Podcasts about SCOTUSblog

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

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

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

Monday, January 20th, 2025Americans celebrate Martin Luther King Jr's legacy and the struggle for freedom, equality, and justice. A prominent leader in the modern civil rights movement, Dr. King was a tireless advocate for racial equality, working class, and the oppressed around the world. TikTok is back online after a farce rescue from the man who originally wanted to ban it; Trump launches a crypto rug pull scam; Elon Musk is dispatching agents across government agencies; the SCOTUSblog publisher has been indicted on tax charges; CNN is moving Jim Acosta's show to the middle of the night; President Biden makes a statement on the Equal Rights Amendment and commutes the sentences of 2,500 non violent drug offenders; the US grounds SpaceX Starship after another explosion; Vivek Ramaswamy will announce a run for Ohio governor; CBS kisses the ring by discussing a settlement with Trump in their defamation suit; Chicago and San Diego brace for immigration enforcement operations; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News. Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listeners, in courtrooms across America, Donald Trump's legal saga is still unfolding, and the past few days have shown how tightly his political future is tied to these trials.In New York, the hush money criminal case that led to Donald Trump's felony convictions earlier this year continues to shape what happens next. After a jury in Manhattan found him guilty of falsifying business records connected to payments to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, the focus has shifted from the drama of trial testimony to the grind of appeals and sentencing strategy. Major outlets like the New York Times and CNN have reported that Trump's lawyers are pressing arguments that the case was politically motivated and that key testimony from Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer, should never have been trusted. At the same time, New York prosecutors under District Attorney Alvin Bragg are emphasizing to the courts that a jury heard the evidence and spoke clearly.In Georgia, the election interference case brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis remains a slow burn rather than a daily spectacle. According to reporting from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Associated Press, recent hearings have focused less on the explosive racketeering charges and more on pretrial motions: what evidence can come in, which co-defendants will be tried alongside Trump, and how quickly a trial could realistically happen in the thick of a presidential election cycle. Judges in Georgia have been acutely aware, as those outlets note, that every scheduling decision may be read as a political act, even though it is rooted in criminal procedure and logistics.On the federal side, two major criminal cases still hang over Donald Trump: the classified documents case in Florida and the 2020 election interference case in Washington, D.C. The Washington Post and NBC News report that the election interference case, brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, has been slowed by endless pretrial fights over presidential immunity, privileged communications, and the scope of what jurors would be allowed to hear about January 6. In Florida, in the classified documents case before Judge Aileen Cannon, recent hearings reported by Politico and CBS News have focused on how to handle highly sensitive national security material at trial, with Trump's team arguing for broad access and delays, while prosecutors push to keep the schedule moving.Even the Supreme Court has been pulled into the Trump legal orbit again. CBS News and SCOTUSblog have been covering arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case testing whether President Trump can fire Federal Trade Commission commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without the usual “for cause” protections that shield many independent agency officials. In oral arguments, several conservative justices suggested that limiting a president's power to remove such officials may violate the Constitution's separation of powers, while the liberal justices warned that giving Trump nearly unchecked removal power could destabilize agencies far beyond the FTC. A ruling expected in the coming months could reshape how future presidents, not just Trump, control independent regulators.Taken together, these court battles show a former president and current political force fighting on every legal front: criminal, civil, state, federal, and even constitutional at the Supreme Court. Every hearing date, every ruling on evidence, every appellate brief now doubles as both a legal move and a political message, with Trump portraying himself as a target of what he calls a weaponized justice system, and prosecutors and judges insisting they are simply applying long-standing law to an unusually powerful defendant.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Trump's sweeping tariff plan may be on shaky ground after a Supreme Court hearing focused on his authority to impose the measures. Several justices on the court questioned the legality of the tariffs and how much power the president has to broadly enact his agenda. Amna Nawaz discussed more with PBS News Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSBlog co-founder Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

President Trump's sweeping tariff plan may be on shaky ground after a Supreme Court hearing focused on his authority to impose the measures. Several justices on the court questioned the legality of the tariffs and how much power the president has to broadly enact his agenda. Amna Nawaz discussed more with PBS News Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSBlog co-founder Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

President Trump's sweeping tariff plan may be on shaky ground after a Supreme Court hearing focused on his authority to impose the measures. Several justices on the court questioned the legality of the tariffs and how much power the president has to broadly enact his agenda. Amna Nawaz discussed more with PBS News Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSBlog co-founder Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Bennett Nuss chats with New Civil Liberties Alliance Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione about the tariff case pending before the Supreme Court, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. They discuss the main arguments about the extent of the president's power over tariff policy and what the court might decide.Notes:Trump's tariffs are unconstitutional—we're suing to end them, John J. Vecchione and Andrew J. Morris NCLA's amicus brief in the Learning Resources case President Donald Trump's reply brief in the Learning Resources case Prof. Chad Squitieri's amicus brief in the Learning Resources case Prof. Aditya Bamzai's amicus brief in the Learning Resources case Adam White at SCOTUSblog on the Learning Resources case 

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

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

Jonah Goldberg has reluctantly invited notorious media hack Steve Hayes back on the show to wax lyrical about The Dispatch's 2025 thus far, the SCOTUSblog acquisition, and maintaining one's integrity. Shownotes:—2024 Annual State of The Dispatch—Steve's weird NWYT on The Dispatch Podcast—Steve's good NWYT on The Dispatch Podcast—Newsgeist—SCOTUSblog—Most recent Dispatch Podcast—The Dispatch founding manifesto—Grayson Logue's article on vaccines and pediatricians The Remnant is a production of ⁠The Dispatch⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of Jonah's G-File newsletters—⁠click here⁠. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member ⁠by clicking here⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could strike down bans on so-called conversion therapy for children. Conversion therapy broadly refers to attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity and is banned in 23 states and the District of Columbia. Geoff Bennett discussed Tuesday's arguments with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Judge Patrick Bumatay at SCOTUSblog's inaugural On the Merits summit at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg Center to discuss public scrutiny, swing votes, and recusals.This conversation was recorded on September 25, 2025. Show Notes:—Subscribe to SCOTUStoday Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

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