Podcasts about second circuit

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia DecidedOn this day in 1967, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia striking down Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and, with it, the anti-miscegenation statutes that sixteen states still had on the books. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the Court. The case had come up from a county courthouse in Caroline County, Virginia, where Richard Loving, a white bricklayer, and Mildred Jeter, a Black and Native American woman, had been arrested in their bedroom in the middle of the night in 1958 by a sheriff acting on an anonymous tip — they had been married in the District of Columbia and returned home to Virginia, where their marriage was a felony. The Lovings pleaded guilty, accepted suspended sentences on the condition that they leave the state for twenty-five years, and lived in exile in Washington until Mildred wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy that landed eventually with the ACLU, which took the case.The Supreme Court's opinion did two things at once. It held that Virginia's statute violated the Equal Protection Clause because it drew an explicit racial classification with no legitimate state purpose beyond preserving “White Supremacy” — the Court used the phrase the Virginia statute itself had used — and it held that the statute violated the Due Process Clause because the freedom to marry is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” That second holding, the marriage-as-fundamental-right strand, is the through-line that runs from Loving to Zablocki v. Redhail in 1978, to Turner v. Safley in 1987, to Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 — every one of those decisions cites Loving and treats it as the foundational case. Whether the Court's substantive due process marriage doctrine survives the next decade is, as we discussed earlier this week, one of the open questions in American constitutional law. But Loving itself remains intact, and on June 12, 1967, the Court said something it had not said cleanly before: that the right to marry is the kind of liberty interest the Constitution actually protects.The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the Second Circuit in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd., holding 6-3 that the Investment Company Act of 1940 does not give private parties a cause of action to seek rescission of fund bylaws or other contractual terms. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority. The dispute came out of a campaign by Boaz Weinstein's Saba Capital against eleven closed-end funds — funds that, under Maryland's Control Share Acquisition Act, had adopted bylaws limiting the voting power of any shareholder who accumulated a disproportionate stake without the consent of other shareholders. Saba sued under Section 47(b) of the ICA, which makes contracts that violate the Act unenforceable, and the Second Circuit held that Section 47(b) implied a private right to rescind the bylaws.The Court told the Second Circuit to look harder at the modern implied-cause-of-action doctrine, which since Alexander v. Sandoval in 2001 has been hostile to inferring private rights of action that Congress did not write into the statute. The opinion reads as a continuation of that line: the ICA's enforcement structure is committed to the SEC, not to private plaintiffs, and Section 47(b) is a defense against contracts the SEC has already determined to be unlawful, not an offensive cause of action. The dissent, by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that this is a misreading of Section 47(b)'s text and that the majority is gratuitously narrowing the enforcement of the federal securities laws. The practical impact is significant. Activist investors who had been pushing closed-end funds to convert to open-end form, or to alter investment strategies, lose a federal-court tool they had been using; the funds themselves and their independent directors gain a meaningful structural defense. Expect the next round of activist campaigns to move to state-court fiduciary-duty theories instead.US Supreme Court rules against private suits brought under key securities law | US NewsThe Court on Thursday also decided Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., vacating the Fifth Circuit 9-0 in an opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The case is small in its facts and large in its doctrine. Thomas Keathley filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2019 and failed to disclose, on his schedule of assets, a personal-injury claim he later brought against a construction company over a truck accident. The Fifth Circuit barred the personal-injury suit on judicial-estoppel grounds — the longstanding equitable doctrine that prevents a party from taking one position in one proceeding and a contradictory position in another — using a three-factor test under which a debtor's mere knowledge of the facts plus a motive to conceal was enough to bar the later claim.The Supreme Court said no.To determine whether the omission was inadvertent or mistaken for judicial-estoppel purposes, the Court held, the lower courts must look to the totality of the circumstances, not just to whether the debtor knew of the facts and had a motive. The doctrinal interest of the case lies in two concurrences. Justice Sotomayor, concurring, wrote that judicial estoppel should likely never apply in an open bankruptcy case at all — the trustee can simply amend the schedule and pursue the claim for the estate, which solves the problem judicial estoppel was invented to address. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, went further and questioned whether federal courts have any inherent authority to apply judicial estoppel as a freestanding doctrine, period — a position that, if it ever gets five votes, would unwind a doctrine that has been part of American practice since the 1850s. None of that is the holding. But the votes to revisit one of the duller corners of equitable estoppel are now visibly on the table.Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. | SCOTUSblogThe third unanimous decision of the day was Abouammo v. United States, in which the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and vacated the obstruction-of-an-FBI-investigation conviction of Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee whose underlying case was one of the more striking Saudi-Arabia infiltration prosecutions of the last decade. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion. The facts are simple and the constitutional point cleaner than the facts. Abouammo, while working at Twitter's San Francisco office in 2014 and 2015, accessed and passed on confidential user information about Saudi dissidents to a Saudi official, in exchange for a $42,000 watch and $200,000 in wire transfers. The FBI eventually came to interview him at his home in Seattle, where he had moved by 2018, and during those interviews he created and emailed agents a fake invoice intended to make the wire transfers look like a legitimate consulting fee. The Justice Department charged the obstruction count along with foreign-agent and wire-fraud counts in the Northern District of California, and a San Francisco jury convicted him on all of them.The Supreme Court held that the obstruction count belonged in the Western District of Washington, not California, because the act of creating and sending the false invoice — the only act that supported the obstruction charge — happened entirely in Seattle. Article III's venue clause and the Sixth Amendment's vicinage requirement together do not let the government try a defendant in a state where no element of the charged offense occurred, no matter how convenient the prosecution. The obstruction conviction is vacated. The foreign-agent and wire-fraud convictions, which had different venue facts and were not before the Court, stand. Abouammo will not walk free. But the prosecution will need to decide whether to retry the obstruction count in Seattle, and the case is now a clean precedent that the venue clause has real teeth in a multi-district federal investigation.US Supreme Court overturns ex-Twitter employee's obstruction conviction in Saudi spy case | US News This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Kennedy Signs the Equal Pay ActOn this day in 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, the first federal statute aimed directly at sex-based wage discrimination. The law took the form of an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which meant that it slid into an existing enforcement framework run by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor — a deliberate choice that bypassed the need to build new institutional machinery and harnessed thirty years of FLSA caselaw and habits of compliance. The legal hook is the Act's “equal pay for equal work” command: employers may not pay employees of one sex less than employees of the opposite sex for jobs requiring “equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.”Four affirmative defenses are written into the text — a seniority system, a merit system, a system measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production, or “any other factor other than sex” — and that fourth catch-all has done more work in litigation than the other three combined, shaping how courts evaluate market-based, education-based, and prior-salary-based pay differentials decades later. The wage gap at the moment Kennedy signed was about 59 cents on the dollar; six decades on, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics's standard measure, it sits closer to 84 cents. That tells you something about how a clean, structurally well-designed statute can still leave a lot of the work undone, because the gap is and always was about more than identical pairs of jobs at the same employer.The Equal Pay Act is not the whole story of American workplace-equality law; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and a long line of state-law analogues do much of the modern enforcement work. But June 10, 1963 is the day Congress, with the President's signature, said for the first time that paying a woman less than a man for the same work was unlawful, full stop. Everything that has followed in this corner of the law has been built on top of that sentence.The Federal Circuit on Monday affirmed a Delaware district court judgment invalidating four Purdue Pharma patents covering an abuse-deterrent, low-toxicity version of the opioid OxyContin, in a decision the patent bar has been waiting on for months. The case is Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma LLC. The patents covered Purdue's reformulation of OxyContin to make the pills crush-resistant and to reduce a manufacturing impurity, and the asserted innovation grew, the company said, out of its discovery of the source of a particular toxic impurity that had previously eluded chemists at competing labs. Purdue's argument on appeal was, in essence, that the discovery of the impurity's source was itself nonobvious, and that the resulting patents inherited that nonobviousness. The Federal Circuit said no.The panel held that the relevant obviousness inquiry asks whether the claimed reformulation — not the discovery that motivated it — would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and that once the prior art is taken into account, the answer is yes. The practical consequence of the ruling is large. It opens the door wider for generic abuse-deterrent OxyContin alternatives and clarifies a doctrinal point pharmaceutical companies have been pressing on for years: a hard-won research insight does not, on its own, automatically save a patent from obviousness if the resulting product was within the prior art's reach. Purdue's options now are a rehearing petition at the Federal Circuit, a cert petition at the Supreme Court (which the company has already pursued in a related case last spring), or quiet acceptance. Expect a cert petition. Expect the cert petition to be denied. Watch the generic-drug filings that follow.Fed. Circ. Panel Backs Invalidation Of OxyContin PatentThe plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Virginia lawsuit over the Trump administration's $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” — a story we covered earlier htis week— went back to Judge Leonie Brinkema on Tuesday and asked for permission to conduct limited discovery into whether the Justice Department's recent representation that it would stop work on the fund is a real commitment or a litigation convenience.The plaintiffs' problem is straightforward: acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has filed papers saying the program is “not going forward,” but President Trump publicly described the fund last week as a “great idea” that many Republicans support, and the executive order that created the fund has not been formally rescinded. From a litigation-strategy standpoint, the plaintiffs do not want to walk away from a live case on the strength of a DOJ filing, accept dismissal as moot, and then find out three months later that the fund has been quietly resurrected under a different name.Judge Brinkema has a hearing scheduled for Friday, June 12, on whether to extend the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction. The Tuesday filing teed up the broader mootness fight that will dominate Friday's hearing: when does a federal agency's promise to stop doing something actually deprive a court of jurisdiction to enjoin the underlying program, and what discovery, if any, is a plaintiff entitled to before that determination is made. The doctrine here — voluntary cessation, capable of repetition yet evading review, and the heavy burden the Supreme Court has placed on the party claiming mootness — favors the plaintiffs procedurally. Whether Brinkema agrees on Friday is the question to watch.‘Anti-weaponization' fund challengers question its demise – Roll CallSCOTUSblog's John Elwood walked through a useful relist roundup on Tuesday, and the four cases sitting in the relist pile are worth flagging because each of them touches a different load-bearing wall in federal practice. The first is a prolonged-detention challenge to immigration custody under Section 1226(c). The ACLU is asking the Court to clarify that very long mandatory-detention periods trigger procedural due process review under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, picking up on the Second Circuit's willingness to do so. The second is Newberry v. Texas, a case where Texas itself has confessed error — a rare procedural posture in which the State agrees the defendant should win — and the question is what the Court does when the parties on both sides ask for the same remedy. The third is Kian v. Florida, a Sixth Amendment challenge to the use of six-person juries in serious felony cases, on the theory that the historical understanding of “jury” in the founding era assumed twelve and that the Court's mid-twentieth-century cases approving six-person juries were wrong on the originalist analysis. The fourth is Maxwell v. Thomas, a federal habeas case asking whether the First Step Act‘s halfway-house and home-confinement provisions are properly enforceable through 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions, an issue with a real circuit split. None of these have been granted yet — they are relists, which means at least one Justice is interested but the Court has not yet decided whether to hear them — but the mix is the part to watch: it tells you what the Justices are circling without committing to. Expect at least one of these to be granted before the term ends.A random assortment of relists: prolonged detention, confessions of error, small juries, and new rules on habeas | SCOTUSblog 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

DOJ sues Colorado over its magazine ban. Virginia passes “assault firearm” and magazine restrictions, triggering immediate lawsuits. Traditional Arms: Fuddbusters and Ratman Fifth Circuit judges signal unease with the federal machine-gun ban. ATF / DOJ regulatory rollback and “New Era of Reform.” MAF Corp: Fudbdusterss California AB 2047: 3D-printer firearm-file blocking technology Illinois HB 4471 / “convertible pistol” bill FFL Payments Sig Sauer P320 litigation update: Second Circuit revives Colwell suit, while Sig touts another dismissal The Associated Press Pearl Clutches over Muskets Patriot patch Co. TWIG10

Our latest Anchoring Truths Podcast episode centers on a 2026 case in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, covering New York City. This case presented a fascinating opportunity to discuss the intersection of Natural Law, international law, and contract law. Petersen Energia Inversora v. YPF (2nd Cir. opinion here) concerns how Argentina raised more than a billion dollars from American investors on the New York Stock Exchange with ironclad anti-nationalization guarantees—only to seize YPF in 2012 and, according to the plaintiffs, stiff minority shareholders out of $16 billion.We are thrilled to discuss this case in light of those larger considerations with one of the lawyers for Petersen, our old friend and returning podcast guest Mike Fragoso. Mike is a partner at Torridon Law PLLC and counsel for Petersen Energia Inversora in one of the most important corporate-governance cases in a decade. Before entering private practice, Michael served as Chief Counsel to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, where he advised on judicial nominations, legislation, and high-stakes oversight. He previously held senior roles on the Senate Judiciary Committee, served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, clerked for Judge Diane Sykes on the Seventh Circuit, and began his career as a litigator at Kirkland & Ellis. A Notre Dame Law graduate (where he was a student of JWI's co-director Gerry Bradley) and Princeton alum (where he was a student of our friend Robert George), his writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and elsewhere. We hope you enjoy the program.Read Fragoso's assessment of the Second Circuit ruling in City Journal.

Ghislaine Maxwell has spent the years since her conviction trying to unwind the result of the case from almost every available angle, and the courts have rejected her at each major stop. After a federal jury convicted her in December 2021 for helping Jeffrey Epstein recruit, groom, and traffic underage girls, she was sentenced in June 2022 to 20 years in prison. Her first big post-trial effort centered on the juror issue, after a juror revealed publicly that he had discussed his own history of sexual abuse during deliberations despite not disclosing it properly during jury selection. Maxwell argued that this deprived her of a fair trial and warranted a new one, but the trial judge rejected that claim. She also attacked the indictment, the statute of limitations, the jury instructions, the sufficiency of the prosecution theory, and the fairness of the sentence itself. None of it worked.Her biggest appellate argument was that Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Florida non-prosecution agreement should have protected her too, because the deal included language about “potential co-conspirators.” The Second Circuit rejected that argument in September 2024, holding that the Florida agreement did not bind federal prosecutors in New York, and it also upheld her conviction and 20-year sentence across the board. Maxwell then took the fight to the Supreme Court, but the Court declined to hear the case in October 2025, leaving the conviction and sentence intact. Since exhausting her direct appeals, she has turned to habeas-style filings and renewed efforts to vacate the conviction, including a 2026 submission after the Justice Department released additional Epstein-related material, but that is not a successful appeal — it is another long-shot attempt after every major direct challenge already failed. The bottom line is simple: Maxwell has kept trying to reopen the case, but the courts have repeatedly told her no, and her 20-year sentence remains in place.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Seagram's heiress who poured $100 million into NXIVM walked out of federal prison in June 2025. The campus she financed sold for $700,000. Keith Raniere's projected release date is June 26, 2120. This episode runs the numbers on everyone.Clare Bronfman: 81 months, handcuffed in the courtroom on the spot, the only co-defendant who never cooperated. Allison Mack: cooperated, served two years of a three-year sentence, released 2023. Nancy Salzman: cooperated, served three and a half years, released 2024. Lauren Salzman: testified against Raniere at trial, received probation only. Kathy Russell: two years probation. Those who turned on Raniere walked free or served minimal time. The one who stood by him served the longest sentence and was denied early release.A seventy-plaintiff federal RICO lawsuit remains active against Clare Bronfman, Sara Bronfman — who left the U.S. in 2018 and lives abroad — and Danielle Roberts. Allison Mack was dismissed from the case. More than thirty original plaintiffs withdrew.Raniere's remaining legal instruments: a second Supreme Court cert petition on the evidence-tampering claim, and a habeas petition raising ineffective-counsel arguments, currently on hold. The Supreme Court grants roughly one percent of cert petitions. The Second Circuit called the evidence against him a mountain. He is sixty-five at USP Tucson.The final episode of a four-part Hidden Killers investigation into NXIVM and Keith Raniere.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#NXIVM #KeithRaniere #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #NXIVMUpdate #NXIVMCULT #Bronfman #TheVow #TrueCrimePodcast #CultDocumentary

Ghislaine Maxwell has spent the years since her conviction trying to unwind the result of the case from almost every available angle, and the courts have rejected her at each major stop. After a federal jury convicted her in December 2021 for helping Jeffrey Epstein recruit, groom, and traffic underage girls, she was sentenced in June 2022 to 20 years in prison. Her first big post-trial effort centered on the juror issue, after a juror revealed publicly that he had discussed his own history of sexual abuse during deliberations despite not disclosing it properly during jury selection. Maxwell argued that this deprived her of a fair trial and warranted a new one, but the trial judge rejected that claim. She also attacked the indictment, the statute of limitations, the jury instructions, the sufficiency of the prosecution theory, and the fairness of the sentence itself. None of it worked.Her biggest appellate argument was that Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Florida non-prosecution agreement should have protected her too, because the deal included language about “potential co-conspirators.” The Second Circuit rejected that argument in September 2024, holding that the Florida agreement did not bind federal prosecutors in New York, and it also upheld her conviction and 20-year sentence across the board. Maxwell then took the fight to the Supreme Court, but the Court declined to hear the case in October 2025, leaving the conviction and sentence intact. Since exhausting her direct appeals, she has turned to habeas-style filings and renewed efforts to vacate the conviction, including a 2026 submission after the Justice Department released additional Epstein-related material, but that is not a successful appeal — it is another long-shot attempt after every major direct challenge already failed. The bottom line is simple: Maxwell has kept trying to reopen the case, but the courts have repeatedly told her no, and her 20-year sentence remains in place.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Mexican authorities broke down the door of a Puerto Vallarta villa in March 2018. Keith Raniere, the man who required followers to call him Vanguard, was found hiding in a closet. His follower Lauren Salzman tried to stop the agents. He stayed hidden.The arrest came months after the New York Times exposed the existence of a secret inner circle within NXIVM. The FBI investigated. Raniere fled to Mexico and was tracked down and extradited. A federal judge denied bail. His trial in Brooklyn lasted six weeks and featured testimony from former followers and one cooperating co-defendant who described the organization's inner workings in detail.In June 2019, the jury convicted Raniere on all seven federal counts: racketeering, wire fraud conspiracy, forced labor conspiracy, and trafficking among them. In October 2020, he was sentenced to 120 years in prison after the court heard impact statements from fifteen women.Since the conviction, Raniere has pursued every available legal avenue. His direct appeal was denied by the Second Circuit in 2022. The Supreme Court declined his first cert petition in 2023. His claim that the FBI fabricated evidence was rejected at the trial level and on appeal. A second cert petition is now before the Supreme Court. A habeas corpus petition raising ineffective-counsel claims is on hold.The pattern is clear: every motion denied, every argument rejected.Part three of a four-part Hidden Killers investigation into NXIVM and Keith Raniere.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#NXIVM #KeithRaniere #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #120Years #NXIVMCULT #FederalTrial #TheVow #TrueCrimePodcast #CriminalJustice

He called himself Vanguard. He claimed to be a once-in-a-generation intellect. When authorities came for him, Keith Raniere was crouched in a closet in Mexico while his follower confronted armed agents on his behalf.The investigation began after a 2017 exposé brought the secret inner circle into public view. The FBI raided NXIVM co-founder Nancy Salzman's home. Raniere had already fled to Mexico. On March 26, 2018, he was arrested in Puerto Vallarta and extradited to Brooklyn, where a federal judge denied bail and designated him a flight risk.The six-week trial in 2019 built a methodical case through cooperating witnesses, financial records, and digital evidence. Lauren Salzman testified in detail about the hierarchy, the control, and the arrest. The jury convicted Raniere on all seven counts. He was sentenced to 120 years after fifteen women delivered impact statements to the court.Every legal challenge since has failed. The Second Circuit denied his direct appeal. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. His claim that the FBI manufactured evidence was rejected by the trial judge and unanimously upheld on appeal. As of early 2026, a second cert petition is before the Supreme Court and a habeas petition remains on hold.He has been told no at every level. He keeps filing.Part three of a four-part Hidden Killers investigation into NXIVM and Keith Raniere.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#NXIVM #KeithRaniere #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #120Years #NXIVMCULT #FederalTrial #TheVow #TrueCrimePodcast #CriminalJustice

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I cover a recent ruling out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals striking down New York's default ban on licensed carry in publicly accessible private property. We also discuss the absence of gun policy in public opinion polls, the ATF's assurances to trans gun owners regarding its proposed gender rule, and the rise in Virginia prosecutors pledging not to enforce the state's "assault firearm" ban. Stories: -https://thereload.com/second-circuit-strikes-down-new-york-vampire-rule/ -https://thereload.com/analysis-voters-put-guns-way-down-the-totem-poll-headed-into-the-midterms-member-exclusive/ -https://thereload.com/atf-says-gender-id-rule-change-isnt-a-trans-gun-ban/ -https://thereload.com/some-virginia-prosecutors-refuse-to-enforce-new-gun-bans/ -https://www.thetrace.org/2026/05/philadelphia-black-lions-gun-permits/ -https://www.npr.org/2026/05/20/nx-s1-5810190/gun-rights-trump-rules-atf

In October 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Maxwell's appeal aimed at overturning her 2021 conviction for helping Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse minors. The appeal argued that Maxwell should have been protected from prosecution under a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that had been made with Epstein — Maxwell's legal team claimed that the government's promise in that deal extended to co-conspirators like her, across jurisdictions. But lower courts (including the Second Circuit) rejected that argument, and the DOJ urged the high court not to take the case, saying the NPA did not cover Maxwell's prosecution in New York. The Supreme Court's denial (without explanation) means the conviction stands and Maxwell's 20-year sentence remains intact.Maxwell's plea of “but the deal should protect me” now lies in ashes. The refusal by the Supreme Court sends a message: the serious, prolonged, documented role she played in trafficking and grooming minors for Epstein can't be overwritten by legal technicalities or bargains made behind closed doors. Her efforts to invoke immunity through someone else's deal were flatly dismissed, underscoring that privilege and high-social standing won't shield her from full accountability for her actions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In October 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Maxwell's appeal aimed at overturning her 2021 conviction for helping Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse minors. The appeal argued that Maxwell should have been protected from prosecution under a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that had been made with Epstein — Maxwell's legal team claimed that the government's promise in that deal extended to co-conspirators like her, across jurisdictions. But lower courts (including the Second Circuit) rejected that argument, and the DOJ urged the high court not to take the case, saying the NPA did not cover Maxwell's prosecution in New York. The Supreme Court's denial (without explanation) means the conviction stands and Maxwell's 20-year sentence remains intact.Maxwell's plea of “but the deal should protect me” now lies in ashes. The refusal by the Supreme Court sends a message: the serious, prolonged, documented role she played in trafficking and grooming minors for Epstein can't be overwritten by legal technicalities or bargains made behind closed doors. Her efforts to invoke immunity through someone else's deal were flatly dismissed, underscoring that privilege and high-social standing won't shield her from full accountability for her actions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Elizabeth Stong calls bankruptcy court a "second chance court," a forum where companies in financial distress and individuals buried in debt can find a path forward, even if it's rarely the one they hoped for. She serves on the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting in Brooklyn. Becoming a judge was never on Judge Stong's radar — she was a happy litigation partner with no bankruptcy background when a job announcement caught her eye. In this episode, Judge Stong describes managing more than 300 active Chapter 11 cases alongside individual filings, the rhythm of case management conferences, and how she works with law clerks to prepare for hundreds of orders each week. She unpacks the structure of Article I bankruptcy judgeships and the Second Circuit's appointment process, and reflects on the weight of decisions that shape whether a family keeps its home or thousands of employees keep their jobs. The Honorable Elizabeth Stong is a graduate of Harvard Law School. This episode is hosted by Kyle McEntee.Mentioned in this episode:Learn more about Juno and private student loansAccess LawHub today!Learn more about Juno and private student loansHaynes Boone LLPLearn more about Haynes Boone LLP

Sam Bankman-Fried, the fallen crypto kingpin now cooling his heels at FCI Lompoc in California, just made a bold pivot in his endless legal chess game. On April 22, according to Cointelegraph and court filings reported by Bloomingbit, the FTX founder withdrew his Rule 33 motion for a new trial without prejudice, slamming Judge Lewis Kaplan for extreme bias and insisting he wont get a fair shake before him. He personally penned the letter from prison, reserving the right to refile after his active appeal to the Second Circuit on his 2023 fraud conviction and 25-year sentence plays out, plus a separate bid to swap judges, as detailed by MEXC and CryptoRank.This tactical retreat keeps the drama alive into 2026 or beyond, dodging distractions from prepping replies to prosecutors tough 44-page opposition filed in March, per Coinpaper via MEXC. No public appearances or fresh business moves from the inmate, but SBF stays chatty behind bars through interviews and social media, fueling whispers of future plays, though nothing new pops in the last few days. Gossip swirls around viral posts hyping FTXs old portfolio, like a whopping 165x gain on Anthropic bets that couldve ballooned to 114 billion today if not liquidated, as Benzinga notes SBF highlighting those missed SpaceX and Cursor jackpots. His earlier Trump pardon plea? Dead in the water, with the president-elect nixing it flat, Cryptopolitan reports.No major headlines in the past 24 hours, but this withdrawal could reshape his bio arc, signaling a sharper focus on appellate warfare over trial do-overs with long-term odds hinging on that Second Circuit panel. Speculation on solvency claims persists, with SBF doubling down that FTX had no multibillion hole, but prosecutors and courts arent buying it yet, per AMBCrypto.Thanks for listening, please subscribe to never miss an update on Sam Bankman-Fried and search the term Biography Flash for more great Biographies. This has been a Quiet Please production.This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AIThis episode includes AI-generated content.

Sripetch v. SEC | 04/20/26 | Docket #: 25-466 25-466 SRIPETCH V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION DECISION BELOW: 154 F.4th 980 CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2026 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case presents a clear and acknowledged conflict over an exceptionally important question regarding the SEC's civil-enforcement power. In Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71 (2020), this Court held the SEC may seek equitable "disgorgement" in civil-enforcement actions if an award "does not exceed a wrongdoer's net profits" and "is awarded for victims ." 591 U.S. at 74- 75 (emphasis added). In the proceedings below, the Ninth Circuit held that investors can be ''victims" for disgorgement purposes despite not suffering pecuniary harm. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit recognized a direct "split" on this question, "reject[ed] the reasoning of the Second Circuit," and "joined the First Circuit in holding that a finding of pecuniary harm is not required." This statutory holding was the sole basis of the Ninth Circuit's decision, and it leaves the SEC's enforcement power in disarray: disgorgement requests are ubiquitous in SEC actions, and there are now conflicting rules in the two main circuits (the Second and Ninth) where enforcement actions are most prominent. There are millions (if not billions) of dollars at stake. The question presented is: Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm . LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-3830

Employment: May Fox News be held liable for rape and sexual assault allegations against one of its hosts against another of its employees? - Argued: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 9:7:51 EDT

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I cover the changes requested by Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger to the state's pending "assault firearm" ban and other major gun control bills. We also discuss a new ruling out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upholding New York's ban on stun guns and tasers. Stories: -https://thereload.com/virginia-governor-sends-assault-firearms-ban-back-to-legislature-demands-expansion/ -https://thereload.com/spanberger-requests-stricter-hospital-gun-ban-from-virginia-legislature/ -https://thereload.com/federal-appeals-court-upholds-new-york-city-stun-gun-ban/ -https://thereload.com/newsletter-virginia-governor-pushes-to-further-tighten-new-gun-bans/

This is the official audio recording of the argument held in the appeal on April 9, 2026 in United States versus Sean Combs (Diddy) brought before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit following the criminal conviction and sentencing.

This Day in Legal History: Lincoln is Shot at Ford's TheatreOn April 14, 1865, Abraham Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theatre by John Wilkes Booth, an act that would alter the trajectory of Reconstruction and American legal history. Lincoln's life story makes the moment even more striking: born in poverty in a Kentucky log cabin, largely self-educated, and rising through persistence rather than privilege, he embodied a form of democratic possibility rare among world leaders. Over time, his legal and political thinking evolved in meaningful ways, particularly on questions of equality and civil rights. While early in his career he held more limited views, the Civil War years reshaped his outlook, pushing him toward support for Black suffrage and, by some accounts, openness to broader enfranchisement, including for women.Frederick Douglass, who met with Lincoln during the war, captured this complexity well, noting that Lincoln was “preeminently the white man's President,” yet also “the first to show any respect for the rights of the black man.” Douglass emphasized that Lincoln's greatness lay not in perfection, but in growth—his capacity to move, under pressure and moral reflection, toward justice. By April 1865, Lincoln was publicly advocating limited Black voting rights, particularly for Black soldiers and educated men, a position that suggested further expansion might follow in his second term.That possibility was cut short on the night of April 14, when Booth entered the presidential box during a performance and fired a single shot at close range. Lincoln died the following morning, and with him vanished a moderating but increasingly progressive force in Reconstruction policy. In the years that followed, many of the shortcomings we associate with Reconstruction—including the narrowing of federal protections seen in cases like United States v. Cruikshank—took hold in a political environment Lincoln never had the chance to shape. His assassination opened the door to a more fractured and often less protective approach to civil rights enforcement.A little-known but striking footnote to this story involves Edwin Booth, the brother of Lincoln's assassin, who months earlier had unknowingly saved the life of the president's son, Robert Todd Lincoln. At a crowded train platform in Jersey City, Robert slipped and fell between the train and the platform just as the car began to move. Edwin Booth, standing nearby, quickly grabbed him by the collar and pulled him to safety, preventing what could have been a fatal accident. The two men did not recognize each other at the time, and Booth only later learned whose life he had saved. The incident has since taken on a symbolic quality in legal and historical writing, illustrating the strange intersections of fate surrounding the Lincoln family in the days leading up to April 1865.Legally and historically, April 14 stands as a hinge moment: not only the loss of a president, but the loss of a developing constitutional vision. Lincoln's trajectory suggests that Reconstruction might have unfolded differently under his continued leadership, particularly on voting rights and federal protection of equality. Douglass later reflected that Lincoln's legacy should be judged not by where he began, but by how far he traveled. That journey—from humble origins to an evolving commitment to equality—remains central to understanding both the promise and the unfinished work of American law.After his death, Abraham Lincoln's body was carried on a funeral train that retraced, in reverse, the route he had taken to Washington as president-elect in 1861, passing through many of the same stations and drawing massive crowds at every stop. The train's journey from Washington, D.C. to Springfield became a rolling national mourning, with citizens lining the tracks to pay their respects to the fallen leader. In a deeply symbolic sense, the trip marked the completion of Lincoln's final journey—returning him to the place where his political life had taken root, even as the nation he led struggled to carry forward the work he unwittingly left unfinished.President Donald Trump announced plans to nominate Matthew Schwartz, his personal lawyer in the New York hush money case, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Schwartz is a longtime partner at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and joined Trump's legal team in 2025 to handle the appeal after prior attorneys moved into government roles. Trump praised Schwartz as a strong opponent of government overreach and highlighted his experience in high-level federal and state litigation. In addition to the criminal appeal, Schwartz is also representing Trump in a civil fraud case brought by Letitia James, where his team recently urged the state's highest court to dismiss the claims as politically motivated. Schwartz previously clerked for Samuel Alito and worked at Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, and he is a graduate of Columbia Law School.Trump Taps Personal Attorney for Second CircuitAn Illinois jury in Cook County added $17 million in punitive damages to an earlier $53 million award against Abbott Laboratories in a case brought by four mothers whose premature infants developed necrotizing enterocolitis after being fed the company's formula. The jury previously found in favor of the plaintiffs on claims including failure to warn, negligence, and product defect, awarding individual damages based on the harm suffered by each child, all of whom survived but face lasting health complications.Plaintiffs argued they were not informed of the risks associated with the formula and would have made different feeding decisions had they known. Abbott disputed liability, maintaining that its products are safe and that scientific evidence does not support a causal link between its formula and the condition, and said it plans to appeal. The trial judge allowed punitive damages after finding evidence the company may have withheld risk information, and also criticized testimony suggesting mothers should not be told about such risks. The case is part of broader, ongoing litigation over infant formula, with mixed outcomes in courts across the country.Ill. Jury Adds $17M Punitive Award To Baby Formula Verdict - Law360In my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that new IRS guidance on opportunity zones largely revives the original program from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act without addressing its core flaws—and may even worsen them. While the framework still aims to direct private capital into distressed communities through tax incentives, the updated rules expand where zones can be drawn and lower investment thresholds, particularly in rural areas. In practice, that means more projects will qualify, but fewer are likely to deliver the kind of transformative impact the policy was designed to achieve.The first iteration showed that investment tended to flow toward already developing areas with stronger returns, not the communities most in need, and the new guidance does little to change that incentive structure. Governors retain broad discretion in selecting zones, a feature that previously led to politically influenced designations rather than data-driven ones. By easing standards like the “substantial improvement” requirement, the revised rules make it easier for incremental upgrades—not meaningful redevelopment—to receive tax benefits. As a result, the program risks continuing to function more as a subsidy for already viable projects than as a tool for economic revitalization. I suggest that a more effective approach would tie both zone designation and tax benefits to measurable outcomes like housing growth, job creation, or business investment, while reducing discretionary selection in favor of objective economic criteria. 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

If Only YPF's Bylaws Had Been Governed by Texas Law And… poof! The sound of a $16 billion judgment going up in smoke. We talk about the Second Circuit's decision in the YPF case, which we read largely as a way to make an excessively large judgment disappear without ruling on any difficult (and recurring) issues of US law. YPF's shareholders got screwed, but then again their rights were governed by Argentine law. Even in foreign courts, it is hard to win when the sovereign gets to set the rules. We also talk about those fun-lovin' Texas legislators. Pardner, everything's bigger in Texas. Except the pre-judgment interest rate. That there is just a whole lot smaller. Has been for 30 some years. Producer: Leanna Doty

Mark and Gary unpack the latest developments in Sean Combs' high-stakes appeal, focusing on a tense Second Circuit hearing that could reshape how acquitted conduct is used in sentencing. From sharp judicial questioning to a memorable pizza metaphor that may have undercut the prosecution's case, they walk through key arguments, legal strategy, and what the court's tone could signal about a possible outcome. Watch Beyond A Reasonable Doubt and all Reasonable Doubt video content on YouTube exclusively at YouTube.com/ReasonableDoubtPodcast and subscribe while you're thereSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Criminal Procedure: Did the trial judge “defy the jury's verdict” when he sentenced Sean Combs based on the finding that Combs “coerced, exploited and forced” his girlfriends to have sex? - Argued: Thu, 09 Apr 2026 14:46:58 EDT

Gary Ireland is a New York City–based employment attorney representing executives in transition, start-ups, and small businesses, with a particular focus on women leaders. He serves as outside general counsel to Maxus Systems, whose founder patented "virtual reality," recognized by Popular Mechanics as one of the "15 Patents That Changed the World."He advises innovative companies on protecting their interests while pursuing strategic growth. Gary has secured impactful civil rights and discrimination victories, including a jury verdict with punitive damages against a municipality for repeated police beatings and a federal age discrimination win affirmed by the Second Circuit. He also led a $25 million beach renourishment initiative protecting public shoreline and private homes. Beyond the courtroom, Gary developed, and alongside the Ireland family and a broad coalition of supporters, helped lead the successful campaign to open the Boy Scouts of America — now the gender-neutral Scouting America — to girls, expanding opportunities to more than 170,000 young women.The Ireland family story, featured in the Daily Mail, is now being developed into a feature film. Gary welcomes introductions to filmmakers and producers interested in creating an impactful and commercially successful project.A graduate of Columbia University and New York Law School, Gary serves on the board of the Bella Abzug Leadership Institute, where he teaches a program he developed, Relentless Advocacy. He also coaches in the leadership program at Columbia Law School.In today's episode of Smashing the Plateau, you will learn how to build a coalition around a cause, stay relentless in the face of obstacles, and lead with purpose in both business and life.Gary and I discuss:Gary's mission as an attorney and advocate [02:57]How his daughter Sydney's scouting journey began [03:52]The obstacle Sydney faced in joining the Boy Scouts [06:10]How they built a coalition to create change [14:43]The role of community and elected officials in their advocacy [15:41]What it takes to sustain resilience over the long term [10:48]Advice for leaders facing complex decisions and heavy obstacles [22:25]Learn more about Gary at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/lifestyle/article-12907335/amp/sydney-ireland-fought-nine-years-boy-scouts-movie.html______________________________________________________________About Smashing the PlateauSmashing the Plateau is a podcast for experienced independent leaders who have left corporate roles to build sustainable, expertise-based businesses.Each episode features a thoughtful, experience-driven conversation about what changes when you no longer have the infrastructure of an organization behind you.We explore judgment, decision-making under uncertainty, growth plateaus, identity shifts, and the role of trusted thinking partners in sustaining long-term success.______________________________________________________________Take the Next Step• Experience the power of peer perspective.Join a live guest session and connect with experienced professionals navigating similar challenges:https://smashingtheplateau.com/guest• Stay connected to the conversation.Get new episodes, reflections, and invitations delivered to your inbox:https://smashingtheplateau.com/news

We Like Shooting - Ep 656 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Gideon Optics (Code: WLSISLIFE) Night Fision (Code: WLSISLIFE) Die Free Co. (Code: WLSISLIFE) Rost Martin (Code: WLSISLIFE) Flatline Fiber Co (Code: WLS15) Second Call Defense Guests: David Warner – www.nextlevelarms.com www.nextlevelmfg.com Next Level Arms (@nextlevelarms)    Text Dear WLS or Reviews +1 743 500 2171  Public   Show Titles GunCon.net Tickets on sale now. Use code AGENCY171 GEAR CHAT [NickLynch] MP5 Speed Loader – Remix This is a remix of Jackmnb's speed loader designed for MP5, with the cartridge slot moved to allow dropping cartridges bullet-first from the back side. A chamfer has been added to facilitate faster and easier filling of the loader. Angles have been modified to enable printing without supports. Note MP5 Mag loader [Benelli] Lupo The Benelli Lupo is a bolt-action rifle highlighted in the ‘Art of Performance' video series for its proprietary barrel engineering. It features a three-step manufacturing process including vacuum heat treatment, electrochemical rifling, and cryogenic Crio treatment to achieve superior accuracy and consistency. The rifle's rigid chassis and harmonized action ensure minimal flex, precise alignment, and out-of-box performance. [Infinite Zero Targets] Rifle Zeroing Targets Infinite Zero Targets provides free printable rifle zeroing targets designed for precise firearm sighting. The page promotes these paper targets alongside the Ballistics Report app for ballistic calculations. No hardware technical gear such as optics or mechanical devices is detailed. Note (Nick) Sig P229 BULLET POINTS GUN FIGHTS No one stepped into the arena this week. GOING BALLISTIC Colorado HB 26-1144: Democrats Amend 3D-Printed Firearms Bill to Avoid Veto Colorado House Bill 1144 (HB 26-1144) targets the use of 3D printers to manufacture guns or gun parts, making it a crime in the state. Democrats revised the bill by removing a provision banning the distribution of digital printing instructions to secure passage and avoid a veto from Gov. Jared Polis. The amended version classifies first offenses as Class I misdemeanors and subsequent offenses as Class 5 felonies. Heeter v. James: Challenge to New York's Body Armor Ban Under the Second Amendment Heeter v. James is a federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York challenging New York's body armor ban under the Concealed Carry Improvement Act as a Second Amendment violation. Plaintiffs argue body armor qualifies as an ‘arm' for self-defense, supported by historical precedents like Heller and Bruen, common civilian use, and lack of historical bans. The ban prohibits purchase, acquisition, or sale of protective body coverings by non-eligible civilians, with enforcement by state police. National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Letitia James: SAF Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court to Protect Firearms Industry under PLCAA The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with NRA and Independence Institute, filed an amicus brief on March 30, 2026, in National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Letitia James, challenging New York's law that circumvents the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). SAF argues that New York's statute enables abusive public nuisance lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and dealers, undermining PLCAA's protections against meritless litigation campaigns aimed at bankrupting the industry. The brief urges the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reaffirm PLCAA's safeguards for lawful commerce and Second Amendment rights. Colorado House Bill 1144: 3D Gun Printing Ban Drops Digital Instructions Provision to Avoid Veto (Savage) Colorado's House Bill 1144 originally aimed to ban the manufacture of 3D printed guns and components like high-capacity magazines and receivers, as well as the sale or distribution of digital instructions for printing them. Lawmakers removed the provision on digital instructions after Gov. Jared Polis indicated he would veto the bill otherwise. The amended bill passed a preliminary Senate vote and is expected to be signed into law. Warren-Meeks Letter Demands Data on U.S. Semi-Automatic Firearm Export Licenses (Savage) U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY) sent a letter to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security requesting detailed data on semi-automatic firearm export licenses approved since January 2025. They cite ATF data linking U.S. exports to 20% of crime gun traces in Central America and 37% worldwide outside North America, demanding info on licenses, recipients, and monitoring by April 13, 2026. This follows Biden administration pauses on certain exports and Warren's recent legislation targeting ammunition sales and military-grade weapons. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson: Pro-Gun Control Policies with $30 Million Taxpayer-Funded Armed Security (Savage) Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson supports Illinois' restrictive gun control measures, including a ban on assault-style weapons upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2023, while employing an armed security detail of up to 150 Chicago Police Department officers. This security costs taxpayers approximately $30 million annually. The arrangement highlights a perceived double standard where officials enjoy armed protection amid public firearm restrictions. Rep. Fry Files Amicus Brief in NSSF v. James Seeking SCOTUS Review to Defend Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) (Savage) Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC), leading 54 House colleagues, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) with Senate colleagues, filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit's decision in NSSF v. James. The brief defends the PLCAA, a 2005 federal law preempting state liability suits against gun manufacturers for criminal misuse of firearms, against New York's public nuisance law. It argues the Second Circuit ruling undermines congressional intent and enables similar state circumventions. Armed Citizen Fights Off Attackers at Arundel Mills Mall, Hanover, Maryland (Savage) On March 28, 2026, an armed citizen at Arundel Mills Mall in Hanover, Maryland, drew a firearm during an assault by three attackers outside Burlington Coat Factory, discharging it and wounding one in the wrist. The attackers fled, leading to a police chase and crash on I-97, resulting in three arrests. The incident highlights civilian self-defense in a Maryland jurisdiction.0 Michigan Lawyer Barton Morris Helps Non-Violent Felons Restore Gun Rights via Federal DOJ Program (Savage) A Michigan lawyer, Barton Morris, assists non-violent felons who have completed their sentences in petitioning for firearm rights restoration through a proposed U.S. Department of Justice program. Michigan state law currently prohibits these individuals, such as those convicted of drug offenses, drunk driving, or theft, from owning guns post-sentence. An example is Clarence Overstreet, who filed a petition after a past cocaine possession conviction to protect his family and hunt. Calce v. City of New York Calce v. City of New York challenges New York City's ban on civilian possession of stun guns and tasers in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (docket 25-861). The district court granted summary judgment to the city in March 2025, ruling plaintiffs failed to prove common use for Second Amendment protection. Oral arguments occurred, focusing on whether ‘common use' is a plaintiff burden under Bruen or shifts to the government. Ohio SB 392: Freedom to Carry Act Ohio Senate Bill 392, introduced on March 23, 2026, seeks to reform state weapons carry laws by expanding concealed carry beyond handguns to other deadly weapons, renaming licenses to concealed weapons licenses, and lowering the licensing age from 21 to 18. It permits licensed carry of concealed deadly weapons excluding ‘exclusive deadly weapons' defined as dangerous ordnance or federally/state-prohibited items, and allows loaded firearm possession in vehicles. The bill remains in the introduced stage amid Ohio's Republican legislative supermajorities. REVIEWS Review: The 5th cast member from Oregon From The 5th cast member If I visited each of the cast members. Sean First I would ask to see vault and when he took me to the gun vault I'd say no I mean the vault of money but you don't tell the other cast members about. Then we would take some time digging through all of the boxes of gear that he has been given by sponsors of the show over the years that he's never even opened or look at. Poring me a drink of something suspicious but claim it is some sort of Old world drink to see you. Sure few drinks probably want to show me a smooth child by balls which of course would scar me for life but they're really weird part would be with his pants down asking me if I want to play some hockey. Savige He would show me all of his communist compliant guns. Which wouldn't really actually be very many. Explain to me all of the conspiracy theories around the government in the state and federal. To ask if I wanted to join him secret group that was planning the next January 6th type event only he would call it January 7th as if that was enough secret seat to avoid being obvious. I received there believing I was just been trapped by an FBI informed. Aaron Quickly after meeting Erin he would want to show me the book he's been working on “the art of working” I'm genuinely act interested not to crushes dreams of becoming some sort of Tom Clancy. Then he would give me a 2 hour tutorial on how to use indeed. Followed by a house to get fired but still get the maximum unemployment benefits. Jarami I probably meet him at his gun store first. Shoot his “Part 2 because you wouldn't let me text the whole story. Nick

Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties | 03/30/26 | Docket #: 25-83 25-83 JULES V. ANDRE BALAZS PROPERTIES DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 1201914 CERT. GRANTED 12/5/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a party may apply to confirm or vacate an arbitration award. But federal courts have limited jurisdiction over Section 9 and 10 applications. In Badgerow v. Walters , 596 U.S. 1, 4, 9-11 (2022), this Court held that a federal court may exercise jurisdiction only if the application establishes diversity or federal-question jurisdiction on its face. A federal court may not exercise jurisdiction merely on the basis that the underlying dispute, save for the arbitration agreement, would have been justiciable in federal court. See id . But what happens when a court initially exercises jurisdiction over the underlying dispute, stays the case pending arbitration, and is later faced with an application to confirm or vacate an arbitration award in the same case? The courts of appeals have sharply divided on the appropriate jurisdictional analysis. Several courts of appeals, including the Second Circuit below, have held that the initial exercise of jurisdiction creates a "jurisdictional anchor" that confers jurisdiction over a subsequent Section 9 or 10 application to confirm or vacate, even if jurisdiction would otherwise be absent. By contrast, the Fourth Circuit has held that a court must establish an independent basis for jurisdiction over a Section 9 or 10 application to confirm or vacate. The question presented is: Whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1253, 23-1283

Antitrust: Does the Ivy League's prohibition on athletic scholarships violate the antitrust laws? - Argued: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 11:29:36 EDT

This Day in Legal History: United States v. CruikshankOn March 27, 1876, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Cruikshank, a ruling that exposed the Court's deep reluctance to enforce the promises of Reconstruction. The case arose from the Colfax Massacre, where dozens of Black citizens were murdered by white supremacists attempting to overturn a contested election. Federal prosecutors secured convictions under the Enforcement Act, aiming to protect Black citizens' constitutional rights in the face of organized racial violence. The Supreme Court, however, dismantled those convictions with striking indifference to the underlying atrocities.The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment constrained only state action, not the conduct of private individuals, effectively shielding perpetrators of racial terror from federal accountability. It further ruled that rights such as assembly and bearing arms were not protected from state interference through the Constitution at that time. This narrow interpretation gutted federal enforcement power at precisely the moment it was most needed. The decision ignored the reality that state authorities in the South were often unwilling—or actively refusing—to protect Black citizens.Critically, the Court's reasoning elevated formal legal distinctions over the lived experience of widespread, systematic violence. By insisting on a rigid state-action requirement, the justices created a legal loophole large enough to permit organized terror campaigns to flourish unchecked. The ruling signaled to white supremacist groups that federal intervention would be weak or nonexistent. In doing so, it contributed directly to the collapse of Reconstruction-era protections and the rise of Jim Crow.The long-term consequences were profound, as Cruikshank became a cornerstone for limiting civil rights enforcement for decades. It delayed meaningful federal protection of individual rights until well into the twentieth century. Modern constitutional law has largely rejected its reasoning through incorporation doctrine, yet its impact remains a stark reminder of how judicial decisions can entrench injustice.A federal judge in California issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from labeling Anthropica national security supply chain risk, finding the move was likely unconstitutional retaliation. The dispute arose after Anthropic pushed back during contract negotiations with the government, arguing it should be allowed to limit how its AI system Claude is used, particularly for mass domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons. Shortly after the company made its position public, the administration directed agencies to stop using its tools and moved to formally designate it as a security risk.Judge Rita F. Lin concluded that Anthropic is likely to succeed on its claims, emphasizing that the government appeared to be punishing the company for publicly criticizing its contracting stance. She found that the measures were not closely tied to genuine national security concerns and instead resembled retaliation for protected speech. The court stressed that while the government is free to choose its vendors, it cannot take additional punitive steps that violate constitutional protections.The ruling also found that the designation was likely unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and potentially violated due process because Anthropic had no opportunity to respond. The judge noted that branding a company as a national security threat for expressing disagreement raises serious constitutional concerns. The injunction blocks enforcement of the directive and prevents further action against the company while the case proceeds.The decision highlights broader tensions between government control over AI use and private companies' efforts to impose ethical limits. It also underscores concerns that government retaliation could chill public debate about AI safety. The administration must now report back to the court on its compliance with the order.Anthropic Blocks Pentagon's ‘Orwellian' Security Risk Label - Law360US judge blocks Pentagon's Anthropic blacklisting for now | ReutersA lawyer for Elon Musk has asked a federal judge to review a jury verdict that found him liable for defrauding Twitter investors during his acquisition of the platform, now known as X. The request focuses in part on the jury's use of the number “$4.20” on the verdict form, which Musk's attorney argued was an intentional joke that showed bias and suggested the jury was trying to “send a message” rather than decide the case impartially.Musk's legal team claims this, along with other alleged trial issues, undermines the integrity of the verdict and warrants further judicial review by Judge Charles Breyer. The verdict, issued on March 20, found Musk liable for certain public statements he made about the prevalence of bots on the platform during the acquisition process, which investors argued harmed the company's stock price. Potential damages in the case could reach as high as $2.5 billion.Attorneys for the investors strongly rejected Musk's arguments, calling them baseless and accusing him of attacking the jury instead of accepting responsibility. They emphasized that the verdict followed substantial evidence presented at trial.The dispute stems from claims that Musk publicly criticized Twitter to renegotiate or exit the deal, ultimately affecting shareholders who sold at lower prices. While the jury found him liable for some statements, it did not conclude that he engaged in a broader scheme to defraud.Musk urges judge to review Twitter verdict, accuses jury of ‘mocking' him | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived part of an ERISA class action against Wells Fargo and Ocwen Financial Corp., overturning a lower court decision that had dismissed the case before trial. The lawsuit was brought by trustees of a union pension fund, who claim the companies mishandled subprime mortgages tied to the fund's investments in mortgage-backed securities.The appellate court found that the trial judge made a key mistake in concluding that none of the underlying mortgages qualified as ERISA plan assets. While the court agreed that some mortgage-backed securities—specifically those structured as notes—are not plan assets, it ruled differently for securities issued as trust certificates. In those instances, the underlying mortgages can count as plan assets because the investment structure gives the pension fund an equity-like interest in the trust.This distinction matters because ERISA fiduciary duties apply only to plan assets. By recognizing that certain underlying mortgages fall within that definition, the court reopened the possibility that the companies could be held liable for breaching fiduciary duties. The pension fund alleges that the defendants mishandled loans during the 2007–2009 financial crisis, including pushing borrowers into foreclosure, which harmed the fund's investments.The court declined to decide whether Ocwen acted as an ERISA fiduciary, noting that the lower court had not addressed that issue. As a result, the case will return to the trial court for further proceedings on the revived claims.​​2nd Circ. Reopens Mortgage-Backed Securities ERISA Suit - Law360 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

John is joined by Todd Anten, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office and co-chair of the firm's Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secret practices, and Owen F. Roberts, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office. They discuss a sixteen-year copyright dispute involving two appeals to the Second Circuit that centered on the scope of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provision. The plaintiffs were major music publishers and recording companies that own the copyrights to some of the world's most famous songs. The defendant, represented by a Quinn Emanuel team led by Todd and Owen, was Vimeo, a popular video hosting and video sharing platform. The plaintiffs alleged that Vimeo should be held liable for copyright infringement based on users who posted videos incorporating the plaintiffs' music without permission. The core issue was whether Vimeo was protected by the DMCA's safe harbor provisions, which shield platforms such as Vimeo from copyright liability for the acts of their users as long as they comply with certain requirements.Among those requirements are that: (1) the platform does not have “the right or ability to control” allegedly infringing activity; and (2) the platform removes user-posted videos upon receiving sufficient knowledge of infringement, for example, the receipt of a DMCA notice from the copyright holder, or “red flag” knowledge that a video is obviously infringing. The plaintiffs argued that Vimeo did not satisfy these requirements. First, they argued that Vimeo's voluntary internal moderation practices, such as the removal of unwanted videos, demonstrated that Vimeo controlled users' infringing activity. Second, although the plaintiffs never sent Vimeo a DMCA takedown notice, they argued that Vimeo staff's awareness that certain videos contained famous songs was enough to raise an inference of Vimeo's “red flag” knowledge, imposing a duty on Vimeo staff to remove such videos on sight. In its defense, Vimeo argued that voluntary removal of unwanted videos (for example, bullying, sexual content, or advertising) did not disqualify it from safe harbor eligibility because it is consistent with the sort of moderation that Congress encouraged in the statute. Vimeo further argued that an ordinary Vimeo employee could not reasonably know whether a video is “obviously” infringing on sight and that the plaintiffs were in fact seeking an end-run around the DMCA notice-and-takedown regime.The Second Circuit agreed with Vimeo. It first concluded in 2016 that mere awareness that a video contains a famous song is not enough to show that it is obviously infringing; it could be authorized or a fair use, which are fact-intensive determinations. As the Court noted, even judges and copyright scholars have difficulty assessing the boundaries of fair use. The Court emphasized that copyright holders were not without remedy—they could send DMCA takedown notices for expeditious removal, which is the deliberate bargain that Congress struck. In 2025, the Second Circuit further ruled that a platform does not forfeit safe harbor by voluntarily removing unwanted videos, as such activity does not rise to providing “substantial influence” in the creation of infringing videos, and such moderation is inherent in promoting the advancement of technology.These outcomes reinforce the importance of the DMCA's statutory notice-and-takedown regime, and underscore that a copyright holder's desire for a new system is an issue to bring to Congress, not to the courts.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

This Devotional address with Justin Collings was delivered on Tuesday, March 24, 2026, at 11:30 AM MST in the BYU-Idaho I-Center. Justin Collings began his career at BYU when he joined the J. Reuben Clark Law School faculty in 2013. He is a former Fulbright Fellow and is the author of two books and various articles on subjects related to constitutional law and constitutional history. He is also the author of a book about divine law in the Doctrine and Covenants, published by BYU's Maxwell Institute. Justin is a graduate of Brigham Young University, where he double-majored in English and Italian. He is also a graduate of Yale University, where he earned a JD and a PhD in history. Before beginning his teaching career, he worked as a law clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In 2022, Justin was appointed BYU's associate academic vice president for faculty development, and since June 2023, he has served as BYU's academic vice president. He is married to the incomparable Lia Collings, and they are the parents of eight children.

In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

Federalism: Is New York City's congestion pricing program a toll or a tax? - Argued: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 16:50:21 EDT

Free Speech: Are teachers unlawfully discriminated against by policies against showing Pride flags? - Argued: Mon, 09 Mar 2026 16:53:41 EDT

Intellectual Property: Does removing copyright management information from publicly available internet text for the purpose of training an AI model violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? - Argued: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 17:34:38 EDT

In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching courtrooms turn into the main stage of American politics, but here we are on March 15, 2026, and the trials involving Donald Trump are heating up like a pressure cooker about to blow. Picture this: I'm sipping my morning coffee in my Washington, D.C. apartment, scrolling through updates on the federal election interference case in U.S. District Court under Judge Tanya Chutkan. Just last week, Trump's lawyers, John Lauro and Todd Blanche, doubled down on their wild push for an April 2026 trial date, arguing that the 11.5 million pages of discovery from Special Counsel Jack Smith's team—stacked up, they say, taller than eight Washington Monuments—demand at least two and a half years to review. According to Politico reports from the filings, they claim it's only fair since prosecutors had that long to build the case against Trump for his alleged conspiracies to subvert the 2020 election results, from fake electors to pressuring state officials like in Georgia.But hold on—prosecutors aren't buying it. Molly Gaston from Smith's office fired back in a Courthouse News Service brief, calling the defense's math ridiculous. She pointed out that 65% of those documents were already public or duplicates, including stuff from the National Archives, Trump's own Truth Social posts, and the House January 6 Select Committee transcripts. They front-loaded the key evidence, she said, with another 615,000 pages dropped over the weekend, 20% from Trump's own entities. No way this justifies kicking the trial into the next presidential term, they argue, especially since Trump knows most of this from the Jan. 6 hearings. Judge Chutkan, the no-nonsense Obama appointee, has warned Trump against inflammatory Truth Social rants that could taint the jury pool in D.C., hinting she'll speed things up if he keeps it up.Meanwhile, across the circuits, Trump's legal calendar is a nightmare. JustSecurity's master calendar shows deadlines piling up: In the Georgia RICO case, Fulton County DA Fani Willis is battling appeals over disqualifying her, with oral arguments wrapping last December before the Georgia Court of Appeals. Trump's team appealed Judge Scott McAfee's ruling allowing Willis to stay on, but whispers say it's dragging. Up in New York, the hush money case with DA Alvin Bragg—tied to Stormy Daniels payments—faced delays, but a federal appeals court shot down Trump's second removal bid to SDNY Judge Alvin Hellerstein. And don't get me started on the civil fronts: E. Jean Carroll's defamation suits, where juries already hit Trump with nearly $90 million in verdicts, now ping-ponging through the Second Circuit.Over in Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon's May 2024 classified docs trial got tossed on appeal, but Smith's team is pushing back in the Eleventh Circuit. Even the Supreme Court docket for 2026, as ABC News outlines, teases executive power clashes that could ripple into Trump's orbit, like limits on presidential immunity post his earlier motions. YouTube legal recaps from channels like those covering his "three court losses in three days" back in October 2024 feel like ancient history now, but they set the tone—Trump's delay tactics aiming for a potential 2025 White House return to pardon or dismiss federal charges, though state cases like Georgia and New York are bulletproof.It's exhausting, listeners, watching this unfold from my couch, wondering if justice will outpace politics. The stakes? The soul of our elections. Thank you for tuning in, 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

Aughie and Nia explore the life and career of Learned Hand (January 27, 1872 - August 18, 1961). Billings Learned Hand was an American jurist, lawyer, and judicial philosopher. He served as a federal appellate judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1924 to 1961.

This Day in Legal History: Marbury v. MadisonOn February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that permanently reshaped American constitutional law. The dispute arose after President John Adams appointed several “midnight judges” in the final hours of his administration. One of those appointees, William Marbury, never received his commission because it was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commission, prompting Marbury to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court.Presiding over the case was Chief Justice John Marshall, whose involvement added a striking layer of irony. Before becoming Chief Justice, Marshall had served as Secretary of State under Adams and had been responsible for sealing the very commissions at issue. In other words, Marshall was now reviewing the legal consequences of actions taken by his former office. Rather than recuse himself, he authored the opinion that would define the Court's authority.Marshall concluded that Marbury had a legal right to his commission but held that the statute granting the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Marshall reasoned, any conflicting statute must be void. In declaring part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the Court asserted the power of judicial review for the first time.The decision simultaneously denied Marbury his remedy while expanding the Court's institutional authority. It avoided a direct political confrontation with Jefferson while firmly establishing the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. What began as a minor political dispute over an undelivered commission became the foundation for the Supreme Court's power to strike down unconstitutional laws.A federal judge has permanently blocked the Justice Department from releasing a prosecutor's report concerning the classified documents case against President Donald Trump. The ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who concluded that making the report public would amount to a “manifest injustice” because the case never went to trial. She reasoned that publishing detailed allegations of criminal conduct without a jury verdict would undermine basic fairness principles.The case had been brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith and accused Trump of unlawfully retaining sensitive national defense materials at his Mar-a-Lago property and obstructing government efforts to recover them. Trump and his co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, pleaded not guilty and described the prosecution as politically motivated. In 2024, Cannon dismissed the charges, finding that Smith had not been lawfully appointed.After Trump returned to office, the Justice Department supported efforts to keep the report confidential. Although special counsels are typically required to submit reports explaining their charging decisions, Cannon held that releasing this one would conflict with her earlier rulings, including her determination that Smith's appointment was invalid. She also cited concerns about exposing grand jury material.The decision prevents public disclosure of substantial details about one of the four criminal cases Trump faced after leaving office. It follows the Supreme Court's recent decision limiting Trump's tariff authority and marks another significant legal development in the ongoing disputes surrounding his post-presidency investigations.US judge permanently blocks release of report on Trump documents case | ReutersThe chief judges of two major federal appeals courts have announced plans to step back from active service later this year, creating new vacancies for President Donald Trump to fill. Debra Ann Livingston of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both notified the president that they intend to take senior status. Livingston plans to assume senior status on July 1, while Sutton will do so on October 1.Their decisions come ahead of the November midterm elections, when control of the U.S. Senate could shift, potentially complicating confirmation of successors. Because judicial vacancies have been relatively scarce during Trump's second term, the openings present an opportunity to expand his appellate appointments. During his first term, Trump appointed 54 appellate judges, significantly influencing the judiciary's ideological direction.Both judges were originally appointed by President George W. Bush. Livingston, who has served on the Second Circuit since 2007 and became chief judge in 2020, has at times issued notable dissents, including in cases involving LGBTQ workplace protections and congressional subpoenas tied to Trump's business records. Sutton, on the Sixth Circuit since 2003 and chief judge since 2021, has been an influential conservative jurist. He authored a 2014 opinion upholding same-sex marriage bans that the Supreme Court later overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges.Senior status allows eligible judges to continue hearing cases on a reduced basis while enabling the president to nominate full-time replacements. Their departures will hand Trump two high-profile appellate vacancies at a time when few others are available.Two chief US appellate judges to leave active service, handing Trump vacancies | ReutersIn my weekly column for Bloomberg Tax, I examine the Trump administration's proposed 0.125% “land port maintenance tax” and question whether it is truly infrastructure policy or contingency planning after the Supreme Court curtailed its tariff authority. The proposal is framed as a parity measure to mirror the Harbor Maintenance Fee, but I argue the timing is hard to ignore. Just this week, the Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, reaffirming that Congress controls taxing power absent clear delegation. In my view, that ruling narrows executive trade authority and invites efforts to find alternative mechanisms embedded elsewhere in the customs code.I suggest the land port tax looks like one such alternative. Although labeled a “maintenance” fee, it would be imposed at the border and function economically like a tariff, with costs passed to US importers and consumers. Because most land-based trade flows through Canada and Mexico, I note that the charge would operate in practice as a North American supply chain tax. Calling it infrastructure policy does not change its price effects.I also argue that the Harbor Maintenance Fee analogy falls apart on inspection. Whatever its flaws, the HMF at least carries a user-fee logic tied to dredging and port upkeep. By contrast, the new proposal appears loosely connected to land-border infrastructure and bundled within a broader maritime industrial policy agenda. If shipbuilding is a national security priority, I contend Congress should fund it transparently through the Defense Department and regular appropriations. If the HMF distorts shipping routes, it should be reformed directly rather than replicated inland.Ultimately, I maintain that after Learning Resources, any border charge that operates like a tariff will face legal skepticism. If policymakers intend to subsidize maritime industry, they should say so clearly, define measurable goals, and subject the costs to democratic accountability. 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

On our radar this week… “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” George Orwell wrote those words 76 years ago in “1984” – seemingly the operating manual for Donald Trump's administration. In fact, Trump used those exact words in a campaign speech and has lived by them ever since.  George Orwell also wrote: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” Every day is an exercise in taking attention away from the growing coverup of the Epstein files and financial corruption, with Trump apparently terrified that his sordid decades-long history as a sexual predator will finally catch up with him.  It's a stark contrast with England, where the Andrew formerly known as “Prince” is celebrated his 66th birthday in police custody as England actually holds the powerful accountable for the Epstein-led sexual abuse of children, while in Epstein's home country the White House continues to coverup the crimes of the rich and powerful … very possibly a group that includes Trump. Case in point: the Department of Justice spoke four separate times to a woman who credibly accused Donald Trump of having sex with a 13-year-old he met through Jeffrey Epstein—but most accusations against the president appear to have been removed from the government's documents on the alleged sex trafficker.  A part of Trump's defense is also right out of “1984”: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” That means silencing his critics including the late night comedians who, in the tradition of Will Rogers, lampoon him non-stop. But the tactic is backfiring: Kimmel's banishment lasted a few days, and Stephen Colbert has become even more focused in the last weeks of his days on CBS. The made-for-YouTube video of Colbert with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico has racked up more than 7.5 million views which is triple the Colbert TV show ratings. And Talarico raised a staggering $2.5-million in the day following the incident. Trump wants everything possible named after him. Now, he apparently wants to profit from those efforts: his company has filed papers to trademark use of his name at airports even as his Florida fans in the state's legislature pass a bill to rename Palm Beach International Airport in his honor and he pressures Congress to rename Dulles Airport. If signed into law, the Palm Beach International change would cost the airport $5.5 million to remake signs, uniforms, promotional products, equipment, and more, according to Palm Beach County's department of airports. Also on our radar The Supreme Court kicked off another Trump tantrum by axing his tariffs. The war between Dozing Donald and the court he thought he controlled is now started. Trump got a little nap time during the initial meeting of his made-up Institute for Peace, nodding off repeatedly in front of the world leaders who had ponied up the $1-billion membership fee. Before nap time, Trump pledged a $10-billion U.S. contribution to what amounts to his personal slush fund – ignoring the constitutional requirement that spending needed to be authorized by Congress. Governor Whitmer attended the Munich International Security Conference. At the conference, she joined AOC, and Trump's NATO ambassador on a panel discussion where she was highly critical of Trump's economic war with Canada has driven our neighbors to the north to get cozy with China. Independent gubernatorial candidate Mike Duggan has a new problem. His campaign claimed union endorsements he hasn't received. It's a near certainty that the Service Employees International Union and the United Auto Workers will ultimately endorse Jocelyn Benson. Benson, meanwhile, picked up the endorsement of the Michigan Nurses Association. Mark has a new neighbor. ICE has opened a regional headquarters next door to my office … and also is opening a detention center in Romulus. Nobody's happy about this except Stephen Miller. Is this a staging area for masked ICE agents outside Democratic-leaning voting sites in southeast Michigan this November? And we can't unwatch the incredibly insane 90-second, taxpayer-funded video of RFK Jr. and Kid Rock flexing and sweating, apparently to promote physical fitness. RFK thankfully did not include snorting cocaine from toilet seats as part of his workout regimen. On a far more serious note, we recognize the unique contributions of two men we lost this week: the internationally known Rev. Jesse Jackson, and one of the “good guys” who made Michigan State government work better over his decades of service, our friend Bill Gnodtke. On Tuesday, west Michigan Congresswoman Hilary Scholten went inside an ICE concentration camp. Scholten, who was an immigration attorney before being elected to Congress, joins this week’s conversation. Congresswoman Scholten is a fourth-generation West Michigander. Prior to her election in 2022 she was an immigration attorney who served in the U.S. Department of Justice.  Scholten began her own career as a social worker, working with people affected by issues of housing and homelessness. During this time, she worked with individuals in the LGBTQ community who were facing homelessness and housing insecurity—often because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.  Congresswoman Scholten obtained her law degree from the University of Maryland Thurgood Marshall School of Law, and then went on to clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in their special unit focused on immigration issues. Following her clerkship, she joined the Justice Department through the Attorney General Honors Program, where she continued to work on matters of immigration and civil rights. In Congress she serves on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the House Committee on Small Business. We’re now on YouTube every week! Click here to subscribe. A Republic, If You Can Keep It is sponsored by ©Clay Jones/claytooz.com  

This Day in Legal History: Wesberry v. Sanders On February 17, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wesberry v. Sanders, one of the most consequential voting rights cases in American history. The dispute arose from Georgia's congressional districts, where vast population disparities meant that some districts had two or even three times as many residents as others. In practical terms, this imbalance diluted the voting power of citizens in more populated, often urban, districts. James P. Wesberry challenged the system, arguing that it violated Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which provides that members of the House of Representatives are chosen “by the People.”In a 6–3 decision, the Court agreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black concluded that the Constitution requires congressional districts to be drawn so that “as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's.” The ruling established the principle of “one person, one vote” for federal elections. It rejected longstanding districting schemes that favored rural regions at the expense of growing urban populations. The decision forced states to redraw congressional maps to ensure substantially equal populations across districts.Wesberry was part of the broader reapportionment revolution of the 1960s, alongside cases addressing state legislative districts. Together, these decisions reshaped American democracy by making representation more closely tied to population equality. By insisting that each vote carry roughly equal weight, the Court strengthened the constitutional promise of representative government. February 17, 1964, marks a turning point in election law and the modern understanding of political equality.A federal judge in New York has ruled that discrimination claims brought by a group of NFL coaches will proceed in court rather than in arbitration. U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni denied the league's request to compel arbitration, finding that the NFL's arbitration system was not fair or neutral. The lawsuit was filed by former Miami Dolphins coach Brian Flores, later joined by Steve Wilks and Ray Horton, who allege racial discrimination and retaliation in hiring practices. The case has been stalled for several years while the parties disputed whether it belonged in federal court or before an arbitrator.Judge Caproni relied heavily on a 2025 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which concluded that the NFL's arbitration structure was fundamentally flawed. The appellate court criticized the system because the NFL commissioner served as the default arbitrator and controlled the procedures, raising concerns about neutrality. It held that such an arrangement did not allow Flores to effectively vindicate his statutory rights. Based on that reasoning, Judge Caproni determined that the arbitration clause could not be enforced for the remaining claims. She also declined to delay the case further while the NFL considers seeking review from the U.S. Supreme Court.The coaches argue that requiring them to arbitrate before the league's own commissioner would deprive them of a fair forum. Their attorneys praised the ruling, saying it affirms that employees cannot be forced into a process controlled by the opposing party's chief executive. The NFL has not publicly responded to the latest order. The case will now move forward in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.NFL Found To Fumble Arbitration Over Bias, Must Go To Court - Law360Ruling says Brian Flores lawsuit vs. NFL, teams can go to court - ESPNA Stanford psychiatry professor testified in a California bellwether trial that research supports the existence of social media addiction and its harmful effects on young people. Dr. Anna Lembke told jurors that peer-reviewed studies show heavy use of platforms such as Instagram and YouTube can contribute to depression, anxiety, insomnia, and suicidal thoughts. She cited a National Institutes of Health study tracking more than 11,000 minors, which found that children who were not initially depressed were more likely to develop depression after significant social media use. According to Lembke, the study undermines the argument that already-depressed teens simply gravitate toward social media.Her testimony contrasts with statements from Instagram's CEO, who told the jury he does not believe social media addiction is real. The case is the first of several bellwether trials arising from thousands of consolidated lawsuits claiming platforms intentionally designed addictive features. The companies are accused of using tools such as autoplay, notifications, and infinite scrolling to encourage compulsive use. The claims focus on whether these design features are addictive, rather than on third-party content posted by users. Plaintiffs assert negligence, failure to warn, and concealment.During cross-examination, defense attorneys questioned Lembke about passages in her book describing her own compulsive reading of romance novels, attempting to challenge her views on addiction. She responded that her examples were meant to show how modern systems increase vulnerability to compulsive behavior, not to trivialize serious substance addictions. Defense counsel also argued that platform features are easy to disable, but Lembke maintained her analysis centered on their addictive qualities, not on user settings. Outside the courthouse, families held a rally memorializing children whose deaths they attribute to social media harms. The trial will continue next week.Stanford Prof Tells Jury Studies Confirm Social Media Addiction - Law360In a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, I argue that the IRS's decision to expand tax relief for Americans held hostage abroad is both correct and incomplete. The agency currently freezes collections, halts enforcement notices, and abates penalties when taxpayers are physically incapable of complying due to foreign captivity. I contend that this relief is grounded not in diplomacy, but in a simple principle: incapacity makes compliance impossible. If that principle justifies relief abroad, it should apply equally when the U.S. government wrongfully detains someone at home.I explain that the IRS already has administrative authority to provide this type of relief, as confirmed in a recent Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report. When notified by the State Department or FBI, the IRS places a “hostage indicator” on an account, pausing automated enforcement and suspending penalties during captivity and for six months after release. Although TIGTA identified some administrative flaws in how the system operates, the broader framework demonstrates that the agency can act without new legislation.By contrast, taxpayers subjected to wrongful domestic detention—particularly in immigration contexts—receive no comparable safeguard. The compliance system continues to generate notices, penalties, and interest even when individuals are cut off from mail, income, and legal assistance. I argue that this disparity undermines fairness and weakens the legitimacy that voluntary tax compliance depends on. Congress may move to formalize relief for foreign hostages, but the IRS does not need to wait to address domestic cases.I propose that the agency adopt a parallel framework for wrongful domestic detention, triggered by certification from a federal authority or court. Such a system would temporarily suspend collection activity and abate penalties during detention and a reasonable transition period after release. The goal is consistency: a tax system should not distinguish between foreign and domestic incapacity when the result is the same inability to comply.IRS Suspends Tax Obligations For Hostages Abroad—Do The Same At HomeIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that Massachusetts' proposed regulation on taxing standardized software creates a rigid and impractical apportionment system for multistate businesses. Under the draft rule, any company seeking to allocate tax based on actual in-state use must register through MassTaxConnect and obtain a software apportionment certificate. At the time of purchase, the buyer must also submit a transaction-specific statement explaining its allocation percentage and supporting rationale. I contend that this framework imposes significant administrative burdens on businesses that operate across multiple states.Even companies willing to overpay rather than calculate precise usage would not have an easy option. If they decline to complete the required documentation, they must pay tax on 100% of the purchase price, regardless of how little of the software is actually used in Massachusetts. I argue that this approach effectively turns multistate buyers into compliance agents who must track usage, justify percentages, and retain records for possible audits. At the same time, the Department of Revenue would assume the role of reviewing and policing each allocation.I point out that enterprise software usage is often fluid and difficult to track, especially when licenses are pooled, accessed remotely, or bundled into broader contracts. Proving precise state-by-state use may be costly or even unworkable. Instead of forcing every buyer into this detailed regime, I propose a safe harbor option. Businesses could elect a fixed in-state percentage, such as 25%, and accept taxation on that amount without additional paperwork or registration.I explain that this alternative would not eliminate full apportionment for those seeking precision or refunds, but would provide a simpler path for others. The safe harbor could even operate on a transitional basis while the state evaluates how the broader certification system functions. Ultimately, I argue that modernization should not mean added complexity, and that a fixed-percentage election would promote voluntary compliance, reduce administrative strain, and provide greater certainty for both taxpayers and the state. 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

Today we had the exciting opportunity to host Bill Anderson, Senior Managing Director at Evercore and Global Head of the firm's Activism/Raid Defense team and Strategic M&A Advisory practice. Bill is a pioneer in activism defense and has advised more than 500 companies facing activists or strategic raids, including many of the largest proxy fights and defense situations of the past two decades. Prior to joining Evercore in 2016, Bill spent more than 15 years at Goldman Sachs as an M&A partner and leader of its defense team. Earlier in his career, he was an M&A attorney at Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett, clerked on the Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, worked as a CPA at Coopers & Lybrand, and served as a Captain in the U.S. Army Reserves. It was our pleasure to hear Bill's perspectives on the latest M&A activity, activism and hostile preparedness, board composition and alignment, and the evolving dynamics between companies, shareholders, and capital markets. In our conversation, we explore Bill's career path from classic M&A work into defense and special committees as markets changed, and how activism became a major driver of M&A. Bill shares his top takeaways from 2025 activity, noting the wide range of deal types and attributing the acceleration in deal flow to greater antitrust optimism, liquid financing, and strong buyer stock performance. We discuss why activism has become a core risk-management issue for public companies, how activists can build positions via derivatives and broker-dealer exposure with limited disclosure (and why 13F filings can be an important early-warning signal), and how shareholder bases have evolved with index funds now a dominant ownership block alongside the continued influence of ISS and Glass Lewis. We cover the difficulty of mobilizing retail votes and related regulatory/state-law considerations, the deal approval environment under Trump versus Biden (including CFIUS as a wildcard), why companies are more careful describing synergies, the impact of universal proxy, and the importance of diversity, tenure, and sector expertise in board refreshment. We touch on the drivers of positive acquirer stock reactions, how companies communicate value at deal announcement, activist dynamics in M&A and when activism becomes contentious, the importance of board alignment and cohesion, increased spin-off activity, and much more. We ended by asking Bill for his thoughts on how companies can attract long-only capital. Throughout the discussion, we reference several elements of Evercore's “2025 Year in Review Report.” It was a fascinating discussion and we appreciate Bill for sharing his time and insights. Mike Bradley kicked us off by noting that the 10-year U.S. bond yield plunged this week following an unexpectedly soft December Retail Sales report. Bond volatility could remain elevated with January CPI set for release on Friday. On the crude oil market front, WTI price appears to have temporarily settled into a $60-$65/bbl trading range, given there have been no major new geopolitical surprises over the past week. In natural gas, prompt natural gas price has completely roundtripped since the Arctic blast started and is now trading back at ~$3.15/MMBtu. U.S. gas storage is back near normal levels (around the 5-year average) and winter weather from here through the end of withdrawal season will determine how constructive the setup is for summer gas price. On the broader equity market front, the DJIA has been one of the real winners this past week (up ~2.5-3.0%), especially versus the S&P 500 (up ~0.5%). Cyclical sectors (Energy, Industrials, and Materials) continue to be the market leaders, while Tech/Telecom continue to lag. In energy equities, most large-caps (Oil Majors, Oil Services, and Refiners) have already reported Q4 results, and the next few weeks will be dominated by E&Ps reporting. E&P commentary will likely be do

The beef isn't over—it's just moved to the Second Circuit. Drake is officially appealing the dismissal of his lawsuit against UMG, arguing that Kendrick Lamar's "certified pedophile" line wasn't just a lyrical jab, but a calculated, defamatory statement of fact. In this episode, we break down Drake's new 60-page filing, his claim that the court has created a "dangerous categorical rule" for diss tracks, and why he believes UMG's "relentless" marketing of the song—even at the Super Bowl—crossed a legal line. Is Drake trying to "salve his wounds" after a loss, or does he have a point about the labels prioritizing viral hits over artist safety?

Wolford v. Lopez | 01/20/26 | Docket #: 24-1046 24-1046 WOLFORD V. LOPEZ DECISION BELOW: 116 F.4th 959 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen , 597 U.S. 1, 33 (2022), holds that "the Second Amendment guarantees a general right to public carry" of arms, meaning ordinary, law-abiding citizens may "'bear' arms in public for self-defense." In this case, the Ninth Circuit sustained a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a concealed carry permit holder to carry a handgun on private property unless he has been "given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property by the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property." H.R.S. § 134-9.5. That holding is in acknowledged direct conflict with the Second Circuit's holding in Antonyuk v. James , 120 F.4th 941 (2d Cir. 2024), a decision that struck down an identical State law in the same procedural posture as this case. The Ninth Circuit also sustained a multitude of other location bans on carry by permit holders, relying solely on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws. That doctrinal approach is in direct conflict with the Third Circuit's decision in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police , 125 F.4th 428 (3d Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Connelly , 117 F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024), the Eighth Circuit's decision in Worth v. Jacobson , 108 F.4th 677 (8th Cir. 2024), and, most recently, the Eleventh Circuit's en banc decision in NRA v. Bondi , No. 21- 12314, 2025 WL 815734 at *5 (11th Cir. March 14,2025) (en banc), all of which hold that primary focus must be on Founding generation laws and tradition in applying the text, history and tradition test Bruen mandates. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier? 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen 's text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-16164

Send us a textThis is Part 2 of our two-part discussion with Tom Hayes, the now vindicated former English banker, who we first spoke with in April 2025.  At the time of that earlier discussion with Tom, in Part 1 of this series, Tom was awaiting a decision of the United Kingdom's Supreme Court on the appeal of his August 2015 conviction, arising from his work submitting rates, on behalf of his employer, a bank, that were used to determine the London Interbank Offered Rate (or, LIBOR)—a benchmark rate, to which many other financial instruments were connected.The allegation was that Tom, and others, had manipulated their submission of rates to benefit the financial institutions they worked for.  For that conduct—what the prosecution characterized as a “manipulation” of LIBOR—Tom was sentenced to 14 years in prison, subsequently reduced to 11 years in prison, of which he ultimately served about 5. But a parallel prosecution in the United States against two other traders, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, was dismissed, following a favorable decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2022.  At the time of our discussion with Tom in Part 1, the United Kingdom remained the only jurisdiction that viewed Tom's conduct as criminal.  That is, until his conviction—and the conviction of another trader, Carlo Palumbo—were overturned by a unanimous UK Supreme Court on July 23, 2025.  We caught up with Tom after this tremendous reprieve.

The U.S. Department of Justice has strongly urged the Supreme Court to reject Ghislaine Maxwell's petition, which seeks to overturn her 20‑year sex‑trafficking conviction by invoking the 2007 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) Jeffrey Epstein secured with Florida federal prosecutors. Maxwell argued that a co‑conspirator clause in that agreement should shield her from prosecution in New York—but both the district court and the Second Circuit found that the NPA bound only the Southern District of Florida, and explicitly did not extend immunity to unnamed co‑conspirators in other jurisdictions.In its response, the DOJ emphasized that Maxwell's reading of the NPA is legally flawed and unsupported by the facts. Prosecutors maintained that Maxwell was not explicitly named in the agreement and that there was never any indication the Florida office intended to extend immunity to her. Moreover, the DOJ noted that only high-ranking Justice Department officials—not local prosecutors—could authorize an agreement with nationwide binding effect, which never occurred in this case. They argued Maxwell's petition does not present any new legal questions or conflicts among federal courts that would warrant Supreme Court intervention, and therefore, her conviction should stand without further review.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ urges Supreme Court to turn away Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal - ABC News

In 2012, NYPD officer Gilberto Valle's wife made a horrifying discovery: thousands of online chats where her husband discussed kidnapping, torturing, cooking, and eating women...including her.Valle was a member of Dark Fetish Net, a website for extreme sexual fantasies, where he shared detailed plans about cannibalizing real people he knew. The FBI arrested Valle and charged him with conspiracy to commit kidnapping. The evidence was disturbing: graphic conversations about cooking women alive, over 100 unauthorized police database searches on potential victims, Google searches for "how to make chloroform," and real-world meetings with his targets. But here's the twist: Valle never kidnapped anyone. Never attempted to. Never took any concrete steps beyond online conversations and Google searches. Valle claimed it was all fantasy role-play. Prosecutors argued it was a genuine conspiracy. After a twelve-day trial featuring gruesome evidence and disturbing testimony, the jury convicted him. Valle faced life in federal prison...This case exploded into a national debate about thoughtcrime, free speech, and the limits of conspiracy law. Can you be imprisoned for disturbing fantasies? Where's the line between fantasy and criminal intent? Should online role-play be prosecutable as conspiracy?Join Robin as she breaks it down. ---------------------------------------------------------------Keywords: Gilberto Valle, Cannibal Cop, NYPD, conspiracy to kidnap, Dark Fetish Net, true crime podcast, criminal conspiracy, First Amendment, free speech, constitutional law, federal crime, wrongful conviction, jury verdict, acquittal, Judge Paul Gardephe, thoughtcrime, police corruption, database abuse, New York crime, federal prison, legal podcast, court case analysis, civil liberties, true crime 2024, criminal justice, sexual fetish, cannibalism, vorarephilia, internet crime, cyber crime, FBI investigation, federal trial, appeals court, Second Circuit, true threats, protected speech, actus reus, overt act, criminal intent, fantasy defenseBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/we-saw-the-devil-a-true-crime-podcast--4433638/support.Website: http://www.wesawthedevil.comPatreon: http://www.patreon.com/wesawthedevilDiscord: https://discord.gg/X2qYXdB4Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/WeSawtheDevilInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/wesawthedevilpodcast.