Podcasts about SCOTUSblog

In the 5 AM Hour: Larry O’Connor and Cassie Smedile discussed: New poll indicates 71 percent of Republicans want GOP leaders to follow Trump’s leadership Supreme Court litigator convicted of tax evasion over income from high-stakes poker Cuban Coast Guard Opens Fire on U.S.-Registered Speedboat, Four Killed Pope Leo XIV urges priests not to use AI for sermons, says sermons should be a matter of careful reflection, not the work of neural networks. Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow the Show Podcasts on Apple podcasts, Audible and Spotify. Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @Jgunlock, @patricepinkfile, @CMSmedile and @heatherhunterdc. Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Show Website: https://www.wmal.com/oconnor-company/How to listen live weekdays from 5 to 9 AM: https://www.wmal.com/listenlive/ Episode: Thursday, February 26, 2026 / 5 AM Hour See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court hand President Donald Trump a gut punch on live tariffs, but here we are, listeners, just days after their bombshell ruling on Friday, February 20, 2026. Picture this: I'm in my living room in Washington, D.C., coffee in hand, when the news breaks from SCOTUSblog and The New York Times—Justices Strike Down Trump's Tariffs. In the consolidated cases Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, a 6-3 majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president the green light to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies.Trump had declared emergencies over drug trafficking from Canada and massive trade deficits, hitting Canadian goods with 25% duties and more worldwide. But Roberts' opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said IEEPA lets the president regulate, block, or prohibit imports—not tax them with tariffs. The Court vacated one lower court ruling and affirmed another from the Federal Circuit, sending shockwaves through Wall Street and the heartland. Even among conservatives, there was drama: Justice Neil Gorsuch and Barrett concurred but split on details, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, arguing IEEPA's text and history backed Trump's power, and slamming the majority for ignoring the major questions doctrine in foreign affairs.By evening, Trump stormed to the podium outside the White House, as captured in that fiery CNBC Television clip. "I'm absolutely ashamed of certain members of the court," he thundered, calling some justices "disloyal to the Constitution" and "unpatriotic," swayed by "foreign interests." He ripped his own appointees—praising Kavanaugh's "genius" but blasting others as an "embarrassment to their families." No backing down, though. Trump vowed revenge, signing an executive order that very day titled "Ending Certain Tariff Actions," but pivoting to new weapons: a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, set to kick in within days for up to 150 days or longer. He teased Section 301 investigations for unfair practices by China and others, plus fresh Section 232 probes on steel, aluminum, cars, copper—you name it.Fast-forward to Tuesday, February 24, in his State of the Union address, as ABC World News Tonight reported, Trump doubled down, framing the ruling as a bump in his America First road. Politico and Axios chronicled the fallout: lawmakers from both parties reacted, businesses cheered lower costs, but Trump's base roared approval online. The Washington Times noted his promise of "other authorities" to fight back, while Fox News called it a "major test of executive branch powers." Even The Guardian dubbed it the end of Trump's "one-man tariff war."Here I am on February 25, still buzzing. This isn't just legalese—it's a clash reshaping trade, presidential power, and maybe the Court itself. Will new tariffs survive in the D.C. Circuit or Federal Circuit? Trump's already hinting at years of fights. Clark Hill and DLA Piper analysts say uncertainty reigns, but Trump's playbook is thick.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

On this week's episode, Dan is joined by Sarah Isgur, Host of Advisory Opinions and Editor of SCOTUSblog, to discuss The Supreme Court holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize President Trump to impose the tariffs. Plus, Jesse Weber talks the latest on the Nancy Guthrie investigation. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

I never thought I'd be standing in the shadow of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on a crisp February morning in 2026, feeling the weight of a decision that just reshaped presidential power. But here we are, listeners, just two days ago on Friday, February 20, the nine justices handed down a bombshell in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and the consolidated case V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump. By a 6-3 vote, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion striking down the sweeping tariffs President Donald Trump imposed through executive orders, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president authority to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies like drug trafficking from Canada or massive trade deficits.Picture this: Trump had declared these threats "unusual and extraordinary," hitting Canadian goods with a 25% duty and broader tariffs on everything from electronics to steel, all under IEEPA's vague language about regulating importation. But Roberts, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said no way. The Court applied the major questions doctrine, arguing Congress never clearly delegated such huge economic power to the executive branch. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the Democratic appointees, signed on to parts rejecting the tariffs outright, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, insisting IEEPA's text, history, and precedents backed Trump all the way, calling it a "straightforward case" for presidential authority in foreign affairs.The ruling came fast—arguments were back in November 2025 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Federal Circuit—and it vacated lower court judgments, remanding one with instructions to dismiss. Importers like Learning Resources, Inc., who challenged the tariffs on toys and educational materials, celebrated outside the marble steps, while businesses nationwide breathed easier, spared from billions in extra costs.That same evening, President Trump took the stage in the White House Rose Garden, crowd roaring behind him, and unloaded. According to CNBC's live coverage, he called the decision "deeply disappointing," slamming certain justices as "ashamed," "unpatriotic," and "disloyal to our Constitution," hinting they were swayed by "foreign interests and a small political movement." He praised Justice Kavanaugh's "genius" dissent and his own appointee Justice Alito, but vowed to fight on. Trump announced he'd sign an executive order that day for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, effective in days, plus Section 301 investigations into unfair practices by countries like China. "We'll end up being in court for the next five years," he shrugged, but insisted America wouldn't lose.Across the country, reactions poured in. California Governor Gavin Newsom demanded immediate refund checks for Americans hit by the now-invalid tariffs, calling them "illegal" in a Sacramento presser. Legal experts at Holland & Knight law firm noted importers could now seek reimbursements, while SCOTUSblog broke it down: Roberts dissected IEEPA's two little words—"regulate... importation"—ruling they don't stretch to outright tariffs, a tool historically for Congress.As I wrap up this whirlwind from the past few days, it's clear this Supreme Court showdown isn't just about trade—it's a defining line on executive power, echoing Trump's past battles like Trump v. Vance in 2020, where the Court said no absolute immunity from state subpoenas. With Trump's three appointees—Gorsuch in 2017, Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett in 2020—shifting the bench to a 6-3 conservative tilt, yet ruling against him here, the tensions are electric.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The Supreme Court struck down most of President Trump's tariffs in a blow to his agenda. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that he did not have the authority under an economic emergency law to issue such levies. The president responded, saying he would impose a global 10% tariff under a different law. Geoff Bennett spoke with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSBlog co-founder Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

The Supreme Court struck down most of President Trump's tariffs in a blow to his agenda. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that he did not have the authority under an economic emergency law to issue such levies. The president responded, saying he would impose a global 10% tariff under a different law. Geoff Bennett spoke with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSBlog co-founder Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

The Supreme Court struck down most of President Trump's tariffs in a blow to his agenda. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that he did not have the authority under an economic emergency law to issue such levies. The president responded, saying he would impose a global 10% tariff under a different law. Geoff Bennett spoke with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSBlog co-founder Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

President Trump isn't too happy with a decision from the United States Supreme Court today that struck down the sweeping tariffs imposed by the President last year. By a vote of 6 to 3, the justices ruled that President Trump's use of a national emergencies act to impose flat tariffs was not constitutional. After the ruling, he held a news conference in which he told the American people he was absolutely ashamed of the Supreme Court justices who ruled against him. The President went on to say he would sign several orders seeking to restore tariffs under a variety of other authorities, including a set of trade powers known as Section 122. He said he would use that section to impose an across-the-board global 10% tariff. What exactly did the Supreme Court's order say, and how does it limit what the President can do? And if the tariffs really do go away, how would that affect consumer prices? In this Deep Dive, Maria Shilaos goes in-depth with SCOTUSBlog managing editor Kelsey Dallas and BYU finance assistant professor Jason Kotter.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching court battles unfold like episodes of some high-stakes drama, but here we are in mid-February 2026, and the Supreme Court is buzzing with cases tied straight to President Donald Trump's administration. Just last Friday, February 13th, a Republican member of Congress, along with a group of New York voters and state election officials, rushed to the U.S. Supreme Court begging them to let New York stick with its current congressional map for the 2026 elections. See, a state court had blocked it, calling it unfair, but these folks argued it should hold up to avoid chaos at the polls. SCOTUSblog reports the justices ordered the challengers to respond by Thursday afternoon, so eyes are on Washington for a quick ruling that could reshape House seats in the Empire State.Shifting gears to the immigration front, the Supreme Court has a blockbuster looming: oral arguments set for April 1st on President Trump's executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship for almost everyone born on U.S. soil. That's the 14th Amendment guarantee under fire, and SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe broke down a stack of amicus briefs backing the administration, from legal scholars to states like Texas and Florida arguing it's time to reinterpret the old rule. Challengers are gearing up too, promising a fight over what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" really means—could redefine American identity overnight.Over in Boston's federal court, the Justice Department slapped Harvard University with a lawsuit on Friday, accusing them of stonewalling documents for over ten months. The Trump team wants proof that Harvard's complying with the Supreme Court's 2023 ban on affirmative action in admissions, post-Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The Hill quotes a Harvard spokesperson firing back, calling it retaliatory overreach since the university won't surrender its independence. This one's personal—admissions data could expose if elite schools are dodging the ruling.Meanwhile, environmentalists are rallying after the administration axed the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding, the bedrock that justified greenhouse gas regs since greenhouse gases were deemed a public health threat. The New York Times says it's primed for Supreme Court showdowns, leaning on recent wins like curbing agency power in cases such as West Virginia v. EPA. Groups like the Sierra Club are suing, fearing a loss could kneecap future climate rules.Tariffs are heating up too—President Trump nominated White House lawyer Kara Westercamp to the U.S. Court of International Trade last Thursday, a spot that might rule on refunds if SCOTUS guts some duties. Politico notes giants like Costco and Toyota are suing Customs and Border Protection to freeze liquidation of their payments, buying time before refunds vanish. Business Insider lists more Fortune 500 players piling in, with deadlines ticking.And don't sleep on the judicial shuffle: Ballotpedia's February vacancy count shows President Trump with 39 Article III nominations since January 20th, 27 confirmed—including 21 district judges—outrunning averages. Fresh picks like Anna St. John for Louisiana's Eastern District and Chris Wolfe for Texas Western are Senate-bound.It's a whirlwind of lawsuits testing Trump's agenda from New York maps to Harvard halls, climate battlegrounds to border walls. With SCOTUS possibly dropping opinions this Friday at 10 a.m. Eastern, or next week on the 24th and 25th, the justices hold the gavel.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

OA1236 - Elections grab bag! Election news has been accumulating, so Jenessa helps us get caught up on what's going on. Who's winning elections? What's going on with redistricting? Heard something confusing about the mail? Trump back on his bullshit again? Good news, mixed news, debunking alleged bad news, bad news with plans for how to turn things around; we've got it all. Updates since we recorded: The SAVE America Act passed the House. Also the affidavit for the warrant in Georgia was unsealed. We'll talk about it soon, but the short version is these people really still believe in election conspiracy theories. It's gross. We'll survive. John Hanna & Julie Carr Smyth (Feb. 1, 2026). Texas stunner: Democrat Taylor Rehmet flips Republican state Senate district Trump won by 17 points, Associated Press. Amy Howe (Feb. 4, 2026). Supreme Court allows California to use congressional map benefitting Democrats, SCOTUSBlog. Tangipa v. Newsom (docket and SCOTUSBlog coverage), SCOTUSBlog. Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens (docket and SCOTUSBlog coverage), SCOTUSBlog. H.R.7296 - SAVE America Act, Congress.gov. H.R.7300 - Make Elections Great Again Act. Congress.gov. Domestic Mail Manual 608.11 Domestic Mail Manual amendment explanation (Nov. 24, 2025). Postmarks and Postal Possession, Federal Register. 39 CFR Part 111 Dan Mooney, What Is RTO? Why Do We Have It?, National Association of Postal Supervisors (Aug. 19, 2025)  Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) initiative. (Feb. 2, 2025). Service Standards for Market-Dominant Mail Products, Federal Register. 39 CFR Part 121 Track Your Ballot or Ballot Application, Vote.org. 2 U.S.C. § 7 - Time of election (Dec. 24, 2025). Table 11: Receipt and Postmark Deadlines for Absentee/Mail Ballots, National Conference of State Legislatures. Evan Lee (Jan. 15, 2026) Court holds that all candidates can challenge rules governing vote counting in elections, SCOTUSBlog. Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 607 U.S. __ (2026). Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (docket and SCOTUSBlog coverage), SCOTUSBlog. Amy Howe (Nov. 10, 2025). Justices agree to decide major election law case, SCOTUSBlog. Watson v. Republican National Committee (Election Law) (docket and SCOTUSBlog coverage), SCOTUSBlog. Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching courtrooms turn into battlegrounds for America's future, but here we are in the thick of it. Just a few days ago, on February 4, 2026, in a federal courtroom in Manhattan, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein stared down lawyers for President Donald Trump with a look that screamed disbelief. According to Associated Press reporter Michael Sisak, who was right there covering the oral arguments, the judge seemed downright incredulous at the defense's push to yank Trump's infamous hush money conviction out of New York state court and into federal territory, where they hope to torch it on presidential immunity grounds.Picture this: Trump's team, fresh off a nudge from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals back in November, arguing that even though the 2016 hush money payments to Stormy Daniels were mostly about his personal life during the campaign, some trial evidence touched Oval Office chats with future administration folks like Michael Cohen. They say that makes the whole conviction—where Trump got an unconditional discharge just 11 days before his January 2025 inauguration—immune and erasable. Hellerstein wasn't buying it. Sisak reports the judge hammered them for waiting too long to pivot to federal court, calling it like taking two bites at the apple. He's rejected this move twice before, insisting the case is private scandal, not presidential acts. Trump skipped the hearing himself, but his lawyers left with the judge promising a quick ruling after thanking both sides, including the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, for their fierce arguments.And that's not all unfolding in these frantic days. Over at SCOTUSblog, they're tracking how the Supreme Court keeps slapping temporary brakes on Trump's bold plays. On December 23, 2025, the justices, over dissents from Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, refused to pause a Chicago federal judge's order blocking National Guard deployments in Illinois by Judge April Perry. Trump pulled troops from Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland right after. Then there's the mess with Venezuelan TPS holders—Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco ruled against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's termination of their protected status, but the High Court paused it twice, letting deportations roll as appeals drag on in the 9th Circuit.Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker paints an even wilder picture: 298 active cases challenging executive actions on national security, plus suits over the Alien Enemies Act deportations. The Supreme Court's handed down 14 stays favoring the feds, but judges have ruled against them 22 times. Meanwhile, whispers of a massive birthright citizenship fight loom, with U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante blocking Trump's executive order for babies born after February 20, 2025, and the Supreme Court set to hear arguments on April 1.It's a judicial whirlwind, listeners—courts in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and D.C. pushing back as Trump tests every limit. Will Hellerstein kill the hush money bid again? Can the Supreme Court reshape immigration overnight? These past few days feel like the front lines of power itself.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching courtroom drama unfold like a blockbuster thriller, but here we are in mid-February 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal battles are heating up faster than a Florida summer. Just two days ago, on February 11, a judge in Miami made waves by greenlighting Trump's massive $10 billion libel lawsuit against the BBC. Picture this: the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse at 400 North Miami Avenue, where Judge Roy K. Altman set a trial date for February 15, 2027. Trump accuses the BBC's Panorama documentary—aired right before the 2024 election—of doctored editing. They spliced clips from his January 6, 2021, speech at the Ellipse, making it sound like he said, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol... and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell." According to court documents from the US District Court Southern District of Florida, Trump's lawyers call it "false and defamatory," claiming the BBC maliciously misled viewers worldwide. The leak of a memo from Michael Prescott, the BBC's former external adviser, fueled the fire, pointing to bias in that episode. BBC chair Samir Shah admitted an "error of judgement" but insists there's no defamation case. The BBC's fighting back hard, arguing the Florida court lacks jurisdiction since they didn't produce or air the show there—despite Trump pointing to BritBox streaming. A BBC spokesperson told The Independent they're defending vigorously and won't comment further. Trump's no stranger to media suits; he's already tangling with The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.But that's just the appetizer. Shift to the Supreme Court, where whispers of bigger clashes are building. SCOTUSblog reports the justices are eyeing Trump-related heavyweights for their April session, including immigration tweaks, Fourth Amendment fights, and even claims against companies aiding torture. A News4JAX segment from late January flags 2026 as the real showdown year: will the court let Trump reshape birthright citizenship via executive order? Chief Justice John Roberts has been subtly defending judicial independence, hinting at history over politics. Cases like the Federal Reserve governor dismissal—tied to alleged mortgage fraud claims—are bubbling up, with the court skeptical of quick removals without full hearings. Then there's the mass detention policy upheld by the 5th Circuit, but federal judges are finding workarounds, per Politico. The Brennan Center tracks three active prosecutions against Trump from his pre-presidency days: the federal election interference case in Washington, D.C., the Georgia Fulton County probe, and the classified documents mess in Florida—plus that New York hush money conviction from May 2024. Lawfare's litigation tracker notes ongoing appeals, like vacating Trump's executive orders.As a guy who's followed this rollercoaster since the 2024 win, it feels like the judiciary's drawing a line in the sand during Trump's second term—midterms looming, no re-election bid, courts bolder. The BBC trial's a year out, but Supreme Court arguments kick off February 23, with more on February 20. Will tariffs, citizenship, or Fed power test the limits? Buckle up, listeners; the gavel's about to drop.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

This Day in Legal History: NAACP FoundedOn February 12, 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was founded in New York City. Sparked by ongoing racial violence, including the 1908 Springfield Race Riot in Illinois, a group of Black and white activists came together to launch an interracial effort to combat racial injustice. The NAACP would become the most influential civil rights organization in the United States, pursuing its goals through strategic litigation, public education, and advocacy.In its early years, the NAACP focused heavily on using the courts to challenge discriminatory laws and practices, particularly in education and voting. It played a pivotal role in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the landmark Supreme Court case that declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. Through its Legal Defense Fund—established in 1940 and headed for a time by Thurgood Marshall, who would later become the first Black U.S. Supreme Court Justice—the organization spearheaded a range of major civil rights cases.Beyond litigation, the NAACP was instrumental in pushing for anti-lynching laws, though federal anti-lynching legislation would take over a century to pass. The group's efforts laid the legal and political foundation for the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Its influence continues today as it monitors civil rights violations and advocates for racial justice nationwide.Tom Goldstein, a prominent U.S. Supreme Court advocate and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, testified in his own defense during his federal criminal tax trial in Maryland. Goldstein, accused of failing to report millions in poker winnings and misrepresenting debts on mortgage applications, told jurors he never intended to violate the law. He admitted omitting gambling debts to keep them hidden from his wife, and claimed he relied on accountants and firm managers for financial reporting. The trial, overseen by Judge Lydia Griggsby, has drawn attention for its mix of high-stakes legal and poker worlds. Goldstein is alleged to have reported only $27 million of $50 million in poker winnings to the IRS in 2016. He also faces allegations of channeling improper payments through his former law firm and requesting a $500,000 payment from actor Tobey Maguire be sent to a third party to cover personal debts. Maguire, a witness in the trial, is not accused of any misconduct. The defense has called more than a dozen witnesses, including IRS agents, poker players, and law firm executives. Goldstein retired from Supreme Court advocacy in 2023 after arguing over 40 cases. The trial continues with prosecutors set to cross-examine him following his testimony.Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein takes stand at his criminal tax trial | ReutersAttorney General Pam Bondi faced sharp criticism from lawmakers during a House Judiciary Committee hearing over the Justice Department's handling of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Representative Thomas Massie accused Bondi of deliberately concealing the names of powerful individuals connected to Epstein, including billionaire Leslie Wexner, whose name was initially redacted in an FBI document. Bondi countered that Wexner's name had already been made public in other documents and was quickly unredacted once flagged. Lawmakers across the aisle expressed frustration over what they called excessive and unjustified redactions, despite a federal law passed in November mandating broad disclosure of the Epstein files.Bondi defended the department's efforts, highlighting the work of over 500 lawyers on a tight timeline, and insisted any release of victims' identities was accidental. She repeatedly praised President Donald Trump during the hearing and criticized Democratic members, accusing them of political theatrics. Her confrontational style sparked further tension, especially when she refused to apologize to Epstein's victims seated in the gallery, deflecting the request by referencing past administrations. The hearing reflects the ongoing controversy surrounding the Justice Department's approach to transparency, its alignment with Trump-era politics, and the public's demand for accountability in the Epstein investigation.US lawmakers accuse Bondi of hiding names of Epstein associates | ReutersThe Law School Admission Council (LSAC) announced that beginning August 2026, the LSAT will no longer be available online, citing rising concerns over cheating. The move comes after a period of hybrid testing, introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, which allowed examinees to choose between in-person and remote formats. While remote testing will still be permitted in limited cases involving medical or geographic hardships, the default will now be in-person testing at designated centers. LSAC emphasized that the shift is meant to enhance test integrity and deter misconduct, which has become a growing concern—particularly after the organization suspended online testing in China due to reports of systemic cheating.Industry professionals, including LSAT prep company leaders, supported the decision, noting that online platforms made it easier for cheating rings to exploit the system through tactics like using cameras to capture test content or remotely accessing test takers' computers. Some cheating services reportedly charged thousands of dollars to help candidates gain an unfair advantage. LSAC added that technical difficulties also played a role in the change, with most scoring delays stemming from remote testing issues. On the January 2026 exam, 61% of test takers opted for in-person testing, suggesting a trend back toward traditional methods.US law school admissions test ends online option over cheating concerns | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching court battles unfold like a high-stakes thriller, but here we are in the thick of President Donald Trump's second term, with legal fights erupting everywhere from federal appeals courts to the steps of the Supreme Court. Just last Friday, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Trump administration's immigration detention policy, mandating that people arrested in the crackdown stay detained without bond, as reported by Reuters journalist Nate Raymond. It's a win for the White House's tough stance on borders, keeping the momentum from earlier victories.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is buzzing with Trump-related pleas. On February 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, vacated a nationwide injunction blocking two of Trump's executive orders targeting what he calls illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in federal grantees and contractors. Chief Judge Albert Diaz wrote the opinion, remanding it to the District of Maryland and signaling these orders might survive scrutiny, according to Law and the Workplace analysis. Employers, especially government contractors, are on notice—DEI initiatives could face real enforcement heat now.Over in immigration again, the Trump team filed an official appeal notice in a Haitian Temporary Protected Status suit, challenging U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes' February 2 ruling that halted the cancellation of TPS for Haitian immigrants, per The Columbus Dispatch's Bethany Bruner. Government lawyers even asked Reyes to pause her order by noon that day, pushing the case toward the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court itself.Redistricting wars rage on too. The Supreme Court recently cleared new maps for Texas and California—Texas gaining five Republican-friendly House seats, California countering with five for Democrats—yet battles like Louisiana v. Callais over race and the Voting Rights Act continue, as detailed by Washington Examiner's Jack Birle. And get this: Trump's lawyers are petitioning the Supreme Court to toss the 2023 E. Jean Carroll civil verdict against him, arguing in their final brief that the president is too busy running the country to fight old allegations, according to USA Today's Maureen Groppe. The justices will conference on it February 20.Don't forget the bigger picture from the Brennan Center: while Trump was convicted in New York City state court in May 2024 for falsifying business records over hush money to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, three criminal cases linger—federal ones in Washington, D.C., for election interference, Fulton County, Georgia, for the same, and Florida over classified documents. Lawfare's litigation tracker counts 298 active challenges to Trump administration actions on national security, plus 14 Supreme Court stays favoring the feds.Even whispers of impeachment surfaced, with ET Now's February 6 livestream claiming the House of Representatives is deciding Trump's fate—though details remain murky amid the chaos. From Venezuelan TPS revocations paused by the Supreme Court despite U.S. District Judge Edward Chen's rulings in San Francisco, to National Guard deployment blocks in Illinois that Trump ultimately pulled back from Chicago and Portland, these shadow docket moves have real-world bite, as SCOTUSblog explains.It's a legal whirlwind, listeners, with Trump fighting on multiple fronts, courts picking sides, and the Supreme Court wielding quiet power that reshapes policies overnight. Stay tuned as these cases collide toward 2026 elections.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching court battles unfold like a high-stakes drama, but here we are in early February 2026, deep into President Donald Trump's second term, and the federal courts are firing back harder than ever. Just this past week, on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in New York heard arguments in Trump's latest push to yank his hush money conviction out of state court and into federal territory. You remember the case: a jury in New York City found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records for repaying his former fixer Michael Cohen that $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels back before the 2016 election. Trump denies any affair, of course, but now he's armed with the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, claiming jurors saw protected official acts evidence and that prosecutors' election law theory got preempted federally. Hellerstein had denied the move twice before, but the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals told him to reconsider last November, so this hearing could be Trump's fresh ammo to toss the whole verdict, according to reports from The Hill.Meanwhile, the judiciary's been slapping down Trump administration moves left and right. The New York Times Trump administration litigation tracker, updated as of February 6, logs over 600 civil lawsuits, with courts halting more than 150 policies through injunctions—think temporary restraining orders blocking everything from birthright citizenship changes to DOGE-related overhauls. In 128 final decisions, plaintiffs crushed the administration 49 times, while Trump won just five. Lower federal courts uniformly enjoined that birthright citizenship executive order, and it's now teed up for the Supreme Court. SCOTUSblog notes the justices denied California Republicans' plea to block the state's new election map, no dissents recorded.Immigration courts are a battlefield too. In West Valley City, Utah, on February 2, Immigration Judge David C. Anderson powered through master calendar hearings in a room decked with Lincoln Memorial and Statue of Liberty photos. With over 12,000 cases on his docket, he juggled no-shows, asylum pleas, and quirks like "phantom calendars" from former judges. Attorneys like Jonathan Bachison from Ogden say in-person hearings sped things up under Trump, but due process feels stifled—immigrants bounced between a dozen detention centers, bond policies flipped in July to mandatory jailing even for long-term residents without criminal records. Then boom, Friday's bombshell: the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling penned by Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones, greenlit the Department of Homeland Security's no-bond detention for "unadmitted aliens" nationwide, bucking a California district court and decades of precedent. Dissenting Judge Dana M. Douglas called it executive overreach detaining millions, including U.S. citizens' family members. Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed it on X as a win against "activist judges," vowing to push Trump's law-and-order agenda.Even outside the big Trump trials—those lingering ones in Washington federal court, Fulton County Georgia, and Florida classified docs—the courts are checking power. Grand juries ditch indictments, juries nullify, and SCOTUS looms over it all, denying execution stays amid 2025's surge to 47 deaths, the most since 2009.It's a judiciary versus executive showdown, listeners, with Trump 2.0 testing every limit. Thank you for tuning in—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Hey listeners, imagine this: it's early February 2026, and the courts are buzzing with echoes of Donald Trump's legal battles, even as he's back in the White House. Just this week, on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in New York heard fresh arguments from Trump's team, led by lawyers like Todd Blanche, pushing to yank the hush money conviction out of state court and into federal territory. You remember that case—back in 2024, a jury in the New York Supreme Court, under Judge Juan Merchan and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, nailed Trump on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. It stemmed from that $130,000 payment his fixer Michael Cohen made to adult film star Stormy Daniels to hush up claims of a 2016 affair, which Trump has always denied. Sentencing came on January 10, 2025, with an unconditional discharge—no jail time, just a clean slate on paper. But Trump's lawyers, including Emil Bove and Susan Necheles, argue the verdict's tainted. They say jurors saw evidence of "official acts" shielded by the Supreme Court's July 2024 immunity ruling, and that federal election law preempts the prosecutors' angle. Hellerstein's shot this down twice before, but the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals made him reconsider last November, zeroing in on those immunity issues. SCOTUSblog reports the judge's mulling it over now, with Trump's squad betting on a win to torch the conviction entirely.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court in Washington is gearing up for a blockbuster clash. On Monday, they slotted Trump v. Barbara for oral arguments on April 1—straight-up challenging Trump's push to end birthright citizenship, that 14th Amendment guarantee for almost anyone born on U.S. soil. It's part of their March session, running March 23-25 and 30-April 1. News4JAX's Politics & Power segment warns this is the real 2026 test for Chief Justice John Roberts and the justices, pitting Trump's executive power plays against limits on changing citizenship, trade rules, and even Federal Reserve tweaks without Congress. They spotlight cases like Trump's firing bid of Fed Governor Lisa Cook over alleged mortgage fraud claims, where lower courts seemed skeptical, demanding full hearings first. And don't forget the Georgia racketeering saga—those eight charges in Fulton County Superior Court before Judge Scott McAfee. DA Fani Willis got bounced by the Georgia Court of Appeals in December 2024, and new prosecutor Pete Skandalakis dropped all counts without prejudice on November 26, 2025. The federal cases? Poof—gone after Trump's 2024 win, with Special Counsel Jack Smith resigning and Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissing the D.C. election interference indictment on November 25, 2024, citing Justice Department policy.Over in Florida, the classified documents mess in the Southern District Court fizzled out too, postponed indefinitely. And today, eyes are on Ryan Routh's sentencing—Holland & Knight's Steven Block, chatting with News Nation, breaks down how the judge will weigh federal guidelines, Routh's mental health, and his shot to speak before getting locked up for trying to assassinate Trump.These battles show the courts drawing lines on presidential power, listeners—immunity wins, dismissals, and looming fights over citizenship that could reshape America. Whew, what a whirlwind.Thanks for tuning in, come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Imagine this: it's a crisp February morning in New York City, and I'm standing outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan, the wind whipping through the streets as lawyers hustle inside for what could be a game-changer in President Donald Trump's legal saga. Today, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein is hearing arguments in a case that's got everyone buzzing—Trump's latest push to wipe out his hush money conviction from state court and shift it to federal ground, where he can invoke presidential immunity. According to ABC News, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Hellerstein back to the drawing board last November, saying he overlooked key evidence from the trial that might tie into Trump's official White House acts. That conviction back in May 2024? Thirty-four felony counts of falsifying business records to cover a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels, right before the 2016 election. Trump got an unconditional discharge—no jail time—but the stain remains, and he's fighting tooth and nail, denying any wrongdoing while appealing in state court too.I dash across town in my mind to the bigger picture, because this isn't isolated. The Brennan Center for Justice reports Trump still faces three active prosecutions: the federal election interference case in Washington, D.C., the state version in Fulton County, Georgia, and the classified documents mess in Florida. But the Supreme Court? That's where the real fireworks are brewing. SCOTUSblog announced oral arguments set for April 1 in Trump v. Barbara, challenging Trump's bold move to end birthright citizenship—the constitutional guarantee that almost anyone born on U.S. soil gets automatic citizenship. Picture the justices grilling lawyers on whether a president can rewrite that with executive fiat alone.And it's not just citizenship. News4JAX highlights how 2026 is shaping up as the Supreme Court's ultimate test on Trump's power grabs. Take Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook—Trump tried firing her over alleged mortgage fraud in two homes, one in Atlanta, but the court blocked it, saying she stays put until a full hearing. Then there's the tariff battles, where Trump wants sweeping unilateral duties without Congress, and cases like Kilmar Orega testing removal powers. Chief Justice John Roberts has been defending judicial independence quietly, but with midterms looming, the court might push back harder on these emergency appeals that bypass normal channels.As I weave through the crowds near the Supreme Court steps in my thoughts, it's clear: these trials aren't just legal footnotes; they're seismic clashes over presidential limits. From Hellerstein's courtroom today to April's birthright showdown, Trump's team is betting big on immunity and separation of powers. Will the courts bend, or draw the line?Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Hey folks, imagine this: it's early 2026, and I'm glued to my screen in my Washington D.C. apartment, coffee going cold as the Supreme Court ramps up for what could be the biggest clash yet with President Donald Trump. Just days ago, on January 28th, News4JAX aired a riveting breakdown on Politics & Power, hosted by Bruce Hamilton alongside a constitutional law scholar, dissecting how Chief Justice John Roberts subtly defended the court's independence in his end-of-2025 year-end report. Roberts leaned hard on history over politics, but they warned 2026 is the real showdown—cases testing if Trump can unilaterally rewrite citizenship laws, slap massive tariffs worldwide, and even fire Federal Reserve governors like Lisa Cook.Let me take you back a bit. Trump's second term kicked off January 20, 2025, and he hit the ground running with executive orders that shook everything up. By February and April, he'd unleashed tariffs on imports from nearly every country—10 to 50 percent reciprocal hits, tweaking them for toys from China or steel from Europe. Two Illinois companies, Learning Resources, Inc., and hand2mind, Inc., weren't having it. They sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president carte blanche for unlimited tariffs. The district court sided with them in May, issuing a preliminary injunction. The Court of International Trade echoed that without the injunction, and by August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shot down Trump's appeal. Boom—the Supreme Court grabbed it for expedited review, hearing oral arguments on November 5, 2025, right in the thick of their term that started October 6.SCOTUSblog's been all over it, noting the justices are in winter recess now, not back on the bench until February 20. That's when we might get the tariffs ruling—unless they drop it early like they did with Trump v. Anderson in 2024, zipping out a decision before Super Tuesday primaries. Trump's fighting tooth and nail, calling the stakes massive for America's economy.But tariffs are just the appetizer. There's Trump v. Barbara, straight from Oyez, challenging Executive Order No. 14,160 that aims to gut birthright citizenship—can he really end it by fiat? Then there's the Lisa Cook drama. Trump tried firing the Federal Reserve Governor over alleged mortgage fraud, claiming dual primary residences in D.C. and Atlanta. Lower courts blocked it, saying no full hearing yet, and the Supreme Court agreed across ideologies: Cook stays put until it's sorted. The Ninth Circuit's National TPS Alliance v. Noem ruling ties in too—Trump's team, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed January 25, 2025, moved fast to vacate Haiti's Temporary Protected Status extension set to expire August 2025.And don't get me started on Kilmar Orega or those nationwide injunctions Trump hates—judges in far-off districts halting his policies for the whole U.S. without everyone getting a say. Britannica lists these as marquee 2025-26 term battles: Learning Resources v. Trump, plus Chiles v. Salazar, Louisiana v. Callais, Little v. Hecox—all probing separation of powers. Experts on that News4JAX show predict Trump might lose big on delegation doctrine; Congress, not the president, sets agency rules. It's midterm election year, Trump's termed out, politically weaker—courts historically push back harder then. The Supreme Court's legitimacy hangs in the balance, walking that tightrope between executive muscle and judicial check.Whew, listeners, what a whirlwind these past days. From tariff showdowns to citizenship overhauls, Trump's vision collides head-on with the robes in black. Thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Imagine this: I'm sitting in my Washington D.C. studio, coffee in hand, watching the Supreme Court building gleam under a crisp winter sun, and I can't shake the feeling that the highest court in the land is about to drop some seismic rulings on President Donald Trump. Over the past few days, the buzz has been electric, especially with SCOTUSblog reporting on January 28 that the justices are set to huddle in their private conference on February 20 to decide whether to dive into that infamous five-million-dollar verdict from Trump's clash with E. Jean Carroll.Let me take you back. Carroll, the veteran journalist who penned Elle magazine's advice column for 27 years, sued Trump in 2022 under a special New York state law that reopened the window for adult sexual abuse victims to file claims. She accused him of assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in Manhattan back in 1996, and then defaming her in a 2022 Truth Social post where he branded her story a hoax and a con job. A federal jury in May 2023 sided with her, hitting Trump with liability for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding her that five-million-dollar payout. Trump appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld it in December 2024 and shot down his rehearing bid in June 2025. Now, his team from the James Otis Law Group—led by his solicitor general D. John Sauer—is begging the Supreme Court to step in, calling the suit facially implausible and politically timed to hurt him after he became the 45th president. They want out key evidence: testimonies from Jessica Leeds, who claims Trump groped her on a plane in 1979, and Natasha Stoynoff, alleging assault at his Mar-a-Lago home in 2005, plus that infamous Access Hollywood tape where Trump boasted about grabbing women. Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, fires back that even without those, her case stands strong, so the Supremes should pass.But that's just one front. The court's January argument calendar, released late last year, packs a punch with Trump cases testing his executive muscle. On January 21, they heard Trump v. Cook, where President Trump tried firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over mortgage fraud allegations from before her tenure. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in D.C. blocked it with a preliminary injunction in September 2025, citing the Federal Reserve Act's for-cause protection. The D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court denied emergency bids to oust her fast, but now it's full showdown—Cook's rep, ex-Solicitor General Paul Clement, versus Sauer. Wikipedia details how this sparked a historic brawl over Fed independence, with Cook's team calling it a political smear.Then there's the shadow docket drama from 2025, as News4JAX outlined this week: Trump's admin won over 80 percent of emergency pleas, greenlighting moves like slashing foreign aid, axing agency heads, and tying immigration probes to looks or language. But they drew the line at deploying National Guard to Chicago. Chief Justice John Roberts' year-end report subtly defended judicial independence, dubbing courts a counter-majoritarian check amid Trump's judge-bashing.Looking ahead, per News4JAX and KIMA Action News clips from early January, 2026 looms huge: birthright citizenship challenges under the 14th Amendment, sweeping tariffs from Trump's 2025 executive orders—argued November 5, decision pending—and more Fed firing fights. Illinois alone filed 51 suits against his policies by January, per WTTW. Lawfare's tracker logs the national security lawsuits piling up. With Trump's approval dipping to 42 percent, experts whisper the conservative court might now clip his wings, echoing rebukes to Truman, Nixon, and others late in term.These battles aren't just legal—they're reshaping power between White House, Congress, and the robes. As SCOTUSblog notes, decisions could land soon after February 20 conferences, maybe by March.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The look back over our five years of drama, humor, reason, and illogic continues, as perhaps the most notorious opinion of the five year period - the Trump immunity case - reappears in a clip, along with a revisit with Justice Breyer.  Meanwhile, the oral argument in Wolford v. Lopez did, in fact, prompt the Professors Amar to write in SCOTUSblog.com, and we go even further here, with clips from that oral argument and answers to the justices that didn't find their way into the record, but now, hopefully, enter the public discourse.  CLE credit is available as usual for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court like it's the Super Bowl, but here we are in late January 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal battles are heating up faster than a Florida summer. Just this week, on January 21, the justices heard arguments in Trump, President of the United States v. Cook, a case straight out of the Oval Office power playbook. According to the Supreme Court's own monthly argument calendar, it was one of the key sessions testing how far Trump can push executive authority. Picture this: Trump's team arguing he can fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud, no full hearing required. News4JAX reports the Court seemed skeptical during those arguments, with justices across the spectrum questioning whether the president can boot independent agency leaders on a whim like that.Rewind a bit to the shadow docket frenzy of 2025—that's the Supreme Court's fast-track emergency rulings without full debates or explanations. Scotusblog details how Trump's administration leaned on it heavily, winning over 80% of the time from the conservative majority. They greenlit canceling foreign aid and health funding, firing independent agency heads, even immigration questioning based on appearance or language, and requiring passports to match biological sex. But the Court drew a line at Trump's plan to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, blocking it in a December 23 decision, and handled Trump v. Illinois on September 8 over immigration detentions in Los Angeles. These shadow moves shaped policy quietly, but now, with Trump's approval dipping to 42% by late 2025 per News4JAX polls, the big full hearings are here.Coming down the pike: birthright citizenship challenges under the 14th Amendment—can Trump end automatic U.S. citizenship for anyone born here? Sweeping global tariffs without Congress's okay, testing presidential trade power. And that Fed firing case, potentially gutting the Federal Reserve's independence. Chief Justice John Roberts wrapped 2025 with a year-end report hammering home judicial independence, calling courts a counter-majoritarian check against popular whims. He sidestepped politics, focusing on history, but experts like Constitutional Law Professor Rod Sullivan on News4JAX's Politics & Power say the Court's timing is no accident—Trump's weaker politically, so justices might finally clip his wings.Meanwhile, down in Congress, the House Judiciary Committee grilled former Special Counsel Jack Smith on January 23 about Trump's alleged criminal actions, from conspiring to overturn the 2020 election to mishandling classified documents. Representative Steve Cohen's newsletter recounts Smith facing questions on Trump's witness intimidation tactics, with Cohen praising him as a great American standing firm. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker notes a dismissal on January 14 of a case over dismantling the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, mooted out. And don't sleep on criminal law sidelines: Scotusblog's mid-term update flags nine new cases, like Wolford v. Lopez argued January 20 on Second Amendment rights, or geofence warrants in United States v. Chatrie testing Fourth Amendment limits.As California's Republicans begged the Court on January 22 to block a new 2026 midterm election map, per Scotusblog, it feels like every corner of the judiciary is tangled in Trump's orbit. These rulings could redefine presidential power, from citizenship in cities like New York to trade hitting ports in Miami. Chief Justice Roberts' quiet defense of court independence is about to face its ultimate stress test—will the justices stand firm, or bend to the political gale?Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Monday, January 20th, 2025Americans celebrate Martin Luther King Jr's legacy and the struggle for freedom, equality, and justice. A prominent leader in the modern civil rights movement, Dr. King was a tireless advocate for racial equality, working class, and the oppressed around the world. TikTok is back online after a farce rescue from the man who originally wanted to ban it; Trump launches a crypto rug pull scam; Elon Musk is dispatching agents across government agencies; the SCOTUSblog publisher has been indicted on tax charges; CNN is moving Jim Acosta's show to the middle of the night; President Biden makes a statement on the Equal Rights Amendment and commutes the sentences of 2,500 non violent drug offenders; the US grounds SpaceX Starship after another explosion; Vivek Ramaswamy will announce a run for Ohio governor; CBS kisses the ring by discussing a settlement with Trump in their defamation suit; Chicago and San Diego brace for immigration enforcement operations; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News. 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.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., turn into the hottest drama in town, but here we are, listeners, on this chilly January day in 2026. Just yesterday, on January 21st, the justices wrapped up their January argument session with Trump, President of the United States v. Cook, a case that's got everyone buzzing about whether President Donald Trump can fire Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook at will. Picture this: the marble halls of One First Street, packed with lawyers, clerks, and even a few Capitol Hill interns. Paul Clement, arguing for the Trump administration, tried to push that the president has broad firing powers over Fed officials, but the justices weren't buying it. Justice Neil Gorsuch cut him off mid-sentence, saying, "I asked you to put that aside for the moment," according to live coverage from SCOTUSblog. NPR reported the court seemed doubtful of Trump's claim to fire Fed governors by fiat, while Fox News noted the justices signaling skepticism. Newsweek even hinted the Supreme Court may be preparing to deal Trump a disappointing blow, and Politico said they cast doubt on his power without proper review. An extraordinary friend-of-the-court brief from every living former Fed chair, six former Treasury secretaries, and top officials from both parties warned that letting Trump oust Cook would wreck the Federal Reserve's independence and tank the credibility of America's monetary policy, as highlighted by The New York Times.This isn't isolated—Trump's name is all over the docket. Earlier in the session, on January 12th, the court heard Trump v. Cook's opening arguments, listed right there in the Supreme Court's Monthly Argument Calendar for January 2026. SCOTUSblog's Nuts and Bolts series explained how January's the cutoff for cases to squeeze into this term's April arguments, starting April 20th at the Supreme Court Building, or they get bumped to October. Trump's push here echoes last term's Trump v. CASA, where the court expedited a birthright citizenship fight and ruled against nationwide injunctions on June 27th, 2025.But the action's not just at the Supreme Court. Down in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, January 23rd, Representative Steve Cohen from Tennessee grilled former Special Counsel Jack Smith during a hearing titled "Hearing Evidence of Donald Trump's Criminal Actions." Cohen pressed Smith on the evidence from federal grand jury indictments—Trump's alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election and illegally retaining classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Smith stood firm, detailing Trump's witness intimidation attempts, and Cohen called him a great American we can all respect, as recounted in Cohen's e-newsletter. Meanwhile, Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker notes a dismissal on January 14th in a case over Trump dismantling the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, ruled moot.And get this—House Speaker Mike Johnson, during a Wednesday press conference covered by The Hill, backed impeaching two federal judges who've ruled against Trump: Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who blocked deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, and Judge Deborah Boardman of the Maryland District Court, criticized for her sentencing of Sophie Roske, charged as Nicholas Roske for plotting to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh. California Republicans even filed an emergency application Tuesday against their state's 2026 election map for racial gerrymandering.It's a whirlwind, listeners—Trump's second term, one year in as the ACLU marked on January 20th, is a battlefield of lawsuits from the Federal Reserve to election interference probes. The justices' private conference tomorrow, January 23rd—no, wait, reports say after the 22nd—could add more cases, with opinions possibly dropping February 20th.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Hey listeners, picture this: it's been a whirlwind few days in the courts, with President Donald Trump's legal battles dominating headlines from the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., all the way to Capitol Hill. Just two days ago, on Wednesday, January 21, I was glued to the live updates from SCOTUSblog as the nation's highest court dove into Trump v. Cook, a blockbuster case over Trump's bold move to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from the Board of Governors. The arguments kicked off at 10 a.m. sharp in the majestic Supreme Court chamber, with Trump administration lawyers defending the president's authority to remove her, claiming it's essential for executive control over the independent Fed. On the other side, Lisa Cook's powerhouse attorney, Paul Clement—the guy often called the LeBron James of the Supreme Court for his wins under President George W. Bush—argued fiercely that Fed governors serve 14-year terms protected by statute, shielding them from political whims.Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell showed up in person, drawing fire from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who blasted it on CNBC as a mistake that politicizes the Fed. Bessent said, and I quote from the report, "If you're trying not to politicize the Fed, for the Fed chair to be sitting there trying to put his thumb on the scale, that's a mistake." Bloomberg Law highlighted Clement's role, noting his recent clashes with the Trump team on everything from Big Law firm executive orders to Harvard's foreign student visa fights. The justices grilled both sides intensely—Justice Amy Coney Barrett even pressed a lawyer on disagreements with the government's brief—leaving everyone buzzing about a potential ruling that could reshape presidential power over economic watchdogs.But that's not all. Shifting to Congress, yesterday, Thursday, January 22, the House Judiciary Committee in the 2141 Rayburn House Office Building held a tense 10 a.m. hearing titled "Oversight of the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith." Lawmakers zeroed in on Smith's office, scrutinizing his past investigations and prosecutions of President Trump and his co-defendants in cases tied to the 2020 election and classified documents. Tension was thick as Republicans pushed for accountability, while Democrats defended the probes' integrity—echoes of Smith's indictments that rocked the nation before Trump's return to the White House.Meanwhile, other Trump-related fights simmer. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco scheduled a June hearing on Trump's appeal of an Oregon federal judge's injunction blocking National Guard deployment to Portland, after the Supreme Court sided against a similar Illinois push last month, per The Oregonian. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker noted a dismissal as moot on January 14 in a case over dismantling the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, one of dozens tracking the administration's court clashes. And don't forget the Supreme Court's recent denials of gun rights petitions, though they punted on one involving a woman's old check-forgery conviction—Trump's influence looms large even there.As these battles unfold, from Fed independence to prosecutorial oversight, the stakes feel sky-high for our democracy and economy. Will the justices side with Trump's firing power? What's next for Jack Smith's legacy? Listeners, thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more updates. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

As President Trump mounts his campaign to control the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Supreme Court today is considering the scope of a major check on his ability to remove a member of the Fed for any reason.  The landmark case pits Trump against Fed governor Lisa Cook, a Democratic appointee, whom the president attempted to fire for cause in August, he said, after members of his administration raised unproven allegations of mortgage fraud prior to her taking office. She denies the claims. Kelsey Dallas, Managing Editor of SCOTUSblog joins the show with the latest details.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a legal battle centered on President Trump's efforts to fire a Federal Reserve governor. The case comes as Trump has moved to exert greater control over the Fed. Ali Rogin discussed more with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSBlog co-founder Amy Howe, and David Wessel of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a legal battle centered on President Trump's efforts to fire a Federal Reserve governor. The case comes as Trump has moved to exert greater control over the Fed. Ali Rogin discussed more with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSBlog co-founder Amy Howe, and David Wessel of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a legal battle centered on President Trump's efforts to fire a Federal Reserve governor. The case comes as Trump has moved to exert greater control over the Fed. Ali Rogin discussed more with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSBlog co-founder Amy Howe, and David Wessel of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

The trial of Tom Goldstein, the elite Supreme Court advocate and co-founder of SCOTUSBlog who was charged with criminal tax evasion after years of playing ultra-high-stakes poker games, continues this week in Maryland. Bloomberg Law reporter Holly Barker, who's there covering the proceedings, joins us to talk about it on our podcast, On The Merits. Barker lays out what Goldstein's defense will likely be and why his status as an elite lawyer could make it harder for that defense to succeed. She also talks about why some poker-loving Hollywood celebrities may be called to the stand to testify against Goldstein. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen tracking court battles like they're the Super Bowl, but here we are in mid-January 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal showdowns are dominating the dockets from Hawaii to the Supreme Court steps in Washington, D.C. Just this past week, as the Supreme Court wrapped up arguments in cases like Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish in Louisiana and Little v. Hecox, all eyes shifted to Trump's escalating clashes with federal agencies and old foes. On Friday, January 16, SCOTUSblog reported the justices huddled in private conference, voting on petitions that could add more Trump-related fireworks to their calendar.Take Trump v. Cook, heating up big time. President Trump tried firing Lisa Cook, a Democratic holdover on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, back in August 2025, calling her policies a mismatch for his America First agenda. U.S. District Judge Cobb in Washington blocked it, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her ruling 2-1. Now, the Trump administration, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is begging the Supreme Court to intervene. Oral arguments hit Wednesday, January 21, at 10 a.m. in the Supreme Court building, with Paul Clement—former Solicitor General under George W. Bush—defending Cook. Sauer blasted the lower courts as meddling in presidential removal power, echoing fights in Trump v. Slaughter, where the Court already chewed over firing FTC Chair Lina Khan's allies like Alvaro Bedoya last December. Dykema's Last Month at the Supreme Court newsletter calls it a direct shot at the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent, questioning if Congress can shield multi-member agency heads from the president's axe.It's not just agency drama. E. Jean Carroll, the former Elle writer who won $5 million defaming her after a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the 1990s, just urged the Supreme Court to swat down his latest petition. ABC News covered her filing this week, where she argues U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in New York got evidence rules spot-on—no reversal needed.And that's barely scratching the surface. The Court's January calendar, straight from supremecourt.gov, lists Trump v. Cook smack in the middle, following Wolford v. Lopez on Tuesday, January 20—a Second Amendment tussle over Hawaii's law banning guns on private property open to the public without the owner's okay. Axios predicts 2026 bombshells like Trump v. Barbara on his executive order gutting birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, potentially stripping citizenship from kids of undocumented immigrants born on U.S. soil. Then there's Learning Resources v. Trump, challenging his national emergency tariffs on foreign goods—Axios says a loss could force $100 billion in refunds and crimp his trade wars.Over in lower courts, Just Security's litigation tracker logs fresh salvos: challenges to Executive Order 14164 jamming January 6 convicts into ADX Florence supermax in Colorado, and suits against orders targeting law firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale for alleged anti-Trump bias. Lawfare's tracker flags national security spins on these executive actions. Even California Republicans appealed a Los Angeles panel's smackdown of their gerrymander claims against Governor Gavin Newsom's maps to the Supreme Court this week, per SCOTUStoday.These cases aren't just legal jargon—they're power plays reshaping the presidency, from Fed independence to gun rights and citizenship. As Trump posts fire on Truth Social about "evil, American-hating forces," the justices gear up for a term that could torch decades of precedent.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

# Trump Administration Supreme Court Cases: Week of January 16, 2026Welcome back to Quiet Please. I'm your host, and today we're diving into what's shaping up to be one of the most consequential weeks in recent Supreme Court history. As we head into the final stretch before the Court's April sitting, there are several major cases involving President Donald Trump that could fundamentally reshape American governance and policy for years to come.Let's start with what's happening right now. The Supreme Court is in what experts at SCOTUSblog describe as "maximum overdrive," with ninety-one cases already relisted for consideration and seventeen new cases added just this week. This Friday's conference marks the last real chance for the Court to grant petitions in time for arguments at the April sitting, the final session of this term. That means decisions are coming fast.Now, the Trump administration is front and center in several pivotal cases. According to reporting from the Constitution Center, one of the most immediate cases is Trump v. Cook, which involves the president's attempt to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Cook began her fourteen-year term in 2023, and Trump tried to remove her this year, alleging mortgage fraud from before her appointment. Here's the constitutional tension: the Federal Reserve Act only allows the president to remove board members "for cause." This case will be argued on January twenty-first, just five days from now, and it represents a much smaller preview of the larger question the Court is grappling with in another case, Trump v. Slaughter.That case, heard in December and coming to decision soon, asks whether the president can unilaterally remove members from independent, multi-member federal agencies without statutory cause. If Trump wins, according to legal analysis from Dykema, it would overturn a ninety-year-old precedent established in Humphrey's Executor v. United States. The background here is significant: Trump dismissed FTC officials Alvaro Bedoya and fired Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve, justifying both removals by saying their roles were inconsistent with his administration's policies.But there's more. According to reporting from Axios, the Supreme Court is also preparing to rule on Trump's birthright citizenship executive order in a case called Trump v. Barbara, expected in early 2026. If upheld, this would fundamentally alter the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants, a right that has stood for over a century.Then there's the tariffs case. Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump will determine whether Trump's invocation of a national emergency to impose extensive tariffs on imported goods without congressional approval is constitutional. What's at stake here is enormous. If the Court rules against Trump, the government could be forced to reimburse over one hundred billion dollars in tariffs already collected from businesses and consumers.According to SCOTUSblog, in an interview transcript, Trump himself said he would pursue tariffs through "some other alternative" if the Supreme Court strikes down his current tariffs, showing just how central this issue is to his policy agenda.What makes this moment particularly significant is that Trump has frequently used the Court's emergency docket during his second term to suspend lower court decisions while legal matters unfold. The administration is essentially testing the limits of executive power across multiple fronts simultaneously.These cases represent nothing less than a potential reshaping of the separation of powers, executive authority over independent agencies, the scope of immigration law, and trade policy. Decisions here could determine whether a president can act unilaterally on major policy questions or whether constitutional checks remain in place.Thank you for tuning in today. Come back next week for more as these cases develop. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit quietplease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

# Trump's Legal Battles Heat Up at the Supreme CourtWelcome back to Quiet Please. We're diving straight into what's shaping up to be a pivotal moment for Donald Trump's presidency, as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on cases that could define his entire second term.Let's start with the centerpiece of Trump's economic agenda. The Supreme Court is preparing to decide the legality of Trump's sweeping tariffs on foreign products, a case Trump himself has called the most important case ever. According to reporting from SCOTUSblog and Yahoo Finance, Trump warned the court in a recent social media post that if they rule against his tariffs, "we're screwed." The court heard arguments back in November, and a ruling could come as soon as this week. What makes this case critical is the stakes involved. If the justices side with Trump's challengers, the government could be forced to refund over 100 billion dollars in tariffs already collected from American businesses and consumers. That's real money that could reshape the economy depending on which way the court goes.But the tariff case is just one piece of a much larger legal puzzle Trump is navigating. According to SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court is also preparing to hear arguments on January 21st regarding Trump's push to remove Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors. This ties into a broader constitutional question about whether Trump has the power to unilaterally fire the heads of independent agencies, which would overturn 90 years of legal precedent if the court rules in his favor. Cook is just one person Trump wants removed. He's also targeted Federal Trade Commission officials, making this a test of executive power that could reshape how the president interacts with the federal bureaucracy.There's another major case looming as well. The Supreme Court will decide the legality of a Hawaii law that prohibits people from carrying firearms onto private property without explicit consent from the owner. This case, Wolford versus Lopez, will test the limits of Second Amendment rights against property rights in a way the court hasn't fully addressed before.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also set to address a case challenging prohibitions on conversion therapy for minors, the discredited practice aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. According to Axios, Republicans argue these restrictions violate the First Amendment, framing this as a free speech issue rather than a health and safety matter.Throughout all of this legal maneuvering, Trump has repeatedly used the Supreme Court's emergency procedures known as the shadow docket to suspend lower court decisions while cases are ongoing. According to USA Today, this gave Trump victories on everything from keeping tariffs in place to withholding foreign aid and conducting immigration raids. Now those emergency wins face scrutiny in the full court proceedings.These Supreme Court cases will ripple across Trump's entire presidency, affecting economic policy, executive power, and civil rights all at once.Thanks for tuning in. Come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThis week's episode starts with the arrest and indictment of Nicolas Maduro, and the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good at the hands of an ICE agent in Minneapolis. That's for free subscribers. Paying subscribers also get a look at a shadow docket ruling from the Supreme Court that curtailed Trump's ability to deploy the national guard, and the surprising statutory reading that got a majority of the court there. We look at a dismissal of criminal charges from another scrap with ICE in Los Angeles, we discuss Mark Kelly's legal options for fighting the reduction of his pension (and why he might choose not to use them), we consider why Lindsey Halligan keeps insisting she's the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, we look at the bizarre upcoming criminal trial of Scotusblog co-founder Thomas Goldstein, and we have an update on the saga of the still-held-in-contempt Charles C. Johnson.Upgrade your subscription at serioustrouble.show

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching courtrooms turn into battlegrounds for America's future, but here we are in early January 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal wars are heating up like never before. Just days ago, on Tuesday, January 6, SCOTUSblog reminded us of that historic New York Times Company v. Sullivan case from 1964, where the Supreme Court protected the press from libel suits—timely now as tensions simmer between Trump and media outlets. But that's history; the real fireworks are exploding right now.Picture this: the Supreme Court is gearing up for its January 12 argument session in Washington, D.C., with seven massive cases, several straight from Trump's playbook. Axios reports that top of the list is Trump v. Barbara, where the justices could rule any moment on his executive order slashing birthright citizenship. Trump wants to deny U.S. citizenship to kids of undocumented immigrants born here, challenging over a century of 14th Amendment precedent. Businesses like Costco, Revlon, Bumble Bee Foods, and Ray-Ban makers are suing over another bombshell—Trump's tariffs. In Learning v. Trump, they're fighting his national emergency declaration that slapped billions in duties on imports without Congress's okay. Trump boasted on Truth Social it's the "most case ever," but a loss could mean refunding over $100 billion. Then there's Trump v. Slaughter, pitting Trump against Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and FTC's Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, whom he fired for clashing with his policies. The court will decide if he can boot independent agency heads, smashing 90-year-old protections.Just Security's litigation tracker paints an even wilder picture of chaos in lower courts. In D.C.'s federal district court, Taylor v. Trump challenges Executive Order 14164, where Attorney General Pam Bondi shuffled death row inmates to ADX Florence supermax under Trump's public safety push—plaintiffs scream due process violations. The National Association of the Deaf sued Trump, Chief of Staff Susan Wiles, and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt for axing ASL interpreters at White House briefings, claiming First and Fifth Amendment breaches. Law firms aren't safe either: Susman Godfrey out of Texas hit back at an executive order yanking their security clearances for opposing Trump; Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale face similar retaliation suits in D.D.C., alleging viewpoint discrimination. The American Bar Association sued over yanked grants from the Office on Violence Against Women, calling it payback for their stances. Even Rep. Eric Swalwell's in the mix with Swalwell v. Pute, targeting Trump's criminal arrest pushes.Politico says grand juries are Trump's new nightmare—refusing indictments left and right on his aggressive policies, from protester crackdowns to immigrant roundups. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan blasted prosecutors for "rushed" cases with weak evidence. And in a wild international twist, CBS News covered ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and wife Cilia Flores arraigned Monday in Manhattan's federal courthouse before Judge Alvin Hellerstein. Whisked by helicopter from Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center under heavy security, Maduro pled not guilty to narco-terrorism, cocaine smuggling, and weapons charges—facing life in prison—while insisting he's still Venezuela's president.The Supreme Court's emergency docket, like in 25A312, keeps deferring stays till January arguments, per their own filings. Lawfare's tracker logs non-stop national security suits against Trump's moves. It's a legal whirlwind, listeners, with the high court poised to reshape everything from guns in Wolford v. Lopez against Hawaii's private property ban, to conversion therapy fights in Miles v. Salazar.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Hey there, listeners, buckle up because the Supreme Court's shadow docket has been on fire these past few days, handing President Donald Trump and his administration a string of high-stakes wins in battles over everything from the National Guard to passports and federal spending. Just eight days ago, on December 23, 2025, the Court ruled in Trump v. Illinois, siding against the administration's bid to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Illinois without state consent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence, while Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing the move was essential for national security amid rising unrest in Chicago. The Brennan Center's Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker notes this as one of only five losses for the administration since January, out of 25 emergency decisions, with most favoring Trump at least partially and often with minimal explanation.But don't let that one setback fool you—the Court has been overwhelmingly pro-administration lately. On November 6, the justices greenlit the State Department's policy refusing passports that reflect transgender applicants' gender identity for a certified class of plaintiffs, overruling lower courts in a terse order. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented sharply, warning it tramples civil rights. This fits a pattern: back on October 3 in Noem v. National TPS Alliance, the Court forced the government to release congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds, with Justice Kagan's dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, blasting it as executive overreach. Earlier, September 22's Trump v. Slaughter let the administration dodge discovery demands from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington over DOGE Service materials under the Freedom of Information Act.Rewind a bit further into this whirlwind year, and the shadow docket explodes with immigration clashes. In Noem v. Doe on May 30, the Court allowed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to revoke parole en masse for half a million noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, skipping individual reviews—Justice Jackson dissented alongside Sotomayor. April's Trump v. J.G.G. permitted deportations of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, despite dissents from Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and even partial pushback from Amy Coney Barrett. A.A.R.P. v. Trump on April 19 blocked removals of Venezuelan nationals, a rare check, with Kavanaugh concurring and Alito dissenting.Civil service purges? Check: McMahon v. New York on July 14 okayed firing Department of Education employees, while Trump v. Boyle upheld Trump's power to boot Consumer Product Safety Commission members without cause. Even LGBTQ+ rights took hits, like United States v. Shilling in May letting the Defense Department terminate transgender service members. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker highlights ongoing suits, including a coalition of nonprofits and cities challenging the suspension of November 2025 SNAP benefits—a case that echoes lower court fights like District of Rhode Island's order to fully fund them.Since Inauguration Day, the Supreme Court's emergency docket—mostly Department of Justice filings—has tilted 20-to-5 toward Trump, per SCOTUSblog and Shadow Docket Watch data. Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh often push back against blocks, while the liberal trio fights rearguard actions. As 2025 wraps, two applications still pend, promising more drama.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court hand President Donald Trump a rare courtroom defeat, but here we are, listeners, on the heels of Christmas 2025. Just days ago, on December 23, the Justices in Washington, D.C., issued a sharp three-page unsigned order in Trump v. Illinois, rejecting the Trump administration's emergency plea to deploy the Illinois National Guard and Texas National Guard troops to Chicago. Picture this: Back on October 4, President Trump federalized 300 Illinois National Guard members to safeguard federal property amid reports of riots—protesters hurling tear gas canisters at officers, yanking off gas masks, even targeting them with bullhorns that could cause permanent hearing loss. The administration argued it was essential under federal law, citing unrefuted declarations of violence that local police in Chicago couldn't handle alone.But a federal judge in Chicago slapped down a temporary restraining order, and the Supreme Court let it stand. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented fiercely—Alito's opinion called out the lower court for ignoring the facts, questioning why grand jury no-indictments for some rioters weren't enough to discredit the violence claims. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred separately, but the majority sided against the administration, marking a loss in the shadow docket frenzy that's defined Trump's second term. According to the Brennan Center's tracker, since January 20, 2025, the Court has ruled on 25 such emergency applications challenging Trump actions—20 at least partially in his favor, but this one, no dice. SCOTUSblog reported it straight: the deployment stays blocked while litigation drags on.This isn't isolated. Oral arguments wrapped up just last month on November 5 in Learning Resources v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. VOS Selections before the Supreme Court. At stake? Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets President Trump slap trade tariffs during national emergencies he declares—and if so, does it unconstitutionally hand Congress's power to the executive? Dykema's legal alert calls it the term's biggest case, pitting presidential authority against separation-of-powers limits. Whispers from the bench suggest the Justices are skeptical, probing the delegation doctrine hard.Meanwhile, Trump's legal battles echo from his first term. In New York, Judge Juan Merchan's decision in People v. Donald J. Trump keeps sentencing on ice—pushed from July 2024 past the election to November 26 at Trump's own request, now stayed pending Supreme Court immunity fallout from Trump v. United States. Federal appeals upheld a jury's E. Jean Carroll verdict against him, with no reversal in sight. And the floodgates? Education policies sparked 71 lawsuits in 2025 alone, per Education Week, with Trump losing nearly 70 percent at lower courts. Immigration clashes rage on—from Noem v. Doe revoking parole for half a million from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, to Alien Enemies Act deportations where the Court sometimes greenlights, sometimes blocks.It's a whirlwind, listeners—tariffs, troops, tariffs again—reminding us the courts are checking power like never before. As 2025 closes, Trump's docket tests every constitutional seam.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I walk into the studio with one question on my mind: how do I explain the latest turns in the courtroom battles surrounding Donald Trump in a way that cuts through the noise for you, the listener, without losing the legal stakes that have the whole country on edge?Over the past few days, the headline moment has come from Washington, where the United States Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a sharp setback in a case called Trump v. Illinois. According to the Supreme Court's own opinion and analysis from SCOTUSblog, the Court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to federalize and deploy the Illinois National Guard, along with Texas Guard units, into Chicago to respond to protests and violence around federal property. The administration argued the Insurrection Act and related statutes gave President Donald Trump broad authority to call up the Guard. A lower court had blocked him, questioning both the factual basis and the scope of that power, and the Supreme Court, in an emergency ruling, refused to restore his plan.In practical terms, that meant National Guard troops would not be marching into Chicago under federal orders, at least not on the legal theory the administration offered. The opinion revealed a divided Court. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, dissented, accusing the lower court of underestimating the seriousness of the violence that federal officials described. But the majority, as summarized by commentators at the Brennan Center and SCOTUSblog, signaled limits on how far a president can go in using military force at home without close judicial scrutiny.That ruling landed against a broader backdrop of ongoing litigation involving Donald Trump and his administration's actions. Lawfare's “Trials of the Trump Administration” tracker notes that federal courts around the country continue to referee battles over immigration enforcement, civil service protections, the scope of independent agencies, LGBTQ rights, and government spending. In several shadow-docket cases this year, like Trump v. Boyle on firing members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Supreme Court sided with Trump on presidential control over agencies, but in others, especially involving immigration detention and bond hearings, lower courts have pushed back, and the justices have sometimes let those limits stand.Taken together, the last few days have underscored a pattern: Donald Trump is still testing the outer edge of presidential power in court, and the judiciary is no longer giving him a nearly open field. Instead, each new ruling sketches a tighter map of what a president can and cannot do, from sending troops into a state like Illinois to restructuring the federal bureaucracy or reshaping immigration courts.You, as listeners, are watching a slow, legal tug-of-war over the future of the presidency itself, conducted one opinion, one injunction, one emergency application at a time.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

It's been a big year for decisions from the US Supreme Court... and there is more to watch for next year... Managing Editor of SCOTUS Blog, Kelsey Dallas, joins the show to recap some of the biggest cases this year.. and what's to come.

I step into the studio knowing that, for many listeners, the Donald Trump court saga feels endless. So let's get right to where things stand in the past few days.Across the country, Donald Trump is still juggling fallout from his earlier criminal and civil cases while his administration fights a new wave of lawsuits over how his Justice Department, Homeland Security, and other agencies are using federal power. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker describes a sprawling map of challenges, from immigration crackdowns to fights over federal workers and independent agencies, all feeding into a sense that the courtroom has become a second West Wing for this presidency.One of the biggest developments in the last few days comes from the Supreme Court and the immigration judges' free‑speech case. According to SCOTUSblog, the justices just rejected the Trump administration's request for emergency relief in a dispute over whether immigration judges can challenge speech restrictions in federal court. Commentator and law professor Stephen Vladeck called it the administration's first real loss at the Supreme Court since April, a rare sign that even this Court has limits on how far it will go on Trump's emergency asks. The order does leave the door open for the administration to come back if the trial court pushes into discovery, but for now, Trump's lawyers will have to keep fighting on the merits.At nearly the same time, another federal courtroom dealt the administration a blow on immigration detention. The ACLU of Massachusetts reports that a federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration acted unlawfully when it denied bond hearings to people arrested by ICE in New England and then misclassified them to keep them in mandatory, no‑bond detention. The court granted partial summary judgment and held that, under the immigration statutes, these detainees must have access to a bond hearing. For thousands of people in New England lockups, that decision is not abstract law; it is the difference between indefinite confinement and a chance to argue for release.Overlay these fresh rulings on top of Trump's personal legal history and the picture sharpens. Outlets such as WABE have tracked how civil judgments for defamation and sexual abuse, as well as criminal convictions for falsifying business records in New York and the federal election‑interference and documents cases, have moved through appeals. A federal appeals court has already upheld one major civil jury verdict against Trump and declined to revisit it, locking in both damages and factual findings about his conduct. That appellate resistance puts real weight behind the idea that some of Trump's legal problems are no longer just allegations; they are affirmed findings of liability.And yet, while Trump personally appeals past losses, his administration simultaneously racks up wins and losses in real time. The Brennan Center and Lawfare both note that, since his return to the White House, the Supreme Court has often sided with the Trump administration on emergency applications involving immigration enforcement, federal workforce cuts, and control over independent agencies. Those shadow‑docket victories have let the administration move fast, even while lower courts probe legality. But the immigration judges' case and the Boston bond‑hearing ruling show that trial courts and, occasionally, the justices themselves are willing to draw constitutional and statutory lines.So when you hear about “Trump's trials” this week, it is not just one courtroom, one jury, or even one former president. It is Donald Trump the criminal defendant and civil litigant, and Donald Trump the sitting president whose policies are on trial in federal courts from Massachusetts to Washington.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

We're back to break down a month's worth of shadow docket activity -- three recent summary reversals, plus the stay in the Texas gerrymandering case (Abbott v. LULAC). We also discuss the launch of the SCOTUSblog "interim docket blog."

I'm standing outside a federal courthouse, talking to you as the many legal threads around Donald Trump tighten and twist in real time.Over just the past few days, one of the big storylines has shifted from criminal exposure to raw presidential power. In Washington, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit handed President Donald Trump a major win by upholding his removal of National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris without cause. According to analysis from Ogletree Deakins, the court went further than just blessing those firings: it held that the statutory “for cause” protections for top officials at powerful independent agencies are unconstitutional when those officials wield substantial executive power. In plain English, the D.C. Circuit said President Donald Trump can sweep out key regulators at will, reshaping agencies that for decades had a measure of insulation from the Oval Office.At almost the same time, the Supreme Court has been functioning as an emergency referee over a growing list of Trump fights. SCOTUSblog reports that on its interim or “shadow” docket the justices have been fielding high‑stakes disputes over President Donald Trump's use of the National Guard in Illinois, his clashes with immigration judges, and efforts by groups like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to get internal administration documents through the Freedom of Information Act. The Brennan Center for Justice has been tracking these emergency cases and notes that, since early 2025, the Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with the Trump administration on issues like immigration crackdowns, reductions in the civil service, and the removal of members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.All of this sits on top of the longer‑running legal sagas that you as listeners have been following for years: the civil verdicts in New York, the federal and state criminal indictments, and the defamation and assault findings in the E. Jean Carroll cases. Public radio outlets like WABE have been keeping a running tally of where those stand since Donald Trump's return to the White House, tracking appeals of jury verdicts, ongoing sentencing fights for his former aides, and the way new Justice Department decisions under his own administration intersect with prosecutions that began before he reclaimed power.So when we talk about “the Trump trials” right now, we are not just talking about Donald Trump as a criminal defendant. We are talking about Donald Trump as president, testing and expanding the boundaries of executive authority in courtroom after courtroom, from the D.C. Circuit to the Supreme Court, while older cases about his past business dealings and political conduct grind through appeals.For you listening, the takeaway this week is simple: judges are increasingly being asked whether Donald Trump is merely subject to the law, or also able to rewrite the balance of power inside the law itself. Those answers are coming fast, and they are reshaping the presidency in ways that will outlast any single trial.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Donald Trump has spent the past several days not on a campaign stage, but inside and around courtrooms, as a web of criminal and civil cases continues to tighten around him. Listeners, I want to walk you straight into what has been unfolding right now.In the federal election interference case in Washington, brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, prosecutors have been pressing Judge Tanya Chutkan to keep this trial on a firm schedule. According to reporting from The New York Times and CNN, Smith's team has been pushing back hard against Trump's efforts to delay, arguing that voters deserve a jury verdict on whether he criminally tried to overturn the 2020 election before the next major political milestones. Trump's lawyers, by contrast, have continued to insist that the case is a partisan hit job and that they need far more time to review discovery. That clash over timing has dominated hearings in recent days, with Judge Chutkan signaling she will not allow the defense to simply run out the clock.Down in Georgia, in Fulton County, District Attorney Fani Willis's sweeping racketeering case charging Trump and multiple allies with trying to reverse Joe Biden's victory has turned into a marathon of pretrial skirmishes. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and NBC News report that over the last week defense attorneys have peppered Judge Scott McAfee with motions to dismiss, motions to sever, and renewed attacks on the credibility of key state witnesses. Trump himself is not required to appear for most of these arguments, but his presence looms over every exchange, as prosecutors detail phone calls, pressure on state officials, and the now-famous effort to “find” votes.In Florida, the classified documents case has also seen movement. According to the Miami Herald and Politico, Special Counsel Jack Smith's team has used recent hearings to argue that Trump's continued public comments about witnesses and the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago are edging toward obstruction. Judge Aileen Cannon has been under scrutiny for months, with legal analysts at Lawfare and Just Security noting that her rulings on evidence and trial timing could determine whether this case is heard by a jury anytime soon. Trump's lawyers have leaned into claims that the documents were declassified or planted, while prosecutors have focused on surveillance footage and witness testimony that, they say, shows deliberate concealment.Meanwhile, in New York, the aftershocks of earlier trials are still being felt. The civil fraud judgment obtained by New York Attorney General Letitia James, which, as reported by the Associated Press and The Washington Post, found that Trump and the Trump Organization inflated asset values for years, has morphed into a battle over money and control. Recent filings have centered on how fast the state can collect hundreds of millions of dollars and what limits will be placed on Trump's ability to run his real estate empire in New York. Those financial pressures hang over every other case.Layered on top of all this, Supreme Court litigation involving the Trump administration's current actions has kept his legal team shuttling between lower courts and the high court. According to coverage by SCOTUSblog and Lawfare, emergency appeals over executive power, immigration, and the removal of independent agency officials have produced a rapid-fire series of shadow docket orders. One such case, Trump v. Slaughter, was argued this month, with Oyez and the Supreme Court's own docket noting that the justices are again being asked to define the reach of presidential power.Taken together, the past few days have not been about one trial, but about a landscape where Donald Trump's political future, personal fortune, and even his freedom are being tested, line by line, in legal filings and courtroom arguments.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I step into the studio knowing that, for listeners, the noise around Donald Trump's legal battles can feel endless. So let's get right to what has happened in the courts over the past few days.The biggest spotlight has been on the marble steps of the United States Supreme Court, where justices heard oral argument in a case called Trump v. Slaughter. Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog reports that this case asks whether President Donald Trump has the power to fire Federal Trade Commission commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter at will, even though federal law says FTC commissioners can only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” According to SCOTUSblog, during arguments on December 8, a solid majority of the justices signaled they are inclined to side with Trump and strike down those removal limits as unconstitutional restrictions on presidential power.In practical terms, that means the Court appears ready to say that President Trump lawfully fired Rebecca Slaughter in March by email, when he told her remaining at the FTC would be inconsistent with his administration's priorities, even though he did not claim any misconduct. Commentators at Holland and Knight, analyzing the argument, note that this could ripple well beyond the Federal Trade Commission, potentially weakening protections for members of other independent agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.Inside the courtroom, the justices wrestled with a ninety‑year‑old precedent called Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision that upheld protections for FTC commissioners. According to SCOTUSblog, Chief Justice John Roberts described Humphrey's Executor as a “dried husk,” while Justice Neil Gorsuch called it “poorly reasoned.” On the other side, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan warned that tearing it down could fundamentally alter how much control Congress has over independent regulators. Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that, in her view, the Court's more recent decisions have already eroded that old case.All of this is happening against a broader backdrop of litigation targeting actions by the Trump administration since his return to the White House. The Lawfare media team, which maintains a Trump Administration Litigation Tracker, has been following a sprawling set of challenges to Trump-era policies ranging from immigration rules to the deployment of the National Guard. Their tracker shows new filings landing in federal courts almost weekly, a sign that legal scrutiny of the administration's actions has not slowed.At the same time, local outlets like WABE in Atlanta continue to summarize where the various criminal and civil cases involving Donald Trump himself stand after earlier verdicts and appeals. WABE notes that previous jury decisions in defamation and civil fraud matters have largely been upheld on appeal, even as Trump continues to challenge them and attack prosecutors and judges in public.For listeners, the key point is this: in just a few days, the Supreme Court has given the clearest signal yet that it may expand presidential power over independent agencies in Trump v. Slaughter, while a wide network of lower courts and appellate panels continues to process the many criminal, civil, and constitutional fights that surround Donald Trump's political comeback.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Sarah Isgur is a senior editor at SCOTUS Blog, host of the Advisory Opinions podcast, and a contributor at ABC News. She is the author of the forthcoming book "Last Branch Standing," which available for pre-order on Amazon. She joins to discuss the recent oral arguments before the Supreme Court on whether or not the Trump administration can invoke IEEPA to levy emergency tariffs.

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments that could overturn a 90-year precedent, and that could possibly expand the power of the Oval Office. At issue -- President Trump's firing earlier this year of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat appointed to the Federal Trade Commission in 2018. The Justices are weighing whether the president has executive authority to terminate officials from independent federal agencies without cause. Kelsey Dallas, Managing Editor with SCOTUSBlog, joins the show to discuss this possible decision and the factors that are leading us to believe they will side with Trump.

Following the Supreme Court arguments in Slaughter v. United States, Sarah Isgur and David French join legal scholar Adam White to break down a session that became a referendum on whether Congress can insulate modern independent agencies from presidential control. SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe also joins from the steps of the Supreme Court to relay her observations from inside the courtroom.Watch the livestream here. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a legal case that could vastly expand presidential powers. At stake are 90 years of precedent that have kept presidents from being able to remove members of independent government agencies. News Hour’s Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe, co-founder of SCOTUSblog, joins Amna Nawaz to discuss. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Tony: -Carbonation Station: Gym Weed Tangerine -Galaxy Z Trifold: https://www.engadget.com/mobile/smartphones/samsung-fully-unveils-its-galaxy-z-trifold-phone-and-itll-be-available-in-korea-in-a-few-days-010000499.html -Sony V Cox goes to the supreme court: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/211168.p.pdf -Scotus Blog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/court-seems-dubious-of-billion-dollar-judgment-for-copyright-infringement/ -Deal pick ups? Jarron:  -VIZZ review! -Face worms: https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/11/doctors-pull-4-inch-worm-out-of-womans-eyelid-after-monthlong-incubation/ -The Sony A7 V was announced: https://www.engadget.com/cameras/sonys-much-anticipated-a7-v-is-here-with-a-faster-33mp-sensor-and-4k-120p-video-140403371.html?src=rss Owen: -Have we learned NOTHING from movies?!?! https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/11/22/2227240/the-strange-and-totally-real-plan-to-blot-out-the-sun-and-reverse-global-warming -Please… believe in science… https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/11/rfk-jr-s-new-cdc-deputy-director-prefers-natural-immunity-over-vaccines/ Lando: -New Eye Tranplants! https://newatlas.com/medical/3d-printed-cornea-restores-sight-first-time/

Following the Supreme Court oral arguments in President Donald Trump's tariff case, Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, Sarah Isgur is joined by David French, David Lat, and Latham & Watkins LLP partner Roman Martinez to explain where the legal battle will go from here. SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe also joins from the steps of the Supreme Court to relay her observations from inside the courtroom. Watch the livestream here.  Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the Eighth Amendment in light of a prisoner's request to die by firing squad. But first, join us for a livestream analysis of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the case that asks whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs. (Click on SCOTUSblog's oral arguments page for updates.) The Agenda:—National Guard in Portland—Eliminating horizontal stare decisis—A defense of the spoils system—Who should argue in the tariffs case?—Did we get immigration wrong for the entire Biden administration? Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices