Podcasts about rulings

Guest: Mary Anastasia O'Grady. O'Grady criticizes Brazilian Justice de Moraes for arbitrary rulings on free speech and transgender laws, alongside corruption allegations involving his wife and a bank.

Send me feedback!Let's talk injunctions and whether the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA) should be supported or not.SUPPORT THE SHOWGet a 10% discount by using the code LibertyDad at Black Guns Matter shop.OR, use the referral linkFIND ME ELSEWHERELinktreeSHOW NOTESHarvard Law ReviewSupport the show

OA1232 - Hey OA-ers, this episode was a Gavel Gavel bonus, but we wanted to be sure everyone was updated on what's going on with the Luigi Mangione trials. New York public defender Liz Skeen is here to break it all down! And since the judge made some rulings on 1/30, I've got an update for ya! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

A federal judge orders the release of a five-year-old boy detained during immigration raids in Minnesota. Iran warns of a regional conflict if the U.S. attacks the country, with President Donald Trump saying Tehran is negotiating. Preparations are underway to reopen Gaza's main border crossing in Rafah. Plus, the music world prepares for the Grammys and Carlos Alcaraz makes history at the Australian Open.  Listen to the latest On Assignment ⁠Minneapolis from different angles⁠. Listen to the Morning Bid podcast ⁠here⁠. Sign up for the Reuters Econ World newsletter ⁠here⁠. Listen to the Reuters Econ World podcast ⁠here⁠. Visit the ⁠Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement⁠ for information on our privacy and data protection practices. You may also visit ⁠megaphone.fm/adchoices⁠ to opt out of targeted advertising. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on The Tax Factor, Robert Salter and Sarah Stenton begin with a roundup of the Top 3 tax stories making headlines which includes a key government U-turn… Sarah and Robert begin by sharing timely insights on Self-Assessment tax returns, including HMRC receiving a big pay day, common pitfalls and practical tips as deadlines approach. Robert then provides insight into Advanced Tax Certification Rulings, explaining how they work, when they’re useful, and why certainty from HMRC continues to be so valuable. The episode also investigates the Boulting v HMRC tax case, analysing the key issues and what it could mean for future disputes, before rounding off with a look at Scottish tax and how devolved rules continue to evolve. Informative and accessible.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Imagine this: I'm sitting in my Washington D.C. studio, coffee in hand, watching the Supreme Court building gleam under a crisp winter sun, and I can't shake the feeling that the highest court in the land is about to drop some seismic rulings on President Donald Trump. Over the past few days, the buzz has been electric, especially with SCOTUSblog reporting on January 28 that the justices are set to huddle in their private conference on February 20 to decide whether to dive into that infamous five-million-dollar verdict from Trump's clash with E. Jean Carroll.Let me take you back. Carroll, the veteran journalist who penned Elle magazine's advice column for 27 years, sued Trump in 2022 under a special New York state law that reopened the window for adult sexual abuse victims to file claims. She accused him of assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in Manhattan back in 1996, and then defaming her in a 2022 Truth Social post where he branded her story a hoax and a con job. A federal jury in May 2023 sided with her, hitting Trump with liability for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding her that five-million-dollar payout. Trump appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld it in December 2024 and shot down his rehearing bid in June 2025. Now, his team from the James Otis Law Group—led by his solicitor general D. John Sauer—is begging the Supreme Court to step in, calling the suit facially implausible and politically timed to hurt him after he became the 45th president. They want out key evidence: testimonies from Jessica Leeds, who claims Trump groped her on a plane in 1979, and Natasha Stoynoff, alleging assault at his Mar-a-Lago home in 2005, plus that infamous Access Hollywood tape where Trump boasted about grabbing women. Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, fires back that even without those, her case stands strong, so the Supremes should pass.But that's just one front. The court's January argument calendar, released late last year, packs a punch with Trump cases testing his executive muscle. On January 21, they heard Trump v. Cook, where President Trump tried firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over mortgage fraud allegations from before her tenure. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in D.C. blocked it with a preliminary injunction in September 2025, citing the Federal Reserve Act's for-cause protection. The D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court denied emergency bids to oust her fast, but now it's full showdown—Cook's rep, ex-Solicitor General Paul Clement, versus Sauer. Wikipedia details how this sparked a historic brawl over Fed independence, with Cook's team calling it a political smear.Then there's the shadow docket drama from 2025, as News4JAX outlined this week: Trump's admin won over 80 percent of emergency pleas, greenlighting moves like slashing foreign aid, axing agency heads, and tying immigration probes to looks or language. But they drew the line at deploying National Guard to Chicago. Chief Justice John Roberts' year-end report subtly defended judicial independence, dubbing courts a counter-majoritarian check amid Trump's judge-bashing.Looking ahead, per News4JAX and KIMA Action News clips from early January, 2026 looms huge: birthright citizenship challenges under the 14th Amendment, sweeping tariffs from Trump's 2025 executive orders—argued November 5, decision pending—and more Fed firing fights. Illinois alone filed 51 suits against his policies by January, per WTTW. Lawfare's tracker logs the national security lawsuits piling up. With Trump's approval dipping to 42 percent, experts whisper the conservative court might now clip his wings, echoing rebukes to Truman, Nixon, and others late in term.These battles aren't just legal—they're reshaping power between White House, Congress, and the robes. As SCOTUSblog notes, decisions could land soon after February 20 conferences, maybe by March.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and 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

Former US Attorney Rachel Paulose speaks out on ICE, court rulings and fraud. Rachel Kunjummen Paulose is an American attorney. She was nominated by President George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to serve as a United States Attorney.She was the youngest person and the first woman to lead the District of Minnesota and the first Indian American woman to be nominated by a president and confirmed by the Senate for any federal position.Paulose's legal career began in 1997 when she worked as a law clerk under Judge James B. Loken of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. She then worked as a trial attorney in the Attorney General's Honors Program from 1998 to 1999. There, she prosecuted violations of the federal civil rights laws in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division.From 1999 until 2002, she worked as an Assistant United States Attorney. She first-chaired many trials in federal district court. She also briefed and argued many appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Cases involved narcotics, violent crime, economic crime. Jury trial and Eighth circuit appellate highlights: precedent-setting detention of suspect based on economic threat alone; precedent-setting appellate work rejecting expansion of alien criminal defendants' claims of rights under Vienna Convention.She worked in private practice after 2002 with the Williams & Connolly law firm in Washington D.C. until 2003, where her work focused on health care litigation and business.She was with the Dorsey & Whitney law firm in Minneapolis from 2003 until December 2005. Work included defense of health care providers, commercial litigation, and constitutional advocacy. Paulose was appointed as the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota in August 2006 and remained in that position until November 2007.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

CJAD 800 legal contributor Chris Dimakos is a lawyer and managing partner at Dimakos Law Group. He can be heard regularly on Montreal Now with Aaron Rand.

Hi Guys! Enjoy!Membership has its benefits! Members now get early access to videos now! Join for as little as 99 cents a month to get to see many videos as soon as I upload them, often days ahead of everyone else. Channel Members saw this video early. Click Here to Join the Channel as a Member!https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCABv_juND7JHvVbJCjWjhlw/joinHere's my most viewed video of all time. :)https://youtu.be/bWRPXFJ8Bl8You can now listen to me on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Locals, and Rumble, as well as YouTube. Links are below!Joe's Links:TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@analogmancaveDiscord: https://discord.gg/RHxTCq3mzTAnalog Mancave Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1331036104620724Substack: https://analogmancave.substack.com/Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3NYr1znhg7i0aSQoyUcI6o?si=0c71530927984ea1Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/joethelawyers-analog-mancave/id1441356270Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100077311317522 Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/joethelawyerTwitter: https://twitter.com/analogmancave Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/joethelawyerLocals: https://joethelawyersanalogmancave.locals.comEmail: analogmancave@gmail.com Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/analogmancave MeWe: www.mewe.com/i/joed15 Webpage: www.analogmancave.com

The judge who presided over Richard Allen's murder trial just announced her retirement from the bench. Frances Gull's press release is full of praise for her Drug Court work and her belief in "second chances, rehabilitation, and redemption." Conspicuously absent from that press release is any mention of the Delphi case—the trial that made her internationally known and is now under appellate review for alleged constitutional violations.Richard Allen was convicted and sentenced to 130 years. But the 113-page appellant's brief filed last month tells a different story than the one the jury heard—because according to the defense, the jury was prevented from hearing critical evidence at every turn.Gull excluded the composite sketch of Bridge Guy that looked nothing like Allen. She excluded a forensic metallurgist with nearly 300 cases of expert testimony who could have challenged the bullet evidence. She forced the defense to mute the audio on videos showing Allen's psychotic break in solitary confinement. She excluded evidence of alternative suspects connected to pagan rituals, the victim, and the crime scene location. She excluded evidence that investigators recorded over interviews and ignored credible tips.What did she let in? A Google search the State's witness conducted during trial to explain away defense evidence.The pattern documented in the appeal is stark. Ruling after ruling went against the defense. Now Gull gets to retire to her family and grandchildren while Richard Allen's family visits him through prison glass.The appeals court will decide her real legacy. Today we break down every ruling that put her there.#JudgeGull #FrancesGull #Delphi #DelphiMurders #RichardAllen #AbbyAndLibby #LibbyGerman #AbbyWilliams #DelphiTrial #WrongfulConvictionJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

The judge who controlled what the jury saw and heard in Richard Allen's trial just announced her retirement. Frances Gull will step down from the bench at the end of 2026 after nearly thirty years. Her press release talks about Drug Court, veterans, and "second chances." It says nothing about Delphi. Nothing about Abby and Libby. Nothing about Richard Allen.But the 113-page appellant's brief filed last month says plenty.According to the defense, Gull excluded Betsy Blair's composite sketch—the one where Bridge Guy is described as young, in his twenties, with poofy brown hair. Allen was 44 with short hair. The jury never saw it. She excluded William Tobin, a forensic expert with nearly 300 cases who could have challenged the bullet methodology the State relied on. She made the defense mute the audio on videos showing Allen screaming, delusional, and psychotic in solitary confinement. The jury saw strange behavior but never heard the context.She excluded Dawn Perlmutter's testimony explaining the crime scene as a possible ritual killing—even though law enforcement investigated that theory from day one. She excluded all evidence of Brad Holder and Patrick Westfall, alternative suspects with documented ties to pagan rituals and the victim herself. She excluded evidence that police recorded over interviews and ignored tips.But she admitted a Google search conducted during trial to rehabilitate the prosecution's timeline.Now she's walking away. The appeals court will decide if what she built can stand.#JudgeGull #FrancesGull #Delphi #DelphiMurders #RichardAllen #AbbyAndLibby #LibbyGerman #AbbyWilliams #DelphiTrial #DelphiIndianaJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

This Day in Legal History: Roe v. WadeOn January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, fundamentally reshaping American constitutional law and reproductive rights. In a 7–2 ruling, the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a person's right to privacy, which includes the right to choose to have an abortion. The case arose after a Texas woman, known under the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” challenged state laws that criminalized abortion except to save the life of the mother. Writing for the majority, Justice Harry Blackmun articulated a constitutional framework that balanced the state's interest in regulating abortions with an individual's right to privacy.The Court introduced a trimester system, giving states greater regulatory power as pregnancy progressed but prohibiting outright bans on abortion in the first trimester. This decision effectively invalidated abortion restrictions in dozens of states and became one of the most politically and legally contentious rulings in American history. Roe expanded the constitutional interpretation of the right to privacy, which had been previously recognized in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, but its grounding in substantive due process quickly became a lightning rod for critics.Opponents of the ruling argued that the Constitution did not explicitly guarantee a right to abortion, while supporters saw it as a critical protection of bodily autonomy and gender equality. Over the next five decades, Roe faced continual challenges and legislative efforts aimed at narrowing its scope. Ultimately, in 2022, the Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, returning authority to regulate abortion back to individual states and ending federal constitutional protection for abortion rights. The legacy of Roe v. Wade continues to shape legal discourse, political identity, and reproductive healthcare policy in the United States.A federal appeals court has lifted a temporary order that had limited immigration agents from using tear gas and force against peaceful protesters in Minneapolis, a city currently at the center of a legal and political clash over immigration enforcement. The lower court's injunction—issued by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez—had aimed to protect demonstrators as they protested President Trump's mass deployment of ICE and Border Patrol agents throughout the area. The Biden-era precedent of restrained enforcement has been upended by Trump's aggressive tactics, which now include militarized agents patrolling streets and confronting U.S. citizens, particularly people of color, demanding identification and sometimes using force.The protests intensified after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, an American citizen monitoring ICE activities. In response to mounting legal challenges, including a suit from the Minnesota state government and its largest cities, the Trump administration has doubled down. Not only did the Department of Homeland Security appeal the injunction, but the Justice Department has also launched a criminal investigation into Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, accusing them of obstructing federal law enforcement.The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of the injunction while it considers a longer-term ruling, effectively allowing ICE to resume more aggressive tactics in the meantime. Critics, including Walz and Frey, warn that the Trump administration is intentionally provoking unrest to justify escalated federal intervention. The administration defends its actions as necessary to combat fraud, particularly among Minnesota's Somali community, which Trump has disparaged in stark terms. The legal and political standoff continues, with lawsuits and investigations adding to the tension.US appeals court lifts order curbing immigration agents' tactics against Minnesota protesters | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court appeared reluctant to endorse President Trump's unprecedented attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, signaling concern over the potential threat to the central bank's independence. During oral arguments, justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had the authority to remove Cook without due process, especially given the lack of precedent and the vague legal standard for removing Fed officials “for cause.”The administration cited unproven mortgage fraud allegations—claims Cook denies—as grounds for dismissal. However, several justices, including conservatives like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, expressed concern that firing a Fed governor without a hearing or judicial review could set a dangerous precedent and politicize the central bank. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether minor or disputed past conduct could justify removal without any formal process.Cook argued the allegations were merely a pretext for her removal over policy disagreements, particularly her resistance to Trump's pressure to cut interest rates. The Court's skepticism reflects unease about weakening safeguards designed to insulate the Fed from political interference. District Judge Jia Cobb previously blocked Cook's removal, citing due process concerns and insufficient legal cause.A decision from the Court is expected by June. If the justices rule in Cook's favor or remand the case for further proceedings, it could reinforce limits on presidential power over independent agencies.US Supreme Court appears reluctant to let Trump fire Fed's Lisa Cook | ReutersThe Trump administration has launched a new immigration enforcement campaign in Maine, dubbed “Operation Catch of the Day,” with a focus on targeting criminal offenders—though internal sources indicate the true emphasis is on refugee populations, especially Somalis. Over 100 federal immigration agents have been deployed to the state, intensifying fears in immigrant communities and sparking political backlash.Maine Governor Janet Mills, a Democrat currently running for a U.S. Senate seat, criticized the operation as unwelcome and politically motivated. This mirrors broader national trends, with Trump having already surged thousands of agents into other Democratic-led areas, such as Minnesota, where tensions recently escalated after ICE officers fatally shot a U.S. citizen. In Lewiston, Maine's second-largest city and home to a longstanding Somali refugee community, the mayor condemned ICE's tactics as inhumane and fear-driven.Despite Trump's framing of the effort as a crackdown on criminality, many targeted individuals have no criminal records. Critics argue the campaign serves more as political theater than public safety. Meanwhile, public support for such operations has eroded, especially as aggressive enforcement methods—including tear gas and raids—become more visible. DHS has defended its actions and criticized local leaders like Mills for not fully cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.Trump administration starts immigration operation in Maine | ReutersIn my latest piece for Forbes, I examine the absurdity of President Trump's renewed push to acquire Greenland—this time by threatening tariffs on countries that don't support the plan. Far from making foreign governments pay, these tariffs would, once again, function as a consumption tax on Americans. Drawing from the Kiel Institute's data, I show that during the 2025 “Liberation Day” tariff campaign, 96% of the costs fell on U.S. importers and consumers, not foreign exporters. This new Greenland-linked tariff threat follows the same script, only now it's not even pretending to protect American industry—it's economic coercion for a geopolitical fantasy.I describe how tariffs, sold as leverage, collapse trade volumes without lowering foreign prices. Countries like Brazil and India didn't budge on pricing; they just shipped elsewhere. Meanwhile, Americans paid more for less. I also highlight how small businesses and low-income households feel the pain first, as import costs ripple through the economy, raising prices on both foreign and domestic goods. Despite the $200 billion in customs revenue collected, it amounts to a regressive tax—not a clever policy move.The deeper issue, as I argue, is the unchecked executive power to unilaterally impose tariffs. Current law enables the president to take sweeping trade actions with little oversight, and we're now seeing that power used not for national defense or economic stability, but to punish allies for not acquiescing to a real estate deal. I call on Congress to reclaim its constitutional role in trade policy and set clear limits on executive authority in this arena. Otherwise, we're left with a precedent where tariffs become tools of vanity projects—not national strategy.Tariffs For Greenland—Or, ‘I'll Hold My Breath Until You Turn Blue' This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Recent Supreme Court rulings, Payton McNabb's experience competing against a boy, and creating art that collectors want. Plus, arresting an emu, Joe Rigney on political disorder in a Minnesota church, and the Tuesday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donateAdditional support comes from the Joshua Program at St. Dunstan's Academy in the Blue Ridge Mountains: work, prayer, and adventure for young men. stdunstansacademy.orgAnd from Pensacola Christian College. Academic excellence, biblical worldview, affordable cost. go.pcci.edu/world

SPONSOR! Go to my sponsor https://venice.ai/viva and use code viva to enjoy private, uncensored AI. Using my code will get you 20% off a pro plan.

Kouri Richins is set to stand trial in February 2026 for the alleged fentanyl murder of her husband Eric Richins, and this week Judge Richard Mrazik handed down a cascade of pre-trial rulings that reshape everything. The prosecution wanted to paint Kouri as a woman who ran financial schemes for years before allegedly escalating to murder — but the judge just severed those fraud and forgery charges from the murder trial entirely. The jury won't hear them. The domestic violence expert prosecutors wanted to call? Barred. The FBI behavioral profiler? Severely limited. But the handwriting expert who says Kouri allegedly forged Eric's signature on insurance documents? He's in. The orange notebook containing what prosecutors call Kouri's firsthand account of the night Eric died? Conditionally admitted. The "Walk the Dog" letter found in her jail cell? Partially in. This episode breaks down every ruling from this week's hearings, what each one means for trial strategy, and how the battlefield has now been defined for both sides. We'll walk through the Valentine's Day sandwich allegation, the Moscow Mule, the $1.8 million debt versus the $5 million estate, the key witness who recanted, and why prosecutors are heading into this trial with a tighter case than they wanted. Jury selection begins February 10th. Five weeks of testimony starts February 23rd. Kouri Richins says she didn't do it. Twelve jurors will decide if they believe her.#KouriRichins #EricRichins #TrueCrime #FentanylMurder #UtahMurder #MurderTrial #HiddenKillers #TrueCrimeCommunity #JusticeForEric #CourtTVJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISDOES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

# Trump's Legal Battles Heat Up at the Supreme CourtWelcome back to Quiet Please. We're diving straight into what's shaping up to be a pivotal moment for Donald Trump's presidency, as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on cases that could define his entire second term.Let's start with the centerpiece of Trump's economic agenda. The Supreme Court is preparing to decide the legality of Trump's sweeping tariffs on foreign products, a case Trump himself has called the most important case ever. According to reporting from SCOTUSblog and Yahoo Finance, Trump warned the court in a recent social media post that if they rule against his tariffs, "we're screwed." The court heard arguments back in November, and a ruling could come as soon as this week. What makes this case critical is the stakes involved. If the justices side with Trump's challengers, the government could be forced to refund over 100 billion dollars in tariffs already collected from American businesses and consumers. That's real money that could reshape the economy depending on which way the court goes.But the tariff case is just one piece of a much larger legal puzzle Trump is navigating. According to SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court is also preparing to hear arguments on January 21st regarding Trump's push to remove Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors. This ties into a broader constitutional question about whether Trump has the power to unilaterally fire the heads of independent agencies, which would overturn 90 years of legal precedent if the court rules in his favor. Cook is just one person Trump wants removed. He's also targeted Federal Trade Commission officials, making this a test of executive power that could reshape how the president interacts with the federal bureaucracy.There's another major case looming as well. The Supreme Court will decide the legality of a Hawaii law that prohibits people from carrying firearms onto private property without explicit consent from the owner. This case, Wolford versus Lopez, will test the limits of Second Amendment rights against property rights in a way the court hasn't fully addressed before.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also set to address a case challenging prohibitions on conversion therapy for minors, the discredited practice aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. According to Axios, Republicans argue these restrictions violate the First Amendment, framing this as a free speech issue rather than a health and safety matter.Throughout all of this legal maneuvering, Trump has repeatedly used the Supreme Court's emergency procedures known as the shadow docket to suspend lower court decisions while cases are ongoing. According to USA Today, this gave Trump victories on everything from keeping tariffs in place to withholding foreign aid and conducting immigration raids. Now those emergency wins face scrutiny in the full court proceedings.These Supreme Court cases will ripple across Trump's entire presidency, affecting economic policy, executive power, and civil rights all at once.Thanks for tuning in. Come back next week for more. 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

This Day in Legal History: Wong Kim ArkOn January 14, 1898, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, firmly establishing the doctrine of birthright citizenship under the Constitution.The case arose after Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not U.S. citizens, was denied reentry to the country following a trip abroad. Federal officials argued that because his parents were subjects of the Emperor of China and barred from naturalization, Wong Kim Ark was not a U.S. citizen.The Court rejected that position, holding that citizenship is determined by place of birth, not by the nationality or immigration status of one's parents. In a 6–2 decision, the Court relied heavily on the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment.The majority emphasized that the Amendment codified the common-law rule that nearly all persons born on U.S. soil are citizens. This interpretation directly limited the government's ability to deny citizenship based on race or ancestry.The decision came at a time of intense anti-Chinese sentiment and restrictive immigration laws, including the Chinese Exclusion Act. By ruling in Wong Kim Ark's favor, the Court drew a clear constitutional boundary around congressional power over citizenship.The case has since served as the cornerstone for modern citizenship law in the United States. It remains one of the most frequently cited precedents in debates over immigration, nationality, and constitutional identity.The Supreme Court of the United States is expected to release one or more decisions as it resumes issuing opinions, while several major cases remain unresolved. Among the most closely watched is a challenge to sweeping tariffs imposed by President Trump. The justices typically do not announce in advance which cases they will decide, adding uncertainty to each decision day. The tariffs case, argued in November, raises significant questions about the scope of presidential authority and its economic consequences worldwide.Trump relied on a 1977 emergency powers statute to justify tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners, framing trade deficits and drug trafficking as national emergencies. During oral arguments, both conservative and liberal justices appeared skeptical that the statute authorized such broad trade measures. Lower courts have already ruled that Trump exceeded his authority, and his administration is now seeking reversal. The lawsuits were brought by affected businesses and a coalition of states, most led by Democrats. Other pending cases involve voting rights, religious liberty, campaign finance limits, the firing of a Federal Trade Commission official, and the legality of conversion therapy bans. Together, these disputes reflect a Court grappling with the limits of executive power and regulatory authority.Supreme Court set to issue rulings, with Trump tariffs case still pending | ReutersConservative justices on the Supreme Court appeared inclined to uphold state laws that bar transgender athletes from competing on female sports teams. The Court heard lengthy arguments in cases from Idaho and West Virginia, where lower courts had ruled in favor of transgender students challenging the bans. A majority of the justices expressed concern about adopting a nationwide rule amid ongoing debate over whether medical treatments can eliminate sex-based athletic advantages. Conservative members of the Court emphasized fairness and safety in women's sports, while liberal justices largely signaled support for the transgender challengers. The states argued that their laws lawfully classify athletes by biological sex and are necessary to preserve equal athletic opportunities for women and girls. Lawyers for the challengers contended that the bans discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of constitutional equal protection and federal education law. The Trump administration defended the state laws, urging the Court to leave policy decisions to legislatures rather than judges. The outcome could have far-reaching effects beyond sports, influencing other restrictions on transgender people in public life. A decision is expected by the end of June.US Supreme Court conservatives lean toward allowing transgender sports bans | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that Cornell University, Georgetown University, and the University of Pennsylvania must continue defending against a lawsuit alleging collusion in financial aid practices. The case claims that elite universities worked together to limit competition and give preferential treatment to wealthier applicants. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly rejected the schools' efforts to dismiss the lawsuit, finding enough evidence for the claims to proceed to trial. The plaintiffs argue that the universities violated federal antitrust law over two decades by breaching promises not to consider applicants' financial circumstances. Several other prominent universities previously settled similar claims for a combined total of nearly $320 million, though the remaining defendants deny any wrongdoing. The lawsuit represents more than 200,000 current and former students seeking substantial damages. The judge pointed to evidence suggesting the schools coordinated financial aid policies to avoid competing against one another. He also concluded that the plaintiffs properly defined a nationwide market for elite private universities and filed their claims within the allowable time frame. The decision clears the way for a jury to determine whether the schools unlawfully inflated the cost of attendance.Cornell, Georgetown, UPenn must face lawsuit over financial aid | ReutersThe British Broadcasting Corporation has moved to dismiss Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit stemming from its editing of a January 6, 2021 speech. The broadcaster argues that a Florida court lacks authority over the case because the program was not broadcast in that state. It also contends Trump cannot show he suffered harm, noting that he was re-elected after the documentary aired. Trump alleges the BBC misleadingly combined excerpts of his speech in a way that implied he encouraged supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol, while excluding remarks calling for peaceful protest. The lawsuit asserts violations of Florida's deceptive and unfair trade practices law and seeks billions of dollars in damages across two claims. The BBC has acknowledged the editing error and apologized but maintains the lawsuit is legally flawed. In court filings, the broadcaster argues Trump failed to plausibly allege “actual malice,” a requirement for defamation claims brought by public officials. The BBC also disputes Trump's claim that the documentary was available to U.S. audiences via streaming platforms. It has asked the court to pause discovery while the dismissal motion is pending, citing unnecessary expense if the case is thrown out.BBC seeks to have Trump's $10 billion lawsuit dismissed | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Two New Hampshire courts have told the Legislature that it needs to increase the amount of money the state spends per public school student. But in the first meeting of the legislative session this week, lawmakers voted against doing so. And the Trump administration has frozen child care funding in several states amid allegations of fraud in Minnesota, but Gov. Kelly Ayotte told child care providers this week funding hasn't paused here in New Hampshire. We discuss these stories on this week's edition of the New Hampshire News Recap with NHPR reporter Annmarie Timmins and Ethan DeWitt from the New Hampshire Bulletin.

Elie Honig is CNN's Senior Legal Analyst. He previously worked for 14 years as a federal and state prosecutor. He is also the national bestselling author of two books, “Hatchet Man: How Bill Barr Broke the Prosecutor's Code and Corrupted the Justice Department” and “Untouchable: How Powerful People Get Away With It”. He writes a weekly column for New York magazine and for Cafe.com, and he hosts two podcasts for Vox Media. He teaches at Rutgers University and is special counsel to New Jersey law firm Lowenstein Sandler. His latest book is, When You Come at the King: Inside DOJ's Pursuit of the President, From Nixon to Trump, will be published September 16th. Elie revisits the most important judicial rulings of 2025 and those to come in '26 Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

# Supreme Court's Trump Trials: A Week of Historic Decisions AheadAs we kick off 2026, the Supreme Court is preparing for what could be one of the most consequential months in recent judicial history. Next week, the justices will begin hearing arguments in cases that could fundamentally reshape American law, presidential power, and individual rights. Let me walk you through what's coming and why it matters.The most immediate case hits the core of executive authority. On January 21st, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Trump v. Cook, a case centered on whether President Donald Trump can fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Cook began her fourteen-year term on the board in 2023. Trump attempted to remove her in August, alleging mortgage fraud that occurred before her appointment. Here's the legal tension: the Federal Reserve Act explicitly states that the president can only remove board members for cause. Trump's lawyers argue he should be able to dismiss her freely, while Cook's team contends the removal protections exist for a reason, to insulate the Fed from political pressure.What makes this case historic is its broader implications. According to analysis from Georgetown professor Stephen Vladeck, the Trump administration has filed nineteen shadow docket applications in its first twenty weeks, matching what the entire Biden administration filed over four years. If the Court rules in Trump's favor on the Cook case, it would overturn nearly a century-old precedent protecting independent agency commissioners from arbitrary dismissal. That could reshape how federal agencies operate and their independence from political winds.But the Fed case isn't the only executive power question before the justices. The Supreme Court's January calendar also includes Trump v. Barbara, which will examine whether Trump's executive order eliminating birthright citizenship can stand. This order aims to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants. Such a ruling would overturn protections established by the 14th Amendment that the Court has maintained for over a century. Multiple courts have already temporarily blocked the order's enforcement, signaling serious constitutional concerns.There's also the tariffs case. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump will determine whether Trump can invoke a national emergency to impose extensive tariffs on foreign goods without congressional approval. Trump has called this the most significant case ever. The stakes are enormous. If the Court rules against him, the government might need to reimburse over one hundred billion dollars in tariffs already collected, and Trump's ability to use emergency declarations for economic policy would be severely constrained.Beyond Trump's cases, listeners should know that on January 13th, the Court will hear arguments in cases challenging state bans on transgender students participating in sports that align with their gender identity. These cases raise questions about the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and Title IX protections against sex-based discrimination in education.As these arguments unfold over the coming weeks, decisions are expected before the end of June. The Court's rulings could reshape the balance between presidential power and institutional independence, alter immigration law, transform federal economic policy, and redefine civil rights protections. These aren't abstract legal questions, listeners. They'll affect real people's lives and how American government functions.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more analysis as these historic arguments begin. 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

Send us a textEpisode 98 of 'The Open Forum' where Christians, Atheists are invited to join the discussion. Guests will be invited on a first come first serve basis. Please note we can only have a maximum of 10 panelists (including efdawah panelists) at any one time.Link to join the panel: TEARS OF GAZA Donation Link: https://givebrite.com/gazacrisis© 2025 EFDawah All Rights ReservedDonate to Ijaz's medical expenses: https://buymeacoffee.com/ijazthetriniWebsite : https://efdawah.com/https://www.patreon.com/EFDawahhttps://gofund.me/7cb27d17https://www.paypal.me/EFDawahhttps://www.cashbackmycharity.co.uk/?...https://www.facebook.com/efdawah/Timestamps:00:00 - Intro01:05 - EF Dawah Panel join: Format of the Stream10:09 - Usman (Muslim) joins10:52 - Did God create the universe from nothing?20:20 - Exploring the Kalam cosmological argument25:24 - Discourse on Justice for Animals in Islam34:14 - Advice to Muslims about Allah's ﷻ Justice38:30 - Steven (Christian) joins 39:01 - Claim about Crucifixion in Qur'an 4:15740:03 - Understanding the meaning of Qur'an 4:15750:35 - Forgiveness of Sin in Islam vs Christianity 1:04:52 - Analysing the various Crucifixion narratives 1:09:35 - No Non-biblical evidence for the Crucifixion1:10:56 - Discussing Christianity vs Islam1:17:42 - Message to Muslims about Feuds & Unity1:38:49 - Ali (Muslim) joins1:40:19 - Friend's Questions & Doubts about Islam1:41:36 - Why Islam is the only true religion?1:47:51 - Explanation of compilation of the Qur'an1:51:07 - Preservation of the Qur'an 1:53:10 - Discussion on Halal & Haram Food2:04:37 - Wisdom of the Rulings in Islam 2:07:48 - Masjid Al Aqsa in Qur'an 17:01 explained 2:15:42 - Br. Dawah Trucker joins2:17:28 - Islamic vs Christian view of the Crucifixion 2:21:17 - Inconsistencies in the Christian theology 2:25:01 - Debunking the claims about Jesus' Divinity2:29:46 - Issue of vile comments from Christians2:33:47 - Questioning the beliefs of Christianity2:35:47 - Br. Dawah Trucker's Journey to Islam2:40:22 - The Positive Impact of Revert Stories 2:47:22 - Otangelo (Christian) joins2:48:01 - Arguments & Evidences for Christianity2:55:15 - Reliability of the Qur'an vs the Bible3:02:32 - Argument for the Shroud of Turin3:04:47 - Refutation of argument about the shroud3:13:30 - Scrutinizing the authenticity of the shroud3:39:04 - Debate on the proofs about the Crucifixion3:57:55 - Problems with the arguments of Christians4:04:17 - Closing Remarks & Wrapping UpSupport the show

AP correspondent Ben Thomas reports the Supreme Court's chief justice is offering a soothing assessment amid concern the nation may be facing a constitutional crisis.

Hey there, listeners, buckle up because the Supreme Court's shadow docket has been on fire these past few days, handing President Donald Trump and his administration a string of high-stakes wins in battles over everything from the National Guard to passports and federal spending. Just eight days ago, on December 23, 2025, the Court ruled in Trump v. Illinois, siding against the administration's bid to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Illinois without state consent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence, while Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing the move was essential for national security amid rising unrest in Chicago. The Brennan Center's Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker notes this as one of only five losses for the administration since January, out of 25 emergency decisions, with most favoring Trump at least partially and often with minimal explanation.But don't let that one setback fool you—the Court has been overwhelmingly pro-administration lately. On November 6, the justices greenlit the State Department's policy refusing passports that reflect transgender applicants' gender identity for a certified class of plaintiffs, overruling lower courts in a terse order. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented sharply, warning it tramples civil rights. This fits a pattern: back on October 3 in Noem v. National TPS Alliance, the Court forced the government to release congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds, with Justice Kagan's dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, blasting it as executive overreach. Earlier, September 22's Trump v. Slaughter let the administration dodge discovery demands from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington over DOGE Service materials under the Freedom of Information Act.Rewind a bit further into this whirlwind year, and the shadow docket explodes with immigration clashes. In Noem v. Doe on May 30, the Court allowed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to revoke parole en masse for half a million noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, skipping individual reviews—Justice Jackson dissented alongside Sotomayor. April's Trump v. J.G.G. permitted deportations of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, despite dissents from Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and even partial pushback from Amy Coney Barrett. A.A.R.P. v. Trump on April 19 blocked removals of Venezuelan nationals, a rare check, with Kavanaugh concurring and Alito dissenting.Civil service purges? Check: McMahon v. New York on July 14 okayed firing Department of Education employees, while Trump v. Boyle upheld Trump's power to boot Consumer Product Safety Commission members without cause. Even LGBTQ+ rights took hits, like United States v. Shilling in May letting the Defense Department terminate transgender service members. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker highlights ongoing suits, including a coalition of nonprofits and cities challenging the suspension of November 2025 SNAP benefits—a case that echoes lower court fights like District of Rhode Island's order to fully fund them.Since Inauguration Day, the Supreme Court's emergency docket—mostly Department of Justice filings—has tilted 20-to-5 toward Trump, per SCOTUSblog and Shadow Docket Watch data. Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh often push back against blocks, while the liberal trio fights rearguard actions. As 2025 wraps, two applications still pend, promising more drama.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. 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

Drones and explosions in Kyiv, peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, highlights of this year's religious liberty rulings, and remembering Secretariat's jockey. Plus, James Wood on Canadian anti-hate legislation, a baker's critique of Mexican bread, and the Tuesday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donateAdditional support comes from Commuter Bible, the work-week audio Bible. Available on podcast apps and commuterbible.org. New yearly plans begin January 5

Hey listeners, picture this: it's been a whirlwind week in the courts for President Donald Trump, with the Supreme Court dropping bombshells that could reshape his administration's bold moves. Just three days ago, on December 23, 2025, the nation's highest court issued a key ruling in Trump v. Illinois, tackling whether President Trump could federalize the Illinois National Guard and even pull in Texas troops to safeguard federal property in Chicago amid escalating violence. According to the Supreme Court's opinion, Trump activated 300 Illinois Guard members on October 4, followed by Texas forces the next day, citing riots where protesters hurled tear gas canisters at officers, tried grabbing firearms, and blasted bullhorns to cause hearing damage. Justice Alito's dissent slammed the lower District Court in Rhode Island for dismissing the government's unrefuted evidence of chaos, arguing it justified the President's call under federal law. While a majority granted the stay with some reasoning, Kavanaugh concurred, but Alito and Thomas pushed back hard, calling out the eleventh-hour shifts in opponents' arguments. This shadow docket decision, tracked by the Brennan Center, marks one of 25 emergency rulings since Trump took office on January 20, 2025—20 leaning his way, often with minimal explanation.But that's not all from the past few days. Fast-forward to the New York hush money saga: a fresh decision in People v. Donald J. Trump from the Manhattan court, penned by Judge Juan Merchan, shut down Trump's post-election bid to dismiss his 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Remember, a jury convicted him unanimously back in May 2024 for scheming to hide payments to Stormy Daniels, aiming to boost his presidential run through unlawful means. Trump requested delays himself—pushing sentencing past the election to November 26, 2024, then begging for a stay and dismissal after winning. The court wasn't buying it, noting Trump consented to those adjournments without opposition from prosecutors. Merchan emphasized the premeditated deception that eroded public trust, rejecting claims the case evaporates with his presidency, citing the Supreme Court's Trump v. United States immunity ruling but insisting justice demands accountability.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's shadow docket has been a Trump turbo-boost all year. Brennan Center reports victories like Trump v. Boyle in July, greenlighting firings at the Consumer Product Safety Commission; McMahon v. New York upholding Education Department workforce cuts; and immigration wins such as Noem v. Doe, allowing mass parole revocations for half a million from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Even on LGBTQ+ fronts, November's ruling backed the State Department's passport gender policies. Not every call went his way—A.A.R.P. v. Trump lost on Venezuelan removals under the Alien Enemies Act—but the pattern's clear: 20 partial wins, with liberals like Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting repeatedly.Lawfare's litigation tracker highlights nonstop challenges, from SNAP benefit suspensions sparking suits by nonprofits and cities, to DOGE transparency fights where CREW got blocked from records. As of now, two more applications simmer. These battles in places like the First Circuit, DC Circuit, and beyond show Trump's team firing on all cylinders, testing presidential power's edges.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. 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

Winter in Islam - Rulings, Virtues & Hidden Opportunities for Worship - Ustadh Abdulrahman Hassan by Understanding Islam

Visit https://Hungryroot.com/LAWNERD for 40% off your first box, PLUS get a free item in every box for life. Go to gusto.com/lawnerd and get three months free when you run your first payroll! This week, as we head into the holidays, we're diving into the facts surrounding the heartbreaking case of Rob and Michele Reiner. I've seen a ton of speculation and wrong information online, and today we are cutting through the noise to focus on what we know and what the legal process truly means for Nick Reiner. RESOURCES Live Trials with Emily D. Baker - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKOJlfL__9F027hlETVU-vo Rob and Michele Reiner's Son Charged With Murder - https://youtu.be/KAvOHqByUFc Karen Read Retrial - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gL3CbMJHvrKiAD1aDNcblnO Taylor Schabusiness Trial - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gIKgoVAu8f0lrZl6LkXQm4s Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

SUPREME COURT CHALLENGES TO TARIFF POWERS Colleague Professor Richard Epstein, Hoover Institution. Professor Epstein analyzes potential Supreme Court rulings on the President's use of emergency powers for broad tariffs. He predicts the Court may find the interpretation unconstitutional, creating a logistical nightmare regarding the refund of billions in collected revenues and addressing the complexity of overturning Article I court precedents. NUMBER 13

CBP is trying to rewrite history and revoke Nairobi's status for smaller ramps used for wheelchair access to homes. Comments can be submitted. Listen for more info on Two Minutes in Trade.

SPONSOR! Get some GOLD! Go to https://goldsafeexchange.com/viva-frei-rumble-audience/#form & claim an additional $1,500 in FREE gold or silver with qualifying purchases ----- Support Viva: GET MERCH! www.vivafrei.com BUY A BOOK! https://amzn.to/4qBXikS SEND ME SOMETHING! David Freiheit 20423 SR 7 Ste F6319 Boca Raton 33498 TIP WITH CTYPTO! bc1qt0umnqna63pyw5j8uesphsfz0dyrtmqcq5ugwm THAT IS ALL!

Piers Morgan VS Nick Fuentes, MTG Blasts Trump, ICE Arrests 75,000 & Supreme Court Rulings!

While Erin is out of town Bryan is joined by friend of the show Naomi Ekperigin this week! We discuss what we did for Thanksgiving, and how Bryan spent last week with his family doing a tour of NYC including the Radio City Christmas Spectacular and an investigative report on how the American Girl Doll Store is one big scam. Bryan covers a recent ruling in Japan which upheld a same-sex marriage ban, and how the European Union's highest court ruled that member countries must recognize same-sex marriages between two citizens even if their home country does not have marriage equality laws in place. Listen to Naomi's podcast Couples Therapy, watch St. Denis Medical Monday Nights on NBC or on Peacock and get tickets to her December 28th zoom comedy show A Night of Cinema with Naomi and Megan here! For this week's bonus Dateline Recap visit www.patreon.com/attitudesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Phillip Jauregui, Senior Counsel for AFA Action and Director of the Center for Judicial Renewal, joins The Steve Gruber Show to discuss the potential impact of a high-profile judicial appointment by former President Trump. The conversation explores how a new circuit court pick could influence a generation of rulings, shaping issues ranging from constitutional interpretation to the direction of federal law for years to come. Phillip offers insight into the nomination process, the stakes for the judiciary, and why such appointments can have far-reaching consequences for American families and the legal landscape nationwide.

Assorted Halachos- Part 82 (Assorted rulings of R' Avigdor Neventzhal shlit"a) by Rabbi Avi Zakutinsky

Join Mike Radak, Alliant Financial Institutions, and David Finz, Alliant Claims & Legal, as they explore recent key rulings under the Investment Company Act and D&O policy prior notice exclusions, with Mike exploring their impact on claims handling and coverage strategy. David then examines a recent data breach settlement, highlighting how precise policy language can help manage cyber liability and navigate complex class action exposures.

Chris points out how much of a scam the shutdown was from Democrats and talks about the SCOTUS rulings and what else is coming in front of them | aired on Monday, November 10th 2025, on the Chris Hand ShowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Steve Dulan, professor and licensed attorney, joins the show to break down six major cases currently before the Supreme Court, including the recent ruling that individuals cannot change their gender on U.S. passports, a decision already sparking intense national debate. He also examines how the Court is set to consider the limits of presidential authority on tariffs, a case that could define the scope of executive power, and the latest developments surrounding the Voting Rights Act, one of the most significant pieces of election law in American history. Dulan offers expert insight into how these rulings could reshape constitutional law, federal authority, and civil rights in the years ahead.

It's a pivotal night in American politics as polls close in Virginia and New Jersey's gubernatorial races, along with New York City's mayoral election. At the same time, a looming Supreme Court ruling on the legality of President Trump's tariffs could reshape U.S. trade policy.  Former Senior Counselor to President Trump and President of KA Consulting, Kellyanne Conway, former Democratic Congressman and co-host of The Five, Harold Ford Jr., and Fox News Radio Washington DC Political Anchor & Correspondent, Jared Halpern, break down the key races, early results, and what's at stake if the Court strikes down the tariffs.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

AP's Lisa Dwyer reports that some SNAP benefits will continue after two legal rulings.

We start with rulings on coverage for food stamp benefits amid the government shutdown. We'll tell you about President Donald Trump's noteworthy absence from a major Asian summit. Conditions at an ICE facility in the Chicago-area are at the center of a new lawsuit. Bad news for YouTube TV subscribers. Plus, how much would you pay for a gold toilet? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of the Thinking Talmudist Podcast, Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe continues the discussion of Tractate Bava Metzia 84b, focusing on Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon's emotional and spiritual struggle after executing a guilty laundryman (referenced from a prior episode, likely tied to the “vinegar, son of wine” incident). The episode explores themes of guilt, divine justice, Torah study, and the efficacy of prayer, connecting them to personal anecdotes and broader Jewish responsibilities. Key points include:Rabbi Elazar's Guilt and Suffering: Rabbi Elazar, a marshal who executed a disrespectful laundryman (justified by the man's capital offense), feels lingering guilt despite following the law. Like a police officer experiencing PTSD after a justified shooting, Rabbi Elazar cannot rely on his reasoning to absolve himself and accepts physical suffering as atonement. He suffers a severe illness, losing blood and pus nightly, but recovers after his wife prepares 60 types of fig-based food (lifta). He converses with his afflictions, inviting them at night but dismissing them in the morning to avoid disrupting Torah study, showing his dedication despite pain (0:26–3:32).Wife's Reaction and Wealth: His wife, frustrated by his self-imposed suffering and believing he squandered her father's wealth, leaves for her father's house. Sixty sailors then bring Rabbi Elazar 60 slaves with 60 money bags, preparing 60 types of lifta, restoring his wealth. He tells his daughter to inform her mother that “ours is greater than theirs,” citing Proverbs 31:14 (from Eishet Chayil) to affirm that Torah brings sustenance from afar. His wife's absence allows him to return to the study hall (3:32–6:45).Rabbinic Rulings and Validation: In the study hall, Rabbi Elazar examines 60 blood samples from women checking for ritual purity (tahar) during their seven clean days post-menstruation. He declares all samples pure, enabling marital resumption after mikvah. Other rabbis question the statistical likelihood of all 60 being pure, suggesting an error. Rabbi Elazar prays that if his rulings are correct, the women will conceive boys (who cannot become niddah); if incorrect, at least one girl (who can become niddah) will be born. All 60 babies are boys, named after him, validating his rulings and demonstrating divine confirmation (7:07–14:21).Transmission of Halacha: Rabbi Wolbe explains the expertise required to identify impure blood, a skill transmitted from Moshe at Sinai through generations of rabbis, including himself, underscoring the mesorah (oral tradition). This parallels other halachic details (e.g., temple offerings) requiring precise training, like distinguishing colors of blood (8:39–11:27).Prayer's Efficacy: Addressing his daughter's question, Rabbi Wolbe shares a personal story of praying at the Western Wall for a son to fulfill Pidyon HaBen (redeeming the firstborn), which was granted, and accepting Hashem's choice of a daughter for his second child. He clarifies that Hashem answers all prayers, but not always as requested, citing “Ein Tfilason Chozeres Reikam” (no prayer returns empty). Answers may be “no” or “wait,” tailored to what's best, as seen in Rabbi Elazar's answered prayer (15:04–17:08).Broader Lessons: The episode emphasizes human sensitivity in upholding justice (Rabbi Elazar's guilt), the transformative power of Torah study despite physical suffering, and the communal responsibility to trust expert rabbinic rulings. Rabbi Wolbe connects this to the upcoming holidays (Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, post-October 8, 2025), urging listeners to carry forward spiritual growth and good deeds._____________The Thinking Talmudist Podcast shares select teachings of Talmud in a fresh, insightful and meaningful way. Many claim that they cannot learn Talmud because it is in ancient Aramaic or the concepts are too difficult. Well, no more excuses. In this podcast you will experience the refreshing and eye-opening teachings while gaining an amazing appreciation for the divine wisdom of the Torah and the depths of the Talmud._____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by David & Susan MarbinRecorded at TORCH Meyerland in the Levin Family Studios to a live audience on September 12, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on October 31, 2025_____________Listen, Subscribe & Share: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/thinking-talmudist-podcast-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1648951154Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0cZ7q9bGYSBYSPQfJvwgzmShare your questions at aw@torchweb.org or visit torchweb.org for more Torah content. _____________About the Host:Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe, Director of TORCH in Houston, brings decades of Torah scholarship to guide listeners in applying Jewish wisdom to daily life.  To directly send your questions, comments, and feedback, please email: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Support Our Mission:Help us share Jewish wisdom globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org. Your support makes a difference!_____________Listen MoreOther podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Prayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at http://podcast.torchweb.org_____________Keywords:#Talmud, #Justice, #Law, #Morality, #Guilt, #Redemption, #TorahStudy, #Faith, #Patience, #Prayer ★ Support this podcast ★

In this episode of the Thinking Talmudist Podcast, Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe continues the discussion of Tractate Bava Metzia 84b, focusing on Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon's emotional and spiritual struggle after executing a guilty laundryman (referenced from a prior episode, likely tied to the “vinegar, son of wine” incident). The episode explores themes of guilt, divine justice, Torah study, and the efficacy of prayer, connecting them to personal anecdotes and broader Jewish responsibilities. Key points include:Rabbi Elazar's Guilt and Suffering: Rabbi Elazar, a marshal who executed a disrespectful laundryman (justified by the man's capital offense), feels lingering guilt despite following the law. Like a police officer experiencing PTSD after a justified shooting, Rabbi Elazar cannot rely on his reasoning to absolve himself and accepts physical suffering as atonement. He suffers a severe illness, losing blood and pus nightly, but recovers after his wife prepares 60 types of fig-based food (lifta). He converses with his afflictions, inviting them at night but dismissing them in the morning to avoid disrupting Torah study, showing his dedication despite pain (0:26–3:32).Wife's Reaction and Wealth: His wife, frustrated by his self-imposed suffering and believing he squandered her father's wealth, leaves for her father's house. Sixty sailors then bring Rabbi Elazar 60 slaves with 60 money bags, preparing 60 types of lifta, restoring his wealth. He tells his daughter to inform her mother that “ours is greater than theirs,” citing Proverbs 31:14 (from Eishet Chayil) to affirm that Torah brings sustenance from afar. His wife's absence allows him to return to the study hall (3:32–6:45).Rabbinic Rulings and Validation: In the study hall, Rabbi Elazar examines 60 blood samples from women checking for ritual purity (tahar) during their seven clean days post-menstruation. He declares all samples pure, enabling marital resumption after mikvah. Other rabbis question the statistical likelihood of all 60 being pure, suggesting an error. Rabbi Elazar prays that if his rulings are correct, the women will conceive boys (who cannot become niddah); if incorrect, at least one girl (who can become niddah) will be born. All 60 babies are boys, named after him, validating his rulings and demonstrating divine confirmation (7:07–14:21).Transmission of Halacha: Rabbi Wolbe explains the expertise required to identify impure blood, a skill transmitted from Moshe at Sinai through generations of rabbis, including himself, underscoring the mesorah (oral tradition). This parallels other halachic details (e.g., temple offerings) requiring precise training, like distinguishing colors of blood (8:39–11:27).Prayer's Efficacy: Addressing his daughter's question, Rabbi Wolbe shares a personal story of praying at the Western Wall for a son to fulfill Pidyon HaBen (redeeming the firstborn), which was granted, and accepting Hashem's choice of a daughter for his second child. He clarifies that Hashem answers all prayers, but not always as requested, citing “Ein Tfilason Chozeres Reikam” (no prayer returns empty). Answers may be “no” or “wait,” tailored to what's best, as seen in Rabbi Elazar's answered prayer (15:04–17:08).Broader Lessons: The episode emphasizes human sensitivity in upholding justice (Rabbi Elazar's guilt), the transformative power of Torah study despite physical suffering, and the communal responsibility to trust expert rabbinic rulings. Rabbi Wolbe connects this to the upcoming holidays (Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, post-October 8, 2025), urging listeners to carry forward spiritual growth and good deeds._____________The Thinking Talmudist Podcast shares select teachings of Talmud in a fresh, insightful and meaningful way. Many claim that they cannot learn Talmud because it is in ancient Aramaic or the concepts are too difficult. Well, no more excuses. In this podcast you will experience the refreshing and eye-opening teachings while gaining an amazing appreciation for the divine wisdom of the Torah and the depths of the Talmud._____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by David & Susan MarbinRecorded at TORCH Meyerland in the Levin Family Studios to a live audience on September 12, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on October 31, 2025_____________Listen, Subscribe & Share: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/thinking-talmudist-podcast-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1648951154Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0cZ7q9bGYSBYSPQfJvwgzmShare your questions at aw@torchweb.org or visit torchweb.org for more Torah content.  _____________About the Host:Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe, Director of TORCH in Houston, brings decades of Torah scholarship to guide listeners in applying Jewish wisdom to daily life.  To directly send your questions, comments, and feedback, please email: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Support Our Mission:Help us share Jewish wisdom globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org. Your support makes a difference!_____________Listen MoreOther podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Prayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at http://podcast.torchweb.org_____________Keywords:#Talmud, #Justice, #Law, #Morality, #Guilt, #Redemption, #TorahStudy, #Faith, #Patience, #Prayer ★ Support this podcast ★

WBBM political editor Geoff Buchholz reports on Mayor Brandon Johnson's reaction to federal court rulings aimed at ICE enforcement actions in the Chicago area.

Paul Hawksbee was joined by Andy Jacobs for this afternoon's podcast. We were joined by Danny Kelly for this weekend's Premier League review. Andy Jacobs provided his personal analysis of Chelsea's loss to Sunderland over the weekend as well. Felix White also joined us in the studio to discuss his new book. Enjoy! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Trump administration promised to put wind in the sails of the fossil fuels industry, but the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has failed to resolve a key issue regarding the liquids pipeline rate index, under which the commission adjusts the rates charged to shippers on FERC-regulated crude oil, refined products and NGL pipelines. In today's RBN blog, we'll review the recent history of the rate index, why it moved sharply higher (and then lower) in recent years, and what lies ahead.

12 - Who knew Danica Patrick was so religious? She put up $7 million for an alternate halftime show. 1210 - Who is your favorite Cabinet member? Bobby De Niro has some colorful language for Trump. 1215 - Side - favorite mascot 1220 - So carjacking only gets you a slap on the wrist in blue cities? Should two 15-year-olds have harsher penalties for carjacking a DOGE employee after they walk free? 1235 - Lamb-McErlane associate who represents Ellen Greenberg's parents, William Trask, joins the program today. How have the “experts” in the Philadelphia corner's office differed from the experts who ruled that Ellen could not have stabbed herself over 20 times? What evidence in the case is the city not acknowledging that could be huge in this case? Was the lead medical examiner independent in her inspection? What does William want listeners to know about the city “protecting itself” regarding this case? 1250 - Republican Trial Lawyer Wally Zimolong joins us as the breaking news dropped that his case with Sheriff Fred Harran over his department's association with ICE. What was the judge's ruling in this case? How big a smear campaign was this from those in Bucks County? Why is Wally so passionate about this case?

Fall is nearly here and it's time to clear the docket! This week, we are talking to beloved food writers and chefs Kenji López-Alt (Serious Eats, The Recipe) and Deb Perelman (Smitten Kitchen, The Recipe) about COMFORT FOODS! Is the "mac" in chili mac supposed to be plain noodles or mac and cheese? Is canned pumpkin as good as fresh pumpkin puree? If you make green bean casserole with fresh green beans, is it still a comfort food? What is the best way to soften hard ice cream? Rulings on all of these and much more!Please consider donating to Al Otro Lado. Al Otro Lado provides legal assistance and humanitarian aid to refugees, deportees, and other migrants trapped at the US-MX border. Donate at alotrolado.org/letsdosomething.We are on TikTok and YouTube! Follow us on both @judgejohnhodgmanpod! Follow us on Instagram @judgejohnhodgman! Judge John Hodgman is member-supported! Join at $5 a month at maximumfun.org/join!

Court rulings are never as drastically good or bad as the headlines make it seem. Parenting a picky eater. Is your child’s school ready for a demon? Trying to raise your kids to be brave. Follow The Jesse Kelly Show on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheJesseKellyShowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John Batchelor 09-03 segment 10.mp3 Guest: Brett Arends of Market Watch. Addressing Bond Market Turmoil Brett Arends explains that the troubled bond market stems from unsustainable national debt and recent court rulings questioning President Trump's tariffs. He advises Donald Trump to support Federal Reserve independence, abandon attacks on Jerome Powell and Lisa Cook, and work with Congress on tariffs to ensure fiscal sustainability and calm market anxieties. Arends notes that gold's all-time high reflects a lack of market confidence. PEKING UNIVERSITY

The Supreme Court rules that individual judges don't have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions, but the court did not clarify the constitutionality of birthright citizenship. The Senate has a timeline to advance Trump's so-called "big, beautiful bill." Israel's prime minister denies a newspaper report that Israeli troops have been firing at will on hungry Gazans at aid distribution centers.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy