society--To register, click the link above.--For reference:Policy Brief: How States Can Secure the BorderAttorney General Opinion No. I22-001(R21-015) Immigration is Not InvasionCourts Might Not Stop Trump's Illicit Plans for Mass Deportations

Sollten die Schweiz und die Welt ihre Grenzen für uneingeschränkte Migration öffnen? In unserem neuesten Podcast diskutieren Ilya Somin, Professor für Recht an der George Mason University in Fairfax, USA, und Oliver Zimmer, Historiker und Forschungsleiter am Center for Research in Economics, Management, and the Arts, dieses kontroverse Thema. Unter der Moderation von Christoph Eisenring […] The post Zu Gast: Weltweite Personenfreizügigkeit – mehr als eine libertäre Utopie? appeared first on Avenir Suisse.

A Case for Kamala? With Professor Ilya Somin In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz engages in a thought-provoking conversation with Professor Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University and Kenneth B. Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at The Cato Institute. Together, they explore the political and constitutional implications of Vice President Kamala Harris's tenure and potential future leadership. Professor Somin presents a balanced analysis, weighing the arguments both for and against Harris's policies and leadership style. This episode offers a nuanced perspective on Harris's influence and what it means for the future of American governance. Tune in for a compelling discussion that challenges assumptions and stimulates debate.Michael Leibowitz, host of The Rational Egoist podcast, is a philosopher and political activist who draws inspiration from Ayn Rand's philosophy, advocating for reason, rational self-interest, and individualism. His journey from a 25-year prison sentence to a prominent voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities highlights the transformative impact of embracing these principles. Leibowitz actively participates in political debates and produces content aimed at promoting individual rights and freedoms. He is the co-author of “Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime” and “View from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Liberty,” which explore societal issues and his personal evolution through Rand's teachings. Explore his work and journey further through his books:“Down the Rabbit Hole”: https://www.amazon.com.au/Down-Rabbit-Hole-Corrections-Encourages/dp/197448064X“View from a Cage”: https://books2read.com/u/4jN6xj join our Ayn Rand Adelaide Meetups here for some seriously social discussions on Freedom https://www.meetup.com/adelaide-ayn-rand-meetup/

Professor Ilya Somin of George Mason University and the Cato Institute discusses his work in drafting amicus papers in the Kelo case, working with Jane Jacobs, writing a book on Kelo (The Grasping Hand) a decade after the decision, and his current work on the costs of exclusionary zoning. Throughout, Bobby and Prof. Somin discuss the common ground that otherwise-differing philosophies find in property law.   Links: https://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/fulltime/somin_ilya  https://www.cato.org/people/ilya-somin https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/06/constitutional-case-against-exclusionary-zoning/678659/  https://www.amazon.com/Grasping-Hand-London-Limits-Eminent/dp/022642216X/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&dib_tag=se&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Av65EcHKeo7CqGfLDs_9-g.tENW9VkASB1jBty2_iVzTu5b5-S5ECKGI_CBiubYZHA&qid=1724864661&sr=1-1 

In an effort to win crucial votes in battleground states, both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have put forward economic proposals that are not only performative but will end up being detrimental to the economy and to peoples' budgets. The cynical move is that they are hoping that the policies sound good enough that voters won't look at the actual effects these policies will have. It's bad politics, it's bad economics, and we need to hold our political candidates to a higher standard. Ilya Somin is a professor at George Mason University and joins the show.  

Congress's impeachment power has been used dozens of times since the republic's founding, mostly for relatively low- and mid-level executive and judicial officers involving clear instances of bribery or other felonies. Its attempted use to remove Supreme Court justices, presidents, and now cabinet secretaries is more controversial, and since the 1990s, in arguably partisan or overtly political ways. The impeachment inquiry into President Biden and the House vote to impeach Homeland Security Department Secretary Mayorkas (which recently failed a snap Senate vote) may be seen as tit-for-tat for the two impeachment trials of President Trump. Is that a false equivalence? Regardless of who threw the first partisan stone, are recent uses of the Impeachment power a good development or arguable abuses? What does it portend for the future? Our distinguished panel of scholars will discuss the power itself, recent impeachment proceedings, and the potential implications for the future.Featuring:Prof. Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, UNC School of LawProf. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University(Moderator) Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Ilya Somin is a law prof and all-around intellectual. He is of a libertarian bent. He teaches at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. He began life in the Soviet Union. He was but six when his family immigrated to America. He read Robert Nozick, and Tolkien, and others. He went to […]

Ilya Somin is a law prof and all-around intellectual. He is of a libertarian bent. He teaches at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. He began life in the Soviet Union. He was but six when his family immigrated to America. He read Robert Nozick, and Tolkien, and others. He went to Amherst, Harvard, and Yale. He is a Boston sports fan. With Jay, he talks about life, the law, and the American experiment. A formidable mind, a formidable teacher. 

Congress’s impeachment power has been used dozens of times since the republic’s founding, mostly for relatively low- and mid-level executive and judicial officers involving clear instances of bribery or other felonies. Its attempted use to remove Supreme Court justices, presidents, and now cabinet secretaries is more controversial, and since the 1990s, in arguably partisan or overtly political ways. The impeachment inquiry into President Biden and the House vote to impeach Homeland Security Department Secretary Mayorkas (which recently failed a snap Senate vote) may be seen as tit-for-tat for the two impeachment trials of President Trump. Is that a false equivalence? Regardless of who threw the first partisan stone, are recent uses of the Impeachment power a good development or arguable abuses? What does it portend for the future? Our distinguished panel of scholars will discuss the power itself, recent impeachment proceedings, and the potential implications for the future.Featuring:Prof. Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, UNC School of LawProf. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University(Moderator) Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Can the Alvin Bragg Trump decision be defended? We debate with George Mason Univesity professor, and Reason Magazine contributor, Ilya Somin. Also, check out Ilyas's recent book on immigration: Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom

Can the Alvin Bragg Trump decision be defended? We debate with George Mason Univesity professor, and Reason Magazine contributor, Ilya Somin. Also, check out Ilyas's recent book on immigration: Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom

The Rational Egoist: Liberty at the Border – A Constitutional Debate with Ilya Somin In this compelling episode of The Rational Egoist, Michael Liebowitz sits down once again with Professor Ilya Somin, a renowned legal scholar from George Mason University and the B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at The Cato Institute. This time, the spotlight is on the heated constitutional dispute between Texas and the federal government over border control and immigration policies. Professor Somin brings his profound knowledge of constitutional law to dissect the complexities of this contentious issue. The discussion kicks off with an overview of the dispute's origins, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of the constitutional arguments at play. Somin provides a balanced analysis of the powers vested in states versus the federal government, examining how this balance affects the management of border security and immigration. Throughout the episode, Liebowitz and Somin engage in a thought-provoking dialogue on the implications of this conflict for individual rights, state sovereignty, and national integrity. They delve into the potential outcomes of the dispute, considering its impact on the broader debate over immigration reform and the role of the federal government in enforcing border policies.Listeners will gain insights into the legal frameworks that govern state-federal relations, as well as the philosophical underpinnings that guide interpretations of the Constitution in the context of modern challenges. This episode not only sheds light on a pressing legal battle but also encourages a reflection on the principles of liberty, governance, and the rule of law in the United States. Join The Rational Egoist for an episode that promises to enrich your understanding of the constitutional landscape, offering clarity on a complex issue that continues to shape the nation's political and legal discourse. Whether you're a legal aficionado or a concerned citizen, this discussion with Ilya Somin is not to be missed. Michael Leibowitz, host of The Rational Egoist podcast, is a philosopher and political activist who draws inspiration from Ayn Rand's philosophy, advocating for reason, rational self-interest, and individualism. His journey from a 25-year prison sentence to a prominent voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities highlights the transformative impact of embracing these principles. Leibowitz actively participates in political debates and produces content aimed at promoting individual rights and freedoms. He is the co-author of “Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime” and “View from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Liberty,” which explore societal issues and his personal evolution through Rand's teachings.Explore his work and journey further through his books:“Down the Rabbit Hole”: https://www.amazon.com.au/Down-Rabbit-Hole-Corrections-Encourages/dp/197448064X“View from a Cage”: https://books2read.com/u/4jN6xj

First – there were no LEGAL consequences for President Biden for his mishandling of classified documents -- but there's plenty of POLITICAL fallout for the president in the newly released Special Counsel's report. Axios political reporter Erin Doherty gives us a rundown. Then - the OTHER big story in Washington this week: The high-stakes Supreme Court case on former President Trump's eligibility to appear on the Colorado ballot. We examine the legal and constitutional questions with Ilya Somin of the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School and Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Plus – It's been one week since the U-S began military strikes against Iran-backed proxies in the Middle East. We speak with national security expert and retired Navy captain GENE MORAN about what was accomplished. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear Oral Argument in Trump v. Anderson. The Court will consider whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Donald Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot.Legal questions involved in the case include whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is "self-executing" or requires an additional act of Congress, whether the events of January 6, 2021, constitute an insurrection, and if so whether Donald Trump participated in that insurrection, and whether the President is an "officer of the United States" as meant by Section 3.Join us as a panel of experts, including Prof. Kurt Lash, who submitted an amicus brief in the case, and Prof. Ilya Somin, who also submitted an amicus brief, preview this case the day before the oral argument, discussing the case and the questions implicated by it.Featuring:Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of LawProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University(Moderator) Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School

No matter what side of the political spectrum you fall. And whether you think the former president should be on the 2024 ballot or not. Tomorrow's Supreme Court consideration of the Insurrection Clause is historic. We could not let it happen without taking a look.In this interview, Bob interviews constitutional expert Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University. What follows is an engaging exploration into the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause and its potential repercussions for Donald Trump's political future. As the Supreme Court deliberates, we dissect the amendment's historical roots, established to curtail post-Civil War insurrectionists, and scrutinize its relevance in the wake of the January 6th Capitol siege. The conversation traverses the terrain of past rebellions and posits how the Capitol breach stands in comparison, offering an intricate understanding of the constitutional definitions at play.  We take no side in this fight and the professor's views are his own.Navigating the murky waters of what constitutes presidential support for an insurrection, we scrutinize Trump's actions on the fateful day, incljuding the implications of his response—or lack thereof—to the Capitol breach. The episode peels back the layers of constitutional ambiguity, addressing the complexities of determining engagement in insurrection, and how these gray areas resonate with our democracy's fundamental themes. Through Somin's expert (and, admittedly partisan) lens, we shine a light on the bearing this case could have, considering the unique dynamics of a former president and current political figurehead's eligibility for office.Focusing on the electoral eligibility mechanisms, the dialogue turns to the influential role of Secretaries of State and the judiciary's part in protecting our electoral sanctity. Through historical references like the challenge to Ted Cruz's eligibility, we emphasize the importance of checks and balances within our legal system. The episode wraps with insights into the potential for the highest court to interpret both legal and factual findings, particularly in defining insurrection—and what it means to engage in it. For those drawn to the interplay of law and democracy, this episode is an invitation to witness a deep-dive into one of the most pressing legal debates of our time.

Season 5, Episode 4 features the 28th Annual Frankel Lecture, “The Perennial Eclipse: Race, Immigration, and How Latinx Count in American Politics.” Our keynote Frankel Lecturer was Professor Rachel Moran of Texas A&M School of Law. Her commenters were Ilya Somin, Professor of law at George Mason University, and Joseph Fishkin, Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. Tune in on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or any other streaming platform for a fascinating and informative discussion about race, ethnicity, voting and Texas.On behalf of the Houston Law Review, Emphasis Added would like to thank Professor Moran, Professor Somin, and Professor Fishkin for sharing their work with us. We are also deeply grateful to the Frankel family for their 28 years of support in fueling the Law Center's ability to host timely and intellectual conversations on important legal issues.For more Emphasis Added content, follow us on Instagram and check out our video content on YouTube!

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Trump v. Anderson, former President Donald Trump's appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court's historic decision taking him off the state's presidential primary ballot. In determining whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering Trump excluded from the state's ballot, the Supreme Court faces one of the most fraught questions facing our democracy today.Lawfare Associate Editor Hyemin Han asked two legal scholars who could not disagree more with one another whether they think the Supreme Court should disqualify Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Sam Moyn is Chancellor Kent Professor of Law and History at Yale University. He thinks the Supreme Court has to unanimously reverse the Colorado Supreme Court's decision and keep the current Republican frontrunner on the ballot. Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University and B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. He thinks the Supreme Court should take Trump off the ballot despite its facially anti-democratic optics. They went through the legal questions in front of the Court, the political and philosophical implications of disqualifying Trump under Section 3, and the interplay of law and politics that overlays it all.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On January 16, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Devillier v. Texas. This takings case will determine whether a person whose property is taken without compensation may seek redress under the self-executing takings clause of the Fifth Amendment even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action.The petitioners in this case sued the state after the Texas Department of Transportation elevated an interstate and constructed a barrier to obstruct natural water flow, subsequently flooding and damaging the petitioners' properties. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, joined us to discuss the case and its developments following oral argument.For more analysis from Professor Somin, you can read his blog post on the arguments here and find his amicus brief on behalf of the CATO Institute here. Featuring:Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre (January 8) - Civil Rights, National Security; Whether a lawsuit alleging that the plaintiff was wrongly placed on the “No Fly List” can go forward when the government has removed the plaintiff from the list and promised not to put him back on the list “based on the currently available information.”Campos-Chaves v. Garland (January 8) - Immigration; Whether the federal government provided adequate notice of an immigration proceeding, allowing the immigration court to enter a deportation order when the non-citizen does not appear.U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC (January 9) - Bankruptcy; In the wake of the court's 2022 decision holding unconstitutional a federal law imposing higher fees on bankruptcy filers in 48 states, what should the remedy for that constitutional violation be?Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (January 9) - Property Rights; Property-rights challenge by California landowner to nearly $24,000 in development fees levied by the county as a condition for receiving a permit to build a manufactured home.Smith v. Arizona (January 10) - Sixth Amendment, Criminal Law & Procedure; Whether the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him, allows prosecutors to use expert testimony about evidence – here, a report prepared by a different crime lab analyst who no longer worked at the lab and did not testify at trial – that was not itself admitted into evidence, on the grounds that the testifying expert was simply offering his own opinion and that the defendant could have subpoenaed the original analyst.Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. (January 16) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether the failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-K, which requires a company to disclose known trends or uncertainties that are likely to have a material impact on its financial position, can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits deception in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, even if there has not been an otherwise-misleading statement.Devillier v. Texas (January 16) - Property Rights, Takings; Whether property owners can seek compensation under the Constitution for “taking” of their property by the state, if the state has not specifically given them a right to sue.Relentless v. Department of Commerce (January 17) - Administrative Law, Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether to overrule or limit the court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (January 17) - Administrative Law, Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether to overrule or limit the court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.Featuring: Eric B. Boettcher, Partner, Wright Close & BargerAllyson Newton Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPHon. Grover Joseph Rees, III, Former General Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization, Former United States Ambassador to East TimorMark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolModerator: Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP

On this episode of Future of Freedom, host Scot Bertram is joined by two guests with different viewpoints regarding the U.S. approach to Mexican cartels and the potential need to utilize military force. First on the show is Joshua Treviño, Chief of Intelligence and Research at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Later, we hear from Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University and the B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. You can find the Texas Public Policy Foundation on X, formerly Twitter, at @TPPF and Ilya at @IlyaSomin. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/future-of-freedom/support

In a conversation between Joe Selvaggi and George Mason law professor Ilya Somin, Somin presents his viewpoint on the moral and strategic case for allowing free emigration of Palestinian refugees from the conflict zone to bolster Israel's fight against Hamas terrorism.   Guest: Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University. His research focuses […]

In a conversation between Joe Selvaggi and George Mason law professor Ilya Somin, Somin presents his viewpoint on the moral and strategic case for allowing free emigration of Palestinian refugees from the conflict zone to bolster Israel's fight against Hamas terrorism.

Economic Impact Unveiled: The Rational Egoist Podcast with Michael Liebowitz and Professor Ilya Somin Join host Michael Liebowitz and distinguished guest Professor Ilya Somin, the B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and law professor at George Mason University, on this enlightening episode of "The Rational Egoist Podcast." In this thought-provoking conversation, Michael and Professor Somin delve into the economic consequences of immigration. In a world where individual rights and economic freedom are paramount, they explore the notion that a free market could potentially double the GDP. They examine how immigrants from oppressive countries can find more opportunities in places like the USA, where regulations are less stringent. This discussion goes beyond the surface, addressing the often-misunderstood concept of immigrants competing for jobs with native populations. In fact, they shed light on how immigrants often contribute by creating their businesses, such as restaurants, thus fostering economic growth and innovation.Tune in to gain valuable insights into the economic dynamics of immigration, as Michael and Professor Somin navigate this complex issue with a rational perspective, backed by data and analysis. Michael Leibowitz is a renowned philosopher, political activist, and the esteemed host of the Rational Egoist podcast. Inspired by the philosophical teachings of Ayn Rand, Leibowitz passionately champions the principles of reason, rational self-interest, and individualism, seeking to empower others through his compelling work. His life's narrative exemplifies the transformative power of Ayn Rand's writings. Having faced challenging circumstances that led to a 25-year prison sentence, Leibowitz emerged from adversity by embracing the tenets of rational self-interest and moral philosophy put forth by Ayn Rand. This profound transformation propelled him to become an influential figure in the libertarian and Objectivist communities, motivating others to adopt reason, individualism, and self-interest in their own lives. Beyond his impactful podcasting endeavors, Leibowitz fearlessly engages in lively political debates, advocating for the protection of individual rights and freedoms through compelling YouTube videos and insightful interviews. His unwavering commitment to these ideals has garnered him a dedicated following of like-minded individuals. Leibowitz is a versatile author, co-authoring the thought-provoking book titled "Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime." This groundbreaking work delves into societal attitudes surrounding punishment and rehabilitation, shedding light on how misguided approaches have contributed to the rise of crime and recidivism.Additionally, he has authored the book "View from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Liberty," offering an intimate portrayal of his personal journey while exploring the philosophies that influenced his transformation. As you embark on your intellectual journey, join Michael Leibowitz as he advocates for reason, individualism, and the pursuit of self-interest, inspiring others to embrace a philosophy that empowers and uplifts the human spirit.For a deeper exploration of his ideas and insights, don't miss the opportunity to read "Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime," co-authored by Michael Leibowitz. And also, delve into his book "View from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Liberty." Both books are available for purchase using the following links:"Down the Rabbit Hole": https://www.amazon.com.au/Down-Rabbit-Hole-Corrections-Encourages/dp/197448064X"View from a Cage": https://books2read.com/u/4jN6xj

In the wake of Donald Trump's role in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, lawsuits in states around the country are seeking to disqualify him from the 2024 election. Challengers to his eligibility invoke Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides in relevant part that "No person shall . . . hold any office . . . under the United States . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . . as an officer of the United States . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."As of now, there are nearly two dozen states in which litigation is ongoing to bar Trump from the ballot, and that number is only expected to grow. Earlier this week, a Colorado district began a week-long bench trial and, this Thursday, the Minnesota Supreme Court will hear oral argument. And if a state does disqualify Trump, the United States Supreme Court will no doubt immediately hear the case.On Monday October 30, the University of Minnesota Law School held a conference with leading law and political science scholars on "Section 3, Insurrection, and the 2024 Election: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Bar Donald Trump from the Presidency?" Today's Lawfare Podcast is a recording of one of the conference panels, which focused on the political implications of the Section 3 cases.The moderator was Larry Jacobs of the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, and the panelists were Julia Azari, a Professor of Political Science at Marquette University; Ilya Somin, a Professor of Law at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School; and Eric Segall, a Professor of Law at the Georgia State College of Law.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this episode, George Mason Law's Ilya Somin joins me and UVA Law students Joseph Camano ('24) and Dennis Ting ('24) to discuss the full implications of "My Body, My Choice." Somin argues that the principle has implications that go far beyond abortion (including paying kidney donors, and abolishing the draft and mandatory jury service) and that both liberals and conservatives are inconsistent in their application. ILYA SOMIN is Professor of Law at George Mason University and the B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. His research focuses on constitutional law, property law, democratic theory, federalism, and migration rights.  He is the author of  Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom (Oxford University Press, 2020, revised and expanded edition, 2021), Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter (Stanford University Press, revised and expanded second edition, 2016), and The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain (University of Chicago Press, 2015, rev. paperback ed., 2016), co-author of A Conspiracy Against Obamacare: The Volokh Conspiracy and the Health Care Case (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), and co-editor of Eminent Domain: A Comparative Perspective (Cambridge University Press, 2017).  Democracy and Political Ignorance has been translated into Italian and Japanese. Further Reading:Ilya Somin bio, George Mason Law SchoolIlya Somin, Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter (Stanford University Press, revised and expanded second edition, 2016)Ilya Somin,  Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom (Oxford University Press, 2020, revised and expanded edition, 2021)

"If anything is a reprehensible act for a high official in a democracy that deserves retribution, this is a good example," says professor Ilya Somin.

Joe Selvaggi talks with legal scholar and George Mason University professor Ilya Somin about the legal merits of the federal indictments against former President Donald Trump and what is likely to come next in the legal proceedings against him and other defendants in the cases involving the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. Guest Ilya […]

Joe Selvaggi talks with legal scholar and George Mason University professor Ilya Somin about the legal merits of the federal indictments against former President Donald Trump and what is likely to come next in the legal proceedings against him and other defendants in the cases involving the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.

Three qualified immunity cases are thoroughly analyzed in a particularly depressing AO episode, but first David and Sarah talk through an injunction on asylum seekers some are calling “Trump-Lite”, plus: -Broken immigration systems -Say it with me folks, “Congress, do your job.” -Too much too soon too fast -Courts not complying with qualified immunity statutes -Does Congress have better things to show rather than Hunter Biden revenge porn? -Advice to prospecting law students -Small town gossip and country songs -Sarah's victory lap around Hunter Biden plea deal -Be nice to the docketing clerks This episode is sponsored by FIRE. FIRE's mission is to safeguard and uphold the right of all Americans to freedom of speech. Be a part of the front line of a growing movement by joining the FIRE Update. Show Notes: -Update: AO still has the best listeners -Ilya Somin for Reason, "Supreme Court Rules Red" -David Lat's Original Jurisdiction Substack -One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week's record net migration figures have caused many to question the government's immigration policy and whether immigration is too high. To discuss this, IEA Director of Public Policy and Communications Matthew Lesh spoke to Director of British Future Sunder Katwala and Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University.

On March 28, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wilkins v. United States. The issue at hand is the Quiet Title Act's statute of limitations.Tune in to hear Prof. Ilya Somin, a scholar of constitutional law, federalism, and property law from the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, break down the vote and the decision's implications.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Slack Technologies v. Pirani (April 17) - Securities, Financial Services; Whether, to bring a securities lawsuit alleging misstatements in a registration statement, a plaintiff must plead and show that he bought shares registered under the allegedly misleading statement.US ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. & United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway [Consolidated] (April 18) - Financial Services; Whether and when a defendant's subjective knowledge about whether its conduct was legal is relevant to whether it “knowingly” submitted false claims for payment to the government or “knowingly” made false statements in support of such claims in violation of the False Claims Act.Groff v. Dejoy (April 18) - Labor, Religious Liberties; Whether to overrule the Supreme Court's 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, on the accommodations that employers must provide for their employees' religious practices.Counterman v. Colorado (April 19) - Free Speech; To determine whether statements are “true threats” that are not protected by the Constitution, should courts apply an objective test that considers whether a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence, or instead a subjective test that requires prosecutors to show that the speaker intended to make a threat?Lac du Flambeua Band v. Coughlin (April 24) - Tribal Law; Whether the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally expresses Congress's intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Native American tribes.Tyler v. Hennepin County (April 26) - Property Rights; Whether the foreclosure on and sale of a home that was worth $25,000 more than the owner owed in taxes violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which bars the government from taking private property for public use without adequately compensating the property owners.Featuring: Thomas F. Gede, Counsel, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLPSharon Fast Gustafson, Principal, Sharon Fast Gustafson, Attorney at Law, PLCBrian Hauss, Senior Staff Attorney, Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, ACLUProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Moderator: Anastasia P. Boden, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute

The podcast from the smartest nerds in the know on immigration is back! The Immigration Nerds Podcast has relaunched with show host Lauren Clarke—a senior attorney at Erickson Immigration Group, an immigrant, and the kind of nerd who makes the details easier to understand. Are you interested in the American response to the refugee crisis in Ukraine? Hear what's working and what's not in the U.S. State Department program designed to welcome Ukrainians fleeing Russia's invasion, Uniting for Ukraine. Lauren's guest is George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School Law Professor Ilya Somin, a sponsor to a Ukrainian refugee family.Featured Guest: Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law SchoolNews Nerd: Rob Taylor, EIG PartnerHost: Lauren Clarke, EIG Senior Attorney and Immigration Nerds host

Joe Selvaggi talks with George Mason Law Professor, author, and immigration expert Ilya Somin about the newly announced Welcome Corps program which empowers Americans to sponsor and help relocate refugees from Ukraine and other places of war and persecution. Guest: Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University. His research focuses on constitutional […]

A Russian missile strike on an apartment building in Dnipro, Ukraine has left at least 40 people dead, making it one of the deadliest single attacks of the war. Ukrainian authorities report that it was a cruise missile. The current wave of attacks on civilian targets comes at a make-or-break moment in this vicious war, as more western allies – including Britain, France, and Poland – promise to send Kyiv tanks and other advanced weapons. But is it happening fast enough to help Ukraine defend itself against feared Russian offensives this spring? Igor Zhovkva is a top aide to President Zelensky and joins the show from Kyiv.  Also on today's show: Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi; International Civil Society; author Ilya Somin.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

This week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases challenging the use of racial preferences in college admissions at Harvard and The University of North Carolina. Your hosts do a deep dive into those arguments, pulling out the best, worst, and most interesting questions. GianCarlo then interviews Professor David Bernstein who filed an influential amicus brief in the cases and wrote a fascinating book called Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America. Lastly, GianCarlo quizzes Zack to see if he can identify the most famous and infamous quotes from the Supreme Court's race jurisprudence.As mentioned in the episode, you can read Ed Whelan's article here and Professor Ilya Somin's article here.Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The vaccine mandate cases handled by the Supreme Court earlier this year deserve discussion for their implications for emergency powers going forward. Ilya Somin parsed the cases at Cato's Constitution Day event. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.