Podcasts about SCOTUSblog

What happens when one of the country's most accomplished appellate lawyers needs an appellate rescue of his own? Former Supreme Court advocate and SCOTUSblog co-founder Thomas Goldstein is serving six years in federal prison after a jury convicted him on 12 felony counts. Now, a seven-lawyer appellate team led by former U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar is dissecting the trial record for something far more valuable than a new argument: reversible error. Host Jack Russo examines the defense's attack on evidentiary rulings and a potentially critical change to jury instructions, all against an unusually precise verdict that suggests the jury carefully weighed the case. Money can buy extraordinary legal talent, but can seven of Washington's best lawyers find reversible error in a record that may have been built to withstand exactly this kind of attack? Jack Russo MBA/JD/LLM NITA Master Trial Advocate Certified Appellate Specialist 

The big issue in the news today is the Missouri legislature's attempt to avoid the state constitution's referendum provisions in order to impose a legislative map that would advantage Republicans to the tune of all but one of the state's seats in the US House.  The Supreme Court is asked to intervene, and Justice Kavanaugh - after we taped - declined to do so.  This may not be end of the story, but our guest Vik Amar is on top of it together with Akhil.  Listen to get the details, and check out Scotusblog.com to stay updated - Akhil and Vik have a new column there.  Meanwhile, our interview with Professor Steven Smith discussing his new book, On Statesmanship, precedes this discussion this week - don't miss that, either!  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

  Greg and Holly chat with the editor of SCOTUSblog, Kelsey Dallas, about the latest ruling against an Executive Order limiting Birthright citizenship, as well as what cases are to come before the Supreme Court.    

This week, Paul welcomes Jessica back into her co-hosting chair as they wrap up the summer. They begin with a recap of Drake's sale of a controlling interest in his clothing and lifestyle brand, OVO, to Authentic Brands Group. Next, they discuss Love Island: USA which Peacock recently renewed for a Ninth season, and why it is such a great asset for Peacock (and its participants). Finally, Paul provides an update on the criminal trial and conviction of Thomas Goldstein, the Scotus Blog founder and high-stakes gambler who was convicted of tax evasion of mortgage fraud, who is begging to be let out of jail pending his appeal. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With the midterm elections on the horizon, will voters overcome a fraught electoral battlefield to show up at the polls? Threats to the electoral system such as polarization, misinformation, campaign finance, redistricting, and limits to the Voting Rights Act are reducing voters' trust. How can the system be rebuilt in a way that inspires confidence across the political spectrum? Heather Gerken leads a conversation with Rick Hasen, Janai Nelson, Sarah Isgur, and Ben Ginsburg. Gerken is president of the Ford Foundation; Hasen is a professor of law at UCLA; Nelson is President and Director-Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund; Isgur is editor of SCOTUSblog; and Ginsburg is a political law advocate.

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: New statewide polling is out from UT/Texas Politics Project showing Republicans leading in all but the U.S. Senate race in August. U.S. House Speaker Johnson is in Texas this week stumping for Hispanic Republicans in key Congressional seats.Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.Wildfire updates: Ross Fire explodes to 50,000 acres in Palo Pinto County Governor Abbott Announces Federal Assistance For Ross Fire Mandatory evacuations remain in effect as crews battle Rio Escondido Fire in Hamilton County – updates No damage to homes or injuries reported as Neighbor Fire clean up continues Texas Appeals Court Holds District Courts Cannot Order New Appraisal Review Board Hearings.Six Flags move corporate HQ back to Texas leaving North Carolina.Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting | SCOTUSblog.Abbott fights Minnesota lawsuit on ICE officer extradition. “Abbott said state officials are still investigating whether Christian Castro, who is being held in Cameron County Jail, can be classified as a fugitive because he didn't flee Minnesota but was apparently reassigned to Texas by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

We squeeze in one more episode before Will's vacation, tying the single-season record in the process. The mailbag then demands a reckoning on whether Magneto's powers are really limited to ferrous metals, along with the origins of the S tier and the truth-value of conditional predictions. The main event is Hunter v. United States, which holds that a plea bargain's appeal waiver is unenforceable when enforcing it would work a "miscarriage of justice." We try to figure out where that rule could possibly come from — contract law? Rule 11? the supervisory power? procedural common law? — and why an opinion this law-free commanded this much agreement, while the separate writings range from a declaration of war on plea bargaining itself to a hunt for a sounder source of authority. Along the way: a field trip to the shuttered taproom of Ybarra v. Illinois fame, and thanks to the expanding Divided Argument production universe.Highlights[00:00:21] Opening: squeezing in one more before Will's vacation — and tying the single-season episode record.[00:01:42] The only Court news: Trump v. California, the mail-in-voting application, is fully briefed.[00:03:15] Mailbag: "lead is not magnetic." Are Magneto's powers limited to ferrous metals? The comic-book record says no.[00:05:40] Why is S the top tier? Japanese video-game rank screens and contested backronyms.[00:08:09] Parsec retcons in Star Wars, and the art of redeeming past misstatements.[00:09:09] Caleb Rogers on the logic of conditional predictions: "if A, then B" is true whenever not-A.[00:11:08] Thank-yous to the production universe — and the show is now on YouTube.[00:12:06] Jessie Henderson's field trip: the Aurora Tap of Ybarra v. Illinois fame, located and (sadly) shuttered.[00:15:30] The main event: Hunter v. United States — appeal waivers in federal plea bargains.[00:21:30] The wrinkle: a forced-medication condition, and a judge who says "you have a right to appeal" anyway (cf. Class v. United States).[00:24:45] Plea bargains as free-floating general contract law — territory of the forthcoming Epps & D'Onfro Harvard Law Review paper.[00:26:52] The circuit split: the Fifth Circuit's statutory-maximum rule vs. everyone else's miscarriage-of-justice exception.[00:29:16] The real puzzle: where does any of this authority come from — Rule 11? the judiciary's own self-image?[00:37:51] What definitely counts: race-based sentences, a no-pregnancy condition, sentencing by 12 orangutans.[00:40:40] Dan logs a scorecard prediction on what the Fifth Circuit does on remand.[00:43:04] How does an opinion this mushy get 8 votes in 2026? In for a dime, in for a dollar.[00:45:40] The Gorsuch concurrence comes out swinging against plea bargaining itself — Stuntz and Barkow make the U.S. Reports.[00:52:50] The Kavanaugh concurrence's high bar, and the 3–3–2 math of who wouldn't take sides.[00:55:00] The Thomas dissent: no source of law — and no sentencing appeals for most of American history anyway.[01:00:20] The Barrett concurrence: procedural common law, with citations to Professor Barrett.[01:08:16] Sign-off: thanks to the Constitutional Law Institute; Dan's predictions may yet be made falsifiable.Relevant linksCasesHunter v. United States — slip opinionTrump v. CaliforniaCommentary & articles"Hunter v. United States — the most important criminal case of the term" — SCOTUSblog opinion analysisAmy Coney Barrett, "The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court" — 106 Colum. L. Rev. 324 (2006), cited in the Barrett concurrenceAmy Coney Barrett, "Procedural Common Law" — 94 Va. L. Rev. 813 (2008), the other self-citationOtherIce by Magneto — last episode, where the Magneto debate beganSmart Microwave — the Chatrie episode, where the Aurora Tap of Ybarra v. Illinois first came upGorsuch Genie — our episode with Rachel Barkow on Justice Abandoned, now cited in the Gorsuch concurrence

David Lat takes over the host's chair and is joined by Zachary Shemtob, executive editor of SCOTUSblog, and Amy Howe, co-founder of SCOTUSblog, to discuss Justice Samuel Alito's retirement plans (not yet), President Donald Trump's new executive order targeting birthright citizenship, and hot cases in the upcoming October term.  The Agenda: –Sarah Isgur's rebuttal –Justice Alito's back! (He never left) –Ending birth tourism –Overcooking the Federal Reserve firing –Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder  –Previewing SCOTUS's October term –Ballroom blitz –No drag hamburgers for these kids! Show Notes: –Birthright Citizenship, Redux 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. –Trump signs new birthright citizenship order, ballroom dispute likely headed to Supreme Court Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: The Immigration Act of 1882On August 3, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Immigration Act of 1882, the first comprehensive federal law regulating immigration into the United States. Before this, immigration had largely been left to the individual states; this Act marked the moment the federal government claimed the subject as its own, and it built the first federal machinery for controlling who could enter the country.The Act did two enduring things. First, it imposed a “head tax”—fifty cents on every immigrant arriving by ship—to fund the administration of immigration, and it placed enforcement under the Secretary of the Treasury, creating the country's first federal immigration bureaucracy. Second, and more consequentially for the law that followed, it created categories of people who would be excluded: convicts, the “insane,” and—in language that would echo for the next century and a half—”any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” That public-charge concept, born here in 1882, is the same doctrine we discussed just a couple of weeks ago when the current administration revived an expansive version of the public-charge rule.The significance of August 3, 1882 is that it is the taproot of the entire federal immigration system. Coming just months after the Chinese Exclusion Act, it established the foundational premise that the national government decides the terms of admission to the United States, and it introduced the framework—head taxes, excludable categories, federal enforcement—on which everything since has been built. It's worth sitting with the tension in the date: 1882 is also, almost exactly, the moment Emma Lazarus was composing “The New Colossus,” with its welcome to the tired and the poor. The law and the poem were born together, and the distance between them—between the statute's exclusions and the sonnet's embrace—is a distance the country has been arguing about ever since.Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has formally rescinded the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” clearing what had been the biggest obstacle to his confirmation. If you were with us last week, this is the resolution of that story. The fund—created by a Justice Department order back in May—would have used taxpayer money to compensate people who claimed to be victims of the prior administration's Justice Department, a group that notably included those convicted in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack. Republican Senator John Cornyn had refused to support Blanche's nomination until the fund was killed, and this week Blanche did exactly that, signing an order declaring the May directive “rescinded” with “no force or effect,” and, as part of the deal, agreeing to limit the related immunity arrangement so it applies only to the IRS and not to other agencies. The significance ties together several threads we've followed all summer. This fund grew out of the same collusive IRS settlement that a federal judge voided as a sham, and it sat at the center of concerns about the Justice Department being used to reward the president's allies. That a senator from the president's own party forced its formal repeal as the price of confirmation is advice-and-consent working as a genuine check—and it means the incoming attorney general takes office having had to publicly dismantle one of the administration's most criticized initiatives before the Senate would trust him with the job.Acting US Attorney General Blanche rescinds ‘anti-weaponization' fund before confirmation vote | ReutersNPR · NBC NewsIn a court filing, Capital One has disclosed for the first time that it closed more than 300 Trump Organization bank accounts back in 2021 after an anti-money-laundering review—the first time a bank has formally tied such concerns to its decision to cut off the president's family business. The context is a lawsuit: the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust and Eric Trump sued Capital One in Florida last year, alleging the bank “debanked” them for political reasons, having notified the Trump Organization of the closures in March 2021, just weeks after January 6. Capital One's filing reframes that story entirely. The bank says its compliance team did precisely what federal regulators expect—flagging accounts that raised anti-money-laundering red flags and acting on them. Here's the legal machinery underneath. Under the Bank Secrecy Act and related anti-money-laundering rules, banks are legally obligated to monitor their customers, file suspicious-activity reports, and, when warranted, close accounts; failing to do so can expose a bank to serious regulatory penalties. Importantly, Capital One did not accuse the Trump Organization of actual money laundering—flagging a risk and proving a crime are very different things. The significance is that this is a clean collision between two hot legal debates: the “debanking” complaint that financial institutions are dropping customers for political or ideological reasons, and the reality that banks operate under mandatory AML obligations that require them to shed risky accounts. A court will now have to decide which of those framings fits what Capital One actually did.Capital One says it closed Trump Organization's accounts after anti-money-laundering review | ReutersCNBC · NPRTom Goldstein, the prominent Supreme Court advocate and SCOTUSblog founder we've been following, has launched his appeal—asking the Fourth Circuit to overturn his twelve convictions for tax and mortgage fraud and to undo his six-year prison sentence. Recall the case: a jury found that Goldstein concealed millions from a secret high-stakes poker life, diverted his law firm's fees to cover gambling debts, and lied to mortgage lenders; he was sentenced to 72 months and ordered to pay more than $3 million in restitution. The appeal is a reminder that even a resource-intensive, headline conviction gets a second look, and Goldstein is raising some genuinely lawyerly arguments. The most interesting is venue—the constitutional requirement that a defendant be tried in the right place. His team argues that while prosecutors proved he filled out loan applications in Maryland, they never proved from where he actually transmitted the documents, leaning on a recent Fourth Circuit decision that took venue seriously. He's also challenging the admission of statements he made in media interviews and the wording of the jury instructions. Commentators describe his path as daunting, and it is—appellate courts rarely overturn convictions, and factual findings get real deference. But the significance is that these are exactly the kinds of technical, procedural issues on which serious appeals are built. Goldstein spent his career winning cases at the top of the appellate system; now he's testing whether that same system will scrutinize the government's work in convicting him.US Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein appeals tax conviction | ReutersLaw360 · Bloomberg LawAnd finally, the Justice Department has moved to drop its criminal case against David Hearn, the former Olympic canoeist charged with vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool—and the reason is striking. We covered Hearn's not-guilty plea back in July, when his lawyers called the prosecution an abuse of power built on a “concocted narrative.” It turns out that characterization may have been closer to the truth than the charge. In a 20-page filing, prosecutors acknowledged that evidence received after Hearn was indicted shows the damage to the pool “was the result of flawed installation by the contractor,” compounded by “the rush to complete the project” before the America 250 celebrations around July 4. In other words: not vandalism—shoddy construction. The U.S. Attorney's office said it only learned of the flawed-installation evidence after a grand jury had already indicted him. The significance goes right to prosecutorial power and its risks. A 67-year-old man was detained for hours and charged with a felony over damage that, by the government's own admission, he didn't cause. The case collapsing is the system correcting itself—but only after Hearn spent weeks as a felony defendant. It's a real-world illustration of a point we keep returning to: the decision to charge is one of the most consequential and least reviewable powers in the legal system, and when it's exercised on a flawed factual premise, the damage to the person charged is done long before the dismissal.US Justice Department drops case against former US Olympian over Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool | ReutersPBS NewsHour · CNN 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

This Day in Legal History: The First Executive DepartmentOn July 27, 1789, President George Washington signed the act establishing the Department of Foreign Affairs—the first executive department created under the brand-new Constitution, and the direct ancestor of today's State Department, which was renamed a few weeks later. It's easy to overlook, but this was a foundational moment: the First Congress was building the executive branch essentially from scratch, deciding what federal administration would actually look like in practice.The most consequential part of the debate wasn't the department's diplomatic functions—it was a question that still echoes through constitutional law today: who controls the officials who run these departments? The Constitution says the President appoints principal officers with the Senate's consent, but it is conspicuously silent on who can remove them. As Congress drafted the statute, it confronted this head-on in what historians call the “Decision of 1789.” After intense debate, Congress structured the law to reflect the view that the President alone—without needing the Senate's permission—holds the power to remove the department head. That choice embedded a powerful assumption about presidential control of the executive branch into the very first agency Congress built.The significance of July 27, 1789 reaches all the way to the present. The Decision of 1789 has been cited by the Supreme Court for a century as evidence that the Constitution vests the President with broad removal power—in cases like Myers v. United States, and more recently in the modern fights over the independence of agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the removal of officials at supposedly independent commissions. Every time we argue about whether a president can fire the head of an agency at will, we are arguing about a question the First Congress thought it had answered when it created this very first department. It's a reminder that the architecture of executive power was contested from the founding's opening days—and that those early choices still bind us.A federal appeals court has refused to let the administration implement President Trump's executive order overhauling mail-in voting, keeping the order frozen ahead of November's midterm elections. In a 2-1 decision, the Boston-based First Circuit declined to lift an injunction that Democratic-led states won on June 25, when a lower-court judge found key parts of the order unconstitutional. Here's what the March order actually did. It directed federal officials to build a national “state citizenship list” of eligible voters, and told the Justice Department to investigate officials who mail ballots to people the administration deems ineligible. The constitutional problem is structural: under the Constitution, the authority to set the “times, places and manner” of elections rests with the states and with Congress—not with the President acting alone by executive order. The states argued, and the courts have so far agreed, that the President can't unilaterally rewrite the machinery of federal elections. This fits a pattern we've tracked all month—the SAVE citizenship database fight, the Justice Department's warnings to election officials, the gutting of the Election Assistance Commission. The significance is that the judiciary is repeatedly drawing the same line: however much a president wants to reshape how Americans vote, elections in this country are decentralized by constitutional design, and that design is holding, at least for now, right when it matters most.US appeals court rules Trump cannot implement mail-in voting order | ReutersTom Goldstein—one of the most celebrated Supreme Court advocates of his generation, who argued 44 cases before the Court and co-founded SCOTUSblog—has been sentenced to six years in prison for tax evasion and mortgage fraud. We previewed the sentencing on Friday; now the number is in: 72 months, and the judge revoked his bond and took him into custody on the spot. Recall the conduct the jury found: Goldstein concealed millions in winnings and losses from his secret life as an ultra-high-stakes poker player, diverted his law firm's legal fees into personal accounts to cover gambling debts, and steered money to his creditors so it never surfaced as reportable income. The Justice Department had asked for eight years; the judge landed at six. The significance is the same point I made in my Forbes piece last week, now delivered with a prison term attached: the tax laws reach even the most sophisticated players, but only when the government invests the resources to untangle complex, deliberately obscured finances. Goldstein's case is the rare, resource-intensive prosecution that actually happens—and its severity sends a message to the sliver of high-end taxpayers who assume complexity is a shield. That a lawyer who reached the absolute summit of the profession is now headed to federal prison over how he handled his taxes is a stark bookend to a remarkable career.Star US Supreme Court lawyer Goldstein sentenced for tax crimes | ReutersAnd finally, the same Boston appeals court has rejected the administration's bid to revive its $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers. The First Circuit declined to pause a lower-court ruling from June 8 that struck down the fee, and the reasoning goes to the heart of who gets to impose costs like this. The trial court held that the fee was, in substance, an unlawful tax that Congress never authorized—and taxing is a power the Constitution gives to Congress, not the executive. To put the number in perspective: employers seeking an H-1B visa typically paid somewhere between $2,000 and $5,000 in fees before this; the administration wanted to charge a hundred thousand dollars, as part of a broader effort to discourage companies from hiring foreign workers over Americans. The three-judge panel found the administration hadn't shown it was likely to prove it stayed within its authority. The significance connects directly to the theme running through today's episode: the limits of executive power. Just as the President can't unilaterally rewrite election rules, he can't unilaterally impose what amounts to a six-figure tax on visa applications without Congress. When the executive reaches for a power the Constitution assigns elsewhere—here, the power to tax—the courts have been willing to say no. It's a reminder that even sweeping policy goals have to run through the constitutional plumbing of who is actually allowed to do what.Appeals court rejects Trump bid to halt $100,000 H-1B visa fee ruling | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: The Scottsboro CaseOn July 24, 1937, the state of Alabama dropped all charges against four of the nine young Black men known to history as the Scottsboro Boys—a small, belated measure of relief in one of the most notorious miscarriages of justice in American legal history, and a case that helped reshape constitutional criminal procedure. The nine, ranging in age from approximately 13 to 20, had been arrested after riding a freight train through Alabama in 1931 and falsely accused of raping two white women. Within two weeks, in a series of rushed trials before all-white juries, eight of them had been convicted and sentenced to death; the trial of the youngest, Roy Wright, ended in a mistrial when the jury could not agree on whether to impose death or life imprisonment.The extraordinary speed and unfairness of those proceedings produced two landmark Supreme Court decisions that still shape the rights of criminal defendants. In Powell v. Alabama in 1932, the Court held that the defendants had been denied due process because they had not received the timely and meaningful assistance of counsel needed to prepare their defense. The Court's holding was formally limited to capital cases involving indigent defendants incapable of adequately defending themselves, but it became a foundational step toward the broader right to appointed counsel later recognized in Gideon v. Wainwright. Then, in Norris v. Alabama in 1935, the Court overturned Clarence Norris's conviction because Alabama had systematically excluded qualified Black citizens from its jury rolls. Building on earlier equal-protection precedents, the Court made clear that a state could not accomplish through discriminatory administration what the Constitution prohibited it from doing expressly.The Scottsboro cases dragged on for years through retrials, reconvictions despite one accuser's recantation, appeals, and slow, partial releases. On July 24, 1937, Alabama dropped all charges against Willie Roberson, Olen Montgomery, Eugene Williams, and Roy Wright. Prosecutors expressly concluded that Roberson and Montgomery were not guilty; Williams and Wright were released principally because of their youth and the six years they had already spent imprisoned. The state continued prosecuting or imprisoning the remaining defendants.The significance of the Scottsboro saga is twofold: it exposed nationally how the Jim Crow justice system operated against Black defendants, and it forced the Supreme Court to give practical constitutional force to protections—meaningful representation by counsel and freedom from racially discriminatory jury selection—that we now consider basic. It is a reminder that some of the most important rights in American law were secured through the suffering of people who were themselves never fully given justice.Thomas Goldstein, one of the most prominent Supreme Court advocates of his generation and a co-founder of the widely read SCOTUSblog, is being sentenced today after a jury convicted him of tax evasion and mortgage fraud. Goldstein argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court and built a celebrated appellate practice—but prosecutors showed the jury a hidden second life as an ultra-high-stakes poker player, in games running into the tens of millions of dollars. The jury found him guilty on 12 of 16 counts, including tax evasion, assisting in the preparation of false returns, willfully failing to pay taxes on time, and lying to mortgage lenders. The conduct is a case study in exactly the kind of sophisticated evasion I wrote about in Forbes this week: prosecutors said Goldstein concealed millions in poker winnings and losses, diverted his law firm's legal fees into personal accounts to cover gambling debts, and directed people to pay his creditors so the money never showed up as his income. That's not a wage earner whose taxes are withheld automatically—it's precisely the complex, hard-to-trace arrangement that takes real investigative resources to unwind. The Justice Department has asked for eight years in prison. The significance is a pointed reminder that the tax laws reach even the elite of the legal profession—and that when the government does devote the resources to untangle a sophisticated scheme, the accountability can be severe. A man who spent his career at the pinnacle of the legal system now faces the system's full weight.Star US Supreme Court lawyer Goldstein to be sentenced for tax crimes | ReutersThe Justice Department has dropped its subpoenas of New York Times journalists over their reporting on the Qatari-donated Air Force One—a striking retreat that came after a federal judge tore into nearly every aspect of the government's approach. We've been following this one: the subpoenas were issued July 10, days after the Times published its stories, seeking grand jury testimony and phone records to unmask the reporters' sources. At Thursday's hearing, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian pressed the government hard. He criticized prosecutors for hastily issuing subpoenas that the DOJ's own lawyers admitted were riddled with “inadvertent errors,” and he chided them for asking another judge to gag phone companies from telling the journalists their records had been subpoenaed—days after the department had already publicly confirmed the subpoenas existed. Faced with that skepticism, the government agreed to withdraw them. A Times lawyer called it “a great day for the First Amendment and a great day for the rule of law.” The significance is worth stating precisely. This wasn't a sweeping constitutional ruling establishing a reporter's privilege—the DOJ retreated before the judge had to decide the hard First Amendment question. But it's a concrete example of judicial scrutiny working as a check: when a court forced the government to justify subpoenas aimed at the press, the case collapsed under its own sloppiness and overreach. After a month of friction between the administration and the media, the press got a clear win.US judge to weigh New York Times subpoenas over Trump plane reporting | ReutersAnd finally, the pause on Paramount Skydance's roughly $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery has been extended—a federal judge has now frozen the deal through August 17. When we covered this earlier in the week, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín had issued a short 14-day restraining order at the request of a dozen state attorneys general; now that freeze runs deeper into August, buying the court time to weigh the states' request to block the merger outright. The states' antitrust theory has sharpened. They argue the combination would lessen competition in three specific markets: wide-release theatrical film distribution, top-grossing theatrical distribution, and basic cable licensing—harming movie theaters, cable distributors, and ultimately audiences. Remember the framework: antitrust law lets courts halt mergers that would concentrate too much market power, and a pause like this preserves the status quo so the deal can't close before a judge decides whether it's lawful. The significance is that time is itself a weapon in merger fights. Every week a deal sits frozen adds cost, uncertainty, and risk for the companies, and it gives regulators and challengers leverage. Here it's state attorneys general—not federal antitrust enforcers—driving the challenge, and they've now kept one of the largest media mergers in history on ice for the better part of a month, with the decisive rulings still to come.Paramount-Warner Bros. deal paused through August 17, judge rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In an increasingly polarized nation with a divided Congress, the rulings of the Supreme Court's latest term were as closely watched as ever. The justices took on decisions about birthright citizenship, voting rights, transgender athletes and many other hot button issues, with sometimes surprising results. Immediately after the term wrapped, three experts on the court met onstage at the 2026 Aspen Ideas Festival to discuss what these rulings say about the future of the court and American law. And they touch on the big question hovering over all recent decisions – has the court become too politicized? Colleen Sinzdak is a Supreme Court and Appellate partner at Milbank, Melissa Murray is an NYU law professor, and Sarah Isgur is the editor of SCOTUSblog. The panelists don't hold back as moderator Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW keeps the conversation on track. 

American history is riddled with collisions between legally defensible rulings and morally costly outcomes. Still, "the purpose of law in any society is to embody a moral framework in practice," says Yuval Levin, who joins Mark Labberton to explore the moral architecture in the foundation of the American legal system, as they review the most recent rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has just closed one of the most consequential terms in recent memory, articulating the tension between faithfulness to the Constitution and enacting justice and morality. Together they reflect on why and how a system founded on equality must be both majoritarian and counter-majoritarian at once; why a judge's job is to articulate their legal (rather than their moral) opinion; the rise of Constitutional originalism; why pre-Trump conservative arguments win at this Court while "Trumpy" ones lose; the contemporary relevance of the Federalist Papers; what recourse citizens have when they believe the Court has done wrong; and why the American legal system's worst failures still cluster around race. They explore several of the 2025-26 rulings of the Supreme Court, including imposition of tariffs, immigration enforcement, and birthright citizenship, and the Voting Rights Act. Episode Highlights "The purpose of law in any society is to embody a moral framework in practice." "This is a very good time to get to know The Federalist Papers." "The role of the judge in the American system is to apply the law, not to find the moral answer per se. We hope the law does that, though it doesn't always and we know it." "The American system of government, very much for moral reasons, is expected to be both majoritarian and counter-majoritarian." [Regarding Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh] "They grew up in the same place. They literally went to the same high school and had the same history teacher. Their mothers knew each other … They agreed with each other 52% of the time in this last term of the Supreme Court." [Courts to Trump] "You are in charge of the executive branch, but the executive branch is not in charge of the American government." "If you come to this court with a pre-Trump conservative legal argument, you're going to win. If you come to this court with a Trumpy legal argument, you're going to lose." "We experienced the high water mark of executive power about a year ago, and it is now receding." "The areas where it has failed most are concentrated around questions of race. That has been true from the beginning. It is thankfully less true than it used to be, but it is still true, and I think we have to be uniquely sensitive to those questions for that reason." About Yuval Levin Yuval Levin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he holds the Beth and Ravenel Curry Chair in Public Policy and directs Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies. He founded and edits National Affairs, and he is a senior editor at The New Atlantis and a contributing editor at National Review. His books include "The Great Debate," "The Fractured Republic," "A Time to Build," and most recently, "American Covenant." He served on the White House domestic policy staff under George W. Bush and earned his PhD at the University of Chicago's Committee on Social Thought. Helpful Links and Resources Yuval Levin at the American Enterprise Institute: https://www.aei.org/profile/yuval-levin/ National Affairs, the publication Levin founded and edits: https://nationalaffairs.com/authors/detail/yuval-levin American Covenant, by Yuval Levin: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/yuval-levin/american-covenant/9780465040742/?lens=basic-books A Time to Build, by Yuval Levin: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/yuval-levin/a-time-to-build/9781541699281/?lens=basic-books The Federalist Papers, full text at the Library of Congress: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers Trump v. Slaughter, the decision overturning Humphrey's Executor (June 29, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-332_qn12.pdf Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the IEEPA tariffs decision (February 20, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf Louisiana v. Callais, the Voting Rights Act decision (April 29, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf Coverage of the birthright citizenship ruling in Trump v. Barbara, SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-trumps-order-ending-birthright-citizenship/ Show Notes Yuval Levin's legal/constitutional frame: The law exists to put a society's moral convictions into workable practice. On "All men are created equal": If no one has natural authority over anyone else, we decide by majority vote—but equality also means the minority keeps its rights no matter who wins The Constitution assigns those two jobs to different institutions and lets them fight: Congress and the president answer to majorities, the courts deliberately do not Life tenure and fixed salaries exist so justices can protect minority rights without fear of majority reprisal A judge's job is to say what the law is, not to reach the most just result; therefore good judges regularly land where they might wish they didn't. What citizens can do when the Court rules wrongly: If it misread a statute, Congress can rewrite it. Constitutional rulings are harder to undo, but examples include the 16th Amendment (re: income tax) and the 14th Amendment (re: black citizenship, answering the Court directly) The pro-life movement's 50-year strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade Levin on the difficulty of simply being in the political minority, and why the system tries to make everyone a winner sometimes Originalism began as a limit on judicial power and judges' preferences Legal originalism looks for original public meaning, not the drafters' intent Parallel to biblical interpretation, where faithful readers reach wildly different conclusions The challenge of interpreting and applying the Constitution to matters of freedom and democracy today With Congress mostly absent, the Court is now deciding questions of executive power the Federalist Papers were written about Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch: Same age, same hometown, same high school history teacher, agreed only 52% of the time this term Trump v. Slaughter ends the independent agency: the Court overturned Humphrey's Executor, and the president can now fire FTC-style commissioners at will 2026 Court rulings also told the president no: on tariffs, on the National Guard in Illinois without the governor's consent, and on birthright citizenship Levin's rule of thumb: Pre-Trump conservative arguments win at this Court, Trumpy arguments lose Yuval Levin: Executive power peaked about a year ago and is now receding. Louisiana v. Callais guts Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by requiring proof of racial intent A legal bind: Black voters vote Democratic by 90% in the South, so a racist map and a purely partisan map look identical Levin defends the ruling as law and grieves it as outcome—several Black-held Southern seats will likely be redistricted away Why he opposes reauthorizing the VRA with race-based set-aside districts, and where he thinks change should come from instead Software now lets parties gerrymander voter by voter—in New England, Trump won 35% and Republicans hold zero House seats The deceptions of the human heart Does constitutional structure just launder self-interest? The system's deepest failures have always clustered around race Gratitude for the Constitution in America's 250th year #SupremeCourt #Constitution #VotingRights #Originalism #ExecutivePower #FaithAndPolitics #YuvalLevin #Conversing Production Credits Conversing is produced and distributed in partnership with Comment Magazine and Fuller Seminary.

Adam White hosts Chief Judge Susan G. Braden (Ret.) to discuss the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which held the Federal Trade Commission's statutory independence unconstitutional and explicitly overruled Humphrey's Executor. Braden argues the ruling will ripple across administrative law by treating agencies with authority to file lawsuits on behalf of the United States as executive agencies subject to presidential control, and by limiting “independent” agencies to advisory roles.Sign up for email updates from the Gray Center hereJudge Braden's paper on the future of the FTCAdam White's analysis of Slaughter and Cook in SCOTUSblog

From Apple News In Conversation: The Supreme Court just wrapped one of its most consequential terms in recent memory — issuing major rulings on presidential power, birthright citizenship, and the rights of transgender athletes. But the story playing out in most headlines, legal analyst Sarah Isgur argues, is missing the bigger picture. Isgur is the editor of SCOTUSblog and the author of Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court. She joined Apple News In Conversation guest host David Greene to explain why she considers this the hardest term in the Roberts Court’s history, why Trump has lost far more cases than he’s won, and why the political framework most people use to understand the court tells only a fraction of the story.

The Supreme Court just wrapped one of its most consequential terms in recent memory — issuing major rulings on presidential power, birthright citizenship, and the rights of transgender athletes. But the story playing out in most headlines, legal analyst Sarah Isgur argues, is missing the bigger picture. Isgur is the editor of SCOTUSblog and the author of Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court. She joined Apple News In Conversation guest host David Greene to explain why she considers this the hardest term in the Roberts Court’s history, why Trump has lost far more cases than he’s won, and why the political framework most people use to understand the court tells only a fraction of the story.

Last Tuesday, June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its final opinions in argued cases for October Term 2025. So it's an ideal time to review the Term that was—and to look ahead to what's on the docket for OT 2026.I could think of no better guest for this project than my husband, Zachary Baron Shemtob. Zach is the executive editor of SCOTUSblog—a leading news outlet, if not the leading news outlet, about the Supreme Court. Before joining SCOTUSblog in May 2025, he practiced at two top law firms, clerked for the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York, and graduated from Georgetown Law, where he served as editor-in-chief of the law review. Prior to his legal career, Zach was an assistant professor of criminology, where he focused on legal decision making.Thanks to Zach for joining me—and thanks to him and the entire team at SCOTUSblog for their excellent work.Show Notes:* Zachary Shemtob author page, SCOTUSblog* Zachary Baron Shemtob, personal websiteSponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Sarah Isgur and David French slow things down with an overview of the yearly Stat Pack released by SCOTUSblog, look at the dissents in the birthright citizenship case, and answer listeners' questions about everything from the 14th Amendment being sex-blind to whether independent agencies could be recreated within the legislative branch.  The Agenda: –Stat Pack: Findings –Trump v. Barbara could have been a book –Birthright citizenship dissents –Is the 14th Amendment sex-blind? –Get rid of rulemaking authority in the executive branch –Choose only three justices –Getting up close to the financial disclosures 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

Sarah Isgur, editor of SCOTUSblog & author of Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court, joined us on the Guy Benson Show today to discuss last week's monumental Supreme Court decisions, including the decision to rule against Trump's challenge of the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship. Isgur and Benson also discussed the bizarre story and retraction surrounding the alleged retirement of Supreme Court Justice Alito, and you can listen to the full interview below! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kelsey Dallas, managing editor for SCOTUS Blog, breaks down the recently concluded court term. WVU History Professor Hal Gorby talks about appalachia's impact on America's history. Ethan with a World Cup update. Dave Croft, Ohio County School Board President, talks education funding. It's UFO Day! Charleston Mayor Amy Shuler Goodwin is ready to Regatta. Plus, your calls and texts. 

This week we mapped out how Wall Street has talked itself into a story it can’t stress-test—Accenture getting punished whether AI succeeds or fails, Saylor quietly selling the Bitcoin he swore he’d never sell, and the hyperscalers borrowing billions to fund a buildout that may be obsolete before it’s finished. Then we looked at the inflation numbers, which are stuck well above target, and the quiet methodology change coming this fall that’ll let everyone claim victory without prices actually moving an inch. Chapters Intro: 00:00:37 Quick Takes: 00:01:25 Max Notes: 00:07:06 Killer Left Take of the Week: 00:18:55 Chart of the Week: 00:21:06 Headlines: 00:26:00 Outro: 00:27:08 Resources PBS NewsHour: Stephen Miller says ‘America’s doors are closed fully to asylum seekers’ after SCOTUS ruling TMZ Clips: Dr. Oz Says Great American State Fair Crowd Is Huge, But Camera Pan Shows Otherwise CBS New York: Trump says NYC rent freeze will turn buildings “into ghettos and slums” ScotusBlog.com Motley Fool: Accenture Shares Plunged 50% This Year. Here’s What Investors Need to Know. Yahoo! Finance: Strategy Says It May Sell Up to $1.25 Billion of Bitcoin Yahoo! Finance: Meta, Alphabet, Amazon, and Microsoft are getting hooked on debt to fuel AI boom Reuters: Cheaper AI is better: Soaring bills are reshaping how businesses choose models TechTarget: Will data centers become obsolete? Breaking Points: “I’M DONE!” Carville, Dem Elites CRASH OUT, Demand Dem Divorce Macro Micro: US - Personal Consumption Expenditure Price Index [PCE] U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis: Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index Farm Service Agency: Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP) U.S. News: Methodology Changes Could Lower US May Core PCE Inflation, Economists Say Daily Kos: Thanks, GOP: Student borrowers face massive bills this week The Intercept: Abdul El-Sayed Becomes First Senate Candidate Backed by Pro-Palestine Jewish Group ProPublica: Native American Tribes Came Together to Secure Their Rights to Colorado River Water. Four States Are Stalling the Deal. UNFTR Resources Video: On The Record 6-30-26 (Wall Street Insanity | White House Depravity | Zohran Crushing) Essay: Wall Street Is Cooked. Video: SpaceX IPO: What They’re Not Telling Retail Investors UNFTR Trivia UNFTR Newsletter 5 Non-Negotiables of the Left -- If you like #UNFTR, please leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify: unftr.com/rate and follow us on Facebook, Bluesky, and Instagram at @UNFTRpod. Visit us online at unftr.com. Become a member at unftr.com/memberships. Buy yourself some Unf*cking Coffee at shop.unftr.com. Visit our bookshop.org page at bookshop.org/shop/UNFTRpod to find the full UNFTR book list, and find book recommendations from our Unf*ckers at bookshop.org/lists/unf-cker-book-recommendations. Access the UNFTR Musicless feed by following the instructions at unftr.com/accessibility.Support the show: https://www.unftr.com/membershipsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.wethefifth.comWe are lucky to be joined once again by Executive Editor of SCOTUSblog, Sarah Isgur, and on a day when the Supreme Court gave everyone a lot to argue about.-Trump loses, birth tourism maybe does not-Anchor babies and America's soccer future-The 14th Amendment gets weird-A color-blind Constitution, except when it isn't-Immigration is the culture war now-Executive p…

Sarah Isgur and David French react to the latest opinions of the court in two major immigration cases and a review of Hawaii's restrictions on concealed-carry permits. The Agenda: —The SCOTUS opinion day “ritual” —Hawaii gun restrictions —Shall not be infringed —Border dispute over asylum seekers —Judicial review of TPS —Trump's “Muslim” ban Show notes: —Destiny of the Republic 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

As the Supreme Court's term winds down, with some notable cases still to be decided, we take a behind the scenes look at the Supreme Court and how it operates with SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur. Her new book on the topic is titled "Last Branch Standing." In part two of our discussion, we talk to Sarah Isgur about the power of Chief Justice John Roberts, the personalities and influence of the other justices, and her relationship with Justice Elena Kagan, who was dean of Harvard Law School when Isgur was a student and chapter president of the Federalist Society there.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the Supreme Court's term winds down, with some notable cases still to be decided, we take a behind the scenes look at the Supreme Court and how it operates with SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur (IHS-ger). Her new book on the topic is titled "Last Branch Standing." In part two of our discussion, we talk to Sarah Isgur about the power of Chief Justice John Roberts, the personalities and influence of the other justices, and her relationship with Justice Elena Kagan, who was dean of Harvard Law School when Isgur was a student and chapter president of the Federalist Society there.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French break down the most recent cert grants out of the Supreme Court's order list and Trump's argument for suspending habeas corpus. The Agenda: —Paid petitions vs. In Forma Pauperis —Six-person juries in Florida —Can undocumented immigrants be held indefinitely? —New York Times reporting on Trump and habeas corpus —Leaked memo fallout —Lawyers using AI —Georgia campaign finance laws —On LSAT accommodations Show notes: —Ramos v. Louisiana —The White House staff secretary's habeas corpus memo 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

As the Supreme Court's term comes to an end, with decisions on birthright citizenship, transgender athletes, and gun rights still to be rendered, we take a behind the scenes look at the Supreme Court and how it operates with SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur. Her new book on the topic is titled "Last Branch Standing." In part one of our discussion, we talk to Sarah Isgur about the current court, the cases it takes up, and the divisions she sees among the justices, based on their ideology and institutional outlook.          Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the Supreme Court's term comes to an end, with decisions on birthright citizenship, transgender athletes, and gun rights still to be rendered, we take a behind the scenes look at the Supreme Court and how it operates with SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur. Her new book on the topic is titled "Last Branch Standing." In part one of our discussion, we talk to Sarah Isgur about the current court, the cases it takes up, and the divisions she sees among the justices, based on their ideology and institutional outlook.        Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The story of Donald Trump's court battles over the past few days has felt less like a legal calendar and more like a rolling constitutional stress test, and listeners, you and I are watching it in real time. In New York, the hush money criminal case continues to cast a long shadow. After the jury's guilty verdict on dozens of felony counts related to falsifying business records, the focus lately has shifted from what happened at trial to what comes next: sentencing and appeals. Reporters from the New York Times and CNN have described Trump's legal team rushing to frame the conviction as legally flawed and politically motivated, laying the groundwork for an appeal that could stretch well into the presidential campaign season. At the same time, court watchers like those on Court TV have emphasized how unusual it is to see a former president, and active candidate, facing potential probation or even a custodial sentence from a New York judge. Down in Florida, in the federal classified documents case, the action over the past several days has largely been on paper, but the stakes are enormous. According to coverage from the Washington Post and Politico, Judge Aileen Cannon has been wrestling with a blizzard of motions: Trump's lawyers pushing to dismiss the indictment, to limit what prosecutors can show a jury under the Classified Information Procedures Act, and to delay any trial date deeper into the election cycle. Prosecutors tied to Special Counsel Jack Smith, as reported by NBC News, have pushed back hard, arguing that no citizen, even a former president, can store national defense documents at a private club and then refuse to give them back. The judge's most recent hearings, summarized by legal analysts at Lawfare and Just Security, suggest a cautious, methodical pace, one that has critics accusing the court of slow‑walking the case and supporters saying it is simply giving the defense the process any defendant would get. In Washington, D.C., the federal election interference case is mostly frozen while the Supreme Court weighs in on Donald Trump's sweeping claim of presidential immunity. SCOTUSblog and Oyez have detailed how Trump's attorneys argued that many of the acts underlying the indictment, from pressuring officials to challenging the vote count, were “official acts” insulated from prosecution. Justice Department lawyers responded that immunity has never covered a president's attempt to overturn an election. Over the past week, commentators on MSNBC and Fox News alike have focused on one thing: the clock. Every day the Supreme Court takes to finalize its opinion is another day the D.C. trial cannot realistically start, and many analysts now say it is increasingly unlikely that listeners will see a full trial there before the next Election Day. Back in Georgia, in Fulton County, the state racketeering case over efforts to overturn the 2020 result has been dominated by fights over District Attorney Fani Willis. According to the Atlanta Journal‑Constitution, recent hearings have revisited questions about her past relationship with a special prosecutor and whether that creates a conflict of interest strong enough to derail the case. Trump's lawyers have used those allegations to call the entire prosecution tainted, while Georgia legal experts quoted by the Associated Press point out that even if Willis were removed, the charges themselves would not automatically disappear. But the practical effect is delay; jury selection that once seemed imminent now looks distant. Put together, these last few days in Trump's legal world have been about timing, positioning, and perception rather than dramatic witness testimony. Appeals are being prepared in New York. Motions are grinding forward in Florida. The Supreme Court's looming immunity decision hovers over Washington. And procedural battles in Georgia test how far a state court can go in holding a former president to account. Listeners, however you feel about Donald Trump, the court system is quietly answering a question it has never quite faced before: how to treat a man who is simultaneously a criminal defendant, a former president, and a leading candidate for the White House. That tension is why every small filing, every scheduling order, every judicial comment has been dissected so intensely over the last few days by outlets from Reuters to CBS News. Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please dot A I. Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3Qs For more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

We open with the usual grab bag—the "foot fault" pun buried in a Justice Thomas opinion, reading Justice Alito's clerk-hiring tea leaves, and a detour into the metaphysics of conditional resignations and whether you can be confirmed to a vacancy that doesn't exist yet. Then to the merits: Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, a 9-0 judicial-estoppel case that lets us ask where the doctrine even came from (Tennessee, 1857, apparently), and Abouammo v. United States, the venue case about a former Twitter employee who fabricated a document while the FBI sat downstairs. The venue talk wanders, happily, into the Yellowstone "zone of death," a C.J. Box thriller, Jim Comey's second career as a novelist, and an extended appraisal of watch brands. Highlights[00:00:53] - Podcast update, SCOTUSblog partnership, and listener reviews[00:01:49] - Justice Thomas's "foot fault" joke[00:03:48] - Sam Bray citation discussion (Aldridge v. Regions Bank)[00:05:02] - Justice Alito retirement speculation and clerk rumors[00:17:23] - Vacation schedule and the upcoming opinion gap[00:21:03] - June 11 merits decisions overview[00:23:17] - Landor and the still-outstanding big case of the term[00:27:49] - Justice Sotomayor's statement respecting denial of cert on ineffective assistance[00:29:53] - Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction: bankruptcy and judicial estoppel[00:36:10] - The Fifth Circuit's rule on inadvertence and mistake[00:38:47] - Justice Jackson's majority opinion[00:40:29] - Justice Thomas's concurrence and the history of judicial estoppel[00:48:42] - Justice Sotomayor's concurrence and totality-of-the-circumstances approach[00:52:11] - Abouammo v. United States: Article III venue and criminal prosecution location[00:55:09] - Yellowstone's "zone of death" and vicinage problems[00:59:21] - The fake invoice, FBI investigation, and venue dispute[01:06:33] - Venue, personal jurisdiction, and extraterritorial conduct[01:10:22] - Statutory venue rules and unresolved constitutional questions[01:12:30] - Reprosecution after a venue reversal and double jeopardy

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

Sarah Isgur and David French look at what's left on the docket from this term before diving into a little Los Angeles mayoral politics.  The Agenda: –Supreme Court bingo –Do Rastafarians get religious exemptions? –The mighty small-dollar donor  – United States v. Hemani –Wolford v. Lopez –Appearance of election corruption –No, a GOP candidate did not have a chance to become mayor of Los Angeles –Birthright citizenship case –Trump v. Cook: an explainer –Banning trans athletes from girls' sports Show Notes: –Evangelicals for Mitt 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 discuss the Supreme Court's Alabama redistricting decision, a plea deal from the former national security adviser, and the best legal movies ever made. The Agenda: –⁠June 4 Opinions ⁠ –Alabama's new maps –John Bolton pleads guilty –Did the media actually get this right? –Gender and the Supreme Court's culture –Favorite legal movies –Another round of Would You Rather! Show Notes: –⁠The Blessings of Liberty with Jeffrey Rosen - Podcast⁠ 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 (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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.