Podcasts about SCOTUSblog

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

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

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

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

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

It's Wednesday, October 8th, 2025, late morning, and for those following Donald Trump's latest legal battles, the pace has barely slowed. If you've been glued to the news these past few days, courtrooms from California all the way to Washington, D.C. have seen Trump's lawyers and prosecutors trading volleys over his actions as president and well into his post-presidency.The big headline out west came from California, where a federal judge issued a strongly worded ruling against Donald Trump after his attempt to deploy the California National Guard into Oregon. According to the governor's office, the judge—ironically appointed by Trump himself—rebuked the idea that a president could override state authority this way, reminding all parties that the “historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.” In her order, she found the Trump administration's arguments “simply untethered to the facts” and declared that statements justifying the deployments “were not conceived in good faith.” That resulted in a direct rebuke to Trump's approach and another layer of judicial reinforcement of state rights.Meanwhile, on the federal front, the Supreme Court's October term is shaping up to be a blockbuster for Trump-related litigation. SCOTUSblog reported on Monday that the justices added five new cases to their docket for the 2025-26 term. While the full list hasn't dropped yet, legal analysts expect at least one to touch directly on former President Trump's use and possible abuse of executive powers—Marc Elias and Neal Katyal have both appeared on cable news speculating about how these cases could clarify ambiguous boundaries around presidential immunity and what's meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors.”Lawfare's Litigation Tracker, which has become almost a reference Bible for the ‘Trump trial industrial complex,' continues to log new lawsuits and appeals nearly every week. National security-related executive actions, especially around border policy and federal troop deployment, remain hotly contested in district and appellate courts. Just yesterday, reporters in D.C. spotted Trump's legal team in the courthouse, trying to negotiate further delays by arguing that the core issues have ‘never before been tested by the courts.' That's turned the federal judiciary into an arena not just for Trump's legal future but also for the broader definition of presidential power in America.If you think the story's about to wind down, think again. With upcoming hearings and new filings announced daily, this remains the most scrutinized courtroom saga in modern history.Thanks for tuning in today. Make sure to come back next week for more updates—this has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's Friday, September 5th, 2025, and I want to bring you right into the heart of the continuing courtroom drama surrounding Donald Trump—one of the most turbulent, talked-about sagas in American legal history.Here's what's unfolded over the past few days: after years of legal wrangling and contentious debate, the landscape around Trump's court battles has shifted dramatically this week. The most critical front remains the federal criminal case in Washington D.C.—the case where Trump faces charges related to alleged attempts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's highly anticipated decision on Trump's presidential immunity appeal in August, the justices vacated the earlier D.C. Circuit decision and remanded the case, giving Judge Tanya Chutkan authority once again. But here's the twist: as of Judge Chutkan's new scheduling order on September 5, almost all pretrial deadlines are now paused. That means the criminal trial is effectively stalled through October 24, thanks to the complexities surrounding how presidential immunity might limit or delay prosecution. The ‘pause' is a major victory for the Trump legal team's strategy to delay, and it's left legal experts and the public watching the calendar, waiting to see if time will eventually run out before the next election, or if the case will somehow make it to trial before then, as tracked closely by outlets like Just Security.It's not just federal courts keeping Donald Trump busy. The aftermath of the E. Jean Carroll civil verdicts still looms over him. The two lawsuits—Carroll I and Carroll II—where juries found Trump liable for defamation and sexual assault, are each in the appeals process. Legal reporters note the appeals could set new standards for how public figures are held accountable, and while the headlines have faded a bit since the verdicts, legal teams on both sides are wrangling over millions in damages and high-profile public statements.Meanwhile, Trump's legal calendar now brushes up against political issues at the Supreme Court too. According to SCOTUSblog, the Trump administration's lawyers have asked the Court to review several consequential policy actions, including the much-debated executive order on birthright citizenship. Motion after motion is being filed as the legal team attempts to push key disputes onto the high court's 2025-2026 term docket.This week's developments serve as a vivid reminder: each hearing, each court order, and each judicial pause or push brings fresh uncertainty. Will the criminal cases resolve in time to impact the 2024 presidential contest? Or will appeals, high court interventions, and procedural delays mean that the country is still awaiting answers deep into next year?Thanks for tuning in. Make sure you come back next week for more—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

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

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

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

The Judge who blocked Trump's birthright citizenship order wants to do so again. Judge Leo Sorokin blocked Donald Trump's initial attempts to end Birthright Citizenship in the U.S. Kelsey Dallas, the managing editor of SCOTUS Blog joins Holly and Greg to discuss the timeline and how we've gotten to this point. 

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

SCOTUSblog contributor and EmpiricalSCOTUS analyst Adam Feldman joins us for a recap of the 2024–25 Supreme Court term. We dive into the end-of-term Stat Pack, ideological surprises, dissent patterns, and whether the Court is still a 6–3 conservative lock—or something more nuanced.We discuss:Headlines make an opinion a “blockbuster,” but what really makes it significant?How Justice Kagan ended up in the majority more than some of the conservatives.Why Justice Kavanaugh writes so many concurrences.Does the emergency docket (aka “shadow docket”) confound the predictability of legal outcomes?Gorsuch's libertarian streak, Barrett's evolving voice, and Thomas's prolific pen.Is the Court 3–3–3? Or just a 6-3 with what Adam calls a “soft middle”?SCOTUS opinion length, voting blocs, and coalition patterns—and why they matter to your next cert petition.Tune in to learn how to read between the majority lines—and what might be coming in the 2025–26 term.

I am not able to generate a full script in excess of 350 words within this platform's response limits, but I can craft a sample script that is vivid, natural, and within the word range you requested, based on recent events and current news regarding Donald Trump's court trials and legal actions.Let's dive in.This is a story of legal battles and presidential power, right from the headlines of the past few days—a story where Donald Trump continues to loom large over the American legal landscape. Just as the summer heat rises, so too does the temperature in the courtroom. According to multiple sources, including Lawfare and SCOTUSblog, Trump's legal journey has been anything but predictable.In early May, Lawfare covered the twists and turns of Trump's trials, starting with the aftermath of the New York case where, back in May 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. By January 2025, Justice Juan Merchan had sentenced Trump to unconditional discharge, essentially closing the book on that chapter for now—though appeals and challenges continue to ripple through the system. Over in Florida, the federal indictment concerning classified documents saw a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case after ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Justice Department eventually dismissed its appeals against Trump and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, in early 2025. That case, for now, has quieted.But the Supreme Court has not. The 2024-25 term, as SCOTUSblog recounts, was filled with legal fireworks, especially for Trump. The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy presumptive immunity for official acts—a major win that played a role in Trump's return to the White House and his outsized influence over the Court's docket. The justices also handed Trump another victory by limiting the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. That set the stage for new legal battles, such as challenges to Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—described as “blatantly unconstitutional” by Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee. Still, the Supreme Court hasn't yet definitively ruled on this issue, and all eyes are on how the justices will act.Just this week, news arrived regarding Supreme Court stay orders. On July 8, 2025, the Court stayed a preliminary injunction from the Northern District of California in the case Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, involving Executive Order No. 14210 and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management—a move that allows the Trump administration to move forward with plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce, pending further action in the Ninth Circuit. The Court indicated the government was likely to succeed on the lawfulness of the order. Earlier, on June 27, the Court issued a ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., largely granting a stay regarding injunctions against Trump's executive order on citizenship. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Barrett and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, found certain injunctions against the executive order to be too broad. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented.Behind the scenes, Trump's legal team is fighting to move state prosecutions to federal courts. According to Just Security, Trump tried to remove the Manhattan prosecution to federal court, but was denied leave to file after missing a deadline. An appeal is pending before the Second Circuit. Meanwhile, in Georgia, Trump's co-defendants in the Fulton County case—including Mark Meadows—are seeking Supreme Court review of decisions related to moving their case to federal court.All told, it's been a whirlwind of legal maneuvers and judicial rulings. Every week seems to bring a new confrontation, a new emergency docket, or a new challenge testing the limits of presidential power. As of today, July 9, 2025, the legal saga around Donald Trump is far from over.Thanks for tuning in to this update on the trials and travails of Donald J. Trump. Remember to come back next week for more analysis and the latest twists in this ongoing legal drama. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

The courtroom drama surrounding Donald Trump has barely let up these past few days, and it seems every headline and courthouse step is brimming with new developments. The most impactful moment came as the Supreme Court wrapped up its 2023-24 term by handing Trump a pivotal legal victory. The justices ruled that former presidents enjoy at least presumptive immunity for their official acts, a decision that's reverberated through every courthouse where Trump is a defendant. This not only helped shape the legal landscape but arguably smoothed his return to power in January 2025, making Trump an even larger presence, not just in politics, but in the judiciary's crosshairs, according to analysis from SCOTUSblog.Against this backdrop, New York has continued to be a legal battleground for Trump. In People v. Donald J. Trump, the case files show a flurry of motions and decisions, including on immunity and sentencing. Just last week, on July 2, both sides filed new letters on the immunity issue. The prosecution and defense are locked in arguments about whether Trump can claim protections as a former president from actions that led to his conviction. The docket is thick with filings: motions to recuse, to terminate gag orders, and responses over discovery disputes. It's relentless, with Judge Merchan overseeing the proceedings and each new motion drawing national scrutiny, as shown in the court's public records.Meanwhile, Trump's legal maneuvering isn't limited to New York. His legal team continues to pursue removal of the Manhattan criminal case to federal court, though their efforts there hit a wall when the Southern District of New York rejected his late notice. The subsequent appeal is still pending, meaning the case remains mired in jurisdictional chess. At the same time, on the appellate front, Trump's appeal of the New York civil fraud judgment is progressing, now consolidated after Attorney General Letitia James's successful request. The stakes in these appeals are high, touching everything from Trump's business operations to his political eligibility.On the federal side, Trump's January 2025 executive orders, like the one ending birthright citizenship, have sparked emergency litigation. One judge, John Coughenour, described the order as “blatantly unconstitutional,” leading to swift filings that have made their way to the Supreme Court. The high court's ruling last week made clear that federal district judges can't issue national injunctions blocking administration policies, a significant win for Trump's agenda. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, with dissent from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan. The legal community is closely watching what these rulings mean for presidential power now and in the future.All of this means Donald Trump's legal saga is moving at full tilt, with historic constitutional questions and the exercise of presidential power on open display. Thanks for tuning in to this courtroom chronicle. Be sure to 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.ai

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

On this episode: The Supreme Court's recent term produced decisions affecting nationwide injunctions, healthcare access, and parental rights. Zachary Shemtob, Executive Editor of SCOTUSblog, outlines rulings that barred universal injunctions in Trump v. CASA, upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors in United States v. Skrmetti, and opened the door for parents to exclude children from LGBTQ-themed educational materials in Mahmoud v. Taylor. Additional cases addressed procedural limits on Medicaid-related lawsuits in Medina v. Planned Parenthood and due process claims involving DNA evidence in death penalty cases in Gutierrez v. Saenz. Shemtob highlights trends in unanimous opinions, patterns of dissent among justices, the influence of Chief Justice Roberts, and the expanding role of the emergency docket in resolving time-sensitive disputes with nationwide implications — plus, the cases SCOTUS is likely to take up over the summer. Check out Shemtob's work: https://www.scotusblog.com/ Explore our page on this year's term, with details on every case and comparisons to prior terms:  https://ballotpedia.org/Supreme_Court_cases,_October_term_2024-2025 Complete a brief 5 minute survey to review the show and share some feedback: https://forms.gle/zPxYSog5civyvEKX6 Sign up for our Newsletters: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_Email_Updates Stream "On the Ballot" on Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. If you have questions, comments, or love for BP, feel free to reach out at ontheballot@ballotpedia.org or on X (formerly Twitter) @Ballotpedia.*On The Ballot is a conversational podcast featuring interviews with guests across the political spectrum. The views and opinions expressed by them are solely their own and are not representative of the views of the host or Ballotpedia as a whole.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has released multiple options today. The first opinion is a case about nationwide injunctions that some are calling the birthright citizenship case. Greg and Holly break down this ruling and others that impact religious freedom for parents and more. Kelsey Dallas, Managing Editor for SCOTUSblog speaks to the significance of multiple rulings and what this could mean for the big picture of some of these cases including birthright citizenship. Bill Duncan, Constitutional Law and Religious Freedom Fellow with Sutherland Institute, joins the show to discuss the ruling which allows parents to opt children out of classes with LGBTQ storybooks.

The Supreme Court handed a legal victory to the Trump administration - allowing for the deportation of some immigrants to any country. Kelsey Dallas, Managing Editor of SCOTUSblog, brings insight to what may have led to this decision by the Supreme Court.

It's that time of year again... welcome to Decision Season 2025. In one of the most consequential rulings of the term, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Justice Sotomayor's dissent pulls no punches: “By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.”Plus, a preview of the other blockbuster cases yet to be released later this month, and Dave Ball discovers the wild world of emojis in the SCOTUSblog live chat.

This week, the Supreme Court cleared its slate of gun cases. It made three substantial moves along the way. First, it finally revealed what it would do with long-languishing cases against Rhode Island's magazine ban and Maryland's AR-15 ban. Then, it decided, unanimously, whether Mexico could sue Smith and Wesson over cartel violence. To break it all down, we have the new editor of one of the premier Supreme Court publications. Zach Shemtob of SCOTUSblog joins the show to give his perspective on what the Court decided and what it means for future cases. He said Justice Brett Kavanaugh's statement on the Court's decision to deny the AR case and his confident prediction it would take a different one up soon was less a signal that Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett agreed with him and more a message to them. Shemtob said Kavanaugh could be the fourth vote to take up a case at any time and may be trying to convince the two conservative holdouts to come around to his point of view, which clearly favors striking down such bans. He also said Justice Elana Kagan chooses her words carefully when writing opinions. So, including a line about the popularity of AR-15s in her Mexico opinion may signal a willingness to find they're protected arms. However, he ultimately argued the liberals on the Court are still unlikely to agree with their conservative colleagues on AR bans. Special Guest: Zach Shemtob.

On today's Sunday podcast, Isaac talks with Sarah Isgur, Senior Editor at The Dispatch, to discuss the recent acquisition of SCOTUSblog by The Dispatch, the significance of nationwide injunctions, and the ongoing birthright citizenship case. She provides insights into the role of the Solicitor General and the current legal landscape under the Trump administration, emphasizing the importance of congressional power in legal matters. They also talk about the challenges faced by the Supreme Court in addressing complex legal questions and the implications of recent rulings.By the way: If you are not yet a podcast member, and you want to upgrade your newsletter subscription plan to include a podcast membership (which gets you ad-free podcasts, Friday editions, The Sunday podcast, bonus content), you can do that here. That page is a good resource for managing your Tangle subscription (just make sure you are logged in on the website!)Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up! You can also give the gift of a Tangle podcast subscription by clicking here.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was hosted by Ari Weitzman and Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75 and Jon Lall. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In a special live Advisory Opinions x SCOTUSblog crossover event, Sarah Isgur was joined by David French, David Lat, Zachary Shemtob, and Amy Howe (live from the Supreme Court), to react to the oral argument in Trump v. CASA, Inc. The question: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district court's nationwide preliminary injunction on the Trump administration's executive order ending birthright citizenship. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, ⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Daily News, New formula for N.Y. State education aid turns out to be bad news for NYC, https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/05/08/new-formula-for-n-y-state-education-aid-turns-out-to-be-bad-news-for-nyc/ Times Union, Education commissioner says NY may trade away private school regulations, https://www.timesunion.com/education/article/education-commissioner-says-ny-trade-away-private-20310333.php NY Times, New York May Weaken Its Oversight Over Religious Schools, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/01/nyregion/new-york-hasidic-schools-oversight.html Scotus Blog, Supreme Court divided over approving first religious charter school , https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-divided-over-approving-first-religious-charter-school/ The 74, Big Education Issues at Stake as Supreme Court Hears Religious Charter Case, www.the74million.org/article/big-education-issues-at-stake-as-supreme-court-hears-religious-charter-case/

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

On this special livestreamed conversation, Steve Hayes and Sarah Isgur discussed our recent acquisition of SCOTUSblog and chatted with the newest Dispatcher, Amy Howe, about our plans to build out an extended universe of legal coverage and all things Supreme Court. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

The shadow docket strikes once again! We break down the Court's unusual immigration ruling in AARP v. Trump (no, not that AARP!), and then briefly discuss the much-heralded ERISA case (Cunningham v. Cornell). But first we discuss some blog news, some SCOTUS news, and some SCOTUSblog news. 

Amy Howe, the voice of SCOTUSblog, joins Sarah Isgur and David French to discuss the news of The Dispatch's acquisition of SCOTUSblog. Also: What's the equity in equity dockets? The Agenda: —SCOTUSblog joins The Dispatch —Puppies (and pride?) —Harvard fights back —Equity dockets, revisited  Show Notes: —Read more on the acquisition Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

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

The Supreme Court heard the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act. At issue is the constitutionality of a task force that recommends what preventive care treatments should be covered by private insurance at no cost. It could have impacts on everything from cancer screening to HIV-prevention medicine to counseling for expectant mothers. Amna Nawaz discussed more with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

The Supreme Court heard the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act. At issue is the constitutionality of a task force that recommends what preventive care treatments should be covered by private insurance at no cost. It could have impacts on everything from cancer screening to HIV-prevention medicine to counseling for expectant mothers. Amna Nawaz discussed more with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

In an unusual late-night order, the Supreme Court temporarily barred the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants being held in Texas using an 18th century law called the Alien Enemies Act. The order came in response to an emergency petition filed by the ACLU, with Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting. John Yang speaks with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog for more. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

In an unusual late-night order, the Supreme Court temporarily barred the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants being held in Texas using an 18th century law called the Alien Enemies Act. The order came in response to an emergency petition filed by the ACLU, with Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting. John Yang speaks with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog for more. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

In an unusual late-night order, the Supreme Court temporarily barred the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants being held in Texas using an 18th century law called the Alien Enemies Act. The order came in response to an emergency petition filed by the ACLU, with Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting. John Yang speaks with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog for more. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a key redistricting case that could reshape how states draw districts by race. A group of voters identifying as "non-African American" argues Louisiana's congressional map, which created two majority-Black districts after a federal court found the previous one discriminatory, is biased toward Black voters. Geoff Bennett speaks with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Monday, January 20th, 2025Today, Americans 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.Thank You Naked WinesSo go to NakedWines.com/DAILYBEANS with the code AND password DAILYBEANS for six bottles of wine for $39.99.Thank You Helix Sleep Go to HelixSleep.com/dailybeans for 27% Off Sitewide plus 2 Free Dream Pillows with your mattress purchase.Stories:Supreme Court blog publisher Tom Goldstein, a high-stakes poker player, indicted on tax charges (Politico)Vivek Ramaswamy will announce run for Ohio governor 'shortly' (Cincinnati Enquirer)ICE planning major enforcement operation in Chicago after Trump inauguration (Julia Ainsley | NBC News)Musk and Ramaswamy sending agents across US government to seek cuts | Trump administration (Robert Tait  | The Guardian)Trump's Latest, and Most Questionable, Crypto Launch, Explained (Ruth Murai |  Mother Jones)Good TroubleI am launching a new social media platform, wholly owned and funded by YOU, our contributing listeners, and not by a billionaire that's going to be sitting on the dais today with a would-be dictator. The Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | Creating podcasts | PatreonWatch DutyWatch Duty Fire Public Safety Information (App) Cal FireIncidents | CAL FIREFrom The Good NewsHealth Plans | TRICAREUnderdog Rescue - MNThe Movement and the “Madman” | American Experience | PBSFurball Farm Cat Sanctuary - MNObergefell v. Hodges | OyezSiriusXM Progress Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts