Podcasts about sanctuary cities

Griff Jenkins delivers a hard-hitting report on the dangerous realities created by sanctuary city policies, spotlighting the release of violent criminal aliens like a convicted rapist in Arlington, VA, despite ICE detainers. Jenkins highlights the surge in assaults against ICE agents, tying the violence to hostile rhetoric from Democratic leaders. He discusses congressional debates over immigration reform and a controversial “dignity bill” that some Republicans warn resembles amnesty, warning it contradicts public opinion favoring deportation of illegal aliens. Jenkins also shares his frontline experiences covering border issues and the political divide over enforcement, underscoring the frustration and risks faced by law enforcement and communities caught in the middle.

Send us a textPop in with Price Van Ray who supervises Hakeem and Reggie Brown on Pop City Culture. On Episode #207 we discuss:   what in the world is going on with mad scientist trying to reanimate the past creatures of yesterday. Who is behind this and will it ever stop. This is scary stuff.   Lets see what is going on in this episode. ... "Pop City Culture"  Keeping it real and keeping it REAL and RAW!!!!!

Show off your Lone Star spirit with a free "Remember the Alamo" hat with an annual subscription to The Texan: https://thetexan.news/subscribe/The Texan's Weekly Roundup brings you the latest news in Texas politics, breaking down the top stories of the week with our team of reporters who give you the facts so you can form your own opinion.Enjoy what you hear? Be sure to subscribe and leave a review! Got questions for the reporting team? Email editor@thetexan.news — they just might be answered on a future podcast.Mass Casualty Disaster Declared in Kerrville, Central Texas as First Responders Continue Flash Flood Rescue Efforts‘Today Will Be a Hard Day': Death Toll Increases in Kerrville Flooding DisasterDeath Toll in Kerr County Rises to 59, President Trump Signs Federal Disaster DeclarationCamp Mystic Mourns 27 Campers, Counselors Lost in the Hill Country FloodTexas Hill Country Flooding Prompts Legislative Response Ahead of Special SessionTexas Elected Officials React to Trump Signing 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill'Randall County Republican Chairman Indicted on Election Fraud Charges5th Circuit Upholds Block on Texas Law Criminalizing Illegal Immigration at State LevelHouston FBI Announces Arrest of Alleged COVID-19 Chinese Hacker in ItalyMayor Eric Johnson Declares Dallas the First 'Sanctuary City from Socialism'

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

ICE raids are ramping up across the U.S., targeting violent offenders—but some of the arrests are raising questions. Tom Homan joins Pags live to reveal the truth: many of these so-called “casualty arrests” are the direct result of sanctuary cities refusing to cooperate with ICE. Homan pulls no punches, naming names, exposing failures, and laying out why these cities are putting Americans at risk. If you want the real story—not the headlines—this is it. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 Welcome to the original SANCTUARY CITY!Where the punishments proportionate to the crimes. Where the innocent are protected.  Where the guilty are not spared but brought to justiceWhere false accusers become truly accusedBecause of Deuteronomy, you likely sit in such a city today. Listen 7 minutes to see why. https://youtu.be/FKkh2NIkvrg

X: @JasonMiyaresVA @americasrt1776 @ileaderssummit @NatashaSrdoc @JoelAnandUSA @supertalk Join America's Roundtable (https://americasrt.com/) radio co-hosts Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy with Attorney General Jason Miyares, Commonwealth of Virginia. The conversation on America's Roundtable focuses on AG Jason Miyares's leadership in fighting opioids, reducing overdose deaths and reducing violence, thus making communitites in Virginia safer. The data released by Virginia Department of Health Office of the Chief Medical Examiner show fentanyl-related overdose deaths in Virginia declined 44 percent year-over-year and are down over 46 percent from its peak in 2021. Virginia led the nation in annual percentage declines in drug overdose deaths in 2024.   The recent celebration of America's Independence Day on July 4th 2025, reminds us of America Founding Fathers' ingenuity in creating America's Founding Documents: The Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Virginia played a historic role in the founding of the American Republic - 249 years ago. America's Founding Fathers George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, James Monroe, Patrick Henry and John Marshall were all Virginians. The timely discussion elevates the importance of combating anti-Semitism, and advancing principled policies based on the rule of law as well as affirming the significance of peace through strength. Bio | Jason S. Miyares (https://jasonmiyares.com/about/) Attorney General Jason Miyares' story doesn't start in Virginia Beach, Virginia, but in Havana, Cuba when his mother, Miriam Miyares, fled communist Cuba, penniless and homeless. She taught Jason a love for freedom, democracy, and that America is indeed the “last best hope on earth.” A product of Virginia public schools, Jason graduated with a Bachelor's in Business Administration from James Madison University and received his J.D. from the College of William and Mary School of Law. He previously served as a prosecutor in the Virginia Beach Commonwealth's Attorney Office, where he worked alongside law enforcement to keep violent criminals off our streets and our communities safe. In 2015, almost fifty years to the day that she fled Cuba, Miriam was able to vote for her son Jason Miyares to represent her in the oldest democracy in the Western Hemisphere, the Virginia House of Delegates. While representing Virginia Beach, Jason was recognized as “Legislator of the Year” in both 2018 and 2019 from the College Affordability and Public Trust for his work on transparency and affordability in higher education, as well as by the Hampton Roads Military Officers Association of America in 2018. He was also recognized in 2019 by the Safe House Project for his work combatting human trafficking, an issue that his administration is prioritizing. Jason Miyares is the first Cuban American elected to the General Assembly, the first Hispanic elected statewide in Virginia, and the first son of an immigrant ever elected to be Attorney General. He is passionate about preserving the American Miracle for the next generation of Virginians. americasrt.com (https://americasrt.com/) https://summitleadersusa.com/ | https://jerusalemleaderssummit.com/ America's Roundtable on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/americas-roundtable/id1518878472 X: @JasonMiyaresVA @americasrt1776 @ileaderssummit @NatashaSrdoc @JoelAnandUSA @supertalk America's Roundtable is co-hosted by Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy, co-founders of International Leaders Summit and the Jerusalem Leaders Summit. America's Roundtable (https://americasrt.com/) radio program focuses on America's economy, healthcare reform, rule of law, security and trade, and its strategic partnership with rule of law nations around the world. The radio program features high-ranking US administration officials, cabinet members, members of Congress, state government officials, distinguished diplomats, business and media leaders and influential thinkers from around the world. Tune into America's Roundtable Radio program from Washington, DC via live streaming on Saturday mornings via 68 radio stations at 7:30 A.M. (ET) on Lanser Broadcasting Corporation covering the Michigan and the Midwest market, and at 7:30 A.M. (CT) on SuperTalk Mississippi — SuperTalk.FM reaching listeners in every county within the State of Mississippi, and neighboring states in the South including Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee. Tune into WTON in Central Virginia on Sunday mornings at 6:00 A.M. (ET). Listen to America's Roundtable on digital platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, Google and other key online platforms. Listen live, Saturdays at 7:30 A.M. (CT) on SuperTalk | https://www.supertalk.fm

Sanctuary cities are now targeted because we do NOT keep track of the illegal immigrants. As a result the illegal citizens get to vote simply because they are residents. This is the key problem! They are not American citizens yet they are voting! This is a master stroke in deception by the deep state Democrat regime. The DEMS cannot boast about merit or successful performance. As a result they must try to control the immigrant vote. (a/k/a; 'Vote the way I tell you and I will give you more free things!'). What a way to build a political party. Sounds like Communism to me! Ironically, immigrants are not dumb. They see the deceptions upon them from the luring, demonic, and flirtatious Democrats. As a result track the number of Democrats and legal immigrants who are becoming Republicans! Stunning.Sanctuary Cities Failed Illegal Immigrants! Now What?!Gene Valentino on Newsmax Wake Up America WeekendORIGINAL MEDIA SOURCE(S):Originally Recorded on June 14, 2025America Beyond the Noise: Season 5, Episode 592Image courtesy of: Newsmax➡️ Join the Conversation: https://GeneValentino.com➡️ WMXI Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/NewsRadio981➡️ More WMXI Interviews: https://genevalentino.com/wmxi-interviews/➡️ More GrassRoots TruthCast Episodes: https://genevalentino.com/grassroots-truthcast-with-gene-valentino/➡️ More Broadcasts with Gene as the Guest: https://genevalentino.com/america-beyond-the-noise/ ➡️ More About Gene Valentino: https://genevalentino.com/about-gene-valentino/

Genevieve Wood from the Heritage Foundation joins Kim St. Onge to discuss the DOJ lawsuit against Los Angeles over sanctuary city policies and the city's refusal to cooperate with ICE. They examine the tension between federal immigration enforcement and cities defying those laws. Genevieve also weighs in on the narrowly passed Senate immigration bill and its political impact. Finally, they discuss the North Carolina Senate race following Thom Tillis's decision not to run and Donald Trump's role in shaping the candidate field.

Today on AirTalk, President Trump pursues a lawsuit against LA's Sanctuary Laws; the impact of ICE on CA agriculture; the word 'like' and its many applications; CA Environmental Quality Act to be gutted; the travel season ahead, and how some words just cannot be translated Today on AirTalk, Trump v. Sanctuary Cities (00:15) ICE sweeps on CA agriculture (18:47) The word 'like' and its many uses (35:50) CA Environmental Quality Act is weakened (51:23) Summer travel season (1:11:42) How some words are better left untranslated (1:26:10) Visit www.preppi.com/LAist to receive a FREE Preppi Emergency Kit (with any purchase over $100) and be prepared for the next wildfire, earthquake or emergency!

The show opens with a full exploration of just how far the Legacy/mainstream media is willing to go to spin that initial and leaked report to make the Trump administration look incompetent. But, it's become such a hard sell, even CNN had to bring on a guest this morning for damage control. The Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough continues to rip out one Trump campaign promise after the other and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-TX) says he isn't going to stop her or replace her. Folks, I think that's exactly what they want, so they can continue to abdicate their Constitutional duty. Fed Chair Jerome Powell appears to understand what causes inflation, yet still won't explain why he will not lower interest rates. Pam Bondi had to remind a Democrat Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) that it was the prior administration who left the border wide open. Border Czar Tom Homan says they look forward to targeting Sanctuary Cities. Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) may have a couple of issues to deal with from the DOJ. Jill Biden's “work husband” Anthony Bernal refused to show up for a House deposition, so he has been formally subpoenaed. On positive news to close the show, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff says there will be some big announcements related to the Abraham Accords, AG Pam Bondi is being encourage to open an investigation into ActBlue and the DOGE team found 312 more wasteful contracts to cancel saving billions. Please take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR,  TRUTH Social and YouTube by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. And, consider becoming a sponsor of the show by visiting my Patreon page!!

Send me feedback!Mayor Donna Deegan vetoed legislation yesterday that would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for illegal immigrants. I break down why her vote was correct and detractors are wrong.SUPPORT THE SHOWLocals for $5/monthRumble Rants: Click green dollar sign during the showRumble Subscription: Click subscribe $5/monthHOW AM I DOING?Email: libertydadpod@gmail.comSHOW NOTESNews4Jax (Story)News4Jax (CM Diamond)Wait Song: Smoke RisingMusic by: CreatorMix.comVideo

Federal officials recently accused Nashville of being a “sanctuary city.” Are we? District 30 Councilmember Sandra Sepulveda is here to clarify what that term really means, discuss a new state law making it a felony for city leaders to “adopt or maintain sanctuary policies,” and tell us why her Nashville SC supporters group La Brigada De Oro took a stand against ICE enforcement actions. **UPDATE: Yesterday afternoon, seven Metro Councilmembers, including CM Sepulveda, filed a lawsuit against the state to challenge whether the new felony law is constitutional. Learn more about the sponsors of this June 25th episode: Nashville Zoo Want some more City Cast Nashville news? Then make sure to sign up for our Hey Nashville newsletter.  Follow us @citycastnashville You can also text us or leave a voicemail at: 615-200-6392 Interested in advertising with City Cast? Find more info HERE.

Are Sanctuary Cities in America Unconstitutionalor Actually Legal?#MAGA #ICE #DonaldTrump

Sarah Blue is a professor in the department of geography and environmental studies at Texas State University. She has an interest in the political geography of migration.

On this episode of "The Federalist Radio Hour," Illinois father Joe Abraham joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to discuss the preventable death of his daughter Katie Abraham, who died after an allegedly drunk illegal alien struck her vehicle with his car and then fled the scene. Abraham also explains why Democrat states' decisions to harbor foreign criminals under "sanctuary" policies hurt victims and their familiesRead more about Abraham's story here. If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

AUDIO EXCLUSIVE [this interview took place June 13, 2025]Back in 2024, the Los Angeles City Council passed a “sanctuary city” ordinance and said the city would not collaborate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. “They are lying,” says Hamid Khan, an expert on the surveillance state and organizer with the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition. In this timely interview, Khan unpacks “fusion centers” where agencies like DHS, the FBI and local law enforcement work together to gather and share data on citizens — regardless of their criminal record. Long before Trump's crackdown on immigration rights and the protests in Los Angeles, LAPD would have ICE in their headquarters, he shares. Join Khan and Flanders as they discuss shocking truths about police spying and surveillance, and why we must become aware and take action.Guest:  Hamid Khan: Organizer, Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, Board of Directors, Los Angeles  Community Action Network (LA CAN) RESOURCES:Related Episodes:• Hamid Khan:  The Surveillance-Industrial Complex WATCH•  What's A Sanctuary with Jails? - Hamid Khan and Jennicet Gutiérrez (Community Organizer Familia Trans Queer Liberation Movement) WATCHRelated Articles:•  ‘This isn't an isolated incident':  Trump's show of military force in LA was years in the making, by Rachel Leingang and Lauren Gambino, June 11, 2025, The Guardian•  Troops and marines deeply troubled by LA deployment:  ‘Morale is not great' by Andrew Gumbel, June 12, 2025, The Guardian•  Trump can keep California National Guard deployed for now, appeals court says, by Caroline O'Donovan, Karin Brulliard, Mark German and Kelsey Ables, June 14, 2025, The Washington Post•  Appeals court questions judges' ability to review Trump's Los Angeles group deployment, by Dietrich Knauth and Daniel Wiessner, June 17, 2025, Reuters•  Immigration raids in Los Angeles hit small business owners:  ‘It's worse than COVID', by Tim Reid and Kristina Cooke, June 17, 2025, Reuters Laura Flanders and Friends Crew: Laura Flanders, along with Sabrina Artel, Jeremiah Cothren, Veronica Delgado, Janet Hernandez, Jeannie Hopper, Gina Kim, Sarah Miller, Nat Needham, David Neuman, and Rory O'Conner. FOLLOW Laura Flanders and FriendsInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraflandersandfriends/Blueky: https://bsky.app/profile/lfandfriends.bsky.socialFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/LauraFlandersAndFriends/Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lauraflandersandfriendsYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFLRxVeYcB1H7DbuYZQG-lgLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lauraflandersandfriendsPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/lauraflandersandfriendsACCESSIBILITY - The broadcast edition of this episode is available with closed captioned by clicking here for our YouTube Channel

WMAL GUEST: JONATHAN FAHEY (Former Federal Prosecutor & Former ICE Director) TOPIC: Trump Announces Expansion of ICE Raids in Sanctuary Cities SOCIAL MEDIA: X.com/JonForFairfax Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple, Audible and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 / 7 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the 6 AM Hour, Larry O’Connor and Julie Gunlock discussed: Trump warns ‘everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran’ as prez bolts G7 summit early over Iran-Israel conflict Trump announces expansion of ICE raids in sanctuary cities Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy: Sanctuary cities won’t get DOT aid for ICE riot damage New GOP bill would cut off housing funds to sanctuary cities defying Trump DHS WMAL GUEST: MICHAEL RUBIN (Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute) on the Israel-Iran Conflict Trump warns ‘everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran’ as prez bolts G7 summit early over Iran-Israel conflict DC streets under inspection after military parade as crews clean up, remove steel plates Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple, Audible and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 / 6 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is a deal with Iran still possible? Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff is attempting to arrange a last minute meeting with Iran to strike a new nuclear agreement as soon as this week. Trump sends ominous warning to Tehran on Truth Social prompting mass evacuations. The Trump admin has OFFICIALLY reversed course on ICE Raid exemptions for Farm, Hotel/Leisure, and Restaurant industries. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy aims to withhold federal funding from Sanctuary Cities that suffered riot damage.    Join UNGOVERNED on LFA TV every MONDAY - FRIDAY from 10am to 11am EASTERN!    www.FarashMedia.com www.LFATV.us www.OFPFarms.com www.MyPatriotSupply.com/UNGOVERNED www.SLNT.com/SHAWN

President Trump just issued a BIG warning for blue cities that are harboring illegal aliens! Trump is over in Canada right now for the G7 and is obliterating the globalists who want a one world power. He says a deal with Canada could be made any moment and he has rejected Israel's beg for America to enter into the war with Iran.Guest: Victor Avila - Former ICE Special AgentSponsor:My PillowWww.MyPillow.com/johnSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today on Black Dragon Biker TV: Detroit Highway Men & Iron Coffins vs Protestors Detroit became a flashpoint over the weekend as hundreds gathered for the “No Kings” protest, standing in opposition to former President Trump's plans to crack down on immigration — particularly targeting so-called “Sanctuary Cities.” The protest was meant to show solidarity with migrant communities, but it quickly escalated when counter-protest groups showed up waving MAGA flags and voicing support for the Trump agenda.What started as a tense standoff erupted into violent confrontations, and cameras caught a now-viral moment: members of two outlaw clubs, the Detroit Highway Men MC 1%ers and the Iron Coffins MC, were seen scuffling and striking a masked protestor during the chaos. The crowd erupted with chants of “Nazis go home!” as the situation intensified.In this episode, we discuss: What led to the confrontation and who was involved The role of MCs in political street clashes How public perception is shaped by these moments And what this means for club visibility, safety, and political identity moving forwardJoin Black Dragon, Lavish T. Williams, and Logic as we unpack what really happened in Detroit and explore the growing friction between MC culture and modern protest movements. Watch live on: Black Dragon Biker TV: /blackdragonbikertv Lavish T. Williams: /@lavishtwilliams Keep It Logical: /keepitlogical Please consider sponsoring the channel by signing up for our channel memberships. You can also support us by signing up for our podcast channel membership for $9.99 per month, where 100% of the membership price goes directly to us at https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-dragon-s-lair-motorcycle-chaos--3267493/support. Follow us on: Instagram: BlackDragonBikerTV TikTok: BlackDragonBikertv Twitter: jbunchii Facebook: BlackDragonBiker Buy Black Dragon Merchandise, Mugs, Hats, T-Shirts Books: https://blackdragonsgear.com Donate to our cause: Cashapp: $BikerPrez PayPal: jbunchii Zelle: jbunchii@aol.com Subscribe to our new discord server https://discord.gg/dshaTST Subscribe to our online news magazine www.bikerliberty.com

Trump announced a plan for ICE to focus on sanctuary cities for their raids. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has allegedly been urging Trump to create exemptions for farm, hospitality, and leisure businesses who hire illegal aliens. "NO KINGS" protests were well-attended in blue cities, but what did they accomplish? NC State Rep posted calls for violence against Trump after attending "NO KINGS" protests. Teacher's Union Boss Randi Weingarten RESIGNS from the DNC. Trump wants a peace deal between Israel and Iran.    Join UNGOVERNED on LFA TV every MONDAY - FRIDAY from 10am to 11am EASTERN!    www.FarashMedia.com www.LFATV.us www.OFPFarms.com www.MyPatriotSupply.com/UNGOVERNED www.SLNT.com/SHAWN 

In this explosive monologue, Tara dives into the shocking hypocrisy revealed during sanctuary city hearings, where Democrat governors blatantly denied support for policies they previously championed. She exposes how Democratic leadership foments unrest while denying accountability, recounts disturbing reports of obstruction during violent ICE protests, and ties it all to a broader agenda of deception and authoritarian ambition. Shifting focus to global threats, Tara analyzes Israel's strategic strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and defends the preemptive action as essential to preventing World War III. This episode blends fiery political commentary with geopolitical insight, warning listeners of the domestic and international dangers brewing just beneath the surface.

Across two powerful segments, Tara unpacks the layers of deception shaping both domestic and international crises. First, she spotlights the stunning denials from Democrat governors during sanctuary city hearings—despite public records showing their support for illegal immigration protections. She reveals how these leaders use “wink-wink” tactics to stoke unrest, only to feign ignorance when violence erupts. Then, Tara pivots to Israel's high-stakes military strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, highlighting the years-long planning and the role U.S. diplomacy played in setting the trap. Connecting the dots between open borders, Iranian operatives on U.S. soil, and historical parallels to Marxist revolutions, she warns listeners: we're watching a coordinated playbook unfold—and America must wake up before it's too late.

The fight between Donald Trump and Gavin Newsom is about the rights of the federal government versus state's rights. But on another level, the fuel fanning this conflagration is a long-simmering debate … It's a debate about immigration with dividing lines falling along whether mass deportations are a goal, if birthright citizenship should be overturned … and whether people who came here years ago and are productive members of American society should get a path to citizenship. On Deadline is hosted and produced by Lauren Barry and produced by Christy Strawser.

The fight between Donald Trump and Gavin Newsom is about the rights of the federal government versus state's rights. But on another level, the fuel fanning this conflagration is a long-simmering debate … It's a debate about immigration with dividing lines falling along whether mass deportations are a goal, if birthright citizenship should be overturned … and whether people who came here years ago and are productive members of American society should get a path to citizenship. On Deadline is hosted and produced by Lauren Barry and produced by Christy Strawser.

The fight between Donald Trump and Gavin Newsom is about the rights of the federal government versus state's rights. But on another level, the fuel fanning this conflagration is a long-simmering debate … It's a debate about immigration with dividing lines falling along whether mass deportations are a goal, if birthright citizenship should be overturned … and whether people who came here years ago and are productive members of American society should get a path to citizenship. On Deadline is hosted and produced by Lauren Barry and produced by Christy Strawser.

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks about White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stunning the mainstream media and Trump's critics with his plan to not back down on ICE raids in sanctuary cities like Los Angeles; Jimmy Kimmel trying to convince his viewers that the ICE riots are insignificant and mostly peaceful; Dr. Phil getting CNN's Jake Tapper to go speechless with a simple list of the federal immigration laws that are in place and not voluntary; viral footage of a couple of clueless white liberals at an NYC ICE protest mocking a young black woman for prioritizing going to work; the crowd at Scott Bessent's committee hearing groaning loudly after Rep. Linda Sanchez tried to accuse Bessant of being sexist; Donald Trump finally admitting whether or not he's ready to forgive Elon Musk after Musk admitted going too far with his attacks on the president; and much more. Dave also does a special “ask me anything” question-and-answer session on a wide-ranging host of topics, answering questions from the Rubin Report Locals community. WATCH the MEMBER-EXCLUSIVE segment of the show here: https://rubinreport.locals.com/ Check out the NEW RUBIN REPORT MERCH here: https://daverubin.store/ ---------- Today's Sponsors: Tax Network USA - If you owe back taxes or have unfiled returns, don't let the government take advantage of you. Whether you owe a few thousand or a few million, they can help you. Call 1(800)-958-1000 for a private, free consultation or Go to: https://tnusa.com/dave Bare Bars - It's what you thought you were getting in a protein bar: Real food. Minimal ingredients. No mystery additives. Go to: http://getbarebars.com and enter code RUBIN for 15% off and free shipping! Book Profits - Get started on selling your used books online - a simple, profitable business anyone can do! Go to http://bookprofits.com/Rubin

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Boeing Airline Crash, DNC David Hogg, AI Hallucinations, 3 AI Collaboration Solution, Middle East Embassy Evacuations, Iran Tensions, China Trade Deal, ICE Deportations, Stephen Miller, Sanctuary Cities, Sanctuary States, Riots Photo Op Competition, President Trump, Riot Funding Investigation, American Flag Burning, Terry Moran Fired, China's Nuclear Power Plants, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has weighed in on the ongoing unrest in Los Angeles, downplaying the severity of the events by referring to the situation as merely the actions of “unruly teens.” She dismissed the characterization of the incidents as organized or politically motivated, instead framing them as the result of youthful frustration. At the same time, Ocasio-Cortez placed blame for the broader unrest on President Donald Trump, accusing him of creating the conditions that led to the current tensions. According to her, policies and rhetoric from his administration have intensified division and discontent, contributing to the atmosphere now unfolding in California.  Freedom Marketplace: https://freedommarketplace.net The Stack: https://www.toddhuffshow.com/stack-of-stuff Email: todd@toddhuffshow.comPhone: 317.210.2830Follow us on…Instagram: @toddhuffshowFacebook: The Todd Huff ShowTwitter: @toddhuffshowLinkedIn: The Todd Huff ShowTikTok: @toddhuffshowSupport Our Partners:https://www.toddhuffshow.com/partners Links:https://www.mypillow.com/todd Promo Code: TODDhttps://mystore.com/toddhttps://soltea.com - Promo Code TODD for $29.95 off your first orderEaston University - https://www.eastonuniversity.comRed, White, & Brand – Text TODD at 317-210-2830 for a 10% discount.

Tony starts the second hour of the show talking about President Donald Trump signing a bill to block California’s EV mandate. Tony also talks more about the sanctuary city hearing.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Biden's Elon Investigations, France Social Media Censorship, Elon Musk, Elon's Apology, Speaker Mike Johnson, Debt Rescission Process, Just Ask Scott, Strong Leader Preference, President Trump, LA National Guard, LA Riots, Governor Newsom, Mayor Bass, LA Curfew, Newsom's Audio Problem, Gavin Newsom Trump Call Denial, MSNBC Riot Coverage, ICE vs Sanctuary Cities, Tom Homan, ICE Home Depot, ICE Nebraska Roundup, LaMonica McIver Indictment, Political Photo-Op Competition, Rachael Maddow Persuasion Technique, Legal Immigrant Trump Preference, Google Search AI Answers, News Site Revenue Decline, China Trade Negotiations, Sovereign AI, Oil Cost Reduction, Nuclear Energy Future, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.

Trump Goes On Offense, ICE To Increase Raids On Blue Sanctuary Cities 4x! DOJ/Congress Launch Criminal Investigation Into CCP Funding NGOs Behind National Uprising! Plus, The Latest On The “No Kings” Promised Terror Offensive This Saturday

Across two gripping broadcasts, a powerful narrative unfolds charging that Democrat-led sanctuary cities are incubating unrest and laying the groundwork for permanent political dominance through mass illegal immigration. The commentary alleges that current events—including violent protests, Mexican flag-waving demonstrators, and collapsing urban infrastructure—are part of a long-game strategy to reshape the electorate and suppress opposition. With comparisons to Venezuela and accusations of cartel-aligned street militias, the transcripts frame the conflict as a modern civil war over American territory, with Donald Trump cast as the leader reclaiming sovereignty and law and order from what's described as a coordinated, ideologically-driven takeover.

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Greta Thunberg, Meta AI, Bernie Sanders, President Trump, Gavin Newsom, National Guard, Sanctuary Cities, Fear Persuasion, Visual Persuasion, Trump's Persuasion, Gavin Newsom Theatrics, JD Vance Comms Skill, Democrat Allies Organized Rioting, Democrat NGO Riot Funding, Immigration Policy, Looting Apple Stores, RFK Jr., CDC Vaccine Panel Fired, Whoopi Goldberg, Hakeem Jeffries, Caroline Leavitt, National Debt Crisis, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.

Guest: David Bacon is a photojournalist, author, political activist, and union organizer. His work focuses on labor issues, particularly those related to immigrant labor. He has written several books and numerous articles on the subject. He is the author of The Children of NAFTA, Communities Without Borders, Illegal People, The Right to Stay Home, and In the Fields of the North. Photo by David Bacon. At a protest against immigration detentions in Santa Maria, CA, a young woman holds a sign honoring the work her parents have done as farmworkers, June 2025. The post The Military Response to Sanctuary Cities & Immigrant's Right to Work appeared first on KPFA.

Aaron McIntire covers the chaotic Los Angeles protests against ICE immigration raids, with 2,000 National Guard troops deployed under President Trump's orders to quell violence in Paramount and Compton, where cars burned and protesters clashed with federal agents. California Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass slam the move as “inflammatory,” while Border Czar Tom Homan defends it, accusing Newsom of enabling lawlessness with sanctuary policies. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, previously deported to El Salvador, faces a federal indictment in Tennessee for smuggling thousands of illegal immigrants, including MS-13 members. A federal judge approves a landmark NCAA settlement, allowing schools to pay athletes up to $20.5 million annually, reshaping college sports. Plus, Trump addresses his feud with Elon Musk over the budget bill, and FBI Director Kash Patel reveals a swatting incident.   Los Angeles riots, National Guard, ICE raids, Trump administration, Gavin Newsom, Karen Bass, Tom Homan, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, MS-13, immigration enforcement, NCAA settlement, college athletics, Elon Musk, Kash Patel, swatting, deficit spending, sanctuary cities    

Violent anti-ICE riots have erupted in cities like Los Angeles, and the media wants you to look the other way. In this episode of The P.A.S. Report, Professor Nick Giordano exposes the truth behind the chaos. These riots are not about justice. They are about bullying the United States into surrendering its sovereignty. With foreign flags waving and ICE agents under attack, the country is paying the price for decades of open-border policies and political cowardice. Professor Giordano breaks down the real number of illegal immigrants in the United States, the national security implications, and how Democrat politicians created this crisis. Now that President Trump is back in office, the law is finally being enforced, and the left is losing its mind. Episode Highlights: The myth of "12 million" illegal immigrants and the shocking real number Why ICE targets criminal aliens and the truth behind the raids and the anti-ICE riots How Democrat policies and violent agitators like Antifa unleashed this chaos

After watching seemingly endless footage from people and reporters in Los Angeles, a rant about the militarized immigration raids that have resulted in escalating violence and federalizing the National Guard. Around the 6 minute mark, we get into the timeline of events that kicked off multiple raids in a Sanctuary City before comparing perspectives of residents with the opposing narrative being presented by the administration. The second half of the pod delves into the messy Elon v Donald breakup heard round the world, complete with timeline and reenacted online posts. We wrap up with a rapid fire of failures in fascist policies that have now been conveniently overshadowed by the L.A. raids. BONUS: a history side quest into Seneca Village and the Chavez Ravine, and how ANDOR fans recognize these plotlinesFind your representatives at USA.GOV and/or the "5 Calls" app and contact them, often. All opinions are personal and not representative of any outside company, person, or agenda. This podcast is hosted by a United States citizen, born and raised in a military family that is so very proud of this country's commitment to free speech. Information shared is cited via published articles, legal documents, press releases, government websites, executive orders, public videos, news reports, and/or direct quotes and statements, and all may be paraphrased for brevity and presented in layman's terms. “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” - James BaldwinWanna support this independent pod? Links below:BuyMeACoffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/BBDBVenmo @TYBBDB Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

WMAL GUEST: CULLY STIMSON (Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation) FOX NEWS: Sanctuary Cities Forced to Comply with Federal Immigration Rules Due to Innovative Program SOCIAL MEDIA: X.com/CullyStimson Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple, Audible and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Monday, June 9, 2025 / 8 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the 8 AM hour, Larry O’Connor and Julie Gunlock discussed: WMAL GUEST: CULLY STIMSON (Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation) on Sanctuary Cities and LA Protests NBC NEWS: Crowds Protesting Immigration Raids Ordered to Leave Downtown FOX NEWS: Riley Gaines Fires Back at Simone Biles After Social Media Dispute over Transgender Athletes WMAL GUEST: CURT SCHLICHTER (U.S. Army Veteran, Senior Columnist for Townhall) on the Chaos in Los Angeles Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple, Audible and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Monday, June 9, 2025 / 8 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sam Dorman, Washington correspondent covering politics and the courts for The Epoch Times. Sanctuary city lawsuits. The lawsuits are a battle between state and federal authority, specifically the supremacy clause of the constitution and the 10th amendment. Supreme Court rulings at the end of last week. Upcoming rulings we are watching.

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Exploring recent Supreme Court decisions on Maryland and Rhode Island gun regulations, this piece examines dissenting opinions by Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas that challenge lower court reasoning and question adherence to the Supremacy Clause. It also delves into federal clashes with sanctuary cities over illegal immigrant policies, highlighting constitutional tensions shaping...

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: 6:05pm- On Thursday, the Trump Administration threatened to withhold federal funding from several sanctuary cities—including Philadelphia, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago—if they don't comply with federal law enforcement authorities seeking to crackdown on illegal immigration and the deportation of dangerous migrants residing in the country unlawfully. 6:15pm- While appearing on CNN, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller absolutely destroyed host Pamela Brown when she attempted to downplay border security and the deportation of potentially dangerous migrants who entered the U.S. unlawfully. 6:30pm- Friday marked Elon Musk's last day leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). President Donald Trump praised Musk's work, highlighting several instances of federal waste that were discovered under his leadership: $101 million for DEI contracts at the Department of Education, $59 million for illegal alien hotel rooms in New York City, $45 million for DEI scholarships in Burma, $42 million for social and behavioral change in Uganda, $20 million for Arab Sesame Street, and $8 million for making mice transgender. As a thank you, Trump presented Musk with a golden key to the White House. 6:40pm- Dr. Stanley Goldfarb—Chairman of Do No Harm & a Professor of Medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss Penn Medicine's decision to stop performing sex-change surgeries on children. They will, however, continue to prescribe irreversible puberty blockers for children.

Join Jim and Greg for the 3 Martini Lunch as they briefly bemoan lazy disinformation before diving into today's martinis. They tackle how Trump's 2024 win quickly led to better treatment of Hamas hostages, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser's quiet reversal on her sanctuary city policy, and San Francisco's absurd new grading equity standards in public schools.First, Jim and Greg react to a CNN interview with former hostage Omer Shem Tov, who says Trump's 2024 election immediately led to better treatment of prisoners by Hamas. He says Hamas did not want Trump elected because its leaders knew their actions would no longer fly under his presidency. Next, they are intrigued by Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser's quick yet covert turnaround regarding her support of DC as a sanctuary city. It's the right move but why is she really doing it? Jim argues that sanctuary cities are so 2020 and not so popular with DC residents. Last, they get a good laugh over the whole new meaning of C's get degrees with San Francisco's grade equity policies for schools. Doing homework and attending class no longer matter. Getting a 41 percent out of 100 will get you a C and a 21 percent is still a passing grade. This means hard work goes out the window. Jim also wonders where this policy was when he was in school. Please visit our sponsors:Cut through political bias with Ground News's Vantage Plan—visit https://GroundNews.com/MARTINI to get 40% off for a limited time!It's free, online, and easy to start—no strings attached. Enroll in Understanding Capitalism with Hillsdale College. Visit https://hillsdale.edu/MartiniThis spring, get up to 50% off select plants at Fast Growing Trees with code MARTINI, plus an extra 15% off at checkout on your first purchase!  Visit https://fastgrowingtrees.com/Martini

Explosive allegations regarding who was running the country during Joe Biden's presidency, border czar Tom Homan speaks to Mary Margaret Olohan on why he needs more money, and the Supreme Court sides with a Maine legislator who was speaking out about transgender policies. Get the facts first with Morning Wire.Good Ranchers: Visit goodranchers.com and use code WIRE for an exclusive offer.Vanta: Get $1,000 off Vanta at vanta.com/morningwire.Balance of Nature: Go to balanceofnature.com and use promo code WIRE for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer PLUS get a free bottle of Fiber and Spice.