Podcasts about SCOTUSblog

Sarah Isgur and David French (he returns!) discuss the major Trump losses—Kennedy Center name change, motion on Trump v. IRS, and injunction on the slush fund—before reviewing scrutiny of the court and the swatting incident at Justice Amy Coney Barrett's residence.  The Agenda: –Sarah returns to the greatest state in the U-S-of-A –Kicking Trump's name from the Kennedy Center –The Flight 93 problem –Trump v. IRS –Justice Barrett swatted –A Justice's son having a job is a scandal, I guess.  Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. 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

David Lat joins Sarah Isgur (see ya later, French) to discuss the three-judge panel overturning Alabama's congressional maps, a new lawsuit against President Donald Trump's slush fund, and a lying Judge. The Agenda: –No redistricting according to race –Nonsense lawsuits –Dragging courts into political fights –Moving honey buns is interstate commerce –Sanction more judges? –Feeling Wicker-ty –The Arbitration Act is sexy! –Making clerks very uncomfortable Show Notes: –Pitchford v. Cain  –Flowers Foods v. Brock –Rutherford v. United States –Fernandez v. United States–Wickard v. Filburn Advisory Opinions is a production of⁠ SCOTUSblog⁠ and⁠ The Dispatch⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective.⁠ Click here⁠ to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and⁠ click here⁠ to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including⁠ audio versions⁠ of all our articles and newsletters. 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 an anticlimactic dig from the Supreme Court over IQ tests and the death penalty and challenges to the $1.8 billion slush fund President Donald Trump created on weaponization, and they talk with NPR's Nina Totenberg about covering the Supreme Court. The Agenda: —Hamm v. Smith —How many IQ tests does a person on death row need to take? —Who can challenge the slush fund? —James Comey as the platonic ideal plaintiff —The embarrassing DNC autopsy, and Grifter Sarah makes an appearance —Interview with Nina Totenberg  Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. 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 analyze President Donald Trump's $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund through the lens of three legal “buckets,” and talk about how federal appropriations work and the Obama-era case that hangs over this legal issue. The two also discuss the Supreme Court's latest cert grant on a Title IX case, plus the circuit split brewing over the First Amendment and judicial elections.  The Agenda: –Court agrees to hear case on the ability of employees to bring certain suits for sex discrimination –Going through the settlement agreement, it's practically a blank check! –Todd Blanche essentially pardons Trump's family –‘That's not how appropriations work.' –Georgia Supreme Court race finishes strong  Show Notes: –Chief Judge William Pryor's opinion –Anti-Weaponization Fund –Keepseagle v. Vilsack Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. 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

Many Americans think they understand today's Supreme Court: six conservative justices appointed by Republicans, three liberals appointed by Democrats, and predictably partisan outcomes, especially in the “big” cases. But Sarah Isgur, host of the Advisory Opinions podcast, editor of SCOTUSblog, and one of the savviest Court-watchers in the country, is here to tell you that's wrong.In Last Branch Standing, Isgur argues that the conventional left-right framing fundamentally misconceives how the justices decide questions—not cases!—and that once you understand how they really think, the Court looks far more like a 3–3–3 institution than a 6–3 one. She also takes readers inside the building itself: the personalities, the quirks, the clerk culture, and the institutional dynamics that shape outcomes far more than partisan affiliation alone.Isgur's account of the Court's role in our current constitutional moment is equally illuminating. With Congress having largely abdicated its lawmaking responsibilities, presidents of both parties have rushed to fill the resulting policy vacuum through executive action—often setting themselves on a collision course with SCOTUS. And while the shadow docket creates a misleading impression of unremitting executive branch success, the full picture of how the current administration actually fares before the Court may surprise you.Join us for a conversation with Sarah Isgur about what may be the last constitutionally functioning branch of American government. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the IRS lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump, SCOTUS's mifepristone decision, and a unanimous verdict from the justices that no one except Sarah cares about.  The Agenda: –The 1,776 slush fund –David's ‘back in the day' lawsuit against the Obama administration –The Bivens brick wall –Trump loses on the law but wins in the politics –Ballroom and baby steps –Is Trump the Chosen One? –Brief explainer on the Comstock Act –Court rules freight brokers can face negligent hiring suits under state law Show Notes: –Federal Defender Newsletter –Jordan v. Darrisaw Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. 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 emergency docket ruling from SCOTUS on Alabama's congressional maps, which broke down over three-justice ideological lines, Virginia's filing (yes, they did file) at the Supreme Court, and a very special 2-1 9th Circuit panel opinion.  The Agenda: –Remember Allen v. Milligan? –Central, urban bonkerstown –14th Amendment Equal Protection argument vs. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act –Virginia files gerrymandering case at SCOTUS –Biogradable cooler dispute, are you Team Gorsuch or Team Kavanaugh? –Why 5-4? –Would You Rather: Due Process Clause or Equal Protection Clause? Show Notes: –Remarks by Sen. A. Shane Massey on the Sine Die Resolution and Congressional Redistricting Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. 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

Last week, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana congressional map in a 6–3 decision tied to a 1986 amendment to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. As Sarah Isgur explains, “What the Supreme Court has said now for 25 years, whether it's affirmative action or voting rights, is we're going to stop discriminating on the basis of race, whether you think it's good discrimination or bad discrimination or whatever else in-between, but you will not take race into account. Not when it comes to admissions to universities and not when it comes to voting.” At the heart of the debate is an ongoing misunderstanding of equality of opportunity vs equity of outcome. With both parties seeking political advantage in a zero-sum game, disentangling racial and partisan lines in congressional districting becomes nearly impossible, especially within the framework of constitutional fealty. Thus, we arrive at our regular theme: "Congress do your job!" Instead of judicial activism, can lawmakers create a neutral redistricting framework that truly separates race from politics and regulates partisan gerrymandering?Sarah Isgur is a senior editor at The Dispatch and is based in northern Virginia. She is the host of Advisory Opinions and the editor of SCOTUSblog. Prior to joining the company in 2019, she worked in every branch of the federal government and on three presidential campaigns. She's also an ABC News contributor and the author of Last Branch Standing, a deep dive into the inner workings of the Supreme Court.Read the transcript here.Subscribe to our Substack here.

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the Virginia State Supreme Court striking down the state's new congressional maps, Neal Katyal's TED talk that we don't want to talk about, and David plays a fun constitutional “Would You Rather” game. The Agenda:–Virginia's gerrymandering map is unlawful–The left can't get mad at the right when the right tried the independent state legislator argument–What really won the trillion-dollar Supreme Court case–Who is Harvey?–Shout out to the coolest AP Government teacher ever? Show Notes:–Supremely Cringe: Neal Katyal And ‘TED-Gate' Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. 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

-- On the Show: -- Sarah Isgur, editor of SCOTUSblog, host of the legal podcast Advisory Opinions, and a legal analyst for ABC News, joins us to discuss her new book "Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court" -- Donald Trump announces plans for an “Election Integrity Army” in the 2026 midterms while accusing Democrats of interference -- Donald Trump repeatedly declares the Iran conflict over while new strikes, escalation, and military activity continue 11 weeks into the war -- Sebastian Gorka claims the Iran war is lasting longer than just a few weeks because the Trump administration has been “too effective” -- Trump economic adviser Kevin Hassett and Energy Secretary Chris Wright continue blaming Joe Biden for inflation and energy costs -- Donald Trump gives confusing answers about vaccines, Cuba, Fort Knox, football prices, and future military operations -- Donald Trump gives a $6.9 million no-bid contract for the Washington reflecting pool renovation to his own pool contractor -- David gets medical testing, including an ultrasound, after some viewers speculate about his health and appearance online -- On the Bonus Show: Democrats strategize following a court axing Virginia's new congressional map, more than a third of Americans believe the midterms will be stolen, the US will start revoking passports from those who owe child support, and much more...

The Court's latest Voting Rights Act decision, Louisiana v. Callais, narrows Section 2 in a way that could reshape redistricting, weaken majority-minority districts, and intensify the fight over how race and partisanship interact in elections. We unpack what the Court said, what it quietly overruled, and why the reasoning matters far beyond Louisiana.We walk through the statutory text, the long-running collision between the Voting Rights Act and the Court's racial gerrymandering cases, and the practical consequences for future election-law litigation. Along the way, we debate whether this is best understood as a textual decision, a constitutional avoidance move, or a major shift in how the Court treats political power and racial representation.The conversation also covers the Court's emergency procedural move after judgment, Justice Kagan's forceful dissent, and the broader question of whether the decision is likely to help one party more than the other in the short run. The result is a sharp, candid look at one of the term's most consequential rulingsKey Topics[00:00:20] - Introduction to the episode and SCOTUS Blog partnership update[00:03:06] - Brief Supreme Court news: mifepristone litigation and shadow-docket timing[00:05:20] - Louisiana v. Callais and why the case is a major Voting Rights Act decision[00:11:35] - Voting Rights Act history: Section 2, Section 5, and Shelby County[00:13:39] - The collision course between racial gerrymandering doctrine and Section 2[00:16:17] - Allen v. Milligan and how the Court shifted course[00:21:21] - Procedural background of the Louisiana map challenge[00:23:02] - Is the decision constitutional, statutory, or both?[00:24:28] - Section 2's text and the 1982 amendments[00:29:14] - The Court's reading of “less opportunity” and the role of partisanship[00:41:46] - How the majority treats Allen v. Milligan and prior precedent[00:43:06] - Constitutional avoidance and the Section 5 enforcement-power question[00:46:28] - The Court's “updated” Gingles framework and why that matters[00:52:29] - Likely effects on majority-minority districts and partisan gerrymandering[00:54:25] - Justice Kagan's dissent and the Court's broader democracy critique[00:56:04] - The post-judgment timing dispute and Justice Jackson's separate dissent[00:58:55] - Final assessment of the decision and its likely consequencesRelevant LinksRick Pildes's post on the decision: https://democracyproject.org/posts/supreme-court%E2%80%99s-gutting-of-voting-provision-was-long-time-comingTravis Crum Amicus Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-109/373625/20250903201226237_2025.09.03%20Callais%20Crum%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

This week on We Saw the Devil, Robin tears through the most chaotic news cycle of the second Trump administration so far. Donald Trump told a White House crowd he'll be in office "eight or nine years from now," and they applauded. Politico reports the President personally offered Senator John Fetterman a "financial windfall" to switch parties (usually a bag of cash), on the record, while a sitting US senator "absorbed the suggestion." Trump publicly accused Pope Leo XIV of "endangering Catholics" with his pro-peace stance on the Iran war, sending Marco Rubio to Rome on damage control. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America president Marjorie Dannenfelser told the Wall Street Journal flat out: "Trump is the problem. The president is the problem."Robin breaks down Operation Epic Fury, Project Freedom, and the Strait of Hormuz standoff Pete Hegseth insists is "not a ceasefire violation" while Iran sinks ships and the UAE shoots down Iranian missiles. The Senate's $1 billion taxpayer giveaway for Trump's East Wing ballroom, the Supreme Court's gutting of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais, RFK Jr.'s campaign to "deprescribe" antidepressants, the closure of the ICE Detention Ombudsman office, the eight Republican AGs arguing in federal court that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is unconstitutional, and the hantavirus outbreak on a cruise ship in the Atlantic that nobody at HHS is equipped to track.Pour something strong. We're going in.Sources:Marjorie Dannenfelser, Pope Leo XIV, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, General Dan Caine, John Fetterman, Joaquin Castro, Adam Kinzinger, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Mike Nellis, Mrs. Frazzled, Abraar Karan, Adam Isaacson, Wall Street Journal, Politico, HuffPost, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, CNN, NPR, CBS News, Washington Post, SCOTUSblog, NAACP Legal Defense Fund.Keywords:political podcast May 2026, Trump news this week, Trump second term podcast, Iran war 2026, Pope Leo Trump feud, Fetterman financial windfall, Trump ballroom taxpayer money, Voting Rights Act gutted, Louisiana v. Callais, RFK Jr. HHS, Christofascism, Section 504 lawsuit, ICE detention oversight, hantavirus outbreak 2026, Met Gala 2026, Athena Strand verdict, Secret Service scandal, Susan B. Anthony Trump problem, anti-Trump podcast, progressive podcast, queer podcast host, snarky political podcast, true crime political podcast, We Saw the Devil podcastBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/we-saw-the-devil-crime-political-analysis--4433638/support.Website: http://www.wesawthedevil.comPatreon: http://www.patreon.com/wesawthedevilDiscord: https://discord.gg/X2qYXdB4Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/WeSawtheDevilInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/wesawthedevilpodcast.

Political partisanship is one way to measure how the Supreme Court justices think about how their rulings affect the nation. SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur says another, she believes more important way, has to do with their tolerance for change, with the justices ranging from order-loving institutionalists to true chaos agents. *** Thank you for listening. Help power On Point by making a donation here: wbur.org/giveonpoint

  The Supreme Court yesterday issued a ruling that would limit the power of the Voting Rights Act of 1964, the latest blow in a battle over redistricting state voter maps. This has already spurred major changes in primary races, as Louisiana is delaying its primaries to reevaluate after this decision. We speak with Kelsey Dallas, Managing Editor of SCOTUSblog, to detail what the justices said during the debates and how this will affect districts going forward. 

Karin Lips sits down with Sarah Isgur—ABC News legal analyst, co-host of the Advisory Opinions podcast, editor of SCOTUSblog, and author of The Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court. In this episode, Sarah quickly busts the myth that the Supreme Court is simply divided along partisan lines. She […]

Will the Supreme Court overturn religious precedent in the case of a Catholic preschool challenging its exclusion from a Colorado “universal preschool” program? Should the Supreme Court care about its own popularirty? And, is Ted Cruz a great option as for Supreme Court justice? Sarah Isgur and David French answer these questions and more, live at the University of Denver.Also: We are launching a SCOTUSblog newsletter on April 28!The Agenda:–‘Universal' pre-K causes court to re-re-reconsider major religious precedent–This already happened–Public Opinion, Credible Threats, and the Fezzik Principle–Watch The Princess Bride–Justice Ted Cruz?–The Shadow Docket reporting by the New York Times–Questions from the audience Order Sarah's book here.Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today on the Gist, Mike is joined by Sarada Peri, former speechwriter for President Obama, and Sarah Isgur, senior editor at SCOTUSblog and author of Last Branch Standing, for a new installment of Not Even Mad. The trio discusses the Virginia redistricting vote, how concerning the "shadow docket" really is, and Kash Patel's lawsuit against The Atlantic. Finally, in Goat Grinders: boarding times, bad Bruce Springsteen lyrics, and the endless construction of the Purple Line. Produced by Corey Wara Video and Social Media by Geoff Craig Do you have questions or comments, or just want to say hello? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com For full Pesca content and updates, check out our website at https://www.mikepesca.com/⁠ For ad-free content or to become a Pesca Plus subscriber, check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ For Mike's daily takes on Substack, subscribe to The Gist List https://mikepesca.substack.com/ Follow us on Social Media:⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/pescagist/ X https://x.com/pescami TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@pescagist To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠sales@amplitudemediapartners.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen at 6 AM on April 22, 2026, watching the legal world spin around President Donald Trump like a whirlwind, but here we are, listeners. Just yesterday, on April 21, the U.S. Department of Justice dropped a bombshell in Montgomery, Alabama—a federal grand jury indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center on 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel announced it from Washington, with the FBI and IRS Criminal Investigation leading the probe. Two forfeiture actions aim to claw back the alleged proceeds, though it's all allegations for now, and a conviction could strip away their ill-gotten gains, according to the Justice Department's press release.But that's not all keeping Trump's legal orbit buzzing these past few days. Shift over to the Supreme Court, where his Executive Order 14160—aimed at redefining birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment—is hanging by a thread. SCOTUSblog reports that during two hours of oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara last week, justices gave the administration's push an icy stare, hinging on a novel take on "domicile." The government argues a mother's domicile should limit citizenship for kids born on U.S. soil, but without that buy-in, the order likely crumbles. Rutgers Law School professors predict a pivotal ruling this term, clashing with the Immigration and Nationality Act, and we might not hear until late June.Meanwhile, Trump's immigration enforcement machine keeps humming. Vasquez Law in Smithfield, North Carolina, details how fresh 2026 executive orders ramp up electronic monitoring, tighten green card rules for applicants, and boost local-federal cop cooperation from Florida to nationwide. Dreamers and undocumented folks face expedited removals, prioritized by public safety risks—policies echoing back to 2016 but supercharged now to protect Americans, as their blog outlines in a grim timeline from initial encounters to appeals dragging months.And don't sleep on the DOL front—Mayer Brown notes that on April 15, the Department of Labor released Technical Release 2026-01, sparked by Trump's December 2025 executive order. It cracks down on ERISA retirement plans' proxy voting and advisory services, ensuring fiduciary duty aligns with worker interests.From Alabama indictments to Supreme Court showdowns, Trump's legal moves are reshaping enforcement, citizenship, and more, proving the past week's drama is just the latest chapter. 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 AIThis episode includes AI-generated content.

I never thought I'd be glued to the Supreme Court docket like this, but here we are on a crisp April morning in 2026, and Steve Bannon's legal saga just took a wild turn. Picture this: Stephen K. Bannon, the fiery former strategist to President Donald Trump, convicted back in 2022 for contempt of Congress after defying a subpoena from the House committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot. He served four months in federal prison, but now, SCOTUSblog reports that the Supreme Court, in its Monday order list, has sent his case back to the lower court. The Department of Justice has already filed a motion to dismiss the indictment entirely. It's a massive win for Bannon, clearing the path for his conviction to vanish just as Trump gears up for another White House run. Listeners, this feels like poetic justice in the endless Trump orbit legal battles—Bannon's loyalty to Trump never wavered, and now the courts might let him walk free.But hold on, because the Trump world's legal ripples don't stop there. Just days ago, on April 7, the justices also added a new case to their 2026-27 docket challenging veterans' benefit laws, though it's not directly tied to Trump. Still, the court's moves echo broader fights over executive power that Trump champions. Fast forward to this week, and Attorney General Pam Bondi—Trump's pick, confirmed earlier this year—has been flexing muscle through the Department of Justice's AI Litigation Task Force. Established back on January 9, 2026, this squad is primed to sue states over AI laws, arguing they burden interstate commerce or clash with federal rules. Baker Botts' AI Legal Watch notes it's all part of a White House push from March 20, including a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence that urges Congress to protect voices and likenesses from AI deepfakes—think Trump's image cloned without permission—while carving out spots for satire and news.Trump's influence seeps into procurement too. The General Services Administration dropped its "Basic Safeguarding of Artificial Intelligence Systems" clause on March 6, forcing companies to ditch their own AI terms for government deals, claiming ownership of custom tech, and sticking to American-made systems. It's a Trump-era clampdown on Big Tech, overriding commercial safety nets. Meanwhile, in a nod to hiring fairness that could hit Trump's business empire, Judge Rita Lin in the Northern District of California greenlit core age-discrimination claims in Mobley v. Workday on March 6. The ruling says the Age Discrimination in Employment Act covers job seekers, not just employees—huge for AI bias suits that might one day scrutinize Trump Organization practices.These threads weave a tapestry of Trump-shaped legal shifts: from Bannon's potential exoneration to AI battles shielding his brand. As federal preemption looms over state regs like New York's LLC Transparency Act, enforced since January 1, it's clear 2026 is reshaping the game.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

Today on the gist, Mike examines the dark psychology of political permanence following the shocking murder-suicide of former Virginia Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax. SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur returns to discuss the human element of the Supreme Court, explaining why the justices view themselves as consistent rather than hypocritical, why partisan "forum shopping" poses a far greater threat than the current ethics controversies, and the disastrous second-order consequences of ending lifetime appointments. . Plus, a look at the bizarre, brutal, and largely ignored 40-year reign of Ugandan leader Yoweri Museveni. Produced by Corey Wara Video and Social Media by Geoff Craig Do you have questions or comments, or just want to say hello? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com For full Pesca content and updates, check out our website at https://www.mikepesca.com/⁠ For ad-free content or to become a Pesca Plus subscriber, check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ For Mike's daily takes on Substack, subscribe to The Gist List https://mikepesca.substack.com/ Follow us on Social Media:⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/pescagist/ X https://x.com/pescami TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@pescagist To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠sales@amplitudemediapartners.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Sarah Isgur, editor of SCOTUSblog & author of the brand new book Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court, joined us on the Guy Benson Show today to give us an inside look at the Supreme Court. Isgur and Benson discussed how the perceived bias of the Supreme Court might be just that; perception. The pair dove into Isgur's inside look into the SCOTUS Justices and their processes, as well as their personal lives, preferences, and processes, and you can listen to the full interview below! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on The Gist, Sarah Isgur editor of SCOTUSblog and co-host of Advisory Opinions, joins to dismantle the media's most persistent myths about a strictly partisan Supreme Court. Drawing from her new book, Last Branch Standing, Isgur explains the reality of the 3-3-3 court, why institutionalists clash with "chaos muppets," and why Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh rarely vote together despite having identical conservative pedigrees. Plus, examining the political self-immolation of Eric Swalwell and questioning the dangerous reflex of using anti-Trumpism as a blanket ethical shield for gross misconduct. Produced by Corey Wara Video and Social Media by Geoff Craig Do you have questions or comments, or just want to say hello? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com For full Pesca content and updates, check out our website at https://www.mikepesca.com/⁠ For ad-free content or to become a Pesca Plus subscriber, check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ For Mike's daily takes on Substack, subscribe to The Gist List https://mikepesca.substack.com/ Follow us on Social Media:⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/pescagist/ X https://x.com/pescami TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@pescagist To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠sales@amplitudemediapartners.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Sarah Isgur is one of the busiest people in legal media. She hosts the delightful Advisory Opinions podcast (on which I sometimes appear); serves as an editor of SCOTUSblog, the leading online outlet covering the Supreme Court; and appears regularly on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. And now, as of yesterday, she's a first-time author.The thesis of Sarah's new book—Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court—is deceptively simple: almost everything the media tells you about SCOTUS is wrong. The conventional 6-3 framing obscures far more than it reveals. And compared to Congress and the presidency, the Court is genuinely trying to do its job.In our wide-ranging conversation, we covered Sarah's unconventional path to legal media (she was inspired by Legally Blonde to apply to Harvard Law School, and was fired from the DOJ and CNN before reinventing herself at The Dispatch); her book's core argument, which will be controversial in some quarters; Justice Sotomayor's recent, pointed criticism of Justice Kavanaugh; and possible picks for the next Supreme Court justice and attorney general. Thanks to Sarah for joining me, and congratulations to her on the publication of Last Branch Standing—a must-read for anyone interested in the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Clay is Optimistic Clay Travis highlights what he sees as clear economic momentum under President Donald Trump, noting that the Iran naval blockade appears to be working as intended, with crude oil prices falling and both the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average pushing toward record highs. Clay emphasizes that listeners who avoided panic during recent geopolitical tensions and tariff scares are being rewarded, as retirement accounts and 401(k)s are rebounding strongly—underscoring a recurring theme of market confidence and economic stability tied to Trump’s policies. The hour then pivots to one of the most dramatic political collapses in recent memory: the downfall of California Congressman Eric Swalwell. Clay and Buck explain that Swalwell, once a leading favorite to become California’s next governor, has now not only withdrawn from the governor’s race but has also resigned his congressional seat amid escalating allegations of sexual misconduct and criminal behavior. The hosts stress how extraordinary the speed and severity of the collapse is, noting that Swalwell had survived previous scandals—including connections to a suspected Chinese spy and constant media exposure—only to see his career end just weeks before early voting in California’s June primary. They also note that a Republican congressman in Texas has stepped down around the same time over unrelated allegations, pointing to a broader moment of political reckoning around misconduct. Sen. Rand Paul on Everything A wide‑ranging interview with Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who offers a constitutional critique of the U.S. military action against Iran. Paul reiterates that while he opposes Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, he believes Congress must authorize war and questions claims of imminent threat. He discusses the risks of escalation in the Strait of Hormuz, the economic impact of rising energy prices, and the uncertainty of whether negotiations can truly resolve the conflict. Paul also weighs in on Kentucky politics, strongly endorsing Congressman Thomas Massie as a constitutional conservative, emphasizing fidelity to the Constitution over unquestioning loyalty to any single political figure. The conversation broadens into Second Amendment rights, where Senator Paul argues for national constitutional carry, citing data showing lawful gun owners commit crimes at significantly lower rates than the general population. Drawing on his personal experience during the 2017 congressional baseball shooting, Paul criticizes gun‑free zones and inconsistent state laws that disarm law‑abiding citizens while leaving criminals unchecked. He also addresses the SAVE Act and voter ID, arguing that voter identification should be a basic requirement for elections and criticizing mass mail‑in voting systems that weaken confidence in electoral integrity. Two Can Play at That Game A continued focus on the U.S.–Iran conflict, as Clay and Buck note signs of de‑escalation: the S&P 500 is within a half‑percent of an all‑time high, crude oil has fallen sharply to around $88 a barrel, and gas prices appear to be stabilizing after early war‑related spikes. They explain that markets are signaling confidence that President Trump’s blockade strategy and pressure campaign are working, with Iran’s leverage shrinking and expectations growing that further negotiations—possibly in Pakistan—could follow. Buck frames the standoff as a waiting game, describing Iran’s threats in the Strait of Hormuz as “economic terrorism” and highlighting comments from Vice President JD Vance that the United States can outlast Tehran economically and militarily. The conversation then pivots back to the Eric Swalwell scandal, which dominates much of Hour 3. Clay plays extended audio from Lana Drews, the newly public accuser who alleges Swalwell drugged and violently raped her in a West Hollywood hotel room, choking her into unconsciousness. The hosts stress that this accusation is separate from and more severe than earlier reporting, helping explain why Swalwell abruptly resigned from both his gubernatorial race and Congress. They analyze the rapidly expanding fallout, including viral videos allegedly showing Swalwell in compromising situations, and public denials from figures like Senator Ruben Gallego, who had previously endorsed Swalwell but is now scrambling to distance himself. Clay and Buck argue the scandal is triggering a broader reckoning within Democratic circles, as journalists and politicians who long protected Swalwell now appear to be running for cover. This Will Make You Laugh An in‑studio interview with Sarah Isgur, SCOTUSblog editor, Advisory Opinions podcast host, and author of Last Branch Standing. Isgur challenges popular narratives about the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court is wrongly blamed for decisions that Congress refuses to make. She explains why the Court is not simply a “6–3 partisan body,” and how Congress’s abdication of legislative responsibility has forced the judiciary into the political spotlight. Clay and Buck ask about rumors that Justice Samuel Alito may retire, with Isgur explaining why the odds are roughly 50‑50 and how President Trump could shape the Court again if a vacancy opens this summer. Isgur also unpacks internal Supreme Court dynamics, particularly tensions surrounding Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, describing her as less institutionalist and more inclined toward solo dissents—traits that can strain collegial relationships. She previews several high‑impact cases still pending this term, including Voting Rights Act redistricting disputes, birthright citizenship, election‑day ballot deadlines, and Remain in Mexico–style immigration authority, emphasizing that many of these controversies should ultimately be resolved by Congress, not the Court. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.wethefifth.comSarah Isgur, Executive Editor of SCOTUSblog, has a book! Last Branch Standing is out today. -The Ted Lasso version of the Supreme Court-The Supreme Court is not the 6-3 cartoon people think it is-RBG thought Roe was built on weak foundations-The Court decides legal questions, not good policy vs. bad policy-Congress is now mostly bookers, comms staff, and 535 Inst…

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss President Donald Trump's rhetoric over Iran, what constitutes a war crime, and what happens if a military officer fails to obey an order or regulation. The Agenda:–John Mulaney gives SCOTUSblog a shoutout–Threatening war crimes–Will President Donald Trump ever see the Hague–Judge Scalia rolling over in his grave–Article 92 and disobeying orders–David answers questions Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Photo courtesy National Indian Child Welfare Association The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act in 2023, according to reporting by SCOTUSblog, affirming the law's role in keeping Native children connected to their families and tribes. But nearly two years later, implementation challenges remain. Legal analysis from Cornell Law School says states are still working to fully carry out ICWA's requirements, including placement preferences and coordination with tribal governments. And according to the National Indian Child Welfare Association, tribal leaders say the law is critical to protecting Native children and preserving cultural identity, and are calling for stronger enforcement nationwide. D. John Sauer is sworn in by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi with President Donald Trump one year ago this week. In the U.S. Supreme Court showdown over the 14th Amendment last week, justices sharply questioned the Trump administration's lawyer for invoking Native American history to challenge the birthright citizenship of immigrants. KNBA's Rhonda McBride reports on why his argument faced resistance. In defending President Donald Trump's executive order against birthright citizenship, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer compared Indian tribes to foreign governments. He argued that the U.S. Constitution treats tribes as sovereign nations and that when the country was founded, tribal members and their children were not considered citizens, much like the children of foreign diplomats, a standard Sauer says should be applied to immigrants. Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged Sauer's reasoning. “You're using some pretty obscure sources to get to this concept. The Indian Tribes were analogized to foreign diplomats. So what do we do with that?” Sauer replied, “I think with the Indian Tribes, we think that's a case that strongly supports us.” But Bob Anderson (Chippewa), an Indian Law Professor at Harvard, says that comparison does not hold. “The Indian law case just doesn't fit with anything that they're trying to do. And they were really trying to make it apply and I think they failed.” Bob Anderson took on the subsistence rights case of Katie John when he was an attorney for the Native American Rights Fund in 1985. (Photo: Rhonda McBride) Anderson says those doubts about Sauer's case appeared to cut across ideological lines. “It seemed to me that the conservative members of the court recognized that. I was surprised that they seemed to be so much in alignment with the opponents of the Trump administration.” Justice Neil Gorsuch, widely regarded as an expert on Indian Law, pressed Sauer on Native American citizenship. “Do you think they’re birthright citizens?” Sauer responded, “No. I think the clear understanding that everybody agrees in the congressional debates is that the children of tribal Indians are not birthright citizens.” Justice Gorsuch eventually got Sauer to agree that by today's standards, tribal Indians are birthright citizens, but then Sauer walked that back. “I’m not sure. I have to think through that.” Based on Sauer's arguments, Anderson says Native Americans should not worry about their citizenship status. “No, there’s no way that this case could affect the citizenship of Indian tribes, because Congress passed the separate law in 1924, automatically making all tribal members in the United States citizens as well as their children.” The 1924 law passed decades after the 14th Amendment – to close the loophole that had left Native Americans without automatic citizenship. The law, however, did not affect their tribal government-to-government status under the Constitution. AIHEC CEO Ahniwake Rose. (Courtesy Ahniwake Rose / LinkedIn) Leaders from tribal colleges and universities are calling on Congress to increase federal funding, saying current support falls short of what is needed. The American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) says tribal colleges receive significantly less funding per student than other public institutions, despite serving communities with high financial need. AIHEC President and CEO Ahniwake Rose says, “A flourishing tribal higher education sector strengthens the entire nation.” Leaders are urging lawmakers to fully fund tribal college programs, saying the federal government has a trust responsibility to support Native education. Get National Native News delivered to your inbox daily. Sign up for our daily newsletter today. Download our NV1 Android or iOs App for breaking news alerts. Check out today’s Native America Calling episode Tuesday, April 7, 2026 – Alutiiq Museum tells tale of Alaska Native children sent to Carlisle Indian Boarding School

OA1250 - A fall out of bed during a vacation in Delaware turned into a Supreme Court case, decided this term, that could have big implications for states' rights to limit tort suits… in federal court. Did Delaware take a good-faith precautionary measure to reduce frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits? Or did they put up an unfair barrier to plaintiffs who deserve restitution? Perhaps reasonable people can disagree on that. But in the rare circumstance you manage to bring that state tort case into a federal courtroom, SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that it's clear Delaware's rule is a step too far. (They can still do what they want in their own courts, but not here). How far-reaching will the consequences be? Legal reporting seems split! Come for the (brief, not too gory) medical drama, stay for the review of the Erie Doctrine so you can pass your Federal Civil Procedure class. A nice chill case where the world isn't burning down and the justices mostly act like normal respectful people. Berk v. Choy, 607 U.S. ___ (2026) Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) Rules Enabling Act of 1934: 28 U.S.C. § 2071-2077 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Robert Niles-Weed, A Sleeper Supreme Court Case Opens Door to More Frivolous Suits, Bloomberg Law, Mar. 3, 2026. Ronald Mann, Justices Reject State Limits on Malpractice Actions for Cases in Federal Court, SCOTUSblog, Jan. 21, 2026. Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Trump v. Barbara, a case concerning the legality of President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. Zachary Shemtob, executive editor of SCOTUSBlog, joined Forbes' Maggie McGrath to discuss what was said in court, how the justices seem to be leaning on their ruling, and why it mattered that Trump attended in person. Stay Connected Forbes Breaking News on X: https://x.com/ForbesTVNews Forbes Breaking News on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@forbestvnews More From Forbes: http://forbes.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kelsey Dallas, Managing Editor of SCOTUSblog, joins the show to discuss what unfolded as the US Supreme Court heard arguments around birthright citizenship and what it could signal for a final decision.

Sarah Isgur is joined by David French, Amanda Tyler, Akhil Amar, and SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe to react to the oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, Donald Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship.Watch the livestream here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Former President Trump attends Supreme Court arguments on birthright citizenship. SCOTUSblog Managing Editor Kelsey Dallas explains why the case matters, whether a former president’s presence is unusual, and the key legal questions the justices are considering.

A Colorado law that bans conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ youth hit a potentially far-reaching roadblock at the Supreme Court. In an 8-1 decision, the justices sided with a Christian counselor who argued that the law violated her First Amendment rights. Justice correspondent Ali Rogin discussed more with Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe, the co-founder of SCOTUSblog. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

A Colorado law that bans conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ youth hit a potentially far-reaching roadblock at the Supreme Court. In an 8-1 decision, the justices sided with a Christian counselor who argued that the law violated her First Amendment rights. Justice correspondent Ali Rogin discussed more with Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe, the co-founder of SCOTUSblog. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

David Lat—founder of Above the Law and author and host of Original Jurisdiction blog and podcast—explains what these stories reveal about a legal profession navigating ideological warfare, economic disruption, and the enduring craft of persuasion.Paul Clement delivered what SCOTUSblog called "a master class in oral argument" in Trump v. Cook. Lat dissects what made it a master class—by listening for the bench's emotional temperature, pivoting through backup arguments without undercutting his primary position, and admitting to Justice Alito that his framing was "heads I win, tails you lose."Key points:VanDyke's dissental as a direct call to the public? Lat describes the theory that VanDyke is practicing "postmodern jurisprudence," calling out what he views as liberal colleagues imposing policy preferences while cloaking them in legal doctrine.For California practitioners, ask yourself: are you appearing before a lightning-rod judge on your panel? Your case might become less about the merits and more about signaling beyond your case.The BigLaw executive orders worked—not through litigation, but through capitulation: Four firms fought Trump's security clearance revocations in court and won. But nine firms settled, committing to political non-discrimination and nearly $1 billion in administration-favored pro bono work.A Washington Post study confirms the chilling effect: large firms have dramatically curtailed challenges to Trump policies compared to the first administration. Smaller boutiques are picking up the slack, but they lack BigLaw's resources. Lat predicts the government will lose in the D.C. Circuit and SCOTUS won't take the case—but the damage is already done.Jack Smith's boutique launched with a Costco run for paper towels—and it's part of a broader trend: AI and co-counseling arrangements now enable small firms to handle discovery-heavy work previously requiring armies of associates. But success still depends on established reputations; fresh graduates need BigLaw's name recognition.Clement's oral argument techniques translate to any appellate court: Listen not just for questions but for the bench's emotional temperature—”the vibes.” Stay nimble with backup arguments framed as "We stand by X, but if you're not persuaded..." Keep it conversational and candid—breaking the fourth wall builds credibility.

The Supreme Court is to hear a major case that could reshape how the United States handles asylum seekers at the southern border. At issue is whether the Trump administration has the legal authority to turn away individuals requesting asylum. Kelsey Dallas, Managing Editor of SCOTUSblog, joins the show to break down the legal questions, the policy implications, and what to watch as the case moves forward.

The Supreme Court determined that individuals with intellectual disabilities are less culpable and should not face capital punishment.  Diminished Capacity is also applied in non-capital sentencings. In Hamm v. Smith, the Supreme Court is revisiting the 70 IQ cutoff because of new understandings about errors in measurement. But the bigger problem is IQ tests fail to measure key cognitive deficits tied directly to moral and criminal responsibility.   Therefore, it's time for courts to move beyond IQ as the sole measure of brain functioning.   IN THIS EPISODE: Five misconceptions about whether IQ is a valid reflection of impaired cognitive functioning; A list of all cognitive deficits IQ tests do NOT measure; "The Practice Effect" and other measurement errors in IQ testing; Atkins in the context of Autism – the rationale for Atkins is the same, but the standard is useless; The curious case of Phineas Gage – frontal lobe damage doesn't always impact IQ; Traumatic brain injury doesn't always impact IQ; The right testing to measure cognitive deficits.   CONTACT INFO FOR DR. LIDSKY:   732-580-6157  |  tlidsky@gmail.com   LINKS: A deep dive into Hamm v. Smith on Scotus Blog:   https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/hamm-v-smith-and-the-future-of-capital-punishment/   Other Set for Sentencing Ep. with Dr. Ted Lidsky:  Ep. 81:  A Child's Poison       

We announce an exciting new partnership with SCOTUSblog and introduce the show to new listeners. We then return to the mysterious origins of the Chief Justice's "no, no, a thousand times no," debate the Court's new policy designed to maintain secrecy, and then take a close look at Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, a sovereign immunity decision in which the Court may, or may not, have paid attention to Will's amicus brief.  

In part two of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced last week that the War Department will conditionally continue to provide support to Scouting America — formerly the Boy Scouts of America — following the youth organization's commitment to pull all diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives from its program. The organization also changed a policy that didn't distinguish between male and female participants' biological sex at birth. Also California's tax rate overtaxing MLB players and a SCOTUS Blog article on a 2nd ammendment case on pot use and gun ownership. For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The decades-old prohibition against gun possession by illegal drug users went before the U-S Supreme Court for oral arguments -- the focus in this case questions marijuana use... and brings up questions on what qualifies someone as a drug user? Managing Editor with SCOTUSblog, Kelsey Dallas, about the case and what the courts are thinking leading into their decisions.

I never thought I'd be covering court battles like this, but here I am, glued to the latest twists in the legal wars swirling around President Donald Trump. Just yesterday, on March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court heard arguments in United States v. Hemani, where the Trump administration is defending a federal law banning illegal drug users from owning guns. Justice Elena Kagan grilled lawyers with hypotheticals about ayahuasca ceremonies, and even Justice Amy Coney Barrett admitted she'd never heard of the drug, asking if it was real. The justices seemed skeptical of challenges to the law's constitutionality, drawing parallels to everyday drug use to test the limits of Second Amendment rights, as reported in SCOTUSblog's live coverage.But that's just one front. Trump's unilateral military strike on Iran has sparked a firestorm over war powers. The New York Times' Charlie Savage detailed how accusations are flying that Trump violated the Constitution by launching the operation without congressional approval. It's reignited the age-old debate on who controls America's war machine—presidents have done it before, but critics say this crosses a line, paving the way for broader Supreme Court scrutiny.Over in the D.C. Circuit, things got wild with those executive orders targeting law firms like Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey. Trump hit them hard—terminating government contracts, yanking security clearances, barring access to federal buildings—because they represented his opponents, worked on voting rights, or challenged his 2020 election efforts. District judges, including Beryl Howell, called it chilling, a First Amendment nightmare that could scare lawyers from tough cases. The Justice Department stunned everyone by moving to dismiss the appeals on Monday, a huge win for the firms and the rule of law. But Tuesday, they flipped, filing to revive the fights without explanation. Democracy Docket reports the firms fired back, urging the court to reject the about-face. Pro-democracy watchers are alarmed—this isn't just about contracts; it's whether a president can weaponize government against his legal foes.Meanwhile, the Federal Circuit shot down the Trump team's plea to delay a tariff refund case by up to four months. After the Supreme Court's February 20 ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't let presidents slap on tariffs willy-nilly, Trump vented on social media about rehearing it. Bloomberg's Zoe Tillman notes the administration argued complexity demands caution, but companies are pushing back, saying delays hurt. Trump responded by imposing 10 percent tariffs on all countries starting February 24 using other laws, per Holland & Knight analysis.Down in New York, a federal court in the Southern District smacked down Trump's bid to kill the city's Congestion Pricing program. Earthjustice, representing Riders Alliance and Sierra Club alongside the MTA, won summary judgment. U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman ruled Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy couldn't override the democratic process that approved the tolls, which have cleaned the air, sped up streets, boosted transit, and added millions to the economy despite Trump's "disaster" label.And that's not all—Lawfare's tracker logs 298 active cases challenging Trump actions, from national security to the Alien Enemies Act deportations. State courts are buzzing too, with oral arguments on ghost guns and DOJ voter data grabs. Whew, listeners, these past few days have been a legal whirlwind, testing the courts like never before.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: Jones ActOn March 2, 1920, Congress passed the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, better known as the Jones Act. Enacted in the aftermath of World War I, the statute reflected a national effort to strengthen the United States' merchant marine fleet. Lawmakers believed that a robust domestic shipping industry was essential to both economic growth and national defense. The Act required that goods transported between U.S. ports be carried on vessels that are built in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed primarily by Americans. Senator Wesley L. Jones sponsored the measure, arguing that reliance on foreign ships posed strategic risks.The law reshaped American maritime commerce for decades. By limiting coastwise trade to qualifying vessels, Congress sought to ensure a steady demand for American shipyards and maritime labor. Supporters have long maintained that the Act protects domestic jobs and guarantees a ready fleet in times of war or national emergency. Critics, however, argue that the restrictions reduce competition and raise shipping costs. Those higher costs are often felt most sharply in non-contiguous states and territories such as Puerto Rico and Hawaii, which depend heavily on maritime transport.Over time, the Jones Act has generated extensive litigation and recurring legislative proposals for reform or repeal. Courts have been called upon to interpret its scope, exemptions, and application to modern shipping practices. More than a century after its passage, the statute remains a focal point in debates over free trade, federal power, and national security.President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to stop using artificial intelligence products from Anthropic after the company declined to support certain military applications. The dispute arose when Anthropic said it would not provide its technology for mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons systems. Trump accused the company of trying to impose its own political views on the Department of Defense and claimed its stance threatened national security. Shortly after the president's directive, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that military contractors and partners could no longer conduct business with Anthropic. The Defense Department said it would phase out the company's technology within six months while transitioning to another provider.Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei had stated that while AI can support lawful foreign intelligence efforts, mass surveillance of Americans raises serious civil liberties concerns. He also argued that fully autonomous weapons lack the reliability and oversight needed to ensure responsible use. According to Anthropic, the Defense Department required contractors to agree to “any lawful use” of AI systems, including applications the company views as risky. The government also threatened to label Anthropic a national security “supply chain risk,” a designation the company says is usually reserved for foreign adversaries. Anthropic maintains that such a move would be legally questionable and has pledged to challenge it in court. The company further argues that any formal designation would likely apply only to government contract work, not to all commercial activity.Trump Tells Federal Agencies To Drop ‘Woke' Anthropic Tech - Law360Trump admin blacklists Anthropic; AI firm refuses Pentagon demandsOpenAI has completed a massive $110 billion funding round that values the company at $730 billion. The investment was led by Amazon with a $50 billion contribution, while Nvidia and SoftBank each committed $30 billion. The deal was advised by Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz on behalf of OpenAI.As part of the transaction, OpenAI also entered into a strategic cloud partnership with Amazon and secured access to Nvidia's next-generation graphics processing units to expand its AI capabilities. The company said additional investors may join the round as it continues. OpenAI highlighted that more than 9 million paying business customers use ChatGPT, alongside roughly 900 million weekly active users.The funding reflects the accelerating competition among major technology companies to build AI infrastructure, including cloud systems, chips, and data centers. Amazon has already announced plans to invest about $200 billion in AI-related capital spending next year. Across the tech sector, companies such as Meta Platforms and Alphabet Inc. are also committing hundreds of billions of dollars to AI development. OpenAI described the moment as an infrastructure race, emphasizing that scaling capacity quickly will determine leadership in the industry.Wachtell Lipton Steers OpenAI On $110B Amazon-Led Funding - Law360A Los Angeles trial judge warned members of the press that she may impose a gag order in the high-profile social media bellwether case involving claims that major platforms harmed a young user's mental health. Carolyn B. Kuhl said a news report appeared to reference juror conversations overheard in a courthouse hallway, which she viewed as a violation of her directive to keep distance from jurors. She emphasized that preserving the integrity of the proceedings is critical and stated she would hold a hearing on a gag order if necessary.The case, pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, is the first bellwether trial among more than 1,000 consolidated lawsuits. The plaintiff, identified as Kaley G.M., alleges that platforms such as Meta Platforms Inc.'s Instagram and Google LLC's YouTube used addictive design features that contributed to her mental health struggles. The judge has repeatedly instructed jurors not to discuss the case or consume media coverage, and she has taken steps to physically separate them from reporters and the public. She also restricted any physical descriptions of the plaintiff because her claims relate to harm suffered as a minor.Tensions over courtroom conduct have surfaced before. The judge previously warned attendees about unauthorized recordings and removed a plaintiffs' attorney from a leadership role for filming inside the courthouse. Meanwhile, the trial has included testimony from the plaintiff and expert witnesses who argue that social media addiction is real and harmful. The defendants maintain that other factors, including family dynamics, contributed to her condition. With additional trials planned, the outcome of this bellwether proceeding could influence settlement discussions and expose the companies to significant financial liability.Social Media Trial Judge Threatens Media With Gag Order - Law360Improper juror access in social media case, judge warns mediaA juror in the recent trial of Thomas Goldstein said the defendant's own testimony was a turning point in the case that led to his conviction on multiple tax and mortgage fraud charges. The juror described Goldstein's time on the stand as polished but theatrical, suggesting it felt more like a performance than a candid explanation. Goldstein had argued that errors in his tax filings stemmed from bookkeeping mistakes and reliance on outside accountants, and he claimed he overstated certain gambling winnings. Prosecutors, however, alleged that he intentionally failed to report millions in income, improperly deducted personal expenses, and misrepresented debts on mortgage applications.The jury convicted him on 12 of 16 counts, including tax evasion and mortgage fraud, while acquitting him on several charges tied to later tax years. He has been ordered to remain under home confinement pending sentencing. According to the juror, the government's extensive documentary evidence — including bank records, emails, and text messages — ultimately carried significant weight. Testimony about Goldstein's spending habits and lifestyle was also presented, though the juror said personal matters such as alleged affairs were not decisive.The defense emphasized accounting errors and challenged the venue for certain mortgage counts. Still, the juror said responsibility rested with Goldstein because he signed the tax returns. Prosecutors have praised the verdict, while the defense has not publicly commented. The case was tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.Goldstein Testimony ‘Solidified' Case, Juror Says - Law360District of Maryland | Prominent Lawyer Thomas Goldstein Convicted of Tax Evasion and Mortgage Fraud | United States Department of Justice 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

Hillary Clinton testifies behind closed doors before the House Oversight Committee as lawmakers press for answers about Jeffrey Epstein and the DOJ's handling of the case. New reporting raises legal questions after the FBI allegedly subpoenaed phone records and secretly recorded a call between current White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and her attorney. A prominent Supreme Court litigator falls from grace as SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein is convicted on federal tax charges tied to millions in undisclosed high-stakes poker winnings. A twist in the death of NHL star Johnny Gaudreau as the accused driver claims new testing shows he was not legally drunk when he struck and killed Gaudreau and his brother.   Herald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com   PureTalk: Tired of big wireless prices? Switch to PureTalk for unlimited talk and text for $25/month—dial #250 and say MEGYN KELLY for 50% off your first month. 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 court battles unfold like a high-stakes thriller, but here we are in late February 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal showdowns have dominated the headlines for days. It started heating up last Friday, February 20th, when the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., dropped a bombshell in the consolidated cases of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. By a 6-3 vote, Chief Justice John Roberts announced the judgment, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA from 1977, does not authorize the president to impose those sweeping tariffs Trump had slapped on imports from Canada, Mexico, and dozens of other countries. Trump had declared national emergencies over drug trafficking and massive trade deficits, calling them unusual and extraordinary threats, then hit Canada with a 25% duty on most goods to combat fentanyl flows. But the justices, including Trump's own appointees like Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett in the majority on key parts, said no—the law lets the president investigate, block, regulate, or prohibit imports during emergencies, but not straight-up tariffs. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts fully, while Brett Kavanaugh dissented, arguing IEEPA's text and history gave Trump broad power, especially under the major questions doctrine for foreign affairs.The ruling, covered everywhere from SCOTUSblog to The New York Times and Fox News, was a huge check on executive power. Vox called it a Republican court reining in Trump, while The Guardian labeled it the end of his one-man tariff war. Trump didn't take it lying down. That same day, February 20th, he spoke to a packed crowd, as captured in the CNBC Television video, ripping into the justices: "I'm ashamed of certain members of the court... they're a disgrace to our nation, very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution." He accused them of being swayed by foreign interests and even his own picks of lacking loyalty, though he praised Justice Kavanaugh's "genius." Axios reported him calling the court an embarrassment, and Politico noted his fierce pushback with vows for new levies.By Tuesday's State of the Union, Trump dialed it back, calling the decision disappointing but complying—no defiance, as senior writer Ankush Khardori pointed out in Politico Magazine. He signed an order for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, set to kick in days later for up to 150 days or longer, plus Section 301 probes into unfair practices. Meanwhile, just yesterday on Thursday, February 26th, SCOTUSblog reported the Trump administration, via U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, petitioned the Supreme Court again. This time, it's over Temporary Protected Status for Syrian nationals. A federal judge in New York had blocked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's move to end the program, which lets Syrians stay and work here amid their country's chaos. Sauer called it an easier case than recent Venezuelan TPS wins, urging the justices to stay the ruling by March 5th, arguing courts can't second-guess national security calls or consultation requirements.These past few days have been a whirlwind of executive power tests—from tariffs crashing down to immigration fights heating up. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker shows dozens more cases bubbling, but this week's rulings remind us the courts are holding the line.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

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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