Podcasts about Scotus

This Day in Legal History: The End of Roosevelt's Hundred DaysOn this day in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt signed three pieces of legislation that closed out what the country has been calling the Hundred Days ever since: the Banking Act of 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the Farm Credit Act, with the Home Owners' Loan Act having been signed three days earlier. The Banking Act of 1933 is the one most lawyers know, because the popular name attached to it — Glass-Steagall — has been doing rhetorical work in financial-regulation debates for ninety-three years.Carter Glass of Virginia and Henry Steagall of Alabama, the Senate Banking chair and the House Banking chair respectively, built the statute around two structural propositions: that commercial banks should be separated from investment banking and the speculative securities business that had helped pull the country into the Great Depression, and that depositors at member banks should be protected by a federal deposit insurance scheme so that a panic at one bank did not become a panic everywhere.The deposit insurance piece became the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The separation piece was the part that got partially repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 and then revisited in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The National Industrial Recovery Act, signed the same day, set up the National Recovery Administration and the Public Works Administration and was meant to coordinate industry-wide codes of fair competition; the Supreme Court struck the centerpiece codes provision down two years later in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States in 1935 on nondelegation and Commerce Clause grounds, an opinion that nearly killed the early New Deal and prompted Roosevelt's court-packing plan two years after that. The Farm Credit Act consolidated and refinanced the agricultural lending system that the Great Depression had taken to the brink.The legal point worth remembering is that this last day of the Hundred Days was, in retrospect, the moment the federal regulatory state of the twentieth century stopped being a collection of post-Civil-War commissions and started being the integrated structure of agencies, deposit-insurance funds, securities oversight, labor regulation, and welfare administration that the country has lived inside ever since. The fact that the Schechter Court was waiting in the wings to strike down the most ambitious piece of that day's work is part of the lesson. The constitutional question of how much economic ordering a Congress and a President can do at once was not answered on June 16, 1933 — it was framed.The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up E.D. v. Noblesville School District, a free-speech challenge brought by the parents of an Indiana high-school student whose school district had refused to let her post flyers for her student-run anti-abortion club on classroom and hallway walls. The student, identified in court papers by initials because she was a minor when the case was filed, had been the founder of Noblesville High School's Students for Life chapter. The flyers she wanted posted featured images of demonstrators holding “Defund Planned Parenthood” signs. Noblesville Schools removed the flyers under a district policy giving administrators content-based authority over student materials displayed on school property, and the parents sued under the First Amendment.The Southern District of Indiana sided with the district in 2024, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed in 2025, both applying Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the 1988 case that lets public schools regulate the content of school-sponsored expressive activities if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. The cert denial leaves Hazelwood intact in the Seventh Circuit and everywhere else.The piece worth flagging is Justice Alito's dissent from denial, joined by Justice Thomas, which urged the Court to grant review and use the case to revisit Hazelwood's framework. The dissent argues that Hazelwood was wrongly decided to the extent that it lets schools draw viewpoint-based lines under the cover of pedagogical-concern review, and that the doctrinal distinction Hazelwood draws between school-sponsored speech and Tinker-style independent student speech has become unworkable in the age of student clubs, distributed school messaging, and post-Mahanoy off-campus speech. Two votes are not five votes. But two votes naming a case as the vehicle they wanted are how the next decade of student-speech cases gets queued up. The Court has now told litigants what kind of vehicle it might be looking for. Expect a steady drumbeat of cert petitions teeing up the Hazelwood revisit over the next several terms.US Supreme Court turns away free speech claim by anti-abortion student | Reuters via Maryland Daily RecordThe Supreme Court also turned away on Monday the National Shooting Sports Foundation's challenge to New York's General Business Law § 898, the public-nuisance statute the New York legislature passed in 2021 to let the state and certain private plaintiffs sue firearms manufacturers, distributors, and dealers for endangering the public through the marketing and distribution of their products.The challenge was supported by Smith & Wesson, Sturm, Ruger, Beretta, Glock, and Sig Sauer, and went up on appeal from a 2024 Second Circuit decision that held the New York statute is not preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the 2005 federal statute that broadly immunizes the gun industry from civil liability arising from the criminal misuse of firearms.The Second Circuit reasoned that the PLCAA's “predicate exception” — which preserves state-law claims when the firearms industry has violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms — covers a state public-nuisance statute that, by its terms, regulates the sale and marketing of firearms. The cert denial leaves the Second Circuit's reading in place, leaves New York's statute on the books and enforceable, and leaves the industry with a litigation exposure it had hoped to neutralize.The strategic part of the case is going to be the copycat statutes. California, New Jersey, Washington, Delaware, Illinois, and Hawaii have all enacted versions of the New York approach since 2021, and other states have similar bills in committee. Each of those statutes is going to invite its own PLCAA-preemption fight in its own circuit, and the cumulative jurisprudence is going to get built case by case until either Congress amends PLCAA or the Court decides one of these cases is the right vehicle to step in. Today's denial was not that vehicle.SCOTUS Upholds NY Law Allowing Lawsuits Against Gunmakers | The Daily SignalThe third notable cert denial on Monday was the end of the road for Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. in its long-running trade-secret fight with DXC Technology — the successor in interest to Computer Sciences Corporation. TCS had asked the Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision that affirmed a $168 million judgment against it for misappropriating CSC's life-insurance-administration software trade secrets and using them to build TCS's own BaNCS platform, which TCS then used to win a $2.6 billion contract with the insurer Transamerica.The Northern District of Texas verdict, returned in 2022, had been $56 million in compensatory damages and $112 million in punitives, and the Fifth Circuit upheld the punitives ratio in 2025 over TCS's BMW v. Gore and State Farm v. Campbell challenge to the proportionality of the punitive award and over its Defend Trade Secrets Act extraterritoriality arguments. The cert petition pressed both points and pressed a circuit split on the standard for proving misappropriation by an independent contractor that had been given access to source code under a nondisclosure agreement, but the Court declined.The practical immediate effect is that TCS will recognize a roughly $70 million one-time exceptional charge in Q1 of its 2027 fiscal year and the total exposure on the matter — combining the affirmed judgment with previously taken provisions — settles in around $220 million. The broader effect is doctrinal stability. The Fifth Circuit's analysis on cross-border trade-secret damages and on the extraterritoriality limits of the DTSA stand. Both questions are going to recur, and the next vehicle that brings them up may catch the Court in a different mood, but for now the law is what the Fifth Circuit said it was.US Supreme Court rejects TCS challenge in $168 million trade secrets case | Business Standard This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The recent Supreme Court decision on broker liability caught many by surprise. Attorney Doug Marcello explains why this unanimous ruling is a game-changer, potentially leading to 'nuclear settlements' and placing freight brokers in the role of "excess insurers" for trucking companies. This means heightened due diligence and compliance are critical now more than ever. ⁠Follow the FreightWaves NOW Podcast⁠ ⁠Other FreightWaves Shows⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Your Section 301 refund is not in the mail. SCOTUS declines to take up the HMTX v. US case. Listen for more on Two Minutes in Trade. 

Hans von Spakovsky discusses major Supreme Court cases involving birthright citizenship and women's sports, Sen. Ron Johnson's push for FDA transparency on COVID vaccine data, vaccine liability protections, and efforts to eliminate DEI-related federal grants.

The Second Reconstruction is being dismantled piece by piece, and this past month has seen that project attain terminal velocity. On this week's Amicus podcast, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Stanford law professor and leading civil rights lawyer and scholar Pamela S Karlan, about a series of quick-fire moves from the high court and the Trump administration that, taken together, reveal a rapid disassembly of a series of hard-won civil rights laws in place for the past 50 years, known as the Second Reconstruction. From SCOTUS decisions in Callais and Milligan, to a new memo from the Justice Department revisiting equal employment protections, the United States' framework for multiracial democracy and minority participation in civic life is being swept away. This is about more than redistricting, primaries and polls, midterms and horse races. It's a wholesale reshaping of what––and who––America is for. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Second Reconstruction is being dismantled piece by piece, and this past month has seen that project attain terminal velocity. On this week's Amicus podcast, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Stanford law professor and leading civil rights lawyer and scholar Pamela S Karlan, about a series of quick-fire moves from the high court and the Trump administration that, taken together, reveal a rapid disassembly of a series of hard-won civil rights laws in place for the past 50 years, known as the Second Reconstruction. From SCOTUS decisions in Callais and Milligan, to a new memo from the Justice Department revisiting equal employment protections, the United States' framework for multiracial democracy and minority participation in civic life is being swept away. This is about more than redistricting, primaries and polls, midterms and horse races. It's a wholesale reshaping of what––and who––America is for. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Second Reconstruction is being dismantled piece by piece, and this past month has seen that project attain terminal velocity. On this week's Amicus podcast, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Stanford law professor and leading civil rights lawyer and scholar Pamela S Karlan, about a series of quick-fire moves from the high court and the Trump administration that, taken together, reveal a rapid disassembly of a series of hard-won civil rights laws in place for the past 50 years, known as the Second Reconstruction. From SCOTUS decisions in Callais and Milligan, to a new memo from the Justice Department revisiting equal employment protections, the United States' framework for multiracial democracy and minority participation in civic life is being swept away. This is about more than redistricting, primaries and polls, midterms and horse races. It's a wholesale reshaping of what––and who––America is for. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the three SCOTUS decisions that dropped Thursday morning,  a D.C. Circuit decision on President Donald Trump's ban on transgender military members, and accommodations running rampant at law schools. Oh, and a federal judge charged with battery and destruction of physical property.  The Agenda: –Sign up for the SCOTUSblog newsletter –We are faced with the duddiest of duds –What is estoppel? –You can only try a defendant in the district where his crime was committed –Why is a Church of the Holy Trinity reference basically a backhand? –Transgender people can serve in the military  –We should get rid of accommodations for aspiring attorneys  –Burden of proof: Federal judge caught in altercation Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Aziz Huq, professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School and author of The Rule of Law: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2024) previews the end of this year's Supreme Court term, including major cases concerning birthright citizenship, Temporary Protected Status and more. Photo: WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 6: The U.S. Supreme Court is seen at sunset on June 6, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images)     Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode, we break down the massive wave of M&A activity hitting the industry, featuring our returning guest, Chris Kolquist from Koliway LLC! With tons of headlines about large companies looking to acquire businesses, we dive into what it takes to survive the freight recession and come out on top. We also cover the impact of the recent SCOTUS ruling on carrier decisions, how to transition from a founder-led business to a scalable organizational structure, and the future for boutique brokerages utilizing AI and automation! If you want to know what makes a brokerage truly appealing to buyers and how to protect your life's work, you don't want to miss this conversation!   About Chris Kolquist Throughout his career, senior executive and strategic leader Chris Kolquist has been a catalyst in driving commercial growth, positive financial results, and maximum shareholder value in challenging and hyper-competitive markets. He has built a noteworthy reputation for understanding investments, delivering ROI objectives, managing massive change, and building highly effective cultures. In 2021, Chris launched Koliway LLC, an investment and advisory firm specializing in investments, M&A transactions, board service, and advisory executive logistics work. Chris began his career with Arthur Andersen, where he served as Senior Auditor from 1998 to 2001, conducting audits, M&A transaction support, and financial due diligence for buy-side and sell-side clients. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Accounting from the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1998 and obtained his CPA license in 2001 (now inactive).   Connect with Chris Website: https://koliway.com/  Email: ckolquist@koliway.com  

 Aughie and Nia explore the importance of Batson challenges in jury trials. 

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia DecidedOn this day in 1967, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia striking down Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and, with it, the anti-miscegenation statutes that sixteen states still had on the books. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the Court. The case had come up from a county courthouse in Caroline County, Virginia, where Richard Loving, a white bricklayer, and Mildred Jeter, a Black and Native American woman, had been arrested in their bedroom in the middle of the night in 1958 by a sheriff acting on an anonymous tip — they had been married in the District of Columbia and returned home to Virginia, where their marriage was a felony. The Lovings pleaded guilty, accepted suspended sentences on the condition that they leave the state for twenty-five years, and lived in exile in Washington until Mildred wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy that landed eventually with the ACLU, which took the case.The Supreme Court's opinion did two things at once. It held that Virginia's statute violated the Equal Protection Clause because it drew an explicit racial classification with no legitimate state purpose beyond preserving “White Supremacy” — the Court used the phrase the Virginia statute itself had used — and it held that the statute violated the Due Process Clause because the freedom to marry is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” That second holding, the marriage-as-fundamental-right strand, is the through-line that runs from Loving to Zablocki v. Redhail in 1978, to Turner v. Safley in 1987, to Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 — every one of those decisions cites Loving and treats it as the foundational case. Whether the Court's substantive due process marriage doctrine survives the next decade is, as we discussed earlier this week, one of the open questions in American constitutional law. But Loving itself remains intact, and on June 12, 1967, the Court said something it had not said cleanly before: that the right to marry is the kind of liberty interest the Constitution actually protects.The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the Second Circuit in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd., holding 6-3 that the Investment Company Act of 1940 does not give private parties a cause of action to seek rescission of fund bylaws or other contractual terms. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority. The dispute came out of a campaign by Boaz Weinstein's Saba Capital against eleven closed-end funds — funds that, under Maryland's Control Share Acquisition Act, had adopted bylaws limiting the voting power of any shareholder who accumulated a disproportionate stake without the consent of other shareholders. Saba sued under Section 47(b) of the ICA, which makes contracts that violate the Act unenforceable, and the Second Circuit held that Section 47(b) implied a private right to rescind the bylaws.The Court told the Second Circuit to look harder at the modern implied-cause-of-action doctrine, which since Alexander v. Sandoval in 2001 has been hostile to inferring private rights of action that Congress did not write into the statute. The opinion reads as a continuation of that line: the ICA's enforcement structure is committed to the SEC, not to private plaintiffs, and Section 47(b) is a defense against contracts the SEC has already determined to be unlawful, not an offensive cause of action. The dissent, by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that this is a misreading of Section 47(b)'s text and that the majority is gratuitously narrowing the enforcement of the federal securities laws. The practical impact is significant. Activist investors who had been pushing closed-end funds to convert to open-end form, or to alter investment strategies, lose a federal-court tool they had been using; the funds themselves and their independent directors gain a meaningful structural defense. Expect the next round of activist campaigns to move to state-court fiduciary-duty theories instead.US Supreme Court rules against private suits brought under key securities law | US NewsThe Court on Thursday also decided Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., vacating the Fifth Circuit 9-0 in an opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The case is small in its facts and large in its doctrine. Thomas Keathley filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2019 and failed to disclose, on his schedule of assets, a personal-injury claim he later brought against a construction company over a truck accident. The Fifth Circuit barred the personal-injury suit on judicial-estoppel grounds — the longstanding equitable doctrine that prevents a party from taking one position in one proceeding and a contradictory position in another — using a three-factor test under which a debtor's mere knowledge of the facts plus a motive to conceal was enough to bar the later claim.The Supreme Court said no.To determine whether the omission was inadvertent or mistaken for judicial-estoppel purposes, the Court held, the lower courts must look to the totality of the circumstances, not just to whether the debtor knew of the facts and had a motive. The doctrinal interest of the case lies in two concurrences. Justice Sotomayor, concurring, wrote that judicial estoppel should likely never apply in an open bankruptcy case at all — the trustee can simply amend the schedule and pursue the claim for the estate, which solves the problem judicial estoppel was invented to address. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, went further and questioned whether federal courts have any inherent authority to apply judicial estoppel as a freestanding doctrine, period — a position that, if it ever gets five votes, would unwind a doctrine that has been part of American practice since the 1850s. None of that is the holding. But the votes to revisit one of the duller corners of equitable estoppel are now visibly on the table.Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. | SCOTUSblogThe third unanimous decision of the day was Abouammo v. United States, in which the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and vacated the obstruction-of-an-FBI-investigation conviction of Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee whose underlying case was one of the more striking Saudi-Arabia infiltration prosecutions of the last decade. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion. The facts are simple and the constitutional point cleaner than the facts. Abouammo, while working at Twitter's San Francisco office in 2014 and 2015, accessed and passed on confidential user information about Saudi dissidents to a Saudi official, in exchange for a $42,000 watch and $200,000 in wire transfers. The FBI eventually came to interview him at his home in Seattle, where he had moved by 2018, and during those interviews he created and emailed agents a fake invoice intended to make the wire transfers look like a legitimate consulting fee. The Justice Department charged the obstruction count along with foreign-agent and wire-fraud counts in the Northern District of California, and a San Francisco jury convicted him on all of them.The Supreme Court held that the obstruction count belonged in the Western District of Washington, not California, because the act of creating and sending the false invoice — the only act that supported the obstruction charge — happened entirely in Seattle. Article III's venue clause and the Sixth Amendment's vicinage requirement together do not let the government try a defendant in a state where no element of the charged offense occurred, no matter how convenient the prosecution. The obstruction conviction is vacated. The foreign-agent and wire-fraud convictions, which had different venue facts and were not before the Court, stand. Abouammo will not walk free. But the prosecution will need to decide whether to retry the obstruction count in Seattle, and the case is now a clean precedent that the venue clause has real teeth in a multi-district federal investigation.US Supreme Court overturns ex-Twitter employee's obstruction conviction in Saudi spy case | US News This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Today on America in the MorningTrump Signals Agreement With Iran President Trump on Thursday withdrew threats to take Iran's most critical oil terminal and also put a stop to his previously scheduled attacks on Iran, saying in the Oval Office that an agreement to end hostilities with Iran may happen as soon as this weekend.  Politico is reporting that this was put into motion after several Gulf and South Asian nations called the president to change his mind.  Ed Donahue reports that if an agreement is signed, it will include Iranian guarantees that it will not pursue any nuclear weapons and also reopen the Strait of Hormuz.   Trump Names New DNI Nominee With Democrats and some prominent Republicans revolting over President Trump's pick to serve as interim Director of National Intelligence after the resignation of Tulsi Gabbard, the President has named someone else as a permanent replacement.  John Stolnis has the latest from Washington.   FISA Expiring A key surveillance tool that lets the U.S. collect intelligence abroad now seems nearly certain to expire at midnight, after 20 Republicans broke ranks with the GOP and joined House Democrats to vote it down.  Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports.   86-47 Etched Near White House Large numbers “86-47,” a phrase generally used to signal opposition to President Donald Trump appeared etched into the grass on the National Mall on Thursday in an area just a short walk from the White House and where a UFC fight will be held on the South Lawn of the presidential residence.   Pentagon Incident There was concern at the Pentagon on Thursday after the home of the Department of War went into lockdown after its internal systems detected a dangerous air quality issue.  Correspondent Clayton Neville reports about 25-thousand people who work inside the building were impacted.   SCOTUS Says No To Execution The US Supreme Court in a ruling on Thursday night said the state of Alabama cannot execute a death row inmate by a method using nitrogen gas.  The high court's ruling upheld two lower courts that said using that type of method of execution violates the ban on cruel and unusual punishment, sending Jeffrey Lee back to death row.  Mike Hempen reports.   Debating The Anthony Case America is still reacting to the murder conviction of a black teenager in Texas who stabbed another teenager at a high school track meet.  Correspondent Clayton Neville has the latest from Dallas.   Minnesota Shooter Takes A Plea Deal The man charged in the political assassinations of the top Democrat in the Minnesota House and her husband...and the injuring of a state senator and his wife, has taken a plea deal that spares him the death penalty.  Correspondent Joan Jones has details on the case that shocked the nation nearly one year ago.   SpaceX IPO Elon Musk's rocket company SpaceX makes its debut on Wall Street today, with an initial public offering that is expected to shatter records.   Correspondent Damian Troise explains. Producer Prices Higher The prices for what we pay shot up in the Month of May, as a report points at the war with Iran for price hikes.  Correspondent Mike Hempen reports. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Tal Fortgang explores Justice Scalia's legal philosophy through a biography by James Rosen, focusing on Scalia's dissent in Lee v. Weisman regarding religious benedictions at public graduations. Fortgang explains how Scaliapopularized "originalism" and "textualism," arguing that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original public meaning of the text rather than through subjective "moral readings" by judges. (11)1923 SCOTUS

Jamie Raskin calls out SCOTUS corruption, Isaac Nuttall shows youth power at Netroots, and Graham Platner's Maine landslide sends Democrats a message.Subscribe to our Newsletter:https://politicsdoneright.com/newsletterPurchase our Books: As I See It: https://amzn.to/3XpvW5o How To Make AmericaUtopia: https://amzn.to/3VKVFnG It's Worth It: https://amzn.to/3VFByXP Lose Weight And BeFit Now: https://amzn.to/3xiQK3K Tribulations of anAfro-Latino Caribbean man: https://amzn.to/4c09rbE

Jamie Raskin takes on SCOTUS and Trumpism, Isaac Nuttall shows Netroots youth power, and Mike Johnson's GOP exposes its threat to Social Security.Subscribe to our Newsletter:https://politicsdoneright.com/newsletterPurchase our Books: As I See It: https://amzn.to/3XpvW5o How To Make AmericaUtopia: https://amzn.to/3VKVFnG It's Worth It: https://amzn.to/3VFByXP Lose Weight And BeFit Now: https://amzn.to/3xiQK3K Tribulations of anAfro-Latino Caribbean man: https://amzn.to/4c09rbE

Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas:Leaving out Black jurors undermined the "perceived fairness" of the Karmelo Anthony trial: https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/article/karmelo-anthony-trial-black-jurors-22296375.php...Anthony's attorneys have moved quickly to appeal - basing their case on "peremptory strikes" of three Black jurors by the state: https://www.keranews.org/news/2026-06-10/karmelo-anthony-appeals-collin-county-murder-conviction-austin-metcalf-race-criminal-justice-black-frisco-track-meet-stabbing...They will likely base their case on the hich they say violates the SCOTUS case Batson v. Kentucky: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/sixth-amendment-activities/batson-v-kentucky-and-jeb-v-alabama/facts-and-case-summary-batson-v-kentuckyThe Texas Republican Party Convention is underway in Houston, where party leaders are preaching party unity - just as they've put up their most radical set of nominees ever after a brutal primary: https://www.texastribune.org/2026/06/11/texas-gop-convention-2026-houston-abbott-burrows-unity/A proposed ban on border wall construction in the Big Bend region has failed on party lines: https://www.texastribune.org/2026/06/10/texas-big-bend-national-park-border-wall-ban-house-vote-henry-cuellar/...The Trump administration has also dispensed with a wide range of environmental regulations related to border security in the Big Bend border region: https://www.marfapublicradio.org/news/2026-06-08/trump-administration-will-bypass-environmental-laws-for-border-project-in-big-bend-national-parkWe're excited to see you in Dallas for our 16th anniversary celebration on Tuesday June 16! Make your reservation now:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://act.progresstexas.org/a/anniversary2026⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Progress Texas is expanding into both broadcast radio - including a new partnership with⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠KPFT-FM in Houston⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! Make a tax-deductible contribution to our radio initiative⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, and to our Spanish expansion⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://progresstexas.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠

Apple won most of its courtroom war with Epic Games. So why is the tech giant now asking the Supreme Court for help? In this episode of The Valley Current®, host Jack Russo dives into the legal battle that transformed a dispute over app-store commissions into a high-stakes fight over judicial power, corporate strategy, and the limits of compliance. After a judge accused Apple of undermining the spirit of a court order, the case exploded into contempt findings, accusations of bad faith, and a showdown headed toward SCOTUS. Can companies follow the letter of the law while sidestepping its purpose, or does that strategy invite judicial backlash? One Supreme Court decision could decide whether legal compliance is about following the rules… or respecting the reason they exist. Jack Russo Managing Partner Jrusso@computerlaw.com www.computerlaw.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackrusso "Every Entrepreneur Imagines a Better World"®️  

Josh Blackman traces the modern history of the death penalty from the 1972 Furman case to 1976's Gregg v. Georgia. He critiques the "evolving standards of decency" doctrine used by the Warren Court, arguing it reflects the views of elites rather than the constitution or the broader American general voting public. (13)1888 SCOTUS

Exclusion of evidence and habeas corpus? Who needs us? It's a Dallin Oaks episode and we go over two law review articles (pub. 1966 & 70) he wrote focusing on the rights of criminals. How we handle evidence consistent with the constitution is a complicated issue and Hoaks has a hot take. Plus, he thinks habeas corpus has gotten a bit out of hand with how many death row convicts it was helping. Then we dive through 2 more chapters from Pure in Heart about Spirituality and Worship. The hot takes here are akin to moldy soup in the back of the fridge. We round out with happy civil engineering news from California!   Show Notes:  Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3650&context=uclrev Search and Seizure laws and SCOTUS rulings https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-fourth-amendment-mean https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/search-and-seizure-rules/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-7-1/ALDE_00000805/ Legal History in the High Court–Habeas Corpus (1966) https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5483&context=mlr Bushel's Case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel%27s_Case   Sword of Laman: Pure In Heart, by Dallin H. Oaks    Happy News: https://www.goodgoodgood.co/articles/california-wildlife-crossing-biggest-annenberg    Email: glassboxpodcast@gmail.com  Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/GlassBoxPod  Patreon page for documentary: https://www.patreon.com/SeerStonedProductions BlueSky: @glassboxpodcast.bsky.social  Other BlueSky: @bryceblankenagel.bsky.social and @shannongrover.bsky.social  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glassboxpodcast/  Merch store: https://www.redbubble.com/people/exmoapparel/shop Or find the merch store by clicking on "Store" here: https://glassboxpodcast.com/index.html One time Paypal donation: bryceblankenagel@gmail.com  Venmo: @Shannon-Grover-10  

For longtime observers of the legal profession, here's a headline we wouldn't have expected a few years ago: “The Eight-Figure Talent Race for Supreme Court Lawyers.” According to Ryan Barber and Erin Mulvaney of The Wall Street Journal (gift link), superstar SCOTUS advocates—including former solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar, now at Cooley, and former acting SG Jeff Wall, who recently joined Gibson Dunn—are commanding pay packages previously unheard of for appellate practitioners.For such a small and elite group, the Supreme Court bar has seen a striking amount of movement in the past few weeks. In April, Wall led a four-partner group that decamped from Sullivan & Cromwell to Gibson. A few days later, another leading high-court litigator, Kannon Shanmugam, left Paul Weiss and joined Davis Polk & Wardwell, where he now heads the firm's new Supreme Court and appellate practice group.What explains this flurry of movement in the SCOTUS space? Why are top firms investing so heavily in Supreme Court and appellate practices? And what broader trends might this reflect?I could think of no better guest to explore these topics than Kannon Shanmugam. Not only did he recently go through the recruiting process as a lateral partner, but he's now going to be doing some hiring of his own, as he and Masha Hansford build out what Kannon hopes will be “the very best appellate practice in the country.”Thanks to Kannon for speaking with me, and congratulations to him and Masha on their move to Davis Polk.Show Notes:* Kannon Shanmugam bio, Davis Polk & Wardwell* Kannon K. Shanmugam profile, Chambers and Partners* Davis Polk Looks to Appellate Star Shanmugam to Elevate D.C. Build, by Meghan Tribe for Bloomberg LawSponsored 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@nexfirm.com. 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

This Day in Legal History: Kennedy Signs the Equal Pay ActOn this day in 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, the first federal statute aimed directly at sex-based wage discrimination. The law took the form of an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which meant that it slid into an existing enforcement framework run by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor — a deliberate choice that bypassed the need to build new institutional machinery and harnessed thirty years of FLSA caselaw and habits of compliance. The legal hook is the Act's “equal pay for equal work” command: employers may not pay employees of one sex less than employees of the opposite sex for jobs requiring “equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.”Four affirmative defenses are written into the text — a seniority system, a merit system, a system measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production, or “any other factor other than sex” — and that fourth catch-all has done more work in litigation than the other three combined, shaping how courts evaluate market-based, education-based, and prior-salary-based pay differentials decades later. The wage gap at the moment Kennedy signed was about 59 cents on the dollar; six decades on, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics's standard measure, it sits closer to 84 cents. That tells you something about how a clean, structurally well-designed statute can still leave a lot of the work undone, because the gap is and always was about more than identical pairs of jobs at the same employer.The Equal Pay Act is not the whole story of American workplace-equality law; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and a long line of state-law analogues do much of the modern enforcement work. But June 10, 1963 is the day Congress, with the President's signature, said for the first time that paying a woman less than a man for the same work was unlawful, full stop. Everything that has followed in this corner of the law has been built on top of that sentence.The Federal Circuit on Monday affirmed a Delaware district court judgment invalidating four Purdue Pharma patents covering an abuse-deterrent, low-toxicity version of the opioid OxyContin, in a decision the patent bar has been waiting on for months. The case is Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma LLC. The patents covered Purdue's reformulation of OxyContin to make the pills crush-resistant and to reduce a manufacturing impurity, and the asserted innovation grew, the company said, out of its discovery of the source of a particular toxic impurity that had previously eluded chemists at competing labs. Purdue's argument on appeal was, in essence, that the discovery of the impurity's source was itself nonobvious, and that the resulting patents inherited that nonobviousness. The Federal Circuit said no.The panel held that the relevant obviousness inquiry asks whether the claimed reformulation — not the discovery that motivated it — would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and that once the prior art is taken into account, the answer is yes. The practical consequence of the ruling is large. It opens the door wider for generic abuse-deterrent OxyContin alternatives and clarifies a doctrinal point pharmaceutical companies have been pressing on for years: a hard-won research insight does not, on its own, automatically save a patent from obviousness if the resulting product was within the prior art's reach. Purdue's options now are a rehearing petition at the Federal Circuit, a cert petition at the Supreme Court (which the company has already pursued in a related case last spring), or quiet acceptance. Expect a cert petition. Expect the cert petition to be denied. Watch the generic-drug filings that follow.Fed. Circ. Panel Backs Invalidation Of OxyContin PatentThe plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Virginia lawsuit over the Trump administration's $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” — a story we covered earlier htis week— went back to Judge Leonie Brinkema on Tuesday and asked for permission to conduct limited discovery into whether the Justice Department's recent representation that it would stop work on the fund is a real commitment or a litigation convenience.The plaintiffs' problem is straightforward: acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has filed papers saying the program is “not going forward,” but President Trump publicly described the fund last week as a “great idea” that many Republicans support, and the executive order that created the fund has not been formally rescinded. From a litigation-strategy standpoint, the plaintiffs do not want to walk away from a live case on the strength of a DOJ filing, accept dismissal as moot, and then find out three months later that the fund has been quietly resurrected under a different name.Judge Brinkema has a hearing scheduled for Friday, June 12, on whether to extend the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction. The Tuesday filing teed up the broader mootness fight that will dominate Friday's hearing: when does a federal agency's promise to stop doing something actually deprive a court of jurisdiction to enjoin the underlying program, and what discovery, if any, is a plaintiff entitled to before that determination is made. The doctrine here — voluntary cessation, capable of repetition yet evading review, and the heavy burden the Supreme Court has placed on the party claiming mootness — favors the plaintiffs procedurally. Whether Brinkema agrees on Friday is the question to watch.‘Anti-weaponization' fund challengers question its demise – Roll CallSCOTUSblog's John Elwood walked through a useful relist roundup on Tuesday, and the four cases sitting in the relist pile are worth flagging because each of them touches a different load-bearing wall in federal practice. The first is a prolonged-detention challenge to immigration custody under Section 1226(c). The ACLU is asking the Court to clarify that very long mandatory-detention periods trigger procedural due process review under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, picking up on the Second Circuit's willingness to do so. The second is Newberry v. Texas, a case where Texas itself has confessed error — a rare procedural posture in which the State agrees the defendant should win — and the question is what the Court does when the parties on both sides ask for the same remedy. The third is Kian v. Florida, a Sixth Amendment challenge to the use of six-person juries in serious felony cases, on the theory that the historical understanding of “jury” in the founding era assumed twelve and that the Court's mid-twentieth-century cases approving six-person juries were wrong on the originalist analysis. The fourth is Maxwell v. Thomas, a federal habeas case asking whether the First Step Act‘s halfway-house and home-confinement provisions are properly enforceable through 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions, an issue with a real circuit split. None of these have been granted yet — they are relists, which means at least one Justice is interested but the Court has not yet decided whether to hear them — but the mix is the part to watch: it tells you what the Justices are circling without committing to. Expect at least one of these to be granted before the term ends.A random assortment of relists: prolonged detention, confessions of error, small juries, and new rules on habeas | SCOTUSblog This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Brad Young, KMOX Legal Analyst, partner at Harris, Young & Kayser, joins Megan Lynch every week for an update on cases you need to know about. The state of the repeal of the Missouri income tax is still in limbo, the Supreme Court is set to release verdicts on several 2nd Amendment cases, one regarding transgender athlete bans in a pair of states, and the cost of worker visas; and what happens now to the Festus council recall efforts?

* Trump NBC Meltdown.* Rich Logis, Founder/CEO of Leaving MAGA speaks: Rich Logis visited Politics Done Right for a candid discussion of his entry and exit from the grasps of MAGA.* Screwworm Parasite ‘No Longer Contained in Texas' as Trump USDA Doubles Down on Efforts to Blame Biden: “This has nothing to do with Joe Biden,” one senator said, “but Trump and D… To hear more, visit egberto.substack.com

Thank you Steven Rosenzweig, L Joseph Rosas III, Campbell Welsh, Darlene, and many others for tuning into my live video! * Congressman Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland speak on SCOTUS and more: Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Oversight Committee did not mince his words on reforming SCOTUS, the President, and much more at Netroots Nation 2025Trump once again mismanaging pathog… To hear more, visit egberto.substack.com

Tim, Phil, and Brett are joined by Andrew Branca to discuss Spencer Pratt Loses after late mail-in ballot drop, Nick Shirley Uncovers 126-year-old California voter, SCOTUS could nuke ballots after election day, Karmelo Anthony is screwed, and the DOJ moves to strip citizenship from 17 criminals.  SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ GET OUR MERCH - https://merch.timcast.com/ Join - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLwN... Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) | https://www.shoutout.fans/timpool Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Brett  @PopCultureCrisis  (everywhere) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest:  Andrew Branca @TheBrancaShow (X) Podcast available on all podcast platforms! Democrats Have STOLEN The Election In California, Spencer Pratt CHEATED OUT Of Win  | Timcast IRL For advertising inquiries please email sponsorships@rumble.com

Alan's Soap https://AlansSoaps.com/Todd Honor John's memory and the legacy he created for Ian and Alan with Alan's Artisan Soaps “John's Favorites” bundle.  Get one bar of each of his favorites for only $28.99. Bulwark Capital https://KnowYourRiskPodcast.comBe confident in your portfolio with Bulwark! Schedule your free Know Your Risk Portfolio review. Go to KnowYourRiskPodcast.com today. Renue Healthcare https://Renue.Healthcare/ToddYour journey to a better life starts at Renue Healthcare. Visit https://Renue.Healthcare/Todd Bonefrog https://BonefrogCoffee.com/ToddGet the new limited release, The Sisterhood, created to honor the extraordinary women behind the heroes.   Use code TODD at checkout to receive 10% off your first purchase and 15% on subscriptions.LISTEN and SUBSCRIBE at:The Todd Herman Show - Podcast - Apple PodcastsThe Todd Herman Show | Podcast on SpotifyWATCH and SUBSCRIBE at: Todd Herman - The Todd Herman Show - YouTubeEpisode links:James Talarico, who voted against a bill banning trans surgeries for Texas kids and infamously said he loves “trans children,” flips mid campaign: “I oppose gender reassignment surgeries for minors.” Daily Signal interviewed both pro-trans activists and parental rights champions outside SCOTUS today following oral arguments for Skrmetti.  This mom told us child identified as trans at age 1.5. An Arlington Official Says Her Son Came Hom Cyring Because a Teacher Taught Babies Come from A Man and A WomanSCOTUS JUST PUBLISHED THE EXACT LIST OF RIGHTS PARENTS NOW HAVE IF A SCHOOL TRIES TO BLOCK THEM OUT. Not vague victories. Not "parents win somehow." NAMED PROTECTIONS. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. School by school.State of Parental Rights, 2026: Parental Rights FoundationWARNING! THIS  IS NOT SAFE FOR KIDS OR WORK! We have been fighting agains this perverse, pornographic sex-ed in schools battle since 2020. This a a video of a radio program I did with Maia Espinoza, a candidate at the time to be the Superintendent of Government Schools in WA State. You will not believe what we uncovered as we read from the suggested curricula that Democrats successfully jammed down the throats of parents. 

In this episode, we welcome Katy Faust back to the studio. She is a Children's Rights Advocate and the Founder and President of “Them Before Us”, a global movement defending children's right to their mother and father. She is also the author of several books including “Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children's Rights Movement”. In this interview, we discuss her new initiative: The Greater Than Campaign, why she is trying to get the Obergefell v. Hodges gay marriage SCOTUS ruling overturned, how the rights of children are being violated to make adults feel comfortable, the dangers faced by children in gay parent households, how easy it has become for people to create and take possession of “designer babies”, why the IVF process is helping drive this cultural shift, and much more. Let's get into it… Episode notes and links HERE. Donate to support our mission of equipping men to push back darkness. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the final weeks of the 2025-2026 term, the Supreme Court will issue over two dozen decisions in key cases.  Before this final stretch, we return to ACS's Supreme Court Preview event to refresh our collective memories on those cases still outstanding and as an opportunity to reflect on what the term has yielded thus far.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Valerie Nannery, Senior Director of Policy and ProgramGuest: Mark Joseph Stern, Senior Writer, Slate MagazineGuest: Carlos A. Ball, Distinguished Professor of Law and Judge Frederick Lacey Scholar, Rutgers Law SchoolGuest: Alexis Hoag-Fordjour, David Dinkins '56 Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Criminal Justice, Brooklyn Law SchoolGuest: Pamela S. Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Stanford Law SchoolGuest: Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar, Director of the Center for Immigrants' Rights Clinic, and Clinical Professor of Law, Penn State Dickinson LawLink:  ACS National Supreme Court Preview 2025-2026Link: Supreme Court Term in Review, Georgetown Law on July 1Visit the Podcast Website: Broken Law PodcastEmail the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.orgFollow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Bluesky | LinkedIn | YouTube-----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.-----------------Production House: Flint Stone MediaCopyright of American Constitution Society 2025.

He spent the primary channeling Beto O'Rourke, and now James Tallarico wants Texans to believe he's a Second Amendment champion — but Mark Walters isn't buying a single word of it. The Armed American Radio host and Second Amendment Foundation spokesman joins the Marc Cox Morning Show to dismantle Tallarico's gun flip-flop piece by piece, including the jaw-dropping moment where Tallarico echoed Joe Biden's "no right is absolute" argument — and Mark explains exactly why that logic would unravel the 13th Amendment too. Then it's on to the Supreme Court, Glock bans spreading across blue states, and why the Democrats' own language about "assault pistols" is going to blow up in their faces when SCOTUS finally rules. Ted Cruz called Tallarico not masculine enough to handle a stiff breeze — Mark Walters called him something far more colorful. If you care about your Second Amendment rights, this is the segment you cannot afford to miss. HASHTAGS: #2ATuesday #MarcCoxMorningShow #MarkWalters #ArmedAmericanRadio #SecondAmendment #Tallarico #TexasSenate #GlockBan #ShallNotBeInfringed #SCOTUS #2ADefender #TedCruz #ConservativeRadio #KimStOnge #971Talk #STLRadio #BearArms

This Day in Legal History: The Burning of the GaspeeOn this day in 1772, a Royal Navy revenue schooner called HMS Gaspee, captained by a notably overzealous Lieutenant William Duddington, ran aground in shallow water in Narragansett Bay while chasing a Rhode Island packet boat called the Hannah. Within hours of the grounding, roughly sixty Providence merchants, sailors, and “Sons of Liberty” — led by John Brown, one of the wealthiest men in the colony — rowed out under cover of darkness in eight longboats, boarded the Gaspee, shot Duddington, and burned the ship to the waterline. The legal significance lies in what came next. The Crown convened a Royal Commission of Inquiry with authority to ship the perpetrators across the Atlantic for trial in England, bypassing colonial juries entirely, a procedural maneuver that the colonies read as a direct attack on the right to jury trial in the vicinage.The Virginia House of Burgesses responded in March 1773 by forming the first Committee of Correspondence, a sustained intercolonial communication network that became, two years later, the institutional skeleton of the Continental Congress. The Gaspee Affair never produced a single prosecution — the commission could not get the colonial governor or the Rhode Island courts to cooperate, and witness testimony evaporated — but it produced something more durable: the colonial conviction that the Crown's willingness to detour around local juries was itself a constitutional grievance worth organizing against. The right-to-jury-in-the-vicinage point that Madison wrote into the Sixth Amendment seventeen years later is, in a real sense, the Gaspee Affair's longest-lived legacy.The Supreme Court on Monday granted, vacated, and remanded the D.C. Circuit's decision in American Gas Association v. Department of Energy, sending the long-disputed Biden-era Department of Energy efficiency rule on non-condensing residential gas furnaces and commercial water heaters back to the D.C. Circuit “for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General.” That last phrase is the operative one. The new Solicitor General, on behalf of the second Trump administration's DOE, told the Court in late April that the prior administration's reading of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act was, in DOE's current view, wrong, and that the rule effectively bans non-condensing units that millions of homes and small commercial properties were built around. A confessed-error from a new administration doesn't automatically win a case, but the procedural vehicle — a grant-vacate-remand, or “GVR” — is the Court's standard way of saying “go look at this again with the new posture in mind” without resolving the merits itself.The trade-group plaintiffs, led by the American Gas Association and the American Public Gas Association, framed the rule from the start as a de facto product ban dressed up as efficiency standards. The environmental and consumer groups that intervened to defend the rule will get another bite at the apple on remand, but their position is harder when their own client agency has switched sides. Watch the D.C. Circuit's case calendar over the next few weeks for an expedited briefing schedule.Supreme Court Vacates Decision Outlawing Gas Stoves, Water Heaters | NewsBustersSCOTUSblog on Monday published a careful overview of an increasingly organized litigation campaign to ask the Supreme Court to overrule Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The campaign now includes Liberty Counsel, MassResistance, and the Southern Baptist Convention, which last year voted overwhelmingly to urge the Court to reverse the decision. The underlying ground for the push is partly the Court's reasoning in Dobbs four years ago, which gave conservative litigants a road map for unwinding substantive due process precedents, and partly the gradual erosion of public-opinion support for same-sex marriage in one slice of the polling, with Republican support falling from 55 percent in 2022 to 37 percent now. The legal headcount at the Court is, however, the part of the story that is not yet there.Only Justice Thomas has been a consistent vote to revisit Obergefell, having said so in his Dobbs concurrence. Justice Alito, despite being one of Obergefell's original dissenters, recently emphasized in a public speech that he is not suggesting the case should be overruled, citing stare decisis. Justice Gorsuch's dissent in 303 Creative seems to concede that Obergefell is good law and tries instead to carve out specific exceptions to it. None of which is a reason for litigants on the marriage-equality side to relax. The path Dobbs opened up is wider than any single justice's current voting pattern, and the campaign is plainly playing a long game.The next round of test cases on standing and ripeness will start to surface in the lower courts in the next term or two — that is when the campaign's seriousness becomes measurable.The campaign to overrule Obergefell | SCOTUSblogThe third and most constitutionally significant story of the day is one we've been watching: the litigation over President Trump's $400 million ballroom — built on the site of the demolished East Wing — is on track to land in front of the Supreme Court, SCOTUSblog reported Monday. The D.C. Circuit panel that heard the case for more than two hours in late April has not yet ruled, but the questioning made clear that a more substantial opinion is coming and that an appeal to the Court is the likely next stop regardless of which side wins. The legal question is unusually fundamental. The plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, argues that the President has no “free-floating” power to construct major federal buildings without an appropriation from Congress, and that the Antideficiency Act and the Public Buildings Act both require the kind of statutory authorization the East Wing ballroom never received.The administration's response, delivered in a tone that several court-watchers described as unusually defiant, has essentially been that construction has “gone too far to be stopped” and that the courts have no role in second-guessing a presidential building decision once the steel is up. The structural separation-of-powers questions here — what does the Appropriations Clause actually constrain, and can a federal court enjoin a President from continuing to build something that is partially constructed — are large enough that the Supreme Court will almost certainly want to take the case if it reaches the high court. Construction, meanwhile, continues. The most likely Supreme Court resolution is a narrow opinion on standing or remedies, with the broader Appropriations Clause questions deferred for another day. We will see.White House ballroom battle may soon arrive at the Supreme Court | SCOTUSblogIn my Bloomberg Tax column this week, I argue that the SALT deduction cap's biggest problem is not that it is unconstitutional, but that it is badly designed. The latest failed challenge, Sims v. United States, involved two New Jersey taxpayers who claimed the cap violated the 10th Amendment, the 16th Amendment, and broader federalism principles. The federal district court rejected those arguments, finding that Congress has broad authority to tax income and decide which deductions are allowed, limited, or denied. My point is that opponents of the SALT cap should stop looking for constitutional defects that courts are unlikely to find and instead focus on forcing Congress to fix the policy it created.I explain that the cap has always been politically loaded: supporters see it as a needed limit on a deduction that benefits many high-income taxpayers in high-tax states, while critics see it as a targeted attack on those states. But unfair or politically motivated tax policy is not automatically unconstitutional. The real weakness, I argue, is the cap's uneven design, especially the pass-through entity tax workaround. Many business owners can effectively get around the cap when state taxes are paid at the entity level, while wage earners, sole proprietors, and many individual taxpayers remain stuck behind it.That creates a serious mismatch: two taxpayers can live in the same state, earn similar income, and face similar state tax burdens, but receive different federal treatment depending on whether one has the right business structure. I argue that this kind of selective relief may be a more promising target for a narrower administrative or legal challenge than another broad constitutional attack on Congress's taxing power. Congress partly recognized the problem when it raised the cap from $10,000 to $40,000, but I note that the fix is temporary, only lightly indexed, and still leaves major structural problems in place. The marriage penalty remains especially glaring because married couples filing jointly do not receive double the cap available to similarly situated unmarried taxpayers.I also criticize the phaseout design because it can create cliffs or marginal-rate spikes that reward tax gamesmanship rather than sound policy. A better fix, in my view, would make the higher cap permanent, index it meaningfully, eliminate the marriage penalty, smooth out the phaseout, and require Treasury to rationalize the treatment of pass-through entity taxes. The lesson from Sims is that courts may uphold the SALT cap, but that does not make it good tax policy. If the cap is unfair, incoherent, or selectively porous, Congress owns that problem.SALT Deduction Cap Falls Short in Design, Not Constitutionality This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Decisions are happening fast — and the consequences are showing. Last week, Trump announced he would nominate Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to the top post at the Justice Department, after Blanche nixed the $1.776 “Anti-Weaponization” fund while keeping the controversial release that shields Trump and his family from any liability. Mary and Andrew highlight the myriad of issues Blanche will need to answer for when a confirmation hearing comes, before moving to the Supreme Court ruling that allows Alabama to adopt a Republican-drawn congressional map eliminating one of only two majority-Black districts in the state. This nullifies a lower court's decision that the map was, in fact, intentionally discriminatory. Next up, the co-hosts review a Rhode Island judge's ruling that invalidated several of Trump's immigration policies, including one that placed a hold on asylum claims globally, causing chaos and uncertainty for many legally trying to obtain asylum claims and green card status.And lastly, a beat on a new executive order stripping job protections from thousands of federal workers, plus continuing litigation over Trump's ballroom. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Leah and Melissa break down what may be a new low for the Court: granting Alabama's request to reinstate racially discriminatory voting maps. Then, they turn to the big questions: how dead is Trump's slush fund for insurrectionists? Just how awful are Acting AG Todd Blanche and Acting DNI Bill Pulte? Will Michigan's Democratic senators stand up to Trump's appalling nominee for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan? They also cover three SCOTUS opinions from last week before Melissa speaks with Yale Law Professor Judith Resnik about her recent book, Impermissible Punishments: How Prison Became a Problem for Democracy.Favorite things: Leah: Maria Collett's speech to the PA Senate on LA v. Callais; Autocratic Judging, Rebecca L. Brown and Lee Epstein (UCLA Law Review); AOC for President, Megan Wachspress (Liberal Currents); A Shocking Betrayal of Black Americans, Mara Gay (NYT) Melissa: Imar Lyman at the Kreeger Museum in DC Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2026! 6/20/26 – New York CityLearn more: http://crooked.com/events Preorder Lawless in paperback (out June 16)Buy Melissa's bestselling book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern ReaderFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Joyce Vance hosts #SistersInLaw to discuss John Bolton's plea deal, compare it to the Petraeus case, explore its Biden-era origins, and contrast Bolton's cooperation with Trump's obstruction.  Then, the #Sisters dissect Trump's controversial cabinet picks, particularly the unqualified loyalist Bill Pulte as acting DNI and Todd Blanche for AG, despite his handling of the Epstein files, the slush fund, and other red flags in his confirmation.  They also analyze the SCOTUS shadow docket reversal in Alabama's Milligan case and the Calais ruling, warning of an open season on racial and political gerrymandering nationwide.Remember to send in audio questions to SistersInLaw@politicon.com for the #Sisters to answer on their new companion podcast, SistersInLaw Sidebar!  It airs Wednesdays wherever you normally get your podcasts!Get the brand new ReSIStance T-Shirt, Mini Tote, and other #SistersInLaw gear at politicon.com/merch! Additional #SistersInLaw ProjectsCheck out Jill's Politicon YouTube Show: Just The FactsCheck out Kim's Newsletter: The GavelJoyce's new book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable, is now available, and for a limited time, you have the exclusive opportunity to order a signed copy here. Barb is going on a book tour!  You can also pre-order Barb's new book, The Fix. Her first book, Attack From Within, is now in paperback. Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on BlueskyGet your #SistersInLaw MERCH at politicon.com/merchWEBSITE & TRANSCRIPTEmail: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcastGet text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon. Mentioned By The #SistersPre-order Barb's new book, The Fix, and get tickets for her upcoming book tour!Support This Week's SponsorsQuince:Upgrade your spring fashion and get 365-day returns and free shipping on high-quality, stylish, and affordable clothing you'll wear for years to come at quince.com/sisters.  Now available in Canada.DeleteMe:Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteme.com/SISTERS and use promocode SISTERS at checkout.Thrive Causemetics:Amplify your everyday look this spring. Go to thrivecausemetics.com/sisters for an exclusive offer of 20% off your first order.Wild Alaskan Company: Get $35 off your first box of wild-caught, sustainable seafood—delivered right to yourdoor. Go to: https://www.wildalaskan.com/SISTERSSmalls: For a limited time, get 60% off your first order, plus free shipping, when you head to Smalls.com/SISTERSGet More From The #SistersInLawJoyce Vance: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Alabama Law | Civil Discourse Substack | MSNBC | Author of “Giving Up Is Unforgiveable”Jill Wine-Banks: Bluesky | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President | Just The Facts YouTubeKimberly Atkins Stohr: Bluesky | Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | The Gavel Newsletter | Justice By Design PodcastBarb McQuade: barbaramcquade.com | Bluesky | Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC | Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America

The secrets of Ninjutsu are closely guarded. Why has the sanctuary city question ever come up to SCOTUS? The powers local cities and states have over immigration. What ever happened to the Fulton County water main break? Follow The Jesse Kelly Show on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheJesseKellyShowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Richard Epstein analyzes the Wong Kim Ark decision, arguing that Justice Horace Gray erroneously applied birthright citizenship to the children of ineligible aliens. He further critiques the expansion of the Equal Protection Clause in the 20th century, claiming it was originally intended for criminal matters rather than civil benefits.1890 SCOTUS

Richard Epstein discusses the legal complexities of a proposed executive order to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. He highlights the rise of "manufactured citizenship" through birth tourism and predicts the Supreme Court may eventually distinguish between transient visitors and those seeking permanent residency.1905 SCOTUS

Sitting-In for Thom Hartmann is guest=host Alex Lawson, Executive Director of Social Security Works, and convening member of the Strengthen Social Security Coalition. Reporting live from the Netroots Nation 2026 National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Guests include Lisa Graves of True North Research and president of the board of the Center for Media and Democracy. Also Democratic Candidate for the Iowa Agriculture Secretary, Chris Jones. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

From birthright citizenship to the independence of federal agencies, the Supreme Court is poised to decide a series of cases that could redefine the balance of power in Washington. Yale legal scholar and New York Times Magazine staff writer Emily Bazelon joins Ian Bremmer to assess what's at stake and whether the judiciary remains an effective check on presidential authority. Bazelon argues that Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship is unlikely to succeed, but says other pending cases involving the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission could significantly expand presidential control over agencies that Congress intentionally designed to operate independently. "I think it's very likely the court will rule in the president's favor," she says of the FTC case. The conversation also examines the Court's recent decisions on tariffs and voting rights, including a ruling that further weakened protections against partisan gerrymandering. Bazelon argues that the consequences extend beyond individual cases, contributing to a broader perception that the Court is becoming increasingly political. Yet despite declining public trust, Bazelon sees reasons for cautious optimism. While Congress has largely failed to constrain executive power, she argues that the judiciary, particularly the lower courts, has repeatedly pushed back against actions that exceed legal authority. The bigger question is whether those guardrails will continue to hold as the Court confronts some of the most consequential constitutional disputes still ahead. Subscribe to the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On today's episode (Friday) of the Steak for Breakfast Podcast, we are covering:   The Trump Administration surges past the forecasted jobs numbers (again), and the latest on the ongoing negotiations between the U.S. and Iran   A post vote-o-rama recap from Capitol Hill; an incoming SCOTUS ruling hat could have major implications over California's “election season” and POTUS prepares to attend the NBA Finals in NYC next week   Guests: In Order of Appearance   All profile handles are for X (formerly Twitter)   NO GUESTS FOR THIS EPISODE   Subscribe to the show and rate it, don't forget to leave a review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. And find everything Steak for Breakfast at https://linktr.ee/steakforbreakfastpodcast Be sure to listen, like, follow and SHARE our Steak for Breakfast content!   Steak for Breakfast:   SUBSCRIBE on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/steak-for-breakfast-podcast/id1498791684   SUBSCRIBE on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3MXIB2s8IWLoT4tnBMAH9n?si=izN0KShBSAytW5JBBsKEwQ   SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:   Full shows: https://youtube.com/@steakforbreakfastpod   Steak Tidbits: https://youtube.com/@steaktidbits   EMAIL the show: steakforbreakfastpodcast@protonmail.com   Steak for Substack: https://steakforbreakfastpodcast.substack.com   linktree: https://linktr.ee/steakforbreakfastpodcast   MyPillow: Promo Code: STEAK at checkout Website: https://mystore.com/steak Website: https://www.mypillow.com/steak Via the Phone: 800-658-8045   My Patriot Cigar Co. Enter Promo Code: STEAK  and save 25% http://mypatriotcigars.com/usa/steak   Saddles in Service - “Because no hero should ride alone” https://saddlesinservice.org   Man Rubs Enter Promo Code: STEAK15 and save 15% https://manrubs.com   BattleBorn Coffee Roasters enter promo code: STEAK and save 20% off your first order https://www.battleborn.coffee   New Hope Wellness use this link or enter promo code: STEAK during intake for free consultation and $100 off your first order https://www.newhopewellness.com/steak Call: 1-800-527-2150

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, author Carson Holloway, a professor of political science at the University of Nebraska Omaha, joins Federalist Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to explain everything wrong with the Supreme Court's 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision and discuss how that judicial activism emboldened the partisan press to defame their political opponents.You can buy Holloway's book No Liberty to Libel: The Constitutional Case Against New York Times v. Sullivan here.The Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.

Professor Richard Epstein analyzes the legal nuances of the 14th Amendment and the myth of birthright citizenship. He explains the "plain meaning" rule of the Constitution, distinguishing between being "subject to the jurisdiction"—which implies loyalty to a sovereign—and merely being "within the jurisdiction" as a temporary resident. His insights challenge standard interpretations of citizenship law.1937 SCOTUS

John Yoo returns to usher in SCOTUS opinion season, joining James and Steve for some friendly debates on law, politics, and most controversially, more than a few matters of taste. For our democrats in the audience, we've got chatter on California vote counting and Alabama map battles. News from the UK reminds us that the royalists are in even worse shape, as authorities there prove to be as confused in dealing with speech as they are with violence. Thankfully, Scott Pelley brings us a much-needed restorative laugh, and the gang finds something to agree on as they count down to the semiquincentennial. That's right: even petty celebrities can't rain on our Independence Day parade!Sound this week: CBS Evening News anchor Tony Dokoupil says goodbye to Scott Pelley while Fox News' Brit Hume finds it all amusing.

John Yoo returns to usher in SCOTUS opinion season, joining James and Steve for some friendly debates on law, politics and, most controversially, a few matters of taste. For our democrats in the audience, we've got chatter on California vote counting and Alabama map battles. News from the UK reminds us that the royalists are […]

Nicolle Wallace on the highest court ruling in favor of a new Alabama congressional map backed by Republicans in the state which leaves only one majority Black district, making it much easier for the GOP to flip another congressional seat in their favor.   For more, follow us on Instagram @deadlinewh For more from Nicolle, follow and download her podcast, “The Best People with Nicolle Wallace,” wherever you get your podcasts.To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Thursday, June 4th, 2026 Today, the Supreme Court is allowing Alabama to use the racist map the they outlawed just three years ago; votes are still being counted in California with races too close to call; Markwayne Mullin refused to commit to following court orders in Congressional testimony; blue states are suing the Trump administration for paying a French company a billion dollars to kill offshore wind farms; CBS has fired 60 minutes correspondent Scott Pelley; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News. Thank You, IQBAR Text DAILYBEANS to 64000 to get 20% off all IQBAR products, plus FREE shipping. Message and data rates may apply.  Guest: Ericka Kopp Democratic Candidate for U.S. House District VA-1ErickaKopp.com@erickakopp.com - Bluesky@ek4va - IGsubstack.com/@ek4va   The Latest Breakdown:Trump's $1.8B Scheme Faces Imminent Collapse | The Breakdown StoriesHouse passes war powers resolution directing Trump to end hostilities with Iran | NPR A rare Trump setback, a missing congressman and Spencer Pratt: 6 takeaways from the latest midterm primaries | PBS News Supreme Court greenlights Alabama's racial gerrymander, signaling free rein for states to discriminate | Democracy Docket The Trump admin paid a French company $1 billion to not build offshore wind farms. Blue states are suing | CNN Mullin refuses to commit to following court orders for DHS | POLITICO CBS News fires ‘60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley after clash with new producer | NBC News Good Trouble  Call your Senators → No to Bill Pulte as DNIGovernment Accountability Office opens investigation into FHFA chief Bill Pulte Even Senate Republicans Are Against Trump's Appointment of Pulte as Acting Intel Chief | Common Dreams Mitch McConnell statement suggests he considers Bill Pulte unfit for national intelligence director role – The Guardian →Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance -  Open For Comments →The Forest Service is accepting public comments until June 7th →Form WTAF-8647 →Recall Gov. Jeff Landry - Louisianadeservesbetter.com →STOP the deportation of Mohsen Mahdawi - Action Network →SusanRogan - how-to-help-win-the-midterms →detentionwatchnetwork.org →FieldTeam6.org →Standwithminnesota.com →Tell Congress Ice out Now | Indivisible, Defund ICE | 5Calls →Congress: Divest From ICE and CBP | ACLU →ICE List  →iceout.org Good NewsA black bear found its way into Mount Pleasant. Now it has a new home Benito - Adoptable Pet | Petfinder →Share your Good News & Good Trouble - The Daily Beans →Beans Talk audio -beans-talk.simplecast.com →Email Dana LGBTQ Owned eating establishments in your area - hello@mswmedia.com Subject: “Dana's Project” Subscribe to the MSW YouTube Channel - MSW Media - YouTube Harry Dunn is running for CongressHarry Dunn for Maryland Our Donation Links Blue Wave California - bluewavecalifornia.org/concert Donate to Public Citizen - https://citizen.org/beans/ The Daily Beans is donating $10,000 and invites you to give what you can to support their life-affirming work - Donate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans Fundraiser   Pathways to Citizenship link to MATCH Allison's Donationhttps://crm.bloomerang.co/HostedDonation?ApiKey=pub_86ff5236-dd26-11ec-b5ee-066e3d38bc77&WidgetId=6388736 Join Dana and The Daily Beans in support of Human Rights Campaign http://onecau.se/_ekes71 More Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - Donate, ActBlue.com/donate/msw-bwc, WhistleblowerAid.org/beans Dr. Allison Gill - The Breakdown | Allison Gill, Mueller, She Wrote @muellershewrote.com - Bluesky, MSW & The Daily Beans Podcast @muellershewrote - Instagram, MSW Media - YouTube →Federal workers - email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.  Dana Goldberg - Dana is on Patreon! At Dana's Dugout, @dgcomedy - Bluesky, @dgcomedy - IG, Dana Goldberg - Facebook,  DanaGoldberg.com More from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | Allison Gill Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

As judges continue to weigh in, President Trump is finding that despite his litigious efforts, he can't always get what he wants. Mary and Andrew begin this week with the latest fallout from his $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, which is now under judicial review after a group of federal judges filed a motion arguing that the original lawsuit that prompted the fund was “itself a fraud on the court.” This prompted the news, first reported by Axios, that the Trump administration would abandon the fund altogether. Mary and Andrew tie this into another instance in which the administration is losing in the courts, with Judge Mehta's decision refusing to dismiss the indictment of Oath Keepers' leader Stewart Rhodes, among others whose sentences were commuted. They then move to a ruling ordering the removal of Trump's name from the Kennedy Center facade, a setback in his attempt to reshape the renowned preforming arts center. And after an update on the criminal case against the Southern Poverty Law Center, Andrew shares some insight into his recent New York Times op-ed which offers a path to stop vindictive prosecutions altogether. Further Reading: Here is Andrew's recent New York Times op ed: This Is How to Stop Trump's Vindictive Prosecutions Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.