Podcasts about SCOTUSblog

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.

Listeners, in courtrooms across America, Donald Trump's legal saga is still unfolding, and the past few days have shown how tightly his political future is tied to these trials.In New York, the hush money criminal case that led to Donald Trump's felony convictions earlier this year continues to shape what happens next. After a jury in Manhattan found him guilty of falsifying business records connected to payments to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, the focus has shifted from the drama of trial testimony to the grind of appeals and sentencing strategy. Major outlets like the New York Times and CNN have reported that Trump's lawyers are pressing arguments that the case was politically motivated and that key testimony from Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer, should never have been trusted. At the same time, New York prosecutors under District Attorney Alvin Bragg are emphasizing to the courts that a jury heard the evidence and spoke clearly.In Georgia, the election interference case brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis remains a slow burn rather than a daily spectacle. According to reporting from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Associated Press, recent hearings have focused less on the explosive racketeering charges and more on pretrial motions: what evidence can come in, which co-defendants will be tried alongside Trump, and how quickly a trial could realistically happen in the thick of a presidential election cycle. Judges in Georgia have been acutely aware, as those outlets note, that every scheduling decision may be read as a political act, even though it is rooted in criminal procedure and logistics.On the federal side, two major criminal cases still hang over Donald Trump: the classified documents case in Florida and the 2020 election interference case in Washington, D.C. The Washington Post and NBC News report that the election interference case, brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, has been slowed by endless pretrial fights over presidential immunity, privileged communications, and the scope of what jurors would be allowed to hear about January 6. In Florida, in the classified documents case before Judge Aileen Cannon, recent hearings reported by Politico and CBS News have focused on how to handle highly sensitive national security material at trial, with Trump's team arguing for broad access and delays, while prosecutors push to keep the schedule moving.Even the Supreme Court has been pulled into the Trump legal orbit again. CBS News and SCOTUSblog have been covering arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case testing whether President Trump can fire Federal Trade Commission commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without the usual “for cause” protections that shield many independent agency officials. In oral arguments, several conservative justices suggested that limiting a president's power to remove such officials may violate the Constitution's separation of powers, while the liberal justices warned that giving Trump nearly unchecked removal power could destabilize agencies far beyond the FTC. A ruling expected in the coming months could reshape how future presidents, not just Trump, control independent regulators.Taken together, these court battles show a former president and current political force fighting on every legal front: criminal, civil, state, federal, and even constitutional at the Supreme Court. Every hearing date, every ruling on evidence, every appellate brief now doubles as both a legal move and a political message, with Trump portraying himself as a target of what he calls a weaponized justice system, and prosecutors and judges insisting they are simply applying long-standing law to an unusually powerful defendant.Thank you for tuning in. 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

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

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

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

A divided Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas GOP lawmakers... allowing them to use a new congressional map in next year's midterm elections. Managing Editor of SCOTUSBlog, Kelsey Dallas, breaks down the Supreme Court’s decision on Texas redistricting. What does it mean for representation and future elections?

This Day in Legal History: 21st Amendment RatifiedOn December 5, 1933, the United States ratified the Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution, officially ending the era of national Prohibition. This amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, which had banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors since 1920. Prohibition, championed by temperance movements and moral reformers, was initially seen as a solution to social problems such as crime and poverty. However, over the following decade, it led instead to a surge in organized crime, illegal speakeasies, and widespread disregard for the law.The Twenty-first Amendment is unique in American legal history—it is the only amendment to repeal a previous amendment. It is also the only amendment ratified through state conventions rather than by state legislatures, a strategic move to bypass potential legislative gridlock. Utah became the 36th state to ratify the amendment, securing the three-fourths majority needed for adoption.The repeal of Prohibition returned control over alcohol regulation to the states, many of which continued restrictions at the local level. The amendment's passage marked a shift toward a more pragmatic and less moralistic approach to federal lawmaking. It also highlighted the limits of federal power to regulate personal behavior and underscored the complexities of enforcing unpopular laws.In the broader context of constitutional law, the Twenty-first Amendment demonstrated the capacity of the Constitution to adapt and self-correct. It remains a pivotal example of how constitutional amendments can respond to changing public sentiment and unintended legal consequences.A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump to continue deploying National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., halting a lower court ruling that would have required the troops to withdraw by December 11. The temporary order from the D.C. Circuit Court does not address the underlying legality of the deployment but permits it to proceed while litigation continues. The deployment, which began in August, intensified after a November 26 shooting near the White House left two National Guard members injured—one fatally. Trump responded by sending 500 additional troops and renewing his call to halt immigration from what he called “third-world countries,” after a 29-year-old Afghan national was charged in the attack.D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued the administration in September, arguing Trump unlawfully took over local policing authority and violated federal restrictions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. A federal judge initially sided with Schwalb, calling the deployment likely unlawful, but delayed enforcement of her ruling to allow time for appeal. The Trump administration maintains it can deploy troops to D.C. without local approval, citing the city's unique federal status. Meanwhile, similar deployments in other Democratic-led cities have sparked lawsuits and accusations that Trump is using federal force for political purposes. Lower courts have largely ruled against these moves, and the Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on the legality of the Chicago deployment soon.Appeals court allows Trump National Guard deployment in DC to continue | ReutersTom Goldstein, a prominent Washington attorney and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, is fighting to sell his $3 million home in D.C.'s Wesley Heights to fund his defense against 22 financial crime charges, including tax evasion. Prosecutors allege that Goldstein, who has made millions as a poker player, misrepresented his financial situation to obtain loans, including one used to purchase the property. A Maryland federal judge barred the sale, ruling the house is likely connected to the alleged crimes. Goldstein has appealed, arguing that blocking the sale violates his Sixth Amendment right to use untainted assets for legal defense, and insists the home is not tied to the alleged misconduct.The appeal is before the 4th Circuit, where Goldstein—representing himself—says he's accumulated millions in legal fees. Prosecutors maintain the house is tainted because Goldstein omitted over $15 million in debt from the mortgage application. The home is also collateral for Goldstein's appearance bond, due to his being labeled a flight risk. One of Goldstein's key financial backers, litigation funder Parabellum Capital, is a witness in the case but not accused of wrongdoing. Legal experts say his effort to sell the house faces steep odds given the property's legal entanglements and standard federal practices regarding tainted assets.Tom Goldstein fights to sell home as tax trial looms | ReutersA federal grand jury has declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, rejecting prosecutors' second attempt to bring criminal charges against her, according to sources familiar with the matter. The Justice Department had sought to revive a case involving allegations of bank fraud and false statements related to a mortgage, after the initial indictment was dismissed in November due to the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan. Despite the setback, prosecutors reportedly plan to seek a new indictment.James, a Democrat and prominent critic of Donald Trump, was accused of misrepresenting financial information to obtain favorable mortgage terms on a Virginia property. She pleaded not guilty to the original charges. The failed indictment effort comes amid broader DOJ efforts targeting Trump critics, including former FBI Director James Comey and ex-national security adviser John Bolton—cases that have also faced legal hurdles.Grand jury rejections are rare, as prosecutors usually face a low threshold of probable cause to proceed. James is now the highest-profile figure to have such a case rejected during Trump's second term. The president has publicly attacked James for leading a civil fraud lawsuit against him, which resulted in a massive financial penalty, later reduced on appeal but with Trump still found liable for fraud.Grand jury rejects second criminal case against New York Attorney General Letitia James, sources say | ReutersLawyers representing authors and publishers in a $1.5 billion copyright settlement with AI company Anthropic have requested $300 million in legal fees, amounting to 20% of the total settlement. Filed in federal court in San Francisco, the fee request comes after Anthropic agreed in October to settle claims it used pirated books to train its AI models, including its commercial product Claude. As part of the agreement, Anthropic will pay over $3,000 per infringed work, destroy the infringing datasets, and certify they are not part of its commercial systems.The legal team, led by Susman Godfrey and Lieff Cabraser, argued that the fee is “conservative” by class action standards, citing more than 26,000 hours of high-risk work. The settlement, which received preliminary approval in September, is being described as the largest reported copyright class action resolution to date. Anthropic has denied wrongdoing and retains the right to contest the fee amount.Authors have until January 15 to opt out of the class action and pursue individual claims. A final fairness hearing before U.S. District Judge William Alsup is scheduled for April, where objections from class members and fee disputes will be reviewed.Authors' lawyers in $1.5 billion Anthropic settlement seek $300 million | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a composer of some note.On December 5, 1791, the world lost one of its greatest musical minds: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Just 35 years old at the time of his death, Mozart left behind an astonishing body of work that shaped the course of Western classical music. His death, shrouded in speculation and mystery, came while he was in the midst of composing what would become one of his most profound and haunting works—the Requiem in D minor, K. 626. The Lacrymosa movement, in particular, captures the emotional gravity of that moment, as if echoing his own impending end.Although Mozart did not live to finish the Requiem, the fragments he left behind were completed by his student Franz Xaver Süssmayr, guided by sketches and oral instruction. The Lacrymosa, with its solemn melodies and aching harmonies, stands as one of the most emotionally resonant sections of the work. Franz Liszt later transcribed it for solo piano, creating a version that retains its choral intensity while adding a layer of intimate, virtuosic expressiveness.Listening to Liszt's transcription of the Lacrymosa is like hearing Mozart's farewell whispered through the keys of a piano—stark, mournful, and deeply human. December 5, then, is not only the date of Mozart's passing but also a reminder of the enduring beauty he left behind, etched into every phrase of the Requiem. His music, especially in this piece, speaks across centuries to the depths of loss and the hope of transcendence.Without further ado, Mozart's Requiem in D. minor – enjoy! 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

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/

NY Daily News, Mamdani plan to scale back NYC gifted and talented program reignites simmering controversy, https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/10/04/mamdani-plan-to-scale-back-nyc-gifted-and-talented-program-reignites-simmering-controversy/ andJames Borland, Gifted Education Without Gifted Childre. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/47307/excerpt/, 9780521547307_excerpt.pdfRenzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Developmenthttps://gifted.uconn.edu/schoolwide-enrichment-model/ https://gifted.uconn.edu/schoolwide-enrichment-model/Jennifer Berkshire's books, The Education Wars and Wolf at the Schoolhouse Door: The Dismantling of Public Education and the Future of School , https://www.amazon.com/Education-Wars-Citizens-Defense-Manual/dp/1620978547/ and https://www.amazon.com/Wolf-Schoolhouse-Door-Dismantling-Education/dp/1620977958/ref=sr_1_1Jennifer Berkshire, Education Helped Power the Blue Wave, https://educationwars.substack.com/p/education-helped-power-the-blue-waveLaura Pappano, School Moms: Parent Activism, Partisan Politics, and the Battle for Public Education, https://www.amazon.com/School-Moms-Activism-Partisan-Education/dp/0807012661Laura Pappano, At Moms for Liberty summit, parents urged to turn their grievances into lawsuits, https://hechingerreport.org/at-moms-for-liberty-summit-parents-urged-to-turn-their-grievances-into-lawsuits/Jake Zuckerman, Culture warriors lost school board races all around Ohio, https://signalohio.org/culture-warriors-lost-school-board-races-all-around-ohio/David Pepper, Lesson: People Don't Want Crazy on their School Boards, https://davidpepper.substack.com/p/lesson-people-dont-want-crazy-on?r=g8fo&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=trueArne Duncan, America is in an ‘education depression.' This solution is a no-brainer, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/03/democrats-education-tax-credit-duncan/Jessica Seaman, Colorado teacher unions ride blue wave to victory in school board races, https://www.denverpost.com/2025/11/06/colorado-teacher-union-school-board-elections/Jenny Brundin, Supporters of Propositions MM and LL declare victory, https://www.cpr.org/2025/11/04/proposition-ll-mm-funding-free-school-meals-results/Scotus Blog, Mahmoud v. Taylor https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/mahmoud-v-taylor/Maggie Scales, Lexington parent sues district over lessons that “normalize LGBTQ relationships” , https://lexobserver.org/2025/11/07/lexington-parent-sues-district-for-burdening-childs-religious-upbringing/

It's Tuesday, November 11th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson Nigerian Governor denies Christian genocide Just days after Nigerian Nasarawa State Governor Abdullahi Sule publicly denied the existence of religious persecution or Christian genocide in Nigeria, about 50 Fulani Muslim gunmen launched a deadly midnight assault on a Christian community in the state.   Three individuals were murdered and others were critically wounded in the massacre.   In protest, hundreds of youths from the community displayed the dead bodies of the victims and blocked traffic until the military showed up to disperse them.  They were protesting the persistent invasions and kidnappings, in hopes of some government intervention. According to Open Doors, Nigeria is the seventh most dangerous country worldwide for Christians. Sudanese civil war claims 70,000 civilian lives The ongoing civil war in Sudan, Africa is bringing untold losses to human life. Approximately, 70,000 civilians were killed in the last year, and the same number the year before. A paramilitary group, known as the “Rapid Support Forces,” is killing civilians with darker skin in the ethnic purge — and then burying the bodies in mass graves, reports Al Jazeera. America invested twice as much in Africa as China did The BBC reports that the U.S. has overtaken China as Africa's biggest investor for the first time since 2012. America invested $7.8 billion in 2023, compared to China's $4 billion. America absent from U.N. Climate Change Conference The 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference kicked off yesterday in Belém, Brazil. Notably, the U.S. federal delegation is absent, reports The Hill.com. 7 Democrats, 1 Independent join GOP to end gov't shutdown The U.S. Democrat Party has experienced a seismic split. In an historic development on the national scene, seven Democrat senators and one Independent senator agreed to a compromise with the Republicans in the U.S. Senate to bring the government shutdown to an end, report The Epoch Times. The defectors were Dick Durbin (D-IL), Catherine Masto (D-NV), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), John Fetterman (D-PA), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), and Angus King (I-ME). The big bone of contention among the Democrats in the shutdown concerned there hope of extending the Obamacare funding of individual and family health insurance.  Health insurers are corrupt and contribute heavily to Democrats Breitbart and American Resolve estimate that health insurers are taking in $1 trillion per year in federal subsidies, thanks to Obamacare. Plus, their stocks are up 1,000% since 2009. These companies contributed five times more funds to the Kamala Harris presidential campaign than they contributed to Donald Trump's campaign. And “Blue Shield of California donated $500,000 and UnitedHealth donated $75,000 to Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom's ballot measure effort, Prop. 50” which could give Democrat and insurance companies five additional seats in Congress. Even more egregious, federal auditors estimate that Medicare Advantage will overbill medical services somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 trillion this decade. Isaiah 1:23 warns of princes who “are rebellious, and companions of thieves. Everyone loves bribes and follows after rewards. They do not defend the fatherless, nor does the cause of the widow come before them.” Tucker Carlson in hot water for Nick Fuentes interview But then, the “conservative right” has their own dumpster fire going after Tucker Carlson interviewed Nick Fuentes. (It was a 2-hour-long interview). Ben Shapiro, the conservative founder of The Daily Wire, referred to Carlson as the “most virulent super-spreader of vile ideas in America.”  Mark Levin layered on another epithet for Carlson, calling the conservative talk show host a “Nazi promoter. " And Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas called the Fuentes interview “cowardly and complicit." Supremes unlikely to affirm Trump's tariffs According to the SCOTUS BLOG, the U.S. Supreme Court appears doubtful as to the constitutionality of the Trump tariffs.   Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared skeptical in the oral arguments which took place last Wednesday.  Supreme Court will not reverse homosexual marriage The U.S. Supreme Court will not reverse Obergefell.   The high court issued their decision Monday to let the 2015 decision stand — codifying the legitimization of faux marriage for those living in unnatural relations, men with men, and women with women — here in the United States. The justices rejected an appeal from former Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis — who had refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples — on the basis of her religious beliefs. A few weeks ago, Justice Amy Barrett admitted her reluctance to oppose the homosexual campaign for same-sex faux marriage because of what she called "very concrete reliance interests,” reports the New York Times. These apparently did not include God's interests. In a speech Justice Samuel Alito gave a few months ago, he called the Obergefell decision a “precedent of the court that is entitled to the respect afforded by the doctrine of stare decisis.”   That's a legal term meaning the policy of following principles laid down in previous judicial decisions. Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel was quite disappointed.  He said, “The majority of Supreme Court Justices know Obergefell is wrong, and this case should have been granted review and reversed that unconstitutional opinion. We are committed to overturning Obergefell. Like the abortion issue in Roe v. Wade, the Obergefell opinion has no basis in the U.S. Constitution.” The Prophet Micah issued this lament in Chapter 7:2-4. “The faithful man has perished from the Earth, and there is no one upright among men. They all lie in wait for blood; The best of them is like a brier; The most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge; The day of your watchman and your punishment comes; Now shall be their perplexity.” Household debt shot up by 30% Total U.S. household debt has registered a 30% increase since 2020 — now at $18.5 trillion. And, the U.S. dollar has weakened against major currencies this year by about 10%. That's the worst performance since the Nixon presidency.   Meanwhile, gold has increased about 60% in value this year to date. Average American wedding costs $33,000 And finally, in other economic news, The Knot reveals that the average wedding now costs $33,000. And couples who invite over 140 guests will need to pay $40,000. The price tag is location dependent.  New York weddings run $48,000 while Wyoming weddings average $17,000. To compare, the cost of the average starter home in America this year, by RedFin's metric, is $260,000 with a down payment of $16,900. Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, November 11th, in the year of our Lord 2025, the 19th wedding anniversary of my bride Amy and me. Check out our love story at www.AdamsWedding.net.  Follow The Worldview on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

  Kelsey Dallas, Editor of SCOTUSblog, joined Holly and guest host John Dougall to talk about what's coming up for the Supreme Court and what decisions they have made in the past week.  

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

President Trump's sweeping tariff plan may be on shaky ground after a Supreme Court hearing focused on his authority to impose the measures. Several justices on the court questioned the legality of the tariffs and how much power the president has to broadly enact his agenda. Amna Nawaz discussed more with PBS News 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's sweeping tariff plan may be on shaky ground after a Supreme Court hearing focused on his authority to impose the measures. Several justices on the court questioned the legality of the tariffs and how much power the president has to broadly enact his agenda. Amna Nawaz discussed more with PBS News 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's sweeping tariff plan may be on shaky ground after a Supreme Court hearing focused on his authority to impose the measures. Several justices on the court questioned the legality of the tariffs and how much power the president has to broadly enact his agenda. Amna Nawaz discussed more with PBS News 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

[This blog will always be free to read, but it's also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: cmclymer@gmail.com. And if this is too big of a commitment, I'm always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]On Friday, the Supreme Court, in a private conference, will consider whether to take up a challenge to Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States. The great Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog contextualizes for us:As a general practice, the court does not grant review without considering a case at at least two consecutive conferences; this is the first conference in which Davis' challenge will be considered. If the justices deny review, however, that announcement could come as soon as Monday, Nov. 10.I would be lying if I said I'm not pessimistic about this. I believe the Court will grant review, and they will eventually overturn Obergefell. I don't think the votes are there to stop it. I hope I'm wrong. If the Court does decline review in the coming weeks, I will be relieved and celebrating. But I don't think I'm wrong.It will be a tragic setback for LGBTQ rights—both here and globally—but fortunately, due to the leadership and foresight of Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and President Biden, the damage of that eventual overturning will be significantly mitigated.Back in 2022, Senator Baldwin cobbled together a bipartisan majority in the Senate—which included twelve of her Republican colleagues—to overcome the filibuster and pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which was then signed by President Biden.Among other things, it provided federally-enforced reciprocity between the states on the validity of same-sex marriage licenses. Basically, if and when Obergefell is overturned, the Respect for Marriage Act guarantees that marriage licenses issued in states where it's legal are still valid in states where issuing them would be illegal.So, if I get married to another woman in Massachusetts, that marriage license would still be valid in, say, my home state of Texas, where it would be illegal to issue them when Obergefell is overturned.Obviously, this is a very imperfect protection because many same-sex couples living in states where it would be illegal to get married can't afford to travel to a state where it would be legal. Imagine, alone, the implications of that in a medical emergency. Or in having parental rights. Not great.Regardless, it's a crucial backstop that will protect millions of LGBTQ families in our country, and I'm deeply grateful to Senator Baldwin and President Biden for getting it across the finish line. It's hard to believe there were twelve Republican senators who went along with it just three years ago.We're in this sad situation—on the precipice of witnessing one of the most important advances in LGBTQ rights dissolved—because of Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses in the wake of the Obergefell ruling.A lawsuit was filed against her by same-sex couples who were denied, which she lost in district court and eventually at the Supreme Court, and after she continued refusing to issue licenses, she was jailed for contempt.Following her release from jail after five days and a promise not to interfere with the work of her deputy clerks, Ms. Davis had alternate forms created which removed her name and she refused to add her signature to marriage licenses. Although the legality of these licenses were recognized by the state, some wondered if they could still be challenged in other contexts (out-of-state) for lack of a clerk's signature.There's an entanglement of lawsuits here I won't get into, but the most germane here is that a same-sex couple—David Ermold and David Moore—originally denied a license by Ms. Davis sued her to recoup their legal fees, which was eventually upheld in federal court and ordered to be paid by the State of Kentucky. But the state refused to pay them and said that burden should fall on Ms. Davis. Mr. Ermold and Mr. Moore also sued Ms. Davis for $100k in emotional damages, and a jury found in their favor in 2023.So, that's why we're here and wondering if Obergefell will be overturned. Because in order for that to happen, someone would have to convince the Supreme Court that an unconstitutional burden has been placed on them by the legalization of same-sex marriages.But there'd be no constitutional burden if Ms. Davis had carried out her duties as a county clerk because same-sex marriages don't place a burden on anyone outside of those marriages.We're in this incredibly frustrating situation because Ms. Davis can lay claim to being the only person in America whom can, in theory, assert that she's been burdened by Obergefell because of the legal fees she's been ordered to pay (along with the jail time, emotional burden, etc).All of this even though Ms. Davis brought it upon herself by neglecting her oath as a county clerk in favor of her religious views despite swearing to uphold the laws in a country guided by a constitution that guarantees freedom from religion. She used her public office to force others to abide by her religious views and she got heavily penalized for it, and thus, she has a (ridiculous) argument for legal standing because of damages she incurred. Ms. Davis has a curious relationship with her faith. As a Christian myself, I recognize all of us who follow Christ are vastly imperfect, but Ms. Davis is particularly dubious when it comes to Christ's teachings.She's been divorced three times. Her second failed marriage included an affair she had with the man who would become her third husband and the father of twins she birthed during that second failed marriage. She later divorced that third husband and remarried the second one. Four marriages, three divorces.I'm not here to judge Ms. Davis for her track record on shattered nuptials and broken commitments before God. That's not my place, and it never will be. I have always maintained that whatever consenting adults want to do is none of my business. People should have sex with whom they want and marry whom they want and divorce whom they want, and at no point should my opinion on any of that be taken into consideration, let alone be the basis for any law. My religious views are for my personal life alone, and I should mind my own business.Ms. Davis does not feel that way. She dismisses critics who point out her own imperfect journey, claiming her sins have been washed away by God's salvation, liberating her to stand in punitive judgment of anyone she believes to be imperfect in the eyes of God. I do not believe this is because Ms. Davis has an enduring faith in God. Quite the opposite. Her actions reflect a deep insecurity over her own faith and a relentless need to have her religious views validated by everyone around her in order to assuage that insecurity. Kim Davis is the kind of Christian whom requires the irritation of her doubts to be calamine'd not by the perfect love and understanding of God but by the unyielding resignation of strangers' personal lives to her religious purity, and while she does so, her own religious impurity should be met only with endless grace.Grace for me but not for thee.Ms. Davis is not someone with strong faith, but moreover, she is clearly not a happy person, and it is somehow the obligation of everyone else to sacrifice themselves for her spiritual validation and personal happiness. I genuinely feel bad for her. I can't imagine spending my life in the constant pursuit of ensuring every other adult is miserable so that my wobbly faith can be duck-taped together with the unnecessary pain of strangers. I pray she finds peace somewhere because it's abundantly clear she's not seeking it from God.Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Charlotte's Web Thoughts at charlotteclymer.substack.com/subscribe

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

Jonah Goldberg has reluctantly invited notorious media hack Steve Hayes back on the show to wax lyrical about The Dispatch's 2025 thus far, the SCOTUSblog acquisition, and maintaining one's integrity. Shownotes:—2024 Annual State of The Dispatch—Steve's weird NWYT on The Dispatch Podcast—Steve's good NWYT on The Dispatch Podcast—Newsgeist—SCOTUSblog—Most recent Dispatch Podcast—The Dispatch founding manifesto—Grayson Logue's article on vaccines and pediatricians The Remnant 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 Jonah's G-File newsletters—⁠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’s conservative majority signaled it could upend a central pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The question at the heart of arguments is whether lawmakers can use race as a factor when drawing congressional districts. Ali Rogin discussed the case's potential to reshape electoral maps with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe and David Wasserman. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, a case that could alter how race is considered in drawing congressional districts. Kelsey Dallas, Managing Editor for SCOTUSblog, joins with what to know and what's at stake.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority signaled it could upend a central pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The question at the heart of arguments is whether lawmakers can use race as a factor when drawing congressional districts. Ali Rogin discussed the case's potential to reshape electoral maps with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe and David Wasserman. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority signaled it could upend a central pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The question at the heart of arguments is whether lawmakers can use race as a factor when drawing congressional districts. Ali Rogin discussed the case's potential to reshape electoral maps with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe and David Wasserman. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

The U.S. Supreme Court kicked off its 2025-26 term this month, and higher education is squarely in the spotlight. From college policies to congressional maps, the Supreme Court’s new term could reshape America.  Kelsey Dallas, Managing Editor, SCOTUSblog, explains what’s at stake.

It's Wednesday, October 8th, 2025, late morning, and for those following Donald Trump's latest legal battles, the pace has barely slowed. If you've been glued to the news these past few days, courtrooms from California all the way to Washington, D.C. have seen Trump's lawyers and prosecutors trading volleys over his actions as president and well into his post-presidency.The big headline out west came from California, where a federal judge issued a strongly worded ruling against Donald Trump after his attempt to deploy the California National Guard into Oregon. According to the governor's office, the judge—ironically appointed by Trump himself—rebuked the idea that a president could override state authority this way, reminding all parties that the “historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.” In her order, she found the Trump administration's arguments “simply untethered to the facts” and declared that statements justifying the deployments “were not conceived in good faith.” That resulted in a direct rebuke to Trump's approach and another layer of judicial reinforcement of state rights.Meanwhile, on the federal front, the Supreme Court's October term is shaping up to be a blockbuster for Trump-related litigation. SCOTUSblog reported on Monday that the justices added five new cases to their docket for the 2025-26 term. While the full list hasn't dropped yet, legal analysts expect at least one to touch directly on former President Trump's use and possible abuse of executive powers—Marc Elias and Neal Katyal have both appeared on cable news speculating about how these cases could clarify ambiguous boundaries around presidential immunity and what's meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors.”Lawfare's Litigation Tracker, which has become almost a reference Bible for the ‘Trump trial industrial complex,' continues to log new lawsuits and appeals nearly every week. National security-related executive actions, especially around border policy and federal troop deployment, remain hotly contested in district and appellate courts. Just yesterday, reporters in D.C. spotted Trump's legal team in the courthouse, trying to negotiate further delays by arguing that the core issues have ‘never before been tested by the courts.' That's turned the federal judiciary into an arena not just for Trump's legal future but also for the broader definition of presidential power in America.If you think the story's about to wind down, think again. With upcoming hearings and new filings announced daily, this remains the most scrutinized courtroom saga in modern history.Thanks for tuning in today. Make sure to 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

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could strike down bans on so-called conversion therapy for children. Conversion therapy broadly refers to attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity and is banned in 23 states and the District of Columbia. Geoff Bennett discussed Tuesday's arguments 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 heard arguments in a case that could strike down bans on so-called conversion therapy for children. Conversion therapy broadly refers to attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity and is banned in 23 states and the District of Columbia. Geoff Bennett discussed Tuesday's arguments 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

Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Judge Patrick Bumatay at SCOTUSblog's inaugural On the Merits summit at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg Center to discuss public scrutiny, swing votes, and recusals.This conversation was recorded on September 25, 2025. Show Notes:—Subscribe to SCOTUStoday 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 begins a new term on Monday following a summer-long recess shaped by legal battles over the Trump administration’s agenda. William Brangham discussed the high-profile cases with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSBlog cofounder Amy Howe, and Stephen Vladeck, constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

The Supreme Court begins a new term on Monday following a summer-long recess shaped by legal battles over the Trump administration’s agenda. William Brangham discussed the high-profile cases with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSBlog cofounder Amy Howe, and Stephen Vladeck, constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

In this episode, Steve Vladeck of the Georgetown University Law Center and Sarah Isgur of SCOTUSblog join to discuss the legacy of the Roberts Court on its 20th anniversary and preview the important cases in the Supreme Court's upcoming term, which begins on Monday, October 6. The National Constitution Center's Griffin Richie guest hosts. Resources  Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump  Trump v. Slaughter  Sarah Isgur and David French, Advisory Opinions  Steve Vladeck, “The Roberts Court Turns Twenty,” One First (9/29/2025)  Steve Vladeck, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (5/16/2023)  Caleb Nelson, “Special Feature: Must Administrative Officers Serve at the President's Pleasure?,” Democracy Project (9/29/2025)  Joseph Copeland, “Favorable views of Supreme Court remain near historic low,” Pew Research (9/3/2025)  Brett M. Kavanaugh, “Separation of Powers During the Forty-Fourth Presidency and Beyond,” Minnesota Law Review (2009) In our new podcast, Pursuit: The Founders' to Guide to Happiness Jeffrey Rosen explores the founders' lives with the historians who know them best. Plus, filmmaker Ken Burns shares his daily practice of self-reflection.  Listen to episodes of Pursuit on ⁠Apple Podcast⁠ and ⁠Spotify⁠.  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr ⁠⁠ Explore the⁠ ⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠ or watch recordings on⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠ Support our important work:  ⁠⁠Donate⁠  

This week, we're looking at potential fallout for gun owners from an unexpected area: immigration. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a stay on an emergency basis in Noem v. Perdomo. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's statement in that case inspired UC Law Professor Rory Little to write a piece for SCOTUSblog on its potential implications in areas beyond immigration enforcement, including firearms law. He joins the show to elaborate on why he finds Kavanaugh's reasoning dangerous. Little said Kavanaugh's holding that immigration agents could use a person's apparent race, accent, and location as justification to detain them is troubling. He argued the idea that agents should be able to involuntarily stop and question somebody based on the idea that some percentage of similarly situated people may have broken the law could be turned on all sorts of people. He used gun shows as a prime example, arguing they primarily attract white men and can sometimes be the site of illegal sales. He argued an administration taking an aggressive approach to federal gun law enforcement could use Kavanaugh's logic to detain and question everyone at a gun show in hopes of catching the few that may be breaking the law. Little said that moving from a probable cause standard for detentions that relies on individualized suspicion to one based on demographics or probabilities would have far-reaching consequences for all sorts of Americans. He argued it's difficult to see how Kavanaugh's logic could be contained to immigration either, though he also emphasized Perdomo is still at a preliminary stage and other members of the majority haven't fully articulated their view on the matter. Special Guest: Rory Little.

We're at an interesting and dynamic point in time for immigration law, with Supreme Court rulings and presidential executive orders reshaping the field and challenging the system's status quo.  The administrative area of immigration law is especially difficult for legal professionals. In an immigration hearing, the judge is essentially on the same “team” as the prosecutor, and because immigration policies are largely under the federal executive branch, the rules seem to shift every four years with a new presidential term.  Guest Nikki Mehrpoo is a former judge, a scholar, and the first and only California dual certified legal specialist in immigration and Workers' Compensation law. She is a lawyer as well as a professor of law at West Los Angeles College. She recently created the  MedLegal Professor, a project dedicated to the ethical use of AI technologies in the field of law and medicine.  In this timely episode of Paralegal Voice, Mehrpoo unpacks recent Supreme Court rulings, executive orders, and even the use of AI facial recognition that are reshaping the field of immigration law. As a legal professional, what we think we know may be subject to change day by day, ruling by ruling.  Mentioned in This Episode: Previous appearance on Paralegal Voice, “Digging Into California Workers' Compensation (Plus, Career Advice From a True Pro)”  LAPA Noem v. Perdomo, SCOTUSblog coverage “Immigration Officers Intensify Arrests in Courthouse Hallways on a Fast Track to Deportation,” Associated Press “ICE Awards Clearview AI $9.2M Facial Recognition Contract,” Biometric Update “Nevada Judge Takes Creative and Unusual Approach to Combat AI-Generated Fictitious Citations,” LawNext “The EU Artificial Intelligence Act” Clearview AI NALA, The Paralegal Association NALA Conference & Expo 2026 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We're at an interesting and dynamic point in time for immigration law, with Supreme Court rulings and presidential executive orders reshaping the field and challenging the system's status quo.  The administrative area of immigration law is especially difficult for legal professionals. In an immigration hearing, the judge is essentially on the same “team” as the prosecutor, and because immigration policies are largely under the federal executive branch, the rules seem to shift every four years with a new presidential term.  Guest Nikki Mehrpoo is a former judge, a scholar, and the first and only California dual certified legal specialist in immigration and Workers' Compensation law. She is a lawyer as well as a professor of law at West Los Angeles College. She recently created the  MedLegal Professor, a project dedicated to the ethical use of AI technologies in the field of law and medicine.  In this timely episode of Paralegal Voice, Mehrpoo unpacks recent Supreme Court rulings, executive orders, and even the use of AI facial recognition that are reshaping the field of immigration law. As a legal professional, what we think we know may be subject to change day by day, ruling by ruling.  Mentioned in This Episode: Previous appearance on Paralegal Voice, “Digging Into California Workers' Compensation (Plus, Career Advice From a True Pro)”  LAPA Noem v. Perdomo, SCOTUSblog coverage “Immigration Officers Intensify Arrests in Courthouse Hallways on a Fast Track to Deportation,” Associated Press “ICE Awards Clearview AI $9.2M Facial Recognition Contract,” Biometric Update “Nevada Judge Takes Creative and Unusual Approach to Combat AI-Generated Fictitious Citations,” LawNext “The EU Artificial Intelligence Act” Clearview AI NALA, The Paralegal Association NALA Conference & Expo 2026 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode: The Supreme Court's 2025 term opens with a docket that could reshape trade, elections, civil rights, and executive power. Among the major cases: challenges to Trump-era tariffs that test the scope of presidential authority over economic policy, a Voting Rights Act dispute from Louisiana involving claims of racial gerrymandering, and a Title IX case on whether transgender students can participate in school sports. The justices will also confront questions about capital punishment and intellectual disability, the independence of federal agencies like the FTC and Federal Reserve, and the growing influence of the Court's emergency docket.Zachary Shemtob, executive editor of SCOTUSblog, helps break down the key cases to watch, the broader trends shaping the Court's work, and how this term's decisions could have lasting consequences for law, politics, and governance in the United States.Read Shemtob's analysis: https://www.scotusblog.com/author/zachary/ Learn more about the cases coming before the Supreme Court in the 2025-26 term: https://ballotpedia.org/Supreme_Court_cases,_October_term_2025-2026 Complete a brief 5 minute survey to review the show and share some feedback: https://forms.gle/zPxYSog5civyvEKX6 Sign up for our Newsletters: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_Email_Updates Stream "On the Ballot" on Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. If you have questions, comments, or love for BP, feel free to reach out at ontheballot@ballotpedia.org or on X (formerly Twitter) @Ballotpedia.*On The Ballot is a conversational podcast featuring interviews with guests across the political spectrum. The views and opinions expressed by them are solely their own and are not representative of the views of the host or Ballotpedia as a whole.

There's no way around it, the last week has been another whirlwind for Donald Trump in America's courts, with cases new and old shaping headlines and spotlighting the ongoing tension between presidential authority and the rule of law. I'm here to bring you right to the thick of it.Let's start with what's fresh—on September 4, 2025, the District of Columbia, through Attorney General Brian Schwalb, filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump in his official capacity as president. The suit targets his decision to deploy more than 2,200 National Guard troops into Washington, D.C., for armed patrols, searches, seizures, and arrests, all under federal command and without the consent of Mayor Muriel Bowser. The District is arguing this move violates a host of federal statutes, like the Posse Comitatus Act—designed to keep the military out of domestic law enforcement—and lacks any legitimate emergency justification. Not only is Trump himself named, but so are the Department of Defense and Secretary Peter Hegseth. D.C. is seeking to regain local control and end what it says is an unconstitutional assumption of state guard command. That case, just days old, is ongoing and already at the center of a fierce debate over who really controls the nation's capital in moments of crisis.But that's just one front. This past week also saw new action in the federal courts around civil rights. On September 2, a transgender woman, Jana Jensen, filed a lawsuit broadly challenging Trump's new executive order titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Jensen, supported by civil rights groups, is alleging violations that threaten to impact public benefits and government services for transgender individuals nationwide. That case also remains ongoing in the District of Columbia and it could set major precedent for how executive power is held in check when it comes to individual rights.Meanwhile, legal ripples are reaching all the way to the Supreme Court. This week, Trump administration lawyers were prepping for potential new showdowns over everything from the president's order ending birthright citizenship to his sweeping removals of independent agency heads. SCOTUSblog noted that the administration is seeking certiorari in at least five separate cases involving guns, drugs, and, significantly, the controversial executive order on birthright citizenship. It's clear that the Trump legal team is betting on the high court to settle the fate of some of his boldest and most divisive policy moves in the 2025-26 term.All of this comes as lower courts continue to churn through the aftermath of executive orders. Just this past June, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the Democratic National Committee's lawsuit challenging another Trump order on the independence of the Federal Election Commission, ruling the plaintiffs lacked concrete and imminent injury. The pattern: intense litigation, delayed resolution, but no shortage of drama over the reach of the Oval Office.Thanks for tuning in. Check back next week for more on these cases and the broader legal battles shaping America's future. This has been a Quiet Please production—find more at QuietPlease Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

It's Friday, September 5th, 2025, and I want to bring you right into the heart of the continuing courtroom drama surrounding Donald Trump—one of the most turbulent, talked-about sagas in American legal history.Here's what's unfolded over the past few days: after years of legal wrangling and contentious debate, the landscape around Trump's court battles has shifted dramatically this week. The most critical front remains the federal criminal case in Washington D.C.—the case where Trump faces charges related to alleged attempts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's highly anticipated decision on Trump's presidential immunity appeal in August, the justices vacated the earlier D.C. Circuit decision and remanded the case, giving Judge Tanya Chutkan authority once again. But here's the twist: as of Judge Chutkan's new scheduling order on September 5, almost all pretrial deadlines are now paused. That means the criminal trial is effectively stalled through October 24, thanks to the complexities surrounding how presidential immunity might limit or delay prosecution. The ‘pause' is a major victory for the Trump legal team's strategy to delay, and it's left legal experts and the public watching the calendar, waiting to see if time will eventually run out before the next election, or if the case will somehow make it to trial before then, as tracked closely by outlets like Just Security.It's not just federal courts keeping Donald Trump busy. The aftermath of the E. Jean Carroll civil verdicts still looms over him. The two lawsuits—Carroll I and Carroll II—where juries found Trump liable for defamation and sexual assault, are each in the appeals process. Legal reporters note the appeals could set new standards for how public figures are held accountable, and while the headlines have faded a bit since the verdicts, legal teams on both sides are wrangling over millions in damages and high-profile public statements.Meanwhile, Trump's legal calendar now brushes up against political issues at the Supreme Court too. According to SCOTUSblog, the Trump administration's lawyers have asked the Court to review several consequential policy actions, including the much-debated executive order on birthright citizenship. Motion after motion is being filed as the legal team attempts to push key disputes onto the high court's 2025-2026 term docket.This week's developments serve as a vivid reminder: each hearing, each court order, and each judicial pause or push brings fresh uncertainty. Will the criminal cases resolve in time to impact the 2024 presidential contest? Or will appeals, high court interventions, and procedural delays mean that the country is still awaiting answers deep into next year?Thanks for tuning in. Make sure you 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.ai

This Day in Legal History: Japanese PM Convicted of Accepting BribesOn August 12, 1983, former Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka Kakuei was convicted of accepting bribes from the American defense contractor Lockheed Corporation in one of Japan's most notorious political scandals. Tanaka, who served as prime minister from 1972 to 1974, was found guilty of taking approximately $2 million in illicit payments to facilitate the purchase of Lockheed aircraft by Japanese airlines. The scandal, part of a broader international investigation into Lockheed's bribery of foreign officials, became emblematic of the deep entanglement between corporate influence and political decision-making in postwar Japan.Tanaka's conviction marked the culmination of years of investigation, during which he retained significant political clout despite resigning as prime minister in 1974 amid allegations. His sentence included four years in prison and a fine, though he remained free on appeal for years thereafter. The Lockheed scandal not only damaged public trust in Japan's political establishment but also exposed vulnerabilities in the country's campaign finance and lobbying regulations.Tanaka's political machine, known as the “Etsuzankai,” was legendary for its ability to secure votes and wield influence through personal networks, favors, and targeted public works projects. Even after his resignation and conviction, Tanaka's allies dominated Japanese politics for much of the 1980s, demonstrating the persistence of patronage systems despite corruption scandals.Internationally, the case was a warning shot to defense contractors and multinational corporations about the legal risks of engaging in covert payments to secure contracts. For Japan, it became a touchstone in ongoing debates about transparency, accountability, and the need for stronger anti-corruption laws. Tanaka, often called “the paragon of postwar corruption,” remained a polarizing figure—admired by some for his populist economic policies and condemned by others for his abuse of public office.Federal prosecutors in Maryland have expanded their case against SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein, alleging he used his law firm's client trust account in 2021 to hide nearly $1 million from the IRS before purchasing a home. The revised indictment, filed August 8, claims Goldstein moved personal funds into his firm's Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account to avoid tax collection. It also adds details about earlier allegations that he misrepresented the source of $968,000 seized from him in 2018—telling a border officer it was gambling winnings, then later claiming to the IRS it was a loan, including from a foreign gambler.Prosecutors further allege Goldstein misled a litigation funder while seeking help with tax debts and a mortgage, and tried to dissuade a former firm manager from cooperating with investigators. The updated charges correct some dates, moving one alleged diversion of client fees from 2021 to 2020, and expand the time frame for certain tax evasion counts to include conduct through March 2021. These changes follow Goldstein's motion to dismiss several counts as time-barred.While the client trust account allegation is new, no new counts were added. Goldstein still faces four counts of tax evasion, ten counts of assisting false tax returns, five counts of willful failure to pay taxes, and three counts of false statements on loan applications. He is represented by Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP in United States v. Goldstein.SCOTUSblog's Goldstein Facing New Allegations in Criminal CaseThe American Bar Association's (ABA) policymaking body has passed a resolution opposing government actions that punish lawyers, firms, or organizations for representing clients or causes the government dislikes. This move comes amid heightened tensions between the ABA and the Trump administration, which has restricted DOJ attorneys from attending ABA events, reduced the ABA's role in vetting judicial nominees, and threatened its authority to accredit law schools.The resolution warns that the rule of law is endangered if lawyers or judges face retaliation for doing their jobs. It also denounces threats to impeach judges solely for their rulings. The ABA has an active lawsuit against the administration, alleging a coordinated campaign of intimidation against major law firms—claims the DOJ has asked a court to dismiss, arguing the ABA lacks standing and evidence of harm.Trump has issued executive orders targeting firms over past clients and hires, prompting some firms to agree to provide nearly $1 billion in free legal services to avoid further action. Others have sued successfully to block orders that revoked security clearances and restricted access to government work. The ABA contends these tactics have discouraged public interest legal work and harmed the ability of vulnerable clients to secure representation.American Bar Association adopts resolution against Trump's law firm crackdown | ReutersTaft, Stettinius & Hollister announced it will merge with Atlanta-based Morris, Manning & Martin on Dec. 31, creating a firm with more than 1,200 lawyers across 25 offices and projected revenues exceeding $1 billion. The deal will add 100 attorneys to Taft's roster and give the Cincinnati-founded firm its first Atlanta office. Taft's chair Robert Hicks described the move as part of a broader plan to become a “national middle-market super firm” and said the firm is eyeing future expansions into New York and Texas.Partners at both firms unanimously approved the merger. Morris Manning's managing partner, Simon Malko, emphasized that the combination was not driven by necessity, despite the firm recently losing lawyers to Reed Smith and Bradley Arant. Merger talks began in February, with both firms anticipating strong performance in 2025.This marks Taft's third merger of the year, following combinations with Denver-based Sherman & Howard in January and Florida litigation firm Mrachek Law in June. It also continues a wave of large law firm consolidations, including recent deals involving McDermott Will & Emery, Schulte Roth & Zabel, Kramer Levin, Herbert Smith Freehills, Shearman & Sterling, and Allen & Overy.Latest US legal industry merger to create $1 billion firm | ReutersThe Congressional Budget Office estimates that President Donald Trump's recently enacted tax and spending law will leave 10 million more Americans uninsured over the next decade. The July law, passed without Democratic support, extends earlier Trump-era tax cuts, adds temporary tax breaks, and increases certain spending, but offsets the cost by imposing new restrictions and eligibility requirements on Medicaid. Democrats criticized the measure as benefiting the wealthy at the expense of low-income households.According to the CBO, the poorest Americans will see annual incomes drop by about $1,200 due to combined tax and benefit changes, while middle-income households will gain $800 to $1,200, and the wealthiest will see increases exceeding $13,000. The agency noted these changes will disproportionately reduce resources for households at the lower end of the income spectrum while boosting those in the middle and upper tiers.10 million Americans will go uninsured due to Trump tax and spend law, CBO estimates | ReutersAnd in my column this week: Washington, DC is close to approving a $4.4 billion public financing package to bring the Washington Commanders back to the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium site, framing it as an investment in affordable housing and equity. Critics argue it's a familiar tax-subsidized stadium deal that guarantees a new stadium by 2030 but leaves housing delivery vague and far in the future. The legislation secures decades of tax breaks, infrastructure bonds, and zoning exemptions for the team, yet affordable housing commitments are relegated to non-binding promises in a separate term sheet. Official projections suggest 6,000 housing units, with 30% affordable, but without enforceable deadlines, construction could lag until 2040—or never materialize.Job creation claims are similarly underwhelming: 16,000 positions are projected, but 14,000 are temporary construction jobs, leaving only about 2,000 permanent roles for the $4.4 billion investment. The land involved—180 acres of public property—could instead be used for community-led development, housing trusts, or co-ops with built-in affordability requirements. Critics note that the public is bearing all the legal obligations while promised benefits remain aspirational. If the housing isn't built, the Commanders would only face paying rent on undeveloped parcels, a minimal penalty. Alternative proposals include redirecting funds currently used to pay off Nationals Park bonds toward a housing bond program, which could deliver thousands of affordable units sooner. Advocates argue any stadium approval should include firm, enforceable housing delivery benchmarks and penalties for missed deadlines to ensure public benefits aren't indefinitely deferred.One notable legal element here is the absence of binding contractual obligations for affordable housing delivery—a gap that leaves the city with limited legal recourse if the housing targets are missed, despite billions in guaranteed public subsidies. This matters because it highlights how legislative structure can predetermine the enforceability—or lack thereof—of development promises.Commanders Stadium Deal's Housing and Job Promises Are a Facade 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

J. Joel Alicea, professor at Catholic University's Columbus School of Law, joins Sarah Isgur and David French to discuss race-conscious redistricting. Then, they viciously attack Professor Alicea for thinking text, history, and tradition right. The Agenda:—Congressional acquiescence—Louisiana v. Callais—On questions presented—Bruen Was Right by J. Joel Alicea—The three eras of originalism—Listener email: Has Bruen made any babies? Show notes:—SCOTUSblog coverage of Louisiana v. Callais—Allen v. Milligan Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In just the past week, the legal battles swirling around Donald Trump have reached a new level of intensity, drawing the nation's attention back to a courthouse drama that seems never-ending. On July 23, the Supreme Court stepped in yet again—this time granting the Trump administration's emergency request for a stay in Trump v. Boyle. The decision, delivered without a full briefing or oral argument, reflected a split on the bench, with Justice Kagan writing in dissent. The outcome means the administration can press ahead with removing federal officials—part of a broader campaign by Trump's White House to reshape the executive branch and its agencies. This is happening as the judiciary weighs a surge of legal challenges, not just to Trump personally, but to the policies he's enacted since returning to office.Just before that, the Supreme Court handed down a blockbuster decision on July 9, clearing the way for President Trump to push forward with plans for dramatic reductions in the federal workforce. According to SCOTUSblog, this order lets agencies initiate what Trump described as “large-scale reductions in force”—RIFs—across government. The move came even as lower courts had temporarily blocked it, citing the risk of irreversible damage. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stood alone in her dissent, warning of “an apparently unprecedented and congressionally unsanctioned dismantling of the Federal Government.” Labor unions and advocacy groups vow to keep fighting the order in court, but for now, the Trump administration has the green light.Meanwhile, in New York, the repercussions of Trump's criminal conviction are still rippling outward. The New York Unified Court System's January 2025 audio and filings document the intensity of those final courtroom moments. There's an active appeals process challenging both the verdict and orders in the high-profile Manhattan case overseen by Judge Juan Merchan, as well as appeals stemming from the related Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg prosecution. Despite Trump's attempts to move proceedings to federal court and to dismiss charges on procedural grounds, those efforts have been repeatedly denied. The appeals now move forward on a consolidated docket, setting up a pivotal next chapter.On multiple fronts, Trump's team is locked in appellate battles not only over the handling of state cases but also the fallout from the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. After Justice Engoron's major summary judgment and subsequent damages order, both sides are set for a protracted fight in the Appellate Division, which could bring new revelations and risks for Trump's business empire.Layered atop all this is the stream of litigation documented by the Lawfare Litigation Tracker, which notes nearly 300 cases still winding their way through the courts—many challenging executive actions and personnel moves made in Trump's second term. Judges across the country are being asked to rule on the bounds of presidential discretion, the reach of federal courts, and the meaning of separation of powers, as the nation watches with no clear sense of when it all will settle.Thank you for tuning in and staying informed on these unprecedented court battles. Come back next week for more updates—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease dot AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

The National Constitution Center and the Center on the Structural Constitution at Texas A&M University School of Law present a U.S. Supreme Court review symposium featuring leading constitutional law scholars and commentators analyzing the Court's most significant rulings of the term. Panel 1: Supreme Court Term Review Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law, William & Mary Law SchoolDaniel Epps, professor of law, Washington University School of LawSarah Isgur, editor, SCOTUSblog; legal analyst, ABC NewsFrederick Lawrence, distinguished lecturer, Georgetown University Law CenterModerator: Katherine Mims Crocker, professor of law, Texas A&M University School of Law Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠Sign up⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠live program⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠YouTube⁠. Support our important work. ⁠Donate

On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its final decisions of the 2024–25 term. In this episode, Steve Vladeck of the Georgetown University Law Center and Sarah Isgur of SCOTUSblog join to discuss the significant cases from this Supreme Court term.    Resources Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025)  Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) DHS v. DVD (2025) Steve Vladeck, “163: A New Kind of Judicial Supremacy,” One First (June 30, 2025) Advisory Opinions podcast Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Support our important work. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

Sarah Isgur and David French break down the biggest takeaways from the Supreme Court's latest term using SCOTUSblog's stat pack as their guide. They also explain the outcomes in the Texas explicit content case and the “pride puppy” case. The Agenda:—OT25 in review—The most influential justice—What makes a case “important”—Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton—Explaining tiers of scrutiny—The pride puppy case—Curriculum opt-outs— Mahmoud v. Taylor This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at ⁠burfordcapital.com/ao⁠. 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, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a special live Advisory Opinions x SCOTUSblog crossover event, Sarah Isgur was joined by David French, David Lat, Zachary Shemtob, and Amy Howe (live from the Supreme Court), to react to the oral argument in Trump v. CASA, Inc. The question: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district court's nationwide preliminary injunction on the Trump administration's executive order ending birthright citizenship. 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, ⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Advisory Opinions extended universe kicks off as SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe and David Lat join Sarah Isgur to discuss the St. Isidore of Seville religious charter school case and the debate over school choice. The Agenda:—A ‘public' public school or a ‘private' public school?—Justice Amy Coney Barrett's recusal—Will Chief Justice John Roberts be the swing vote?—Will birthright citizenship end?—May 15: Mark it on your calendar Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French are joined by Amy Howe and David Lat, of The Dispatch's extended legal universe, to debate whether the Supreme Court should be more transparent. Sarah and David then separate  fact from the fiction in the arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan. (Also: should there be cameras in the Supreme Court?) The Agenda:—Cameras at SCOTUS?—SCOTUS oral argument goes off the rails—Calling other lawyers the “L” word—The arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan—Immunity doctrine is a mess—Louis Vuitton and criminal contempt—Old Whig No. 5—Trump admin and disparate impact—Harvard Law Review's DEI Show Notes:—Apply to work at SCOTUSblog!—Judge helps criminal escape in 2018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Yes — Obamacare is before the Supreme Court, again. This time, the case centers on the legality of an advisory task force. Experts worry it could spell the end of an ACA mandate requiring insurers to cover certain preventative care services at no cost. But first: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is caught up in another Signal group chat scandal. Plus, Paul Revere wasn't the only midnight rider to warn that the British were coming.Here's everything we talked about today:"‘An amateur person': GOP Rep. Bacon says Hegseth should go" from Politico"Obamacare returns to SCOTUS, with preventive care on the line" from Politico"Court to hear challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage" from Scotus Blog "Kristi Noem's Purse, With Security Badge and $3,000, Is Stolen" from The New York Times"Paul Revere Wasn't the Only Midnight Rider Who Dashed Through the Darkness to Warn the Patriots That the British Were Coming" from Smithsonian Magazine "April 18, 2025" from Heather Cox Richardson Got a question for the hosts? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.