Podcast appearances and mentions of Samuel Alito

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss Messi flags and The Odyssey in 4D (not IMAX!) before diving into legal topics such as the politics at the Supreme Court, 3rd Circuit defamation and cancellation, and why the Hawaii Supreme Court is wrong.  The Agenda: –Sarah's kid gave her a bloody lip –The politics of the court –Samuel Alito, a MAGA-Friendly Justice? –Stephen Miller is totally ignorant –The passing of U.S. Senior District Judge John E. Steele –FIRE's campus-deplatforming database –Wang v. University of Pittsburgh (3rd Circuit) –Arrogant opinions –Why The Odyssey is small “c” conservative Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Legal Docket features the woman beside Justice Alito, Money Beat discusses why “invested in AI” is the wrong question, and on History Book the debate over America's Christian founding. Plus, the Monday morning news.Support The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donateAdditional support comes from Ambassadors Impact Network, Christian entrepreneurs scaling their companies often struggle to find capital sources that respect, and even celebrate, their redemptive mission. Ambassadors Impact Network connects these founders with angel investors seeking both financial outcomes and spiritual fruit. If you're an investor wanting to steward your capital toward gospel-advancing companies, learn about membership at ambassadorsimpact.comFrom Equip by Unbound. Launching high schoolers through coaching, skills training, and interest-led projects. More at BeUnbound.us/worldAnd from Cedarville University. Located in southwest Ohio, Cedarville University is committed to biblical faithfulness and academic excellence, preparing students to serve Christ with conviction in every profession. Every one of its 175+ undergraduate and graduate programs are grounded in a biblical worldview, equipping graduates with the knowledge, skill, and conviction to serve wherever God leads. New online undergraduate degrees through Cedarville Online offer flexible, affordable education rooted in biblical truth and designed for today's learners. Learn more at cedarville.edu, and explore online programs at cedarville.edu/online.

Today on The Gist, guest host Bryan Greene kicks off our rotating host lineup with a dive into the Peach Fish archives. First, Mike Pesca dissects the political baggage hiding inside state anthems, from Maryland's pro-Confederate fight song to why West Virginia's "Country Roads" remains the undisputed peak of the genre. Then, North American Vexillological Association secretary Ted Kaye joins the show to break down flag etiquette, Justice Alito's Controversial banners, and how political movements co-opt historic symbols. Finally, in the spiel, Mike rewrites Nebraska's state song to give it a much-needed upgrade. Produced by Corey Wara Video and Social Media by Geoff Craig Do you have questions or comments, or just want to say hello? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com For full Pesca content and updates, check out our website at https://www.mikepesca.com/⁠ For ad-free content or to become a Pesca Plus subscriber, check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ For Mike's daily takes on Substack, subscribe to The Gist List https://mikepesca.substack.com/ Follow us on Social Media:⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/pescagist/ X https://x.com/pescami TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@pescagist To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠sales@amplitudemediapartners.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Mark Simone Interviews Author Ann Coulter on Her Latest Article on Birthright Citizenship. The Mark Simone Show July 1, 2026 • 11 min Episode Description They talk about the Supreme Court blocking Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship, which means if you're born in the U.S., you're a citizen, no matter your parents' status. They also get into how college campuses are pushing students to vote for progressive candidates.   Article mentioned- https://anncoulter.com/2026/07/02/dred-scotus/   Dred SCOTUS by Ann Coulter  July 2, 2026  Obviously, the Supreme Court's ruling on anchor babies in Trump v. Barbara is ridiculous. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with the Papist nut and the three witches, has apparently decided the “FREE MONEY” sign on our border was not good enough. We need to give the third world an even bigger incentive to flock here. Henceforth, we will lure illegal aliens with the guarantee of American citizenship for any kids they give birth to on U.S. soil. Welcome Hamas! (And you thought Democratic primaries were already wild!) Inasmuch as no one on TV seems to have bothered reading the opinions, here are a few highlights. 1) Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent is a tour de force. It will go down in history with Justice Benjamin Curtis's dissent in Dred Scott and Justice Frank Murphy's dissent in Korematsu. (It's also a good primer for snowbirds, who plan to avoid state taxes by moving to Florida, on the vital importance and clear legal meaning of “domicile.”) By contrast, Roberts's opinion for the court will go down with Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, finding that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination against transgender employees—a ruling that was so embarrassing it was immediately ignored by everyone, including Gorsuch. That was clear this week, when, for the fourth time since Bostock, the court rejected similar claims by transgenders. 2) I'm sorry to mention that, inasmuch as Gorsuch was on the right side of the anchor baby case. Which reminds me, could the conservatives confidently informing us that anchor babies are required by the constitution (Bill O'Reilly, John Yoo, The Wall Street Journal, etc.) cite a single other case with Roberts on one side and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the other, where Roberts was right? How about that terrific Obamacare ruling, deeply grounded in the text of the constitution? 3) Thomas's central point—appalling to liberals, but true nonetheless—is that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to overrule Dred Scott, which held that black Americans were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Black slaves and freedmen alike, Thomas writes, “were unambiguously Americans. They were not foreigners. They were not aliens. They owed no foreign allegiance.” He quotes Frederick Douglass's plea for the citizenship of blacks: “We address you not as aliens nor as exiles … We are Americans.” In response to Thomas's manifestly obvious point that the Fourteenth Amendment was “enacted … with the one pervading purpose of securing equal citizenship for the freed slaves,” the great legal scholar Justice Ketanji Jackson ripostes: “The teacher who scolds a student for bullying a classmate hopes the student learns the broader lesson of treating everyone with kindness, not just that one kid.” 3) In his 91-page dissent, Thomas cites 42 legal cases, 19 historical letters or diplomatic dispatches, 6 formal Attorney General opinions and 11 statutes, including The Civil Rights Act of 1866, The Expatriation Act of 1868 and the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802. All directly on point. This, Roberts calls “scant evidence.” Whereas he cites a mighty three cases for his majority opinion: an inapposite one from Britain; the opinion of a New York assistant vice chancellor in an 1844 inheritance dispute in New York (BIG, if true); and one, Wong Kim Ark—the “strongest support for today's decision,” as Alito put it—using dubious dicta from a wandering opinion that primarily relied on the parents having been “legally domiciled” in the U.S. when the child was born. Not to be confused with, “living here illegally.” (Or “wintering in Palm Beach.”) It's as if Roberts didn't realize the case was about kids born to illegal aliens. 5) Roberts's weirdest citation is to an 1872 letter from Attorney General George Williams describing Francois Heinrich, a child born to Austrian parents while they were “temporarily residing” in New York City, as having been “originally clothed with American nationality.”

We picked two immigration decisions from the same day over the transgender-sports case because — Dan's protests notwithstanding — that's where the interesting law is. In Mullin v. Doe the Court lets the administration terminate temporary protected status for Haiti and Syria, holding the statute's no-judicial-review bar swallows the procedural challenges and that the equal-protection claim fails on the merits — with a genuinely odd move: skipping the jurisdictional question the way Steel Co. says you can't. In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado a fight about asylum-metering collapses onto a single preposition — whether a migrant stopped at the border “arrives in” the United States — and the majority says no. Along the way: brown M&Ms and Van Halen riders, whether Congress can strip review of constitutional claims without turning in a circle and sprinkling salt on the ground, Bolling v. Sharpe as a candidate for the worst decision ever, and why there's no White Somalia to run a controlled experiment.Highlights[00:00:28] Opening: hype music, and listening to your own podcast to get in the mood[00:01:42] Building a live-show rider with Claude Code, and the Van Halen brown-M&Ms test as a safety checklist[00:03:18] Blogging origin stories — GeoCities, Movable Type, the death of Google Reader, a ransomed domain[00:06:26] Why we date-stamp episodes; the “too many episodes” complaint[00:07:27] Today's slate: two June 25 immigration decisions, Mullin v. Doe and Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, chosen over the trans-sports case[00:10:37] A digression on the opinion's broken line spacing on page 1[00:12:11] Mullin v. Doe setup: TPS, the consultation-and-review procedures, and the “no judicial review of any determination” bar[00:19:07] Does the bar reach the procedures or just the bottom line? The Court says the whole thing[00:24:32] Can Congress strip review of constitutional claims — or must it first “turn in a circle and sprinkle salt on the ground”?[00:25:01] Dan on his and Alan Trammell's The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping[00:31:42] Steel Co. and jurisdiction-first — and the Court's strange skip of it on the interim docket, which costs it Gorsuch and Barrett on that Part[00:38:54] Why leave a hard jurisdictional question unwritten — the stare-decisis dodge and the “do you write on the shadow docket” dilemma[00:42:17] The multiply-the-probabilities problem (70% × 70%), by way of the Section 3 disqualification argument[00:44:04] The merits: Trump v. Hawaii redux, and Alito's very ginger, sanitized recounting of the President's statements about Haitians[00:48:21] Arlington Heights, race as a motivating factor, and the burden-shift the Court blends into one step[00:52:32] The Thomas concurrence: equal protection doesn't bind the federal government — Bolling v. Sharpe and Primus's Bolling Alone[00:59:27] The Kagan dissent: the review bar reaches only the bottom line, so the failure-to-consult claim survives[01:03:34] Why there's no perfect test case — no White Somalia — so the burden of proof is the ballgame[01:04:42] Mullin v. Al Otro Lado: metering, and whether a migrant stopped at the border “arrives in” the United States[01:08:31] IIRIRA swapped “arrives at” for “arrives in” — did changing the preposition change the meaning?[01:12:16] Dueling everyday-language examples: the running back, the mailbox, and Sotomayor's Penn Station / DCA / Golden Gate / movie-theater hypos[01:15:44] The Chicago Skyway's “Now arriving in Indiana” signs — “we say no thanks”[01:18:28] The dissent's practical stakes: perverse incentives to cross illegally, the SS St. Louis, and the Footnote 5 vs. Footnote 4 spat[01:20:51] Mootness and the voluntary-cessation exception; Jackson's advisory-opinion dissent and the Chatrie citation she just missed[01:24:13] The second Thomas concurrence: the § 1252 injunction bar (Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez) and an inherent Article II power to expel — “milling around”[01:26:18] The “an uniform rule” indefinite-article tangent; Conor Clarke on how we can't pronounce anything[01:28:06] Sign-off: Dan's two-week vacation, and thanks to the Constitutional Law Institute and SCOTUSblogRelevant linksCasesMullin v. Doe — slip opinion (No. 25-1083, consolidated with Trump v. Miot; TPS termination for Haiti and Syria)Mullin v. Al Otro Lado — slip opinion (No. 25-5; asylum metering and “arrives in the United States”)Commentary & articlesDaniel Epps & Alan M. Trammell, “The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping” (Columbia L. Rev. 2023) — the argument that jurisdiction stripping is a far weaker tool than advertisedRichard Primus, “Bolling Alone” (Columbia L. Rev. 2004) — after Bolling v. Sharpe, the Court has never actually invalidated federal discrimination against Black plaintiffs at the CourtHenry Monaghan, “Marbury and the Administrative State” (1983) — how a court “says what the law is” when the law tells it to defer

You’re listening to American Ground Radio with Stephen Parr and Louis R. Avallone. This is the full show for July 7, 2026. We open with a story that's more than just an economic migration — it's a cultural sorting happening across America in real time. Conservatives are leaving blue states for red states chasing economic freedom, while nonprofits in Seattle are reporting they've helped more than 1,500 transgender people relocate there since the 2024 election — more than 20 times the number they helped before it. We make the distinction: conservatives making the move don't need charities to pay for it, they just do it. And we connect both migrations to the same underlying truth — people are voting with their feet, and they're moving toward communities that reflect how they want to live and away from places that make them feel legally, culturally, or politically out of place. In our Top 3 Things You Need to Know, the U.S. relaunched strikes against Iran after Iran attacked three tankers in the Strait of Hormuz — with a Pentagon spokesperson telling CNN simply, this is punishment, it won't be over for a bit. Iran then had the audacity to call the reimposition of oil sanctions a violation of the ceasefire agreement — the same ceasefire they violated by setting three ships on fire. Then former Tallahassee mayor and 2018 Florida Democratic gubernatorial nominee Andrew Gillum — who nearly beat Ron DeSantis by less than half a point — was arrested in Daphne, Alabama after being spotted driving erratically, with officers finding marijuana and methamphetamine in his vehicle. And the former mayor of Jackson, Mississippi pled guilty to bribery — this from a mayor who presided over a city that went without water for at least one full month every year of his tenure. We also address Marjorie Taylor Greene's suggestion that the multiple sexual assault allegations against Maine Democratic Senate nominee Graham Plattner — the man with the Nazi SS tattoo — might be a political hit job. We make the distinction between the timing of Politico's publication, which may have been orchestrated around the July 13th ballot deadline, and the underlying allegations themselves, which were there long before anyone ran a story. Not every damaging allegation is a political hit job. Sometimes people just do bad things. Our American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson share what liberal friends actually say about 2028 when nobody's performing for a crowd. Teri's Danish-American friend in Wyoming — who can't stand Trump — says when asked who she'd want as next president, the answer wasn't AOC, wasn't Gavin Newsom, and definitely wasn't Kamala Harris. It was Marco Rubio. And she says all her liberal friends feel the same way — presidential, articulate, someone who could actually bring people together. We discuss what a Trump-Vance-Rubio sequential presidency could mean historically, and compare it to Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe's consecutive terms that effectively ended the Federalist Party. We discuss whether Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito should consider strategic retirements before President Trump leaves office to lock in conservative influence on the Supreme Court for the next four decades — and we make the case that while winning elections is the cleaner solution, two and a half years is not a long runway if something changes in November. In our Digging Deep segment, we run through a YouGov poll on flag favorability by party — and the results are genuinely stunning. For Republicans, the American flag comes in at a net positive of 97%, followed by the Betsy Ross flag, the Trump flag, the thin blue line flag, and the Israeli flag. For Democrats, the most popular flag is the Black Lives Matter flag at plus 69% — beating the American flag at plus 62%. Democrats also rate the flags of Ukraine and Mexico more favorably than the Betsy Ross flag — the very first symbol of this nation. We connect it to Sunny Hostin's claim that seeing an American flag in a neighborhood makes her feel unsafe — and to the FEMA report that Biden administration workers were instructed to skip homes flying American flags because they were likely Trump supporters. We also cover an ICE officer who shot and killed an illegal alien in Houston who allegedly used his vehicle as a weapon against federal agents during a targeted enforcement operation — and we make the only point that needs to be made: if you try to run over a law enforcement officer with a two-ton vehicle, the officer has the right to defend his life. The left will ask whether the officer should have been there in the first place. They won't ask whether the illegal alien should have been here in the first place. For our Bright Spot, a left-leaning author in a left-leaning publication — Washington Monthly — writes that despite his deep opposition to Donald Trump, he is still hopeful about America because of how far the country has come since the Bicentennial in 1976. Life expectancy is up six and a half years. Heart disease deaths are down nearly 60%. Cancer deaths are down more than a third. The air is dramatically cleaner. The Chicago River — which hospitalized his sister after she fell in during 1972 — now has people swimming in it on the Fourth of July. Car crash fatalities have been cut in half. Even the murder rate is down 50% over 50 years. We take it as a bright spot — not because we needed to be convinced, but because a leftist went looking for objective evidence and found it anyway. And we close with Andres Robles, who turned eight years old and celebrated at Disneyland — where he was greeted at the train platform on Main Street USA as the one billionth visitor to enter the park since it opened on July 17th, 1955. His family unveiled an updated sign reading population one billion and received a VIP tour. May your pursuit of happiness bring you joy. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts, visit AmericanGroundRadio.com, and join the conversation at 866-AGR-1776!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After a quick check on the Nina Totenberg embargo kerfuffle and one more revelation from Justice Thomas's memoir, we devote the episode to Chatrie v. United States, the Court's first major Fourth Amendment decision in years. We trace how the geofence-warrant ruling builds on — and goes beyond — Katz, United States v. Jones, and Carpenter v. United States, and what's left of the third-party doctrine and the mosaic theory. Will explains the positive law model of the Fourth Amendment; Dan tries to claim Justice Gorsuch's separate opinion for his general-law approach. We close with the dissents, the advisory-opinion objection, and whether the Court should be saying more about the Fourth Amendment or less about everything. Along the way: Venmo heroin deals, smart microwaves, whether Will has genuinely forgotten his passcode, and a field-trip assignment for Chicagoland listeners.Highlights[00:00:21] Cold open: three recording sessions in three days, and the theories swirling around the Nina Totenberg screw-up[00:02:04] Justice Alito's embargo story: the press-room idea he liked until he learned they have to let the journalists out of the room[00:03:04] My Grandfather's Son follow-up: Justice Thomas's over-cautious marijuana confession[00:04:35] Cleanup-order watch: GVRs still owed in light of Slaughter, Landor, and B.P.J.[00:04:57] The main event: Chatrie v. United States, the geofence-warrant case — and why a 5-Justice Fourth Amendment majority is a good get for Justice Kagan[00:06:51] What a geofence actually is (there is no fence) and the three-step Google Location History protocol[00:13:52] General warrants, particularity, the University of Chicago backpacks hypo, and Ybarra v. Illinois — with a field-trip assignment to the Aurora Tap House[00:21:09] Three questions — search, reasonableness, exclusion — and the clever cert grant that fenced out the exclusionary rule[00:25:52] The setup: Jones and the two tracks of Fourth Amendment doctrine, step 0 (the third-party doctrine), then Carpenter[00:33:13] Will's positive law model of the Fourth Amendment, and Justice Gorsuch's Carpenter dissent[00:36:29] Orin Kerr's mosaic theory: "building out the mosaic Byzantine style, it starts to become searchier"[00:39:15] Kagan shuts the mosaic door: where the Fourth Amendment applies, it applies regardless of quantity — a fortiori from Carpenter[00:47:36] What survives of the third-party doctrine: Strava, public Venmo feeds, and the "For heroin" hypo[00:50:53] Why it's a big deal: the anti-mosaic holding, and a majority of Justices revealed as Carpenter people[00:54:48] Tangent: Face ID, the Fifth Amendment, Will's forgotten passcodes, and his enemies[00:56:55] Does the Stored Communications Act make all this academic?[00:58:34] The Jackson concurrence's particularity nudge, en banc remand practice, and Levy & Newman on unwritten circuit rules[01:00:43] The Gorsuch concurrence: papers, effects, property — Will disowns it and gives it to Dan's general-law approach[01:08:36] The Alito dissent: the advisory-opinion objection, footnote 4, the Davis carve-out, and the NRA v. Vullo precedent for a do-over remand[01:18:59] Justice Barrett's à-la-carte joins and her one-paragraph dissent — "we should have more dissents like this"[01:22:31] Two kinds of law professors, "The Supreme Court Flunks Trusts," and whether we're good on law[01:24:15] Sign-off: the rare promise of a schedule — a fourth recording session this weekRelevant linksCasesChatrie v. United States — slip opinionYbarra v. IllinoisUnited States v. JonesKatz v. United StatesSmith v. MarylandCarpenter v. United States — slip opinionFlorida v. JardinesDavis v. United StatesNRA v. VulloCommentary & articlesAmy Howe, "Court rules that law enforcement's use of 'geofence warrant' was a 'search'" (SCOTUSblog)Kate Shaw, Will Baude & Steve Vladeck, end-of-term Supreme Court roundtable (N.Y. Times, July 1, 2026) — the "hosannas" Will mentions on airWilliam Baude & James Y. Stern, "The Positive Law Model of the Fourth Amendment," 129 Harv. L. Rev. 1821 (2016)Danielle D'Onfro & Daniel Epps, "The Fourth Amendment and General Law," 132 Yale L.J. 910 (2023)Orin S. Kerr, "The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment," 111 Mich. L. Rev. 311 (2012)John H. Langbein, "The Supreme Court Flunks Trusts," 1990 Sup. Ct. Rev. 207OtherClarence Thomas, My Grandfather's Son (2007)Jon O. Newman & Marin K. Levy, Written and Unwritten: The Rules, Internal Procedures, and Customs of the United States Courts of Appeals (Cambridge 2024)

Stanford's Fred Smith examines the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship decision, its historical roots in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the questions the Court leaves unresolved. --- The Fourteenth Amendment opens with a simple constitutional promise: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. In a closely divided Supreme Court decision, that understanding of birthright citizenship is once again tested through competing readings of text, history, and precedent. In this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Fred Smith, a leading scholar of the federal courts, joins Pam Karlan to examine the Court's ruling in Trump v. Barbara and the history behind the Citizenship Clause. The discussion traces the Clause to Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to Black Americans, and to the Reconstruction-era effort to overturn it, as well as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood to affirm birthright citizenship for those born on U.S. soil. The discussion highlights deeper disagreements over how that history should shape constitutional meaning today. Smith and Karlan explore tensions between originalist approaches, reliance on precedent, and questions about congressional authority over citizenship. At stake is not only the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the broader question of who the Constitution recognizes as part of the American political community—and who gets to decide. Links: Fred Smith  >>> Stanford Law School Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

OA1275 - As June ends and another Supreme Court Season wraps, it is time to look back and survey the damage: significant blows to voting and trans rights, harder times for immigrants throughout the system, and a vast expansion of executive powers. But we also go beyond the headlines to see what has been going on with some of the Court's more routine business. What can we learn from their more mundane 9-0 decisions--and can we actually find some good news here among the wreckage? Matt does his best. Finally, in today's seasonal footnote: why the world believed for exactly five minutes that Samuel Alito had closed Supreme Court Season by announcing his retirement on Tuesday, and what we can learn from this weird mistake about how mainstream media covers the Supreme Court. Executive Power / Immigration Trump v. Barbara — 25-365 (June 30, 2026)(birthright citizenship) Learning Resources v. Trump — 24-1287  (Feb. 20, 2026) (IEEPA tariffs) Trump v. Cook — 25A312 (June 29, 2026) (Fed removal) Trump v. Slaughter — 25-332 (June 29, 2026) (FTC removal) Mullin v. Doe — 25-1083 (June 25, 2026) (TPS) Mullin v. Al Otro Lado — 25-5 (June 25, 2026) (asylum at the border) Blanche v. Lau — 25-429 (June 23, 2026)(LPRs at the border) Urias-Orellana v. Bondi — 24-777 (Mar. 4, 2026) (asylum standard of review) Criminal Law Barrett v. United States — 24-5774 (Jan. 14, 2026) (§924(c)/(j) stacking) Bowe v. United States — 24-5438 (Jan. 9, 2026) (successive §2255 petitions) Ellingburg v. United States — 24-482 (Jan. 20, 2026) (restitution / Ex Post Facto) Chatrie v. United States — 25-112 (June 29, 2026) (geofence / 4A) United States v. Hemani — 24-1234 (June 18, 2026) (cannabis & 2A rights) Hunter v. United States — 24-1063 (June 18, 2026) (appeal waivers) Pitchford v. Cain — 24-7351 (May 28, 2026) (Batson / AEDPA challenge) Olivier v. City of Brandon — 24-993 (Mar. 20, 2026) — (§1983 rights with prior conviction) Case v. Montana — 24-624 (Jan. 14, 2026) (emergency-aid / 4A) Villarreal v. Texas — 24-557 (Feb. 25, 2026) (counsel during recess) Clark v. Sweeney — 25-52 (Nov. 14, 2025) (habeas / new-trial reversal) Civil/Voting Rights Landor v. Louisiana DOC — 23-1197 (June 23, 2026) (RLUIPA damages)  Louisiana v. Callais — 24-109 (Apr. 29, 2026) (Voting Rights Act §2) West Virginia v. B.P.J. — 24-43 (June 30, 2026) (trans student athletes) Wolford v. Lopez — 24-1046 (June 25, 2026) (2A concealed carry) Chiles v. Salazar — 24-539 (Mar. 31, 2026) (conversion therapy) NRSC v. FEC — 24-621 (June 30, 2026) (1A / campaign finance) Procedural Issues Enbridge Energy v. Nessel — 24-783 (Apr. 22, 2026) (removal deadline)  Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton — 24-808 (Jan. 20, 2026) (Rule 60(b)(4) finality) Other SCOTUSblog Stat Pack (2025-2026)[PDF] “NPR retracts story about Alito retirement,” Kelly McBride, NPR (June 30, 2026) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Today's Poll Question at Smerconish.com: Should U.S. citizenship require allegiance or just being born here? The Supreme Court reaffirmed birthright citizenship, but Michael argues the legal ruling doesn't end the policy debate. He explains why he believes the Court correctly interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment while asking whether automatic citizenship based solely on birthplace remains the right approach. Drawing on international comparisons, Justice Samuel Alito's dissent, the naturalization process, and his own experience speaking at a citizenship ceremony, Michael explores whether American citizenship should be rooted in allegiance, consent, and commitment—or continue to be granted simply by birth on U.S. soil. Listen here, then vote! And be sure to rate, review and share this podcast! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

It's the last opinion day of the term, and the big one landed: Trump v. Barbara, the birthright-citizenship case. We read the majority as the rare easy case and spend most of the episode on why the four dissents each end up somewhere different — and trying to figure out exactly where they actually land. Along the way: a bogus Nina Totenberg story, a Landor GVR that might quietly unsettle a chunk of Spending Clause criminal law, and whether the professors who defended the order deserve the "legal scholarship police." Highlights[00:00:27] The bogus Nina Totenberg wire story that Justice Alito was retiring — "Fake news, Dan."[00:02:03] The Justice Alito / Justice Sotomayor bench-dissent dust-up from the immigration hand-downs[00:03:11] Last opinion day — 3 opinions, 4 cases; NRSC v. FEC and West Virginia v. B.P.J. / Little v. Hecox flagged for later[00:05:27] A significant new grant teed up on possession of semi-automatic rifles (AR-15s)[00:06:43] A GVR in light of Landor in a federal arson case, and the narrow-vs-broad theory of what a GVR means[00:09:34] Whether Landor's narrowing of Sabri could upend a swath of Spending Clause federal criminal law[00:10:58] Why RLUIPA reaches prisoners — Chuck Colson's post-Watergate lobbying (courtesy of a listener, Emma Kaufman)[00:12:55] Trump v. Barbara — Trump loses, but closer than predicted: "Trump beats the spread"[00:15:25] Should professors who defended the order be punished? — "we don't need legal scholarship police"[00:19:58] The majority's walk: common law → Dred Scott → the 14th Amendment → Wong Kim Ark[00:26:21] Wong Kim Ark as linchpin, and whether its "domiciled here" language was doing any work[00:36:48] Justice Kavanaugh concurs in the judgment on the statute, then dispatches the constitutional question breezily[00:42:05] New states, Hawaii, and Living Originalism — when may you add new exceptions? "Weird islands you can't drive to"[00:48:33] The 91-page Justice Thomas dissent, the facial-challenge pivot, and the reserved domicile question[00:56:40] Justice Alito's Civil Rights Act / "not subject to any foreign power" reading, and the statelessness caveat[01:00:11] Justice Gorsuch's 3-page solo dissent: if not domiciled here, then where? — a jab Thomas may not share[01:05:33] Justice Jackson's anti-subordination concurrence, and whether it lands against Thomas[01:10:24] "I feel proud to be an American, Dan" — hail to the Chief, and to Justice Barrett; sign-offRelevant linksCasesTrump v. Barbara — slip opinionLandor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections — slip opinionSabri v. United States (2004)United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)NRSC v. FEC — slip opinionWest Virginia v. B.P.J. / Little v. Hecox — slip opinionCommentary & articlesSCOTUSblog opinion recap: "Supreme Court strikes down Trump's order ending birthright citizenship"Ilan Wurman & Randy Barnett's NYT essay defending the order (Minnesota Law summary)

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled on several issues related to immigration policy. While the court narrowly preserved birthright citizenship, it issued other rulings that will put an untold number of people in danger. One ruling, Mullin v Al Otro Lado, upheld the federal government's policy of turning back asylum seekers before they can reach the US-Mexico border—a policy also known as “metering”—hollowing out the right to asylum enshrined in both domestic and international law. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor referenced the St. Louis, the ship of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany turned away from the US, whose passengers were mostly killed in the Holocaust: “Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980 because it did not want this country to repeat the mistakes of its past. Yet if the refugees on the M. S. St. Louis were to walk up to a port of entry on our southern border today, the majority's interpretation would allow immigration officers to refuse even to consider their asylum applications by physically blocking them from stepping foot onto US soil,” she said.In another ruling, Mullin v Doe, the Supreme Court granted the president the power to end the Temporary Protected Status program, or TPS, which has allowed vetted and eligible immigrants to live and work legally in the US if they cannot return safely to their countries. Justice Samuel Alito, in his majority opinion, said courts do not have a say in what the president and the Department of Homeland Security decide; the president can end TPS for Haitians and Syrians without judicial review. He also rejected a separate claim brought by Haitians that the move to deport them was based in racial prejudice. TPS has been in effect since 1990. There are 350,000 Haitians who have been in the US legally under TPS, and whose lives have now been thrown into chaos.In our spring issue, we published a prescient piece by immigration reporter Tanvi Misra about the death of asylum, and the ways that its decline is a dire portent for democracy itself. Asylum, Misra reminds us, is a “place-based right” designed to prioritize human life over national borders: As soon as an endangered person steps foot onto a country's soil, they “are entitled to that body's protection,” regardless of whether they crossed with permission. This is exactly the principle that has been undermined with this recent ruling, which prevents people from arriving and making an application. As this ruling suggests, for as long as asylum has existed in the US, so have efforts to weaken it. It has been issued selectively and on racial grounds—much more easily been granted to German-speaking Protestants than to Jews escaping the Holocaust; readily offered to Cubans fleeing Castro but not to Haitians fleeing the US-supported Duvalier dictatorship.Misra's essay tells us that this tactic of denying landfall to migrants as a way of denying them asylum has gone into overdrive in the past decades as border agents try to intercept asylum seekers earlier and earlier in their journeys. In the process, the US border has, Misra says, “not just hardened, but expanded”—into Mexico, Guatemala, Panama, and beyond. Under Trump 2.0, the border has also spilled inward, into LA, Chicago, Minneapolis, and all the other places where border agents are chasing down asylum seekers and, increasingly, all migrants.In this episode of On the Nose, recorded in mid-June before the Supreme Court rulings, Misra speaks about these grievous attacks on asylum with John Washington, a staff reporter at Lookout and the author of the forthcoming book, How to Close a Camp: Dispatches from the Fight Against Immigrant Detention, as well as The Case for Open Borders and The Dispossessed: A Story of Asylum at the US-Mexico Border.This conversation was originally a live membership event. Become a member so you don't miss the next one!Thanks to Jesse Brenneman for editing and to Nathan Salsburg for the use of his song “VIII (All That Were Calculated Have Passed).”Media Mentioned and Further Reading“The Death of Asylum,” Tanvi Misra, Jewish CurrentsHow to Close a Camp: Dispatches from the Fight Against Immigrant Detention by John WashingtonThe Case for Open Borders by John WashingtonThe Dispossessed: A Story of Asylum at the US-Mexico Border by John WashingtonThe Suppliants by AeschylusOedipus at Colonus by Sophocles“The principle of non-refoulement,” European Union Agency for Asylum1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol “A History of Haitian Discrimination by United States Immigration Policy,” US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants“‘Metering' of Asylum Seekers Is Bad Policy, Bad Law, and Bad for the Border,” Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, American Immigration Council“US flight carrying deported migrants lands in Central African Republic,” France24“What Are Third-Country Removals? Understanding Their Use In U.S. Immigration Policy,” American Immigration Council“Broader Crises,” Tanvi Misra, The Baffler“The Unraveling of Afghan Asylum,” Tanvi Misra, New York Review of BooksTranscript forthcoming.

Christina Hello, everyone, I'm Christina Darnell, the managing editor of MinistryWatch. Welcome to the MinistryWatch podcast. In today's extra episode, I talk with Warren Smith about some news items that are slightly (even significantly) outside of our normal charity and philanthropy “beat.” So, Warren, what's up first?  Warren William Bennett famously said, “The plural of anecdotes is not data.” Journalists who write about religion often forget that reality. Christina The latest example came from Carson Daly of the Today Show. He wants us to believe that young people are packing Catholic Churches, and they are leading a Catholic resurgence in this country. But you're not buying it. Warren I'm not. The data tell a different story. I turned to the 2023–24 Pew Research Center Religious Landscape Study, based on nearly 37,000 randomly selected American adults, for a reality check. Among its findings: About 19 percent of U.S. adults identify as Catholic, unchanged since 2014 — but well below historical levels. Even more telling: 43 percent of Americans raised Catholic no longer identify as Catholic. Only 1.5 percent of American adults have become Catholic after being raised in another religion or with no religion. Catholics have experienced the largest net losses of any major Christian tradition through religious switching. Christina What about young people? That seemed to be the focus of the Carson Daly piece. Warren It was, but even among young people, the data don't support that conclusion. Among Americans ages 18–24, 12 percent have left Catholicism, while only 1 percent have converted into it. Pew concluded there is “no clear evidence” of a nationwide religious revival among young adults. Christina Why has this revival narrative been so persistent. We've been seeing it in the Protestant church as well. Warren Journalists want to find unusual stories. The slow secularization of religion over the past 50 years is not unusual. It's been told, and journalists are looking for a new story. As the old saying, “Dog bites man” is not a story. “Man bites dog” is a story. As for the Catholic resurgence story? Well, to torture the metaphor: “That dog won't hunt.” Carson Daly might be able to find a parish whose young adult Mass grows from 50 to 400 people, but that does not make up for the thousands of parishes experiencing gradual (and sometimes significant) decline. Christina Years ago, David Letterman had a routine that he called “Stupid Pet Tricks.” The first story we did, plus the next one, might qualify this episode of the podcast for its own “Stupid Media Tricks” segment. Warren You're right. This week saw another significant media story that caused me to wonder. In this case, veteran National Public Radio Supreme Court reporter Nina Totenberg wrote a story that Justice Samuel Alito had retired. Christina And, to be clear, Justice Alito has not retired. Warren That's right. But the story that he had retired made it through NPR's editing process and onto the website before someone discovered the mistake. And, of course, if it makes it to one website, the algorithms soon have it everywhere. Christina About an hour after publication, NPR retracted the story, issued a correction, and apologized. But the damage had been done. Warren To be fair, the damage was not severe – except, perhaps, to the credibility of NPR. But it does provide a lesson in how modern media work. Charlie Warzel, writing for The Atlantic, does a fascinating post-mortem on the episode, saying the error highlights several habits of modern journalism that are pathological. Among them: “That a breakneck news cycle is forcing even the best reporters and editors to move too fast, that modern beat reporting itself has become too consumed with being first to report stories.” Warzel's story is a smart look at how the journalistic sausage is made. I recommend it. You can find a link in today's show notes. Christina Our next story is also a media story, of sorts. Warren I had not thought of it that way, but I think you're right. Our friend Joseph Slife forwarded me a story that Michigan's Cornerstone University was offering a degree that could be completed “100%” on a smartphone. Christina Warren, did you check the date on that story. Are you sure it's not an April Fools Day prank? Warren I did check, because that was my first thought. Alas, it is not. According to The College Fix, “Cornerstone University, located in Grand Rapids, is offering an associate degree and bachelor's degree in strategic business management along with a master's in organizational leadership through its new program. Students pay a fixed rate of $2,400 per four-month term or $3,750 for graduate level work. The intended audience is working adults.” Christina That's pretty cheap, and – as a working adult – I couldn't imagine trying to get to a nearby college a couple of nights a week for classes. Warren I get that. 100  percent. I am not a Luddite. I use my iPhone for a lot of things – including learning. YouTube videos have helped me learn new licks on the guitar, have helped me repair my toilet, and have helped me gain new insights into the human condition. Christina But learning via iPhone is a different experience than face-to-face, in classroom learning. Warren That's exactly right. Especially from a wise and well-qualified teacher, in a community with other learners who are grappling with the same ideas — both in class, but also around the dinner table in the dining hall. Christina So what you're saying is that virtual learning is not worthless. It is just different. Warren I do not oppose colleges offering programs virtually, but to offer accredited degrees that carry all the prestige and credentialing power of an in-person degree…well…that is just bearing false witness. Christina Let's conclude today with news that the Texas State Board of Education passed a new required reading list that includes Bible passages. Warren On Friday, June 26, the Republican-controlled board voted 9-5-1 to approve a first-of-its-kind list that will affect more than 5 million public school students. Required readings for younger students include illustrated Old Testament stories such as Noah's Ark and David and Goliath. By upper elementary school, students read New Testament passages about Jesus' teachings and parables. Middle school and high school lessons pair scriptural themes with classic literature. Christina Most Christian groups are praising this decision. But you say…not so fast. Warren I will have to say that net-net I am glad they are reading the Bible in the classroom. You simply cannot understand most of Western literature – from Dante to Shakespeare to Faulkner to Eliot – without some biblical literacy. And I know that there are a lot of great public school teachers who will handle these texts with care and respect. Christina I sense a big fat…however…coming on. Warren Ha. So I'll say it.  However… I do wonder what will happen when you put scripture into the hands of militantly secularized teachers, and you give them a platform to air their grievances. They may be forced to read the bible, but what if the teacher spends the rest of the class presenting arguments for its unreliability? Christina So are you opposed to reading the Bible in classrooms? Warren Absolutely not. I'm very much in favor of it, but I do wonder how it's going to be taught. I would recommend that parents in Texas remain vigilant. Time will tell whether this was a positive innovation for the classroom, or one full of unintended consequences. Until then, though, I know that “God's word will not return void.” So, I trust that the positive impact of scripture reading will be greater than any efforts to undermine it. Christina Any final thoughts before we go? Warren If you have not discovered our YouTube channel, check it out here. We now have nearly 200 videos there, and they have attracted tens of thousands of views. Subscribe, like, and share to spread the word about our work. I am in Albuquerque next month. If you live in the Land of Enchantment, one of my favorite states, reach out to me. I would love to share a meal or a cup of coffee with you. My email is wsmith@ministrywatch.com. We'd love to have your financial support as we approach our fiscal year end. Just go to www.ministrywatch.com/donate Christina The producer for today's program is Jeff McIntosh. I'm Christina Darnell, along with Warren Smith. Until next time, may God bless you.

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show delivers a wide-ranging, politically charged discussion centered on a major Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship, which dominates the hour and drives broader debates on immigration policy, constitutional law, and American identity. Hosting solo, Buck Sexton frames the 6–3 ruling as one of the most consequential—and controversial—judicial decisions in modern history, emphasizing that the Court upheld the interpretation that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen (with limited exceptions such as diplomats), including children of undocumented immigrants and so-called “birth tourism.” The conversation repeatedly highlights concerns about immigration loopholes, anchor babies, and national security risks, arguing that the ruling could incentivize foreign nationals to exploit U.S. laws, particularly citing China as a geopolitical rival. Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio calls in and analyzes dissenting opinions from Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, portraying the ruling as an example of judicial overreach versus originalist constitutional interpretation, while also drawing comparisons to historically controversial Supreme Court cases like Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade. The discussion expands into immigration enforcement policy, including critiques of sanctuary cities, catch-and-release practices, and the broader political divide between Republicans and Democrats on border security. There is also a significant focus on how birthright citizenship could influence future political eligibility, chain migration, and even hypothetical national security threats, such as foreign-born individuals returning to the U.S. as citizens after being raised abroad. Buck welcomes guest Rafael Mangual, author of Criminal Injustice. This third hour emphasizes a deep dive into crime policy, policing debates, and the real-world consequences of progressive reforms, alongside culturally charged conversations about gender identity issues, free speech, and American political identity. Mangual’s expert analysis of criminal justice reform and the push for decarceration and depolicing, arguing that these policies—widely supported after the 2020 protests—have had harmful effects, particularly in urban communities and among Black Americans. The discussion frames rising crime trends and the subsequent reversal of some reforms as evidence that reduced policing and leniency in prosecution increased violence, with hosts emphasizing that effective policing historically correlates with lower homicide rates and improved public safety outcomes. Mangual underscores that incarceration serves a critical role in crime prevention through incapacitation, challenging progressive narratives that prioritize rehabilitation over deterrence. A major legal and political focus of Hour 3 is the Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship, sparking a detailed constitutional debate. Mangual aligns more closely with the dissenting justices, questioning whether the 14th Amendment’s original intent supports granting automatic citizenship to children of non-citizens or temporary visitors, including so-called “birth tourism” cases. The conversation highlights competing interpretations among justices such as Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, and critiques the use of executive action instead of legislative authority. The hosts and guest ultimately argue that any meaningful change would require congressional action or a constitutional amendment—an extremely unlikely outcome, reinforcing the political stalemate around immigration reform. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuckYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Megyn Kelly is joined by Matt Taibbi, editor of "Racket News" on Substack, to discuss the rise of socialists within the Democratic party, 29-year-old Colorado candidate Melat Kiros' major victory over the long-time Democrat incumbent, the wild positions she has that are growing in the Democratic party, NPR's embarrassing false report that Justice Samuel Alito was retiring, Nina Totenberg's widely-criticized explanation for the mistake, the shocking backstory to the fake story and Totenberg's history of mistakes, Sheridan Gorman's mom's powerful testimony before the House yesterday, calling out Democrats for not protecting Americans and trying to focus on other issues, and more. Then Rob Finnerty, host of "Finnerty" on NEWSMAX, to discuss corporate media refusing to tell the truth about boys in girls' sports, the reality of the issue ignored by the left, a new law in Minneapolis allowing bathhouses again, Jussie Smollett's bizarre comeback appearance at a Pride event, the lawlessness seen at Pride events throughout June, Naomi Osaka making her Wimbledon appearance all about herself, Serena Williams' failed comeback and poor sportsmanship, and more.   Taibbi- https://www.racket.news/ Finnerty- https://www.newsmaxtv.com/Shows/finnerty   Supersure Insurance: Upgrade your business insurance to a year-round SuperAgency at https://Supersure.com/Megyn The Wellness Company: Don't let a sudden illness derail your summer—secure your peace of mind and save $45 on a Medical Emergency Kit today by visiting https://UrgentCareKit.com/MK and using promo code MK. Herald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get a free America 250 silver round with qualifying purchase     Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show, Chief Justice Roberts improperly relied on English common law as a basis for birthright citizenship, despite the framers using it only as a guide and rejecting elements that conflicted with the U.S. system. The 14th Amendment and the preceding Civil Rights Act of 1866 were narrowly intended to grant full citizenship rights to freed Black slaves and their children amid post-Civil War resistance—not to address immigration or confer citizenship on children of illegal aliens. The opinion wrongly equates "jurisdiction" with mere physical presence, leading to illogical results like automatic citizenship for babies of illegal immigrants (who retain foreign allegiance) while creating unaddressed exceptions for diplomats, revealing a result-oriented, activist approach that rewrites history. Roberts and his Majority twisted the history of the 14th amendment and just constitutionalized birthright citizenship, knowing full well that our nation, like Europe, is facing a grave threat from within as a result, in part, of the intentional refusal of our government, when the Democrats are in power, to enforce immigration laws and, oppositely, facilitating the importation of aliens from all over the world without proper vetting. Also, the constitutional amendment process is rarely used. It requires two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress to propose language, followed by ratification by three-fourths (38) of the states—neither of which is feasible for issues like changing birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court has constitutionalized elements not originally in the Constitution, making reversal through amendments impractical. Instead, the effective path is filling Court vacancies with constitutionalists, as achieved in overturning Roe, without resorting to court packing. Later, Hans von Spakovsky calls in and explains that Roberts' opinion was appalling and a complete rewrite of American history, particularly regarding the 14th Amendment. He notes that Justices Alito and Thomas eviscerated it in separate dissents, highlighting that Roberts' historical account was inaccurate. He criticized Roberts' selective and distorting use of sources like Thomas Paine and Frederick Douglass, pointing out Thomas's observation that Douglass viewed Black Americans as citizens due to their equal allegiance to the U.S., unlike illegal aliens who owe allegiance to their native countries. Finally, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison favored limited central government, while Alexander Hamilton preferred a powerful, activist federal government with implied powers. Modern nationalist populists share this Hamilton big-government outlook with the left, which lacks clear constitutional principles and risks abuse, in contrast to true constitutional conservatism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ryan and Emily discuss corporate Dems defeated in CO, Samuel Alito leaked retirement announcement, Congress explodes over MKUltra. Juan David Rojas: https://substack.com/@rojasrjuand Shalin Bhatt: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42249196/ To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NPR correspondent Nina Totenberg wrote a formal apology to Justice Samuel Alito for publishing a report about his retirement, saying she was “so, so sorry.” It was a shocking headline that was up for only a few minutes before it was replaced with a note from the editor saying the article was “published in error.” NPR explained Totenberg misheard an announcement at the Supreme Court, Totenberg saying “it was the worst professional mistake of my more than 50 years in journalism.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

VR36 - In Mullin v Doe, Samuel Alito just proudly stripped Temporary Protected Status from more than one million people who were lawfully living and working in the US as of the time of the decision--and all on the shadow docket, without even waiting for the full merits of the case to be heard. We go deep today on what may go down as his single worst majority opinion to consider Alito's explanations of how some of the most disgustingly racist things a sitting US president has ever said in public (most of which were in support of his decision to terminate TPS for Haitians) couldn't have possibly related to why Trump decided to terminate TPS for Haitians.  We close with a quick look at Clarence Thomas's concurrence iin which he yearns for a return to simple times when the federal government was not expected to provide equal protection under the law to anyone--but most especially not immigrants. Mullin v. Doe (June 25, 2026)(Alito, J.) Appendix with emails filed into Mullin v. Doe (June 16, 2026) Mullin v. Doe oral argument transcript (April 29, 2026) Memorandum Opinion, Miot v. Trump, D.C. Dist. Ct. #25-cv-02471 (Feb 26, 2026)(Reyes, J.)  

This episode dives into the Supreme Court's major birthright citizenship ruling, what it could mean for Congress and immigration enforcement, and why many believe it's only the beginning of a larger legal battle. We also discuss the latest victories for women's sports, Justice Clarence Thomas' powerful comments, and the growing push to permanently protect female athletes.Plus, we react to NPR's embarrassing Supreme Court reporting fiasco, Seattle Pride controversy, the latest immigration and birth tourism crackdown, Ro Khanna's wealth controversy, surprising primary election results in Colorado, and much more.In this episode:- SCOTUS birthright citizenship ruling explained- Women's sports victories and the latest legal battles- Clarence Thomas' opinion- Seattle Pride backlash- Birth tourism crackdown- Ro Khanna wealth controversy- Socialist primary upset in Colorado- NPR's Alito reporting blunder- Viral internet reactions and much more.Be sure to like, subscribe, and share the show if you enjoy independent conservative commentary on the biggest stories shaping America.SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS TO SUPPORT OUR SHOW!Support your heart health, circulation, and healthy cholesterol levels in one simple gel pack. Visit https://HealthyCell.com/CHICKS and use code CHICKS20 to save 20% on your first purchase.Lock in under $10/meal while beef prices climb with Backyard Butchers at https://BackyardButchers.com/Chicks  Code CHICKS auto-applies for 30% off first order + 2 free 10-oz ribeyes + free shipping!Give $26 today to Human Coalition. Be her lifeline. Create a Life Saving Moment. Give today at https://humancoalition.org/chicksStop guessing about your health and unlock Superpower's health health intelligence. At https://SuperPower.com Get $20 off your membership with promo code CHICKS.Subscribe and stay tuned for new episodes every weekday!Follow us here for more daily clips, updates, and commentary:YoutubeFacebookInstagramTikTokXLocalsMore InfoWebsite

NPR correspondent Nina Totenberg wrote a formal apology to Justice Samuel Alito for publishing a report about his retirement, saying she was “so, so sorry.” It was a shocking headline that was up for only a few minutes before it was replaced with a note from the editor saying the article was “published in error.” NPR explained Totenberg misheard an announcement at the Supreme Court, Totenberg saying “it was the worst professional mistake of my more than 50 years in journalism.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's Headlines: The Supreme Court ended its term with three rulings: birthright citizenship was technically upheld 6-3, but the fine print is alarming — the actual split on birthright citizenship itself was 5-4, Kavanaugh wrote a wink-wink concurrence suggesting Congress could legislate it away, and Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent about an explicit constitutional sentence, so Trump immediately announced he wants Congress to start ending it today. The Court also ruled 6-3 to uphold state bans on transgender female athletes in women's sports, setting precedent for 25 other states, and lifted federal limits on coordinated party spending in elections, which is a major practical win for Republicans who spend more through super PACs. Meanwhile, NPR briefly reported that Samuel Alito was retiring, retracted it ten minutes later, and veteran Supreme Court reporter Nina Totenberg — who has covered the court for four decades — had to personally apologize to Alito, which is an institutional mistake of historic proportions. On the corruption beat, Trump reportedly made at least $1.4 billion in 2025 from crypto and memecoins alone — $600 million from World Liberty Financial, $600 million from memecoins — bringing his Bloomberg net worth to $7.6 billion, which is a remarkable glow-up for someone who needed help posting bond for a court verdict last year. The New York Times reported that the Trump administration convinced Kazakhstan to give a US mining company — in which Trump's sons and Howard Lutnick's sons have stakes — access to tungsten reserves, then gave that company $1.6 billion in federal funding to mine it, and that Trump and Lutnick family businesses have financial ties to at least 14 companies receiving or under consideration for nearly $9 billion in federal minerals funding. The Atlantic reported that Trump's 250 pardons are actively in motion, with a former official describing the volume of requests as "batshit crazy," $2 million apparently being the going rate, and foreign nationals from India, Greece, Turkey, and France reportedly told their cases are under consideration. Congress left for July 4th recess early after the SAVE Act failed again, won't be back until July 13th, and Mitch McConnell has now been missing for nearly 20 days — with the suspicion that his office is running out the clock to August 4th, when Kentucky's Democratic governor can no longer appoint his replacement if something were to happen. Resources/Articles mentioned:  NYT: Supreme Court Rejects Trump's Efforts to End Birthright Citizenship: Live Updates NYT: Supreme Court Allows States to Bar Transgender Athletes From Girls' Sports NYT: Supreme Court Lifts Spending Limits on Political Parties and Candidates CNN: ‘I am so, so sorry': NPR reporter explains SCOTUS retirement error The Atlantic: The White House Considers Granting 250 Pardons for the Nation's Birthday Bloomberg: Trump Reports at Least $1.4 Billion in 2025 Crypto Earnings NYT: Trump Cut a Billion-Dollar Mining Deal. His Sons Stand to Profit.  WaPo: GOP rebellion over Trump's elections overhaul leads House to recess for July Fourth early WaPo: Congressman says depression diagnosis caused months-long absence Yahoo: Few details known on Mitch McConnell's health 2 weeks after hospitalization Subscribe to the Betches News Room and join the Morning Announcements group chat. Go to: betchesnews.substack.com Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Radio host Craig Collins, who hosts The Craig Collins Show, fills in for Greg on the Wednesday 3 Martini Lunch. Join Jim and Craig as they discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on birthright citizenship, an NPR reporter's erroneous reporting on Justice Samuel Alito's retirement, and a New Jersey Congressman's return to office after four months of leave, where he received treatment for depression.First, Jim and Craig address the Supreme Court's upholding of birthright citizenship and express their concerns with birth tourism. Given the Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Jim argues that any changes to birthright citizenship must come from lawmakers.Next, they blast the major reporting failure by NPR reporter Nina Totenberg, who claimed Justice Alito was retiring, without sufficient confirmation. Totenberg claims to have misheard Chief Justice John Roberts mention retirements and jumped to the conclusion that he was referring to Justice Alito. NPR quickly retracted the reporting.Finally, Jim and Craig react to Republican Thomas Kean Jr.'s return to Congress after taking a four-month sabbatical to deal with a depression diagnosis. Prior to speaking publicly about his departure, the Congressman had stated an undisclosed medical issue for the reason of his absence. Jim and Craig question whether Congress members with mental health diagnoses are apt to work in a career with immense scrutiny.Please visit our great sponsors:HomeServeFor 50% less your first year, go to https://HomeServe.com/Martini to find the plan that's right for you. Savings compared to renewal price. Void in Florida.IncogniTake control of your digital footprint today.  Use code 3ML at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/3ML.New episodes every weekday. 

NPR correspondent Nina Totenberg wrote a formal apology to Justice Samuel Alito for publishing a report about his retirement, saying she was “so, so sorry.” It was a shocking headline that was up for only a few minutes before it was replaced with a note from the editor saying the article was “published in error.” NPR explained Totenberg misheard an announcement at the Supreme Court, Totenberg saying “it was the worst professional mistake of my more than 50 years in journalism.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In part two of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, the mother of a Loyola University freshman who was shot and killed in March delivered tearful testimony on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. Jose Medina is charged in the murder of Sheridan Gorman, 18, of Yorktown, New York, in Westchester County. Gorman was walking with her friends near the pier at Tobey Prinz Beach at Pratt Boulevard shortly after 1 a.m. Thursday, March 19, when Gorman told her friends she saw someone hiding behind the lighthouse. Medina was a Venezuelan national who was in the U.S. illegally. Also a comparison of centennial observances / NPR retracts an article that mistakenly said Justice Alito would retire / and Gary wears an American Flag. For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.thebulwark.comSarah, Tim, and Andrew Egger (filling in for JVL) discuss:-The Supreme Court's ruling upholding birthright citizenship.-NPR's retracted report that Justice Alito was retiring.-The DSA-aligned Democratic candidates winning primaries in New York City, and whether Democrats are headed for a giant fight over socialism in 2027.-Rep. Tom Kean's return to Congress after his depression diagnosis.-The gang pops off on the gut-wrenching story of the false CPS report against Pete Buttigieg-Fresh polling in the Maine and Texas Senate races.Get your tickets to Sarah's How to Eat an Elephant book tour in September!Watch, listen, and leave a comment.This ad-free video version of The Next Level is exclusively for Bulwark+ members. Click the learn about setting up this show, ad-free, on your podcast player of choice. Or watch in the new Bulwark App—available now in the Apple and Google App stores.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, ruling 6–3 in Trump v. Barbara that the order is unlawful. Three Republican-appointed and three Democratic-appointed justices comprised the majority, though Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented in part. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch each authored dissents. Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up! Click HERE to get 20% off your first year of ad-free episodes, exclusive interviews, and deep dives with Tangle's podcast membership.What's up with Britain?Last week, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced his resignation. If it feels like the country's leaders are always coming and going, that's because… they are. With Starmer's departure, Britain will have had six prime ministers in 10 years. Each entered office promising stability; each left amid deep public dissatisfaction. In our newest YouTube video, Associate Producer Aidan Gorman explores what's going on across the pond. Watch it here.You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠ and today's “Under the radar” story ⁠here⁠ and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: What do you think of the Court's decision? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast written by: Isaac Saul and audio engineered and edited by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sarah Longwell and Georgetown University Law Center's Steve Vladek discuss the Supreme Court's final day of the term—a narrow 5-4 ruling upholding birthright citizenship, the court gutting independent agency protections (while carving out a suspicious exception for the Fed), and a rapid-fire tour through rulings on mail-in ballots, trans athletes, campaign finance, TPS for Haitians, and asylum seekers at the border. Plus: why Amy Coney Barrett has become the MAGA right's newest target, and what Steve thinks Alito is waiting for before he retires.Ready to reach your weight loss goals? Get started at https://ForHers.com/ILLEGALNEWS.  NOBL gives you real travel peace of mind — security, design, and convenience all in one. Head to https://NOBLTravel.com for 46% off your entire order! #NOBL #ad

In this massive episode of the Adult in the Room podcast, Victoria Taft breaks down a historic day of earth-shattering Supreme Court decisions and cultural warfare. First, we dive into a controversial SCOTUS birthright citizenship ruling led by Chief Justice John Roberts, which corporate media is celebrating but constitutional scholars warn turns the document into a suicide pact. We look directly at Justice Samuel Alito's fiery dissent and why the rise of global "birth tourism" poses a direct threat to American sovereignty. Next, we celebrate a critical victory for biological reality: SCOTUS has officially upheld Title IX guidelines out of West Virginia, protecting girls' sports and locker rooms from biological males. Victoria also exposes the infantile pettiness of blue-state governors (including Washington, California, Oregon, and Pennsylvania) who intentionally left their state booths empty at the historic All-America State Fair in D.C. out of pure spite for the administration

It was a weird and wild ride as the Supreme Court handed down the last decisions of the term that started all the way back in October of 2025. We were so much younger then. After 58 argued cases and a steady, sneaky stream of shadow docket orders, the court issued its final four decisions Tuesday, and one justice was retired and unretired in short, confusing order. The headline win: The court upheld birthright citizenship, but only by a 5-4 vote on the constitutional question, far closer than expected, and a sign of just how willing four justices are to rewrite the 14th Amendment to suit Donald Trump's wishes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh tried to split the baby, and Dahlia and Mark explain why his approach is more alarming than it first appears.The news doesn't get better from there. The court ruled against transgender student athletes in cases out of Idaho and West Virginia, with Kavanaugh writing for the majority and Justice Neil Gorsuch offering an unconvincing retreat from his brief moment, post-Bostock, as an LGBTQ rights ally. The court also gutted limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, opening new doors for even more big money in elections.Plus: the strange saga of Justice Alito's accidentally announced "retirement," what it reveals about the court's obsession with secrecy, and a first look at next term's blockbuster Second Amendment case on assault weapons.Don't miss the Amicus Plus Breakfast Table on July 10th at noon EDT with Steve Vladeck, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Niko Bowie. Slate Plus members can sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business. You can be part of a live taping of the show, go to slate.com/breakfasttable to sign up for online access. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 that ballots arriving after Election Day can still be counted — handing Democrats another way to turn Election Night into Election Week heading into the midterms. Pat breaks down exactly why this is a massive blow to common sense and election integrity. Chief Justice Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberals to uphold Mississippi's law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to roll in up to five days later. Nearly 30 states have similar rules, and we have seen how this drags things out — especially in places like California. The majority held that federal law doesn't require ballots to arrive by Election Day, just get postmarked. Dissenting conservatives, including Alito, warned it undermines the whole point of a single Election Day. Pat also covered: Clarence Thomas at the Capitol: 'Meeting nobody' — brushes off reporter cold. Hakeem Jeffries losing control as socialists take over Democrats? Last day of Pride Month — Pat Gray: Are YOU celebrating? "Extreme weather demands sacrifice" — from everyone except EU executives. The Left heading toward MORE violence toward rich Americans. Do you trust that late ballots are always legit, or is this just asking for more problems? Should Election Day actually mean something again? Drop your thoughts below — Pat reads the comments. If you want straight talk and real pushback against media hypocrisy and elite games, hit subscribe, turn on notifications, and join the fight for honesty in America. Let's keep calling it like it is. 00:00 Pat Gray UNLEASHED! 00:22 Major SCOTUS Rulings Today! 01:14 SCOTUS Rejects Trump's Bid to Appeal $5 Million Verdict 03:03 Trump on SCOTUS Mail-In Ballot Ruling 04:52 Samuel Alito on Election Day 08:03 Clarence Thomas at the U.S. Capitol 10:40 Clarence Thomas Talking about America 12:30 Trump on Senators Against the SAVE America Act 14:35 Mitch McConnell Hospitalized for Two Weeks 18:45 Pramila Jayapal on Trump Talking about Democratic Communists 20:09 DSA's David Jenkins Says the Quiet Part Out Loud 22:10 Hakeem Jeffries Gets Annoyed with Reporter 23:27 James Talarico VS. Ken Paxton 27:04 James Talarico Insults Texans 27:45 Benjamin Flores on James Talarico 31:38 Fat Five 45:36 Texas Democrat Convention Montage 48:14 Talking about Supergirl (Go Watch He-Man BTW) 51:28 Idaho Covered in Snow?! 52:33 Deputy Mayor of Paris, France Blames Heat Wave on the U.S.A. 54:18 German Public Broadcasters Run Anti-AC Ad Campaigns 55:10 Berlaymont Building Shuts Down it's Air-Conditioning 56:26 FLASHBACK: Trump on Cost of Electricity in Europe 58:32 FLASHBACK: Obama on U.S. High-Speed Rail Back in 2009 1:04:02 Chuck Schumer Booed at Pride Parade 1:06:41 Man with BB Gun Arrested for Shooting at Naked Cyclists 1:10:16 Scott Wiener Chased Out of Pride Parade 1:14:01 Bill Maher & JD Vance on 2020 Election 1:17:00 FLASHBACK: Bill Maher on 2016 Election 1:19:03 Man Trips & Falls in San Diego 1:22:05 60 Minutes on Oil / Insider Trading 1:26:25 Prince of Wales' Net Worth 1:28:23 Iran Continues to be Difficult 1:31:00 Sophie Cunningham on Caitlin Clark's Assault Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In their second emergency episode in two days, Leah, Melissa, and Kate break down the Court's final day of the term and folks, it's a doozy. We've got America's preeminent “father of daughters” Coach Brett Kavanaugh's majority opinion allowing states to exclude trans women and girls from female sports teams, a massive blow to campaign finance law, and the survival of birthright citizenship by the skin of the 14th Amendment's teeth. To top it all off, we got an Alito retirement fakeout courtesy of NPR.Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE on November 6th in Washington, DC: Crookedcon.comBuy Melissa's book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern ReaderBuy Leah's book, Lawless, now out in paperbackFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and BlueskyFor a transcript of an episode of Strict Scrutiny please email transcripts@crooked.com

In breaking news, a 6-3 Majority of the US Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts, has rejected Trump's efforts to rip away birthright citizenship from children born in this country to parents who are here in violation of immigration law or here temporarily. Popok explains that fireworks broke out in the opinion between Roberts and the Majority and Clarence Thomas (joined by Gorsuch and Alito) in the dissent. Select Quote: Save more than 50% at https://SelectQuote.com/legalaf today! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It was a weird and wild ride as the Supreme Court handed down the last decisions of the term that started all the way back in October of 2025. We were so much younger then. After 58 argued cases and a steady, sneaky stream of shadow docket orders, the court issued its final four decisions Tuesday, and one justice was retired and unretired in short, confusing order. The headline win: The court upheld birthright citizenship, but only by a 5-4 vote on the constitutional question, far closer than expected, and a sign of just how willing four justices are to rewrite the 14th Amendment to suit Donald Trump's wishes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh tried to split the baby, and Dahlia and Mark explain why his approach is more alarming than it first appears.The news doesn't get better from there. The court ruled against transgender student athletes in cases out of Idaho and West Virginia, with Kavanaugh writing for the majority and Justice Neil Gorsuch offering an unconvincing retreat from his brief moment, post-Bostock, as an LGBTQ rights ally. The court also gutted limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, opening new doors for even more big money in elections.Plus: the strange saga of Justice Alito's accidentally announced "retirement," what it reveals about the court's obsession with secrecy, and a first look at next term's blockbuster Second Amendment case on assault weapons.Don't miss the Amicus Plus Breakfast Table on July 10th at noon EDT with Steve Vladeck, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Niko Bowie. Slate Plus members can sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business. You can be part of a live taping of the show, go to slate.com/breakfasttable to sign up for online access. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Luke and Andrew revisit some of their cringier moments in the public eye and unearth memories of an eating competition Luke wishes he could forget. Plus, NPR accidentally pre-publishes a Justice Alito retirement story. And a pilot calls in to answer some of TBTL's questions about airline announcements.  

The biggest political stories of the week are all in one episode. We break down the latest Supreme Court rulings, including the E. Jean Carroll appeal, mail-in ballots, and presidential firing authority, before diving into Trump's reactions and the fallout.Then we look at New York City's socialist movement, Zohran Mamdani, AOC, Dave Portnoy's surprising comments, and viral street interviews that have everyone talking.We also expose some of the week's most outrageous climate change claims—from Paris officials blaming America for Europe's heatwave to the latest social media posts attacking air conditioning and promoting climate "justice." Plus, we examine data, failed climate predictions, and why critics say the narrative continues to fall apart.Finally, we cover the latest effort to pin the world's problems on Elon Musk, Nick Kristof's viral claims, media reactions, and why the debate over USAID and government spending isn't going away anytime soon.Along the way, we also discuss DOJ investigations, Biden's latest comments, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Ryan McBeth's Iran fact check, Tyler Robinson, Caleb Hammer, and the biggest viral moments from the internet this week.SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS TO SUPPORT OUR SHOW!Give $26 today to Human Coalition. Be her lifeline. Create a Life Saving Moment. Give today at https://humancoalition.org/chicksReady to give MASA a try? Get 25% off your first order by going to https://MasaChips.com/CHICKS and using code CHICKS.Schedule your FREE risk review from Bulwark Capital at https://KnowYourRiskPodcast.com Subscribe and stay tuned for new episodes every weekday!Follow us here for more daily clips, updates, and commentary:YoutubeFacebookInstagramTikTokXLocalsMore InfoWebsite

Sarah, Tim, and Andrew Egger (filling in for JVL) discuss:-The Supreme Court's ruling upholding birthright citizenship.-NPR's retracted report that Justice Alito was retiring.-The DSA-aligned Democratic candidates winning primaries in New York City, and whether Democrats are headed for a giant fight over socialism in 2027.-Rep. Tom Kean's return to Congress after his depression diagnosis.-The gang pops off on the gut-wrenching story of the false CPS report against Pete Buttigieg-Fresh polling in the Maine and Texas Senate races.Get 30% off your entire order with Soul at https://GetSoul.com with code THENEXTLEVELJoin The Bulwark for $86 a year—14 percent off, this week only. Declare your independence today: http://thebulwark.com/july4

The Supreme Court wrapped up its term with three major decisions, and one surprise that turned out not to be a surprise after all. NPR briefly published a report that suggested Justice Samuel Alito was retiring, which would have handed Donald Trump another Supreme Court appointment, but that story was pulled, leaving us to wonder when that announcement might finally land.The actual rulings were significant enough on their own, though. The Court rejected Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders, effectively settling a legal argument that immigration hawks have wanted decided for decades. They've argued for years that the phrase “under the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment leaves room to limit birthright citizenship. Trump finally brought that argument to the Supreme Court, and the Court disagreed. At least for now, this feels like settled law, and I'm curious to see where immigration activists go from here.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The Court also upheld Idaho and West Virginia laws banning transgender athletes from women's and girls' sports. The ruling says Title IX permits sex-separated teams based on biological sex, and while the liberal justices wanted a narrower constitutional review, they agreed on the Title IX question. It feels like this issue has reached a legal endpoint. It's remarkable that Title IX has become the vehicle for defending these policies, but I don't see much room left for this fight in the courts.The final decision struck down federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, ruling that the caps violate the First Amendment. Republicans are understandably celebrating because the National Republican Senatorial Committee brought the case, while Democrats are warning about billionaire influence and corruption. I tend to think the real victim here is the political middleman. Most of this money was getting where it wanted to go anyway. People donate to party committees because they want those organizations directing resources into competitive races. If you're worried about billionaire influence, I think the darker corners of campaign finance remain a much bigger issue than the official party committees.Meanwhile, the national media has finally caught up to something I've been talking about for weeks: gas prices keep falling even though every expert expected the opposite after the war with Iran began. I first noticed it at my local gas station in Austin, and it didn't line up with the conventional wisdom that prices shoot up like a rocket and come down like a feather. Now that same question is being asked everywhere. National gas prices have fallen for five straight weeks, crude oil has drifted back into what I'd consider a normal range, and we're steadily moving away from the price spike that followed the conflict. Trump is even publicly pressuring retailers to get prices down to $2.50 a gallon, although it's pretty obvious he'd be thrilled just to get them back near $3.The diplomacy behind all of this is getting more interesting. Iran launched drones at supertankers over the weekend, the United States responded with strikes on missile sites near the Strait of Hormuz, and shipping resumed. At the same time, the Trump administration appears to be running a good cop, bad cop strategy. JD Vance has focused on keeping negotiations alive, while Marco Rubio's trip through the Gulf helped produce an Israel-Lebanon agreement tied to a broader deal with Iran and expanded shipping options through Oman. If crude oil keeps falling despite all of that, then the question I can't shake is the same one I've been asking for weeks: what exactly is Iran's leverage? If they're negotiating denuclearization and they can't keep energy prices elevated, then I need somebody who understands the Iranian system better than I do to explain where the leverage actually is.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:21 - Tom Kean00:06:41 - Supreme Court Decisions00:12:17 - Iran and Gas Prices00:24:28 - Interview with Kevin Ryan00:46:57 - Colorado Primaries00:54:29 - House of Representatives00:57:46 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, con't01:36:37 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

It was a weird and wild ride as the Supreme Court handed down the last decisions of the term that started all the way back in October of 2025. We were so much younger then. After 58 argued cases and a steady, sneaky stream of shadow docket orders, the court issued its final four decisions Tuesday, and one justice was retired and unretired in short, confusing order. The headline win: The court upheld birthright citizenship, but only by a 5-4 vote on the constitutional question, far closer than expected, and a sign of just how willing four justices are to rewrite the 14th Amendment to suit Donald Trump's wishes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh tried to split the baby, and Dahlia and Mark explain why his approach is more alarming than it first appears.The news doesn't get better from there. The court ruled against transgender student athletes in cases out of Idaho and West Virginia, with Kavanaugh writing for the majority and Justice Neil Gorsuch offering an unconvincing retreat from his brief moment, post-Bostock, as an LGBTQ rights ally. The court also gutted limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, opening new doors for even more big money in elections.Plus: the strange saga of Justice Alito's accidentally announced "retirement," what it reveals about the court's obsession with secrecy, and a first look at next term's blockbuster Second Amendment case on assault weapons.Don't miss the Amicus Plus Breakfast Table on July 10th at noon EDT with Steve Vladeck, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Niko Bowie. Slate Plus members can sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business. You can be part of a live taping of the show, go to slate.com/breakfasttable to sign up for online access. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The end is nigh! Or, the end of this Supreme Court term is nigh, at least. On the second to last day of this term, the court's right wingers delivered a sweeping ruling that will reshape the federal government for years to come. In Trump v. Slaughter, the conservative supermajority voted 6-3 to allow the president to fire members of independent regulatory agencies—overturning Humphrey's Executor, a 91-year-old unanimous precedent—and handing Trump effective control over agencies that regulate consumer protection, nuclear energy, union activity, mine safety, and more. But the Roberts majority weren't quite ready to hand the nation's credit card (and their investment portfolios) over to the mad king, and so the Federal Reserve got a carve-out in a separate 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Cook. How did they reach these wildly different conclusions in such closely related cases? Justice Roberts offered a barely argued rationale, but who needs a rationale if your red lines are painted in a crimson of pure cynicism?The court also handed down a significant Fourth Amendment ruling on geofence warrants, with Justice Kagan writing for a 6-3 majority that such warrants constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. And in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court upheld state laws allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive shortly after. But the squeaker of a 5-4 majority was deeply alarming in a case that played to some of the justices' fox-brained ideas about election fraud. Justice Alito and his fellow dissenters appear to have signed onto the wholly unsupported view that Democrat wins are always suspect, and the only way to restore trust in voting is to restrict voting. As Rick Hasen writes for Slate, we won't be as lucky next time. The term wraps this week and Amicus is with you all the way for clear-eyed analysis of the final raft of decisions. Slate Plus members can also sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business as part of our live online audience, July 10 at noon EDT. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The end is nigh! Or, the end of this Supreme Court term is nigh, at least. On the second to last day of this term, the court's right wingers delivered a sweeping ruling that will reshape the federal government for years to come. In Trump v. Slaughter, the conservative supermajority voted 6-3 to allow the president to fire members of independent regulatory agencies—overturning Humphrey's Executor, a 91-year-old unanimous precedent—and handing Trump effective control over agencies that regulate consumer protection, nuclear energy, union activity, mine safety, and more. But the Roberts majority weren't quite ready to hand the nation's credit card (and their investment portfolios) over to the mad king, and so the Federal Reserve got a carve-out in a separate 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Cook. How did they reach these wildly different conclusions in such closely related cases? Justice Roberts offered a barely argued rationale, but who needs a rationale if your red lines are painted in a crimson of pure cynicism?The court also handed down a significant Fourth Amendment ruling on geofence warrants, with Justice Kagan writing for a 6-3 majority that such warrants constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. And in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court upheld state laws allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive shortly after. But the squeaker of a 5-4 majority was deeply alarming in a case that played to some of the justices' fox-brained ideas about election fraud. Justice Alito and his fellow dissenters appear to have signed onto the wholly unsupported view that Democrat wins are always suspect, and the only way to restore trust in voting is to restrict voting. As Rick Hasen writes for Slate, we won't be as lucky next time. The term wraps this week and Amicus is with you all the way for clear-eyed analysis of the final raft of decisions. Slate Plus members can also sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business as part of our live online audience, July 10 at noon EDT. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The end is nigh! Or, the end of this Supreme Court term is nigh, at least. On the second to last day of this term, the court's right wingers delivered a sweeping ruling that will reshape the federal government for years to come. In Trump v. Slaughter, the conservative supermajority voted 6-3 to allow the president to fire members of independent regulatory agencies—overturning Humphrey's Executor, a 91-year-old unanimous precedent—and handing Trump effective control over agencies that regulate consumer protection, nuclear energy, union activity, mine safety, and more. But the Roberts majority weren't quite ready to hand the nation's credit card (and their investment portfolios) over to the mad king, and so the Federal Reserve got a carve-out in a separate 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Cook. How did they reach these wildly different conclusions in such closely related cases? Justice Roberts offered a barely argued rationale, but who needs a rationale if your red lines are painted in a crimson of pure cynicism?The court also handed down a significant Fourth Amendment ruling on geofence warrants, with Justice Kagan writing for a 6-3 majority that such warrants constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. And in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court upheld state laws allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive shortly after. But the squeaker of a 5-4 majority was deeply alarming in a case that played to some of the justices' fox-brained ideas about election fraud. Justice Alito and his fellow dissenters appear to have signed onto the wholly unsupported view that Democrat wins are always suspect, and the only way to restore trust in voting is to restrict voting. As Rick Hasen writes for Slate, we won't be as lucky next time. The term wraps this week and Amicus is with you all the way for clear-eyed analysis of the final raft of decisions. Slate Plus members can also sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business as part of our live online audience, July 10 at noon EDT. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We're in triage mode as the Court clears its end-of-term backlog. We run through the week's opinion dump before focusing on two cases that look unrelated but turn on the same question: when may a state rewrite background property law to limit a constitutional right? In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court strikes down Hawaii's rule requiring a property owner's express consent before a firearm may be carried onto otherwise-public premises. Then to Pung v. Isabella County, a takings case asking whether a homeowner whose property is sold for back taxes is owed only the sale proceeds or full fair-market value. Along the way: a theory about a Landor v. Louisiana flip, the week's run of 6-3 conservative wins, and a short detour into the perils of teaching Federal Courts.Key Topics[00:00:00] - Triage mode: recording June 25 amid the end-of-term opinion dump[00:01:29] - What's still outstanding — and the campaign-finance case's standing problem[00:03:56] - The Landor "flip" theory: did Justice Jackson lose the majority to Justice Gorsuch?[00:06:40] - Thursday's decisions: Monsanto v. Durnell (FIFRA), two immigration wins, Wolford v. Lopez[00:08:58] - Counting the week's seven 6-3 conservative wins; the Hemani surprise[00:12:57] - The throughline: when may a state redefine property to evade a constitutional right?[00:18:35] - Wolford v. Lopez: Hawaii's "express consent" gun rule after Bruen[00:20:42] - The Bruen framework — step one vs. step two, and the free-speech analogy[00:26:57] - The change vs. the outlier: uniformity and Hawaii's sensitive-places list[00:30:49] - Alito's historical analogues: poaching laws and the Black Codes[00:33:34] - Jackson's dissent: race, Equal Protection, and how non-mechanical Bruen really is[00:38:59] - Caetano, the Ramos v. Louisiana callback, and Alito on racist origins[00:41:21] - Barrett's concurrence, Kagan's narrower path, and the rejected "spirit of aloha"[00:48:23] - Pung v. Isabella County: tax sales, takings, and "just compensation"[00:51:45] - Thomas's historical turn on tax-sale rules, and the fairness backstop[00:55:45] - Sign-offRelevant LinksSupreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Divided Argument podcast: https://www.dividedargument.com/Transcripts: https://www.dividedargument.com/transcriptsCommentary blog: https://blog.dividedargument.com/Merchandise: https://store.dividedargument.com/New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdfTyler v. Hennepin County: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_q86b.pdfRamos v. Louisiana: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_j4el.pdf

Kimberly Atkins Stohr hosts #SistersInLaw to discuss new developments regarding the Epstein Files Transparency Act following a lawsuit by Katie Phang and the future of the case as it heads to appeal.  Then, the #Sisters review Justice Alito's recent authorship of immigration rulings affecting TPS and asylum seekers, as well as the dissents by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.  They also explain the power of dissents against impactful majority decisions, how they can be used as a tool for future change, and the constitutional implications of federal overreach in the states.Remember to send in audio questions to SistersInLaw@politicon.com for the #Sisters to answer on their new companion podcast, SistersInLaw Sidebar!  It airs Wednesdays wherever you normally get your podcasts!Get the brand new ReSIStance T-Shirt, Mini Tote, and other #SistersInLaw gear at politicon.com/merch! Additional #SistersInLaw ProjectsCheck out Jill's Politicon YouTube Show: Just The FactsCheck out Kim's Newsletter: The GavelJoyce's new book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable, is now available, and for a limited time, you have the exclusive opportunity to order a signed copy here. Barb is going on a book tour!  You can also pre-order Barb's new book, The Fix. Her first book, Attack From Within, is now in paperback. Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on BlueskyGet your #SistersInLaw MERCH at politicon.com/merchWEBSITE & TRANSCRIPTEmail: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcastGet text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon. Mentioned By The #SistersPre-order Barb's new book, The Fix, and get tickets for her upcoming book tour!Support This Week's SponsorsTumble: Machine Washable Rugs, Made Better. For a limited time only, our listeners get 10% off + freeshipping at tumbleliving.com/SISTERS #Tumble #adFlamingo:Our listeners get the Flamingo Starter Set for just $7 at https://www.shopflamingo.com/SISTERSLola Blankets:Get 40% off select Lola Blankets products at Lolablankets.com by using code SISTERS atcheckout. Experience the world's #1 blanket with Lola Blankets.Mill:Try Mill risk-free for 90 days and get $75 off at mill.com/SISTERS and use code SISTERS at checkout.ASPCA:To explore coverage, visit aspcapetinsurance.com/sistersThe ASPCA® is not an insurer and is not engaged in the business ofinsurance. For terms and conditions, visit: https://www.aspcapetinsurance.com/more-info/state-documents-and-sample-policies/. Products are underwritten by either Independence American Insurance Company (NAIC #26581), or United States Fire Insurance Company (NAIC #21113) and distributed by PTZ Insurance Agency Ltd.Get More From The #SistersInLawJoyce Vance: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Alabama Law | Civil Discourse Substack | MSNBC | Author of “Giving Up Is Unforgiveable”Jill Wine-Banks: Bluesky | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President | Just The Facts YouTubeKimberly Atkins Stohr: Bluesky | Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | The Gavel Newsletter | Justice By Design PodcastBarb McQuade: barbaramcquade.com | Bluesky | Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC | Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America | The Fix

Donald Trump ran for office threatening to use mass deportations, closed borders, and emergency wartime powers to “clean up” American immigration. On Thursday, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority gifted him with two stunning victories in that crusade—effectively reshaping life for more than a million people living in the country with temporary protected status, or TPS, and forcing asylum seekers to jump through increasingly impossible new hoops. Those decisions came on the heels of Tuesday's chilling news for green card holders who might want to travel outside the United States in the form of Blanche v. Lau, where that same 6-3 majority ruled that border officers don't need clear and convincing evidence of a crime before throwing permanent residents into legal limbo.On today's show: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern talk with Andrea Flores, founder of Securing America's Promise and a policy veteran of the White House, National Security Council, Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Senate. Together, they unpack the decisions that made this one of most consequential weeks for immigration law in recent memory. And they note the central theme emerging from SCOTUS' right-wing supermajority in perfect symmetry with Trumpism: When MAGA does explicit racism, SCOTUS goes conveniently colorblind, as with Justice Alito's refusal to find racial animus in Trump's statements about Haitians. The episode closes with a look ahead to next week's birthright citizenship ruling and why, whatever the outcome, it cannot be allowed to obscure what happened this week.The term will wrap next week and Amicus will bring you extra episodes and clear-eyed analysis of the final raft of decisions. Slate Plus members can also sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business as part of our live online audience, July 10 at noon EDT. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Donald Trump ran for office threatening to use mass deportations, closed borders, and emergency wartime powers to “clean up” American immigration. On Thursday, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority gifted him with two stunning victories in that crusade—effectively reshaping life for more than a million people living in the country with temporary protected status, or TPS, and forcing asylum seekers to jump through increasingly impossible new hoops. Those decisions came on the heels of Tuesday's chilling news for green card holders who might want to travel outside the United States in the form of Blanche v. Lau, where that same 6-3 majority ruled that border officers don't need clear and convincing evidence of a crime before throwing permanent residents into legal limbo.On today's show: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern talk with Andrea Flores, founder of Securing America's Promise and a policy veteran of the White House, National Security Council, Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Senate. Together, they unpack the decisions that made this one of most consequential weeks for immigration law in recent memory. And they note the central theme emerging from SCOTUS' right-wing supermajority in perfect symmetry with Trumpism: When MAGA does explicit racism, SCOTUS goes conveniently colorblind, as with Justice Alito's refusal to find racial animus in Trump's statements about Haitians. The episode closes with a look ahead to next week's birthright citizenship ruling and why, whatever the outcome, it cannot be allowed to obscure what happened this week.The term will wrap next week and Amicus will bring you extra episodes and clear-eyed analysis of the final raft of decisions. Slate Plus members can also sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business as part of our live online audience, July 10 at noon EDT. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Donald Trump ran for office threatening to use mass deportations, closed borders, and emergency wartime powers to “clean up” American immigration. On Thursday, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority gifted him with two stunning victories in that crusade—effectively reshaping life for more than a million people living in the country with temporary protected status, or TPS, and forcing asylum seekers to jump through increasingly impossible new hoops. Those decisions came on the heels of Tuesday's chilling news for green card holders who might want to travel outside the United States in the form of Blanche v. Lau, where that same 6-3 majority ruled that border officers don't need clear and convincing evidence of a crime before throwing permanent residents into legal limbo.On today's show: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern talk with Andrea Flores, founder of Securing America's Promise and a policy veteran of the White House, National Security Council, Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Senate. Together, they unpack the decisions that made this one of most consequential weeks for immigration law in recent memory. And they note the central theme emerging from SCOTUS' right-wing supermajority in perfect symmetry with Trumpism: When MAGA does explicit racism, SCOTUS goes conveniently colorblind, as with Justice Alito's refusal to find racial animus in Trump's statements about Haitians. The episode closes with a look ahead to next week's birthright citizenship ruling and why, whatever the outcome, it cannot be allowed to obscure what happened this week.The term will wrap next week and Amicus will bring you extra episodes and clear-eyed analysis of the final raft of decisions. Slate Plus members can also sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business as part of our live online audience, July 10 at noon EDT. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The "eating the cats and dogs" blood libel worked so well that SCOTUS agreed to end humanitarian protections for Haitians. Justice Alito, who complained about the way Italian-Americans were depicted in "The Sopranos" just couldn't see any racism in Trump's repeated disparagement of Haiti or its immigrants. By the way, Megyn Kelly: You didn't do anything to build this country. And while JD thinks Nixon's Watergate crimes are now no big deal, the federal government just sentenced an American to 30 years in prison for moving anarchist zines out of his home. Plus, Jane's nostalgia theory explains why Vanilla Ice thinks the early 90s were the best era, the white male obsession with Caitlin Clark, and the men who can't quit blaming the 19th Amendment for the country's ills.Jane Coaston joins Tim Miller for the weekend pod.show notes Jane's pod, “What A Day” Roy Cooper's new ad The reporting on Rep. Hamadeh Tim's playlist

Friday, June 26, 2026 Today, another federal judge has permanently blocked Trump's order restricting mail-in voting; the Supreme Court has stripped temporary protected status from 350,000 Haitians and Syrians, and blocks asylum seekers at the border; vendors have been told to begin dismantling the Alligator Alcatraz concentration camp; massive earthquakes rocked Venezuela, Japan, and California; the Pentagon restored flu vaccines after hundreds fell ill; Senate Republicans caved on yesterday's War Powers Resolution; US Park Police seek to identify a person who touched the water in the reflecting pool a week ago; Jamie Raskin will open a discharge petition to force a vote on the $1.8B Slush Fund; a judge wants answers on why the tarp hasn't been removed from the Kennedy Center facade; plus Allison delivers your Good News. Thank You, Smalls For a limited time, get 60% off your first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life, when you head to Smalls.com/DAILYBEANS Join The Daily Beans and give a gift today to ensure The Trevor Project can continue its crucial work in the face of continued challenges. Donate to The Trevor Project - Daily Beans Podcast Guest: John FugelsangTell Me Everything|John Fugelsang, The John Fugelsang Podcast, John Fugelsang|Substack, @johnfugelsang|Bluesky, @JohnFugelsang|TwitterSeparation of Church and Hate by John Fugelsang The Latest Breakdown:The Breakdown | Trump And Trillionaires' Secret Plan To Destroy America StoriesVendors Told to Start Dismantling Florida's ‘Alligator Alcatraz' Detention Center | The New York Times Judge orders DOJ to produce, unredact sought after Epstein files | The Hill Supreme Court Allows Trump to Strip TPS, Turn Away Asylum Seekers Arriving at the Border in Pair of New Immigration Rulings | American Immigration Council Federal Judge Strikes Key Parts of Trump Order Restricting Mail Voting | The New York Times A federal judge wants answers on the tarp and scaffolding at the Kennedy Center | MS NOW Several Strong Quakes Hit Across the World in 24 Hours | The New York Times Pentagon restores mandatory flu shots for all recruits as boot camp outbreak sickens nearly 300 | AP News Reflecting Pool caulking cut with 'sharp knife or razor' in previously undisclosed incident, NPS says in court filing | ABC News Raskin launches discharge effort to formally block 'Anti-Weaponization Fund' | POLITICOGood TroubleMail-in voting is under attack. Here's what you can do - Democracy Docket Ballot Mail for Federal Elections - FederalRegister.gov →Oppose House Amendment to Defund the Peace Corps! →Comment on FR-6518-P-01 Equal Access  in HUD Programs Revisions  →Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance -  Open For Comments →FieldTeam6.org →Standwithminnesota.com →Tell Congress Ice out Now | Indivisible, Defund ICE | 5Calls →ICE List  →iceout.org Good News Tour — DANA GOLDBERGTickets for Dana Goldberg: Outrageous - Sep 23 - Den Theater - Chicago  →Share your Good News & Good Trouble - The Daily Beans →Beans Talk audio -beans-talk.simplecast.com →Email Dana LGBTQ Owned eating establishments in your area - hello@mswmedia.com Subject: “Dana's Project” Subscribe to the MSW YouTube Channel - MSW Media - YouTube Our Donation Links The Trevor Project - trevorproject.org/beans Blue Wave California - bluewavecalifornia.org/concert Donate to Public Citizen - https://citizen.org/beans/ The Daily Beans is donating $10,000 and invites you to give what you can to support their life-affirming work - Donate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans Fundraiser Pathways to Citizenship link to MATCH Allison's Donationhttps://crm.bloomerang.co/HostedDonation?ApiKey=pub_86ff5236-dd26-11ec-b5ee-066e3d38bc77&WidgetId=6388736 Join Dana and The Daily Beans in support of Human Rights Campaign http://onecau.se/_ekes71 More Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - Donate, ActBlue.com/donate/msw-bwc, WhistleblowerAid.org/beans Dr. Allison Gill - The Breakdown | Allison Gill, Mueller, She Wrote @muellershewrote.com - Bluesky, MSW & The Daily Beans Podcast @muellershewrote - Instagram, MSW Media - YouTube →Federal workers - email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.  Dana Goldberg - Dana is on Patreon! At Dana's Dugout, @dgcomedy - Bluesky, @dgcomedy - IG, Dana Goldberg - Facebook,  DanaGoldberg.com More from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | Allison Gill Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On this special edition of the Federalist Radio Hour, Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway and Federalist Staff Writer Shawn Fleetwood discuss the state of the Supreme Court, break down the high bench's United States v. Hemani and Blanche v. Lau decisions, and preview the biggest outstanding case opinions to expect over the next week. Mollie and Shawn also share their predictions for the highly anticipated birthplace citizenship ruling. Order and review Mollie's book Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution here.The Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.