Podcasts about second circuit

DOCKET ALERTS:   This week, the Senate confirmed Jeffrey Kuntz as a judge in the Southern District of Florida, making him the second former Florida state jurist who did Trump a solid in his trollsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board and got himself promoted to the federal bench. Also this week, the Senate confirmed Matthew Schwartz to the Second Circuit, making him the third of Trump's personal lawyers to be made appellate judges. This is fine!   The Trump administration sued Maryland to stop it providing in-state tuition to undocumented students.   Trump's media company plans to sell early access to his posts to high-frequency traders.    DOOFUS OF THE DAY:   Trump's teleprompter operator Gabriel Perez got caught betting on what his boss might say on Kalshi. He's negotiating a settlement with the CFTC, but is apparently still employed at the White House.   MAIN SHOW:   Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. Any Republican defection will tank his nomination to be permanent AG. He got raked over the coals and forced to sit down with the Epstein survivors, but will probably make it through.   The beloved service station Buc-ee's is suing everyone and their mother for trademark infringement. But the Buc-ee Beaver may have bitten off more than he can chew picking a fight with Mickey the Moose.   SUBSCRIBER BONUS:   In December, X/Twitter rolled out new image generation capabilities for its AI Grok, after which users created an avalanche of non-consensual intimate images. The site is facing a class action by minor victims. But it hopes to avoid liability by seeking a ruling from a friendly judge in Texas that the blame lies with the users who generated the images, not the site itself.   US v. Maryland [In-state tuition] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73629368/united-states-v-state-of-maryland/   White House teleprompter operator made more than $100K betting on Trump's speeches: Sources https://abcnews.com/US/white-house-teleprompter-operator-made-100k-betting-trumps/story?id=134764573   Trump Media to Sell Faster Access to President's Social Posts https://www.wsj.com/tech/trump-media-to-sell-faster-access-to-presidents-social-posts-7a7054e8   xAI LLC v. Harwood https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73616819/xai-llc-v-harwood/   Doe v. XAI Corp https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72495765/doe-1-v-xai-corp/   Buc-ee's is on a Rampage and No Mascot is Safe, Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/buc-ees-is-on-a-rampage-and-no-mascot-is-safe-80b7f03d   Buc-ee's, Ltd. v. Coles IP Holdings, LLC [2026 docket] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72296862/buc-ees-ltd-v-coles-ip-holdings-llc/   Buc-ee's, Ltd. v. Panjwani [2015 docket] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72296862/buc-ees-ltd-v-coles-ip-holdings-llc/ Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

This Day in Legal History: The Sedition Act of 1798On July 14, 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act, the most notorious of the four laws known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Sedition Act made it a federal crime to write, print, utter, or publish “any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government of the United States, the Congress, or the President—with the intent to defame them or bring them into disrepute. In plain terms, it criminalized criticism of the government.The context was a Federalist administration, under President John Adams, gripped by fear of France and of domestic dissent, and eager to silence the opposition press aligned with Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. And that's exactly how it was used. Federal prosecutors went after Republican newspaper editors and even a sitting congressman, securing convictions for the crime of harsh political speech. Notably, the Act was written to expire in 1801—conveniently, the moment Adams's term would end—so that it could be wielded against his critics but would not outlive his own hold on power.The reaction was fierce and consequential. Jefferson and James Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions arguing the Act was unconstitutional, and the ensuing backlash helped sweep Jefferson into the presidency in 1800; once in office, he pardoned those convicted under it. The Sedition Act was never tested at the Supreme Court, but history rendered its verdict. More than a century and a half later, in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court looked back and declared that the Act's assault on free expression had been repudiated “in the court of history,” using it as a touchstone for modern First Amendment law. The lesson of July 14, 1798 endures: laws that punish criticism of the government are almost always tools of the powerful against their critics—and a free press is most necessary precisely when the state would prefer it silent.Federal prosecutors have issued subpoenas seeking to compel four New York Times journalists to testify before a Manhattan grand jury, part of a leak investigation into the paper's reporting on security concerns surrounding President Trump's flight on the new Qatari-donated Air Force One. Federal agents delivered some of the subpoenas to the reporters' homes. Here's the legal terrain. There is no absolute federal reporter's privilege—the Supreme Court held decades ago that the First Amendment doesn't categorically shield journalists from grand jury subpoenas—but the Justice Department has long operated under internal guidelines that made going after reporters a last resort. Those guardrails matter here, because in 2025 Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinded the Biden-era policy that had sharply limited subpoenas against journalists, restoring broader authority to pursue them. The Times says it will fight, and can ask a court to quash the subpoenas as overbroad, issued in bad faith, or violating the First Amendment. The significance is the pressure this puts on newsgathering: when the government can subpoena reporters to unmask their sources, sources stop talking, and the kind of national-security reporting at issue here gets harder to do. Press-freedom groups warn this administration has reached for subpoenas and search warrants against journalists—at the Times, the Post, and the Wall Street Journal—more freely than its predecessors.Explainer: Can prosecutors compel New York Times journalists to testify in leak probe? | ReutersA federal judge has voided President Trump's roughly $1.78 billion settlement with the IRS, delivering a scathing rebuke and referring his lawyers for possible discipline. The backstory is unusual. Trump sued his own administration in January over the leak of his tax returns, and by late May had reached a deal with the IRS to create an “anti-weaponization” fund and to “forever bar” the government from any action related to his past tax returns—protection extending to his family and businesses. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found the whole thing was a setup. The core legal defect is the absence of what courts call adverseness. Federal courts can only decide genuine “cases or controversies”—real disputes between opposing parties. Here, Judge Williams wrote, “there was never adverseness between the Parties; there was never a case or controversy; and there was never a question as to who would prevail,” because Trump was effectively suing himself, with his own Justice Department on the other side agreeing to lose. She found the case was brought for an improper purpose: to get a court's stamp of legitimacy on a settlement with no basis in law or fact. She sanctioned Trump's attorneys and referred one, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida bar, and suggested Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche should face discipline too. The significance is a court refusing to be used as a rubber stamp—insisting that its legitimacy can't be borrowed to bless a collusive deal dressed up as litigation.US judge voids Trump's settlement with IRS | ReutersA federal appeals court has revived more than 500 private lawsuits against Kenvue, the maker of Tylenol, alleging that acetaminophen use during pregnancy caused autism and ADHD in children—and here it's worth being clear about the science before the law. There is no firm scientific evidence that Tylenol causes autism or ADHD. The most rigorous recent research, including a large Swedish sibling-comparison study of millions of children, found no causal link once you control for genetic and environmental factors shared within families; mainstream medical bodies continue to regard acetaminophen as one of the safer pain and fever options in pregnancy, and untreated high fevers carry their own real risks. So this ruling is not a finding that Tylenol is dangerous. What the Second Circuit actually decided was narrower and procedural: that the trial judge had wrongly excluded the plaintiffs' expert witnesses. Under the rules governing expert testimony, judges act as “gatekeepers,” admitting expert opinion only if it rests on reliable methodology. The district court had tossed the plaintiffs' experts as unreliable; the appeals court, per Judge Guido Calabresi, said their methods reflected approaches other scientists use and amounted to “acceptable interpretations of scientific evidence where scientists may, and in fact do, disagree.” Crucially, the court stressed it was not deciding whether Tylenol actually causes these conditions. The significance is about who weighs contested science—the ruling lets juries, not just judges, hear the dispute, which is a real win for the plaintiffs procedurally even though the underlying causation case remains, on the current evidence, weak.US appeals court revives private lawsuits linking Tylenol to autism, ADHD | ReutersAnd finally, in my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I take on a counterintuitive idea: that big corporate taxpayers may come to miss the boring, predictable world of administrative tax law now that the Supreme Court has overruled Chevron deference. My argument, in short, is that a weaker IRS and Treasury is not the unalloyed win a lot of multinationals assume it is.Here's the setup. For forty years, under Chevron, courts deferred to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. With Chevron gone, courts no longer have to defer to Treasury's reading of the tax code just because the statute is vague and the agency has expertise. A lot of corporate taxpayers cheered that—less agency power sounds like more freedom. But my point is that killing Chevron did nothing to remove the underlying ambiguity in the tax code; it just moved the job of resolving that ambiguity to a different desk. And there are only two other desks it can land on, and I don't love either one for a company that wants predictability.The first desk belongs to the courts. If Treasury can't issue as many binding, prospective rules, then more of these questions get resolved through litigation—case by case, on particular records, often years after the transactions are done. Courts are built to handle controversies, not to administer a global corporate tax system. The Coca-Cola transfer-pricing fight is the stress test I point to: a company may win a great refund that way, but you can't organize a multinational's affairs around the hope that every ambiguous question turns into a bespoke judicial adventure. The second desk belongs to Congress, which is the more democratically satisfying answer—Congress writes the code and is politically accountable. But in practice Congress moves slowly and episodically, usually only when tax changes ride along on some bigger budget deal. By the time Congress fixes an international tax problem, the business model that created it has been reorganized twice and pivoted to something involving AI.So the core of my argument is that corporate taxpayers need to distinguish between a useful litigation win and a stable legal environment—those two things don't always travel together. A bad but clear rule can be modeled and planned around; an ambiguous rule, as I put it, isn't really a rule, it's a threat in the shape of a Treasury notice. My prescription is that Congress should make clearer, more deliberate delegations where technical administration is unavoidable—transfer pricing, international tax, anti-abuse rules—and that Treasury should do a post-Chevron audit of its own regulations to flag where the code is asking too much of administration and too little of legislation. Because the real choice here isn't between IRS power and taxpayer freedom. It's between prospective administration and retroactive improvisation—and multinationals may get their wish, see the IRS diminished, and then find themselves stuck with rules everyone knows are broken but no one can fix.Big Corporate Taxpayers Need More Clarity in a Post-Chevron World | Bloomberg Tax 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

DOCKET ALERTS:   Trump says he's going to get the Supreme Court to reconsider its birthright citizenship ruling "IMMEDIATELY." (He's not.)   He also says he's going to get SCOTUS to reconsider its denial of certiorari in the E. Jean Carroll case, and thus he shouldn't have to pay the $5 million he owes her. (Again, he's not.) Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered the escrowed funds to be disbursed to Kaplan, holding that it was time for Trump to "do equity and pay the judgment." And the Second Circuit summarily refused his "emergency" request for an administrative stay of the disbursement order. Pay up, a-hole!   The DC Circuit rebuffed Trump's petition to get his name slapped back on the Kennedy Center pending appeal of the ruling that it was illegal to put it there in the first place. Olympian David Hearn was arraigned today in DC Superior Court on felony charges for having vandalized Trump's janky Reflecting Pool remodel.   Former Wisconsin judge Hannah Dugan was given a $5,000 fine but no jail time after being convicted of obstructing ICE by letting an immigrant defendant exit the courtroom using the jury door. The government had sought an eight to ten-month custodial sentence.   DOOFUS OF THE DAY: Ken Paxton, who separated from his wife two years ago, and still continues to use his former marital home as his address for voting purposes, according to ProPublica.   MAIN SHOW:   The Eleventh Circuit upheld an injunction blocking much of Florida's Stop WOKE Act (get it? get it?), which barred university professors from taking a position on "controversial" ideas like systemic racism. The state's theory is that professors are government employees, and employers can regulate speech, and thus teachers are just like Walmart greeters who can be given a strict script. The judges did not agree.   In Georgia, a federal judge quashed a subpoena for a vast trove of data on every person who worked on the 2020 election. Judge William Ray reasoned that any "crime" committed would be outside the statute of limitations, and so he need not reach the propriety of the subpoena to quash it.   According to a recently filed lawsuit, the Trump administration has been violating its own policies and handing Iranian asylum seekers over to the Iranian government — even after we started bombing the country.   Maine senatorial candidate Graham Platner has dropped out — sort of. We'll discuss the legal implications and what happens going forward.   SUBSCRIBER BONUS: Update on the "Judgefight" from Ep. 243. Judge Sparkle Sooknanan in DC says that the Trump administration cannot use the Social Security database to bulk-verify state voter rolls. Judge T. Kent Wetherell in Florida says that they must. Now what?   Carroll v. Trump [SDNY docket] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65895581/carroll-v-trump   Carroll v. Trump [Second Circuit docket] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73589905/carroll-v-trump/   Beatty v. Trump [Kennedy Center, DC Circuit docket] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73477160/joyce-beatty-v-donald-trump   US v. Dugan  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70255566/united-states-v-dugan   Ken Paxton Vowed to Crack Down on "Illegal Voting." He May Have Violated Texas Election Law. https://www.propublica.org/article/ken-paxton-voter-registration-election-law   Pernell v. Commissioner of the FL State Board of Education [11th Circuit Stop WOKE] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.80813/gov.uscourts.ca11.80813.11014486517.1.pdf   Iranian American Legal Defense Fund v. Rubio [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73581390/iranian-american-legal-defense-fund-v-rubio/   Maine Revised Statutes, Title 21-A, §374-A [candidate dropping out statute] https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/21-a/title21-Asec374-A.html   League of Women Voters v. DHS (DC Cir appeal) [docket via CourtListener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.43348/   League of Women Voters v. DHS (Sooknanan SAVE docket) [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71499795/league-of-women-voters-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/?order_by=desc   State of Florida v. DHS (Wetherell SAVE docket) [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69271601/state-of-florida-v-department-of-homeland-security/?order_by=desc   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

In breaking news, E Jean Carroll, Trump's sex abuse survivor, should be getting the $5.8 million dollars he owes her today, as his Emergency application to the Second Circuit last night to block the payment was DENIED. Popok explains that Trump can try to lob in a hand grenade/Hail Mary to the US Supreme Court, but they just ruled against him in the case 9-0, less than 2 weeks ago, and he's going to have to go through Justice Sotomayor first! Check out the Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

Larry Kramer has been President and Vice Chancellor of the London School of Economics and Political Science 1 April 2024.He served as President of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation from 2012 to 2024. Under his leadership, the foundation significantly adapted its strategies to meet changing circumstances and seize new opportunities, including new efforts to respond to pressing and timely challenges related to democracy, economics, climate change, and racial justice.Larry spent most of his career in the academy, most recently as the 15th Dean of Stanford Law School, a position he assumed in 2004. During his tenure, he spearheaded significant educational reforms. He pioneered a new model of multidisciplinary legal studies, while growing the clinical education program, incorporating a public service ethos, and enlarging the physical campus.Previously, Larry researched and taught at the University of Chicago, the University of Michigan, and New York University, where he served as Associate Dean for Research and Academics and Russell D. Niles Professor of Law. He clerked for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Henry J. Friendly of the Second Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr., following his education. Larry holds an A.B. in Psychology and Religious Studies from Brown University and a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School.Larry's teaching and scholarly interests include American legal history, constitutional law, federalism, separation of powers, the federal courts, conflict of laws, and civil procedure. He is the author of numerous articles and books, including The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review.Larry is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a member of the American Philosophical Society. He serves as board chair of iCivics and has been a director on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations, including the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the ClimateWorks Foundation, the Independent Sector, and Equal Justice Works. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week's Legal Speak episode, Law.com reporter Alex Anteau and Chicago-Kent College of Law professor Sarah Fackrell examine a recent federal appeals court decision that could reshape how intellectual property lawsuits are served on defendants in China. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit joined the Second Circuit in holding that service by email is not permitted under the Hague Service Convention. The May 29, 2026 ruling is expected to have significant implications for the high-volume Schedule A trademark and copyright infringement cases frequently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As one of the earliest scholars to study Schedule A litigation, Fackrell breaks down what the decision means for IP practitioners, international service of process, and the future of cross-border enforcement actions in this episode.   Hosts: Cedra Mayfield & Patrick Smith Reporter: Alex Anteau Guest: Sarah Fackrell Producer: Charles Garnar

The Author Events Series presents Quiara Alegría Hudes & Ray Beauchamp | The White Hot & Misunderstood The White Hot takes the form of a letter from mother to daughter about a moment of abandonment that would stretch from ten days to ten years-an explanation, but not an apology. Hudes narrates April's story-spiritual and sexy, fierce and funny-with delicate lyricism and tough love. Just as April finds in her painful and absurd sojourn the key to freeing herself and her family from a cage of generational trauma, so Hudes turns April's stumbling pursuit of herself into an unforgettable short epic of self-discovery. In Misunderstood, Allen Iverson shares in searing clarity and touching candor his meteoric rise from impoverished child in the Virginia projects to high school champion to Georgetown University protégé of legendary coach John Thompson, and finally to NBA All-Star and Reebok's Vice President of Basketball. Quiara Alegría Hudes is an American writer. Her work includes the Pulitzer Prize winning play Water by the Spoonful, the Tony Award winning Broadway musical and major motion picture In the Heights, the animated film Vivo, and the essay High Tide of Heartbreak. As a prison reform activist, Hudes and her cousin founded Emancipated Stories, a platform where people behind bars can share one page of their life story with the world. Ray Beauchamp has been a criminal defense attorney in New York for the last fifteen years, having advocated for the rights of indigent people at the Legal Aid Society in Manhattan and the Bronx. Prior to Legal Aid, he clerked in the Second Circuit and served as managing editor of the Fordham Law Review. And prior to all that, he was a kid in West Philly, developing and nurturing a deep love of the 76ers. Because you love Author Events, please make a donation when you register for this event to ensure that this series continues to inspire Philadelphians. Books will be available for purchase at the library on event night! All tickets are non-refundable. (recorded 1/14/2026)

After Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted in December 2021 on five federal counts tied to Jeffrey Epstein's sexual-abuse operation, attention immediately shifted to sentencing, the survivors, and the unanswered question of who else had participated in or enabled the scheme. In June 2022, Judge Alison Nathan sentenced Maxwell to 20 years in federal prison, describing her conduct as calculated and emphasizing that she had helped identify, groom and normalize the abuse of underage girls. Several survivors addressed the court, portraying Maxwell not as a passive companion to Epstein but as an active manipulator who helped make vulnerable girls feel safe before their exploitation. The conviction provided a rare measure of accountability, but it did not produce the broader reckoning many expected: no sweeping prosecution of additional alleged facilitators followed, and many records connected to Epstein's network remained sealed, redacted or fiercely contested.Maxwell then began a prolonged campaign to overturn the verdict, arguing that Epstein's Florida non-prosecution agreement protected her, that juror misconduct had compromised the trial and that procedural errors required a new one. The Second Circuit upheld her conviction in September 2024, and the Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal on October 6, 2025, leaving the conviction and sentence intact. Her case nevertheless remained politically explosive: she was transferred in August 2025 to a minimum-security federal prison camp in Bryan, Texas, after meeting privately with senior Justice Department officials, prompting accusations that she was receiving preferential treatment. She later invoked the Fifth Amendment before Congress while indicating that she might provide information in exchange for clemency, reinforcing the sense that—even after her conviction—the full story of Epstein's operation, its enablers and the institutional failures surrounding it had still not been publicly resolved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

After Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted in December 2021 on five federal counts tied to Jeffrey Epstein's sexual-abuse operation, attention immediately shifted to sentencing, the survivors, and the unanswered question of who else had participated in or enabled the scheme. In June 2022, Judge Alison Nathan sentenced Maxwell to 20 years in federal prison, describing her conduct as calculated and emphasizing that she had helped identify, groom and normalize the abuse of underage girls. Several survivors addressed the court, portraying Maxwell not as a passive companion to Epstein but as an active manipulator who helped make vulnerable girls feel safe before their exploitation. The conviction provided a rare measure of accountability, but it did not produce the broader reckoning many expected: no sweeping prosecution of additional alleged facilitators followed, and many records connected to Epstein's network remained sealed, redacted or fiercely contested.Maxwell then began a prolonged campaign to overturn the verdict, arguing that Epstein's Florida non-prosecution agreement protected her, that juror misconduct had compromised the trial and that procedural errors required a new one. The Second Circuit upheld her conviction in September 2024, and the Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal on October 6, 2025, leaving the conviction and sentence intact. Her case nevertheless remained politically explosive: she was transferred in August 2025 to a minimum-security federal prison camp in Bryan, Texas, after meeting privately with senior Justice Department officials, prompting accusations that she was receiving preferential treatment. She later invoked the Fifth Amendment before Congress while indicating that she might provide information in exchange for clemency, reinforcing the sense that—even after her conviction—the full story of Epstein's operation, its enablers and the institutional failures surrounding it had still not been publicly resolved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This Day in Legal History: The End of Roosevelt's Hundred DaysOn this day in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt signed three pieces of legislation that closed out what the country has been calling the Hundred Days ever since: the Banking Act of 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the Farm Credit Act, with the Home Owners' Loan Act having been signed three days earlier. The Banking Act of 1933 is the one most lawyers know, because the popular name attached to it — Glass-Steagall — has been doing rhetorical work in financial-regulation debates for ninety-three years.Carter Glass of Virginia and Henry Steagall of Alabama, the Senate Banking chair and the House Banking chair respectively, built the statute around two structural propositions: that commercial banks should be separated from investment banking and the speculative securities business that had helped pull the country into the Great Depression, and that depositors at member banks should be protected by a federal deposit insurance scheme so that a panic at one bank did not become a panic everywhere.The deposit insurance piece became the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The separation piece was the part that got partially repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 and then revisited in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The National Industrial Recovery Act, signed the same day, set up the National Recovery Administration and the Public Works Administration and was meant to coordinate industry-wide codes of fair competition; the Supreme Court struck the centerpiece codes provision down two years later in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States in 1935 on nondelegation and Commerce Clause grounds, an opinion that nearly killed the early New Deal and prompted Roosevelt's court-packing plan two years after that. The Farm Credit Act consolidated and refinanced the agricultural lending system that the Great Depression had taken to the brink.The legal point worth remembering is that this last day of the Hundred Days was, in retrospect, the moment the federal regulatory state of the twentieth century stopped being a collection of post-Civil-War commissions and started being the integrated structure of agencies, deposit-insurance funds, securities oversight, labor regulation, and welfare administration that the country has lived inside ever since. The fact that the Schechter Court was waiting in the wings to strike down the most ambitious piece of that day's work is part of the lesson. The constitutional question of how much economic ordering a Congress and a President can do at once was not answered on June 16, 1933 — it was framed.The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up E.D. v. Noblesville School District, a free-speech challenge brought by the parents of an Indiana high-school student whose school district had refused to let her post flyers for her student-run anti-abortion club on classroom and hallway walls. The student, identified in court papers by initials because she was a minor when the case was filed, had been the founder of Noblesville High School's Students for Life chapter. The flyers she wanted posted featured images of demonstrators holding “Defund Planned Parenthood” signs. Noblesville Schools removed the flyers under a district policy giving administrators content-based authority over student materials displayed on school property, and the parents sued under the First Amendment.The Southern District of Indiana sided with the district in 2024, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed in 2025, both applying Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the 1988 case that lets public schools regulate the content of school-sponsored expressive activities if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. The cert denial leaves Hazelwood intact in the Seventh Circuit and everywhere else.The piece worth flagging is Justice Alito's dissent from denial, joined by Justice Thomas, which urged the Court to grant review and use the case to revisit Hazelwood's framework. The dissent argues that Hazelwood was wrongly decided to the extent that it lets schools draw viewpoint-based lines under the cover of pedagogical-concern review, and that the doctrinal distinction Hazelwood draws between school-sponsored speech and Tinker-style independent student speech has become unworkable in the age of student clubs, distributed school messaging, and post-Mahanoy off-campus speech. Two votes are not five votes. But two votes naming a case as the vehicle they wanted are how the next decade of student-speech cases gets queued up. The Court has now told litigants what kind of vehicle it might be looking for. Expect a steady drumbeat of cert petitions teeing up the Hazelwood revisit over the next several terms.US Supreme Court turns away free speech claim by anti-abortion student | Reuters via Maryland Daily RecordThe Supreme Court also turned away on Monday the National Shooting Sports Foundation's challenge to New York's General Business Law § 898, the public-nuisance statute the New York legislature passed in 2021 to let the state and certain private plaintiffs sue firearms manufacturers, distributors, and dealers for endangering the public through the marketing and distribution of their products.The challenge was supported by Smith & Wesson, Sturm, Ruger, Beretta, Glock, and Sig Sauer, and went up on appeal from a 2024 Second Circuit decision that held the New York statute is not preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the 2005 federal statute that broadly immunizes the gun industry from civil liability arising from the criminal misuse of firearms.The Second Circuit reasoned that the PLCAA's “predicate exception” — which preserves state-law claims when the firearms industry has violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms — covers a state public-nuisance statute that, by its terms, regulates the sale and marketing of firearms. The cert denial leaves the Second Circuit's reading in place, leaves New York's statute on the books and enforceable, and leaves the industry with a litigation exposure it had hoped to neutralize.The strategic part of the case is going to be the copycat statutes. California, New Jersey, Washington, Delaware, Illinois, and Hawaii have all enacted versions of the New York approach since 2021, and other states have similar bills in committee. Each of those statutes is going to invite its own PLCAA-preemption fight in its own circuit, and the cumulative jurisprudence is going to get built case by case until either Congress amends PLCAA or the Court decides one of these cases is the right vehicle to step in. Today's denial was not that vehicle.SCOTUS Upholds NY Law Allowing Lawsuits Against Gunmakers | The Daily SignalThe third notable cert denial on Monday was the end of the road for Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. in its long-running trade-secret fight with DXC Technology — the successor in interest to Computer Sciences Corporation. TCS had asked the Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision that affirmed a $168 million judgment against it for misappropriating CSC's life-insurance-administration software trade secrets and using them to build TCS's own BaNCS platform, which TCS then used to win a $2.6 billion contract with the insurer Transamerica.The Northern District of Texas verdict, returned in 2022, had been $56 million in compensatory damages and $112 million in punitives, and the Fifth Circuit upheld the punitives ratio in 2025 over TCS's BMW v. Gore and State Farm v. Campbell challenge to the proportionality of the punitive award and over its Defend Trade Secrets Act extraterritoriality arguments. The cert petition pressed both points and pressed a circuit split on the standard for proving misappropriation by an independent contractor that had been given access to source code under a nondisclosure agreement, but the Court declined.The practical immediate effect is that TCS will recognize a roughly $70 million one-time exceptional charge in Q1 of its 2027 fiscal year and the total exposure on the matter — combining the affirmed judgment with previously taken provisions — settles in around $220 million. The broader effect is doctrinal stability. The Fifth Circuit's analysis on cross-border trade-secret damages and on the extraterritoriality limits of the DTSA stand. Both questions are going to recur, and the next vehicle that brings them up may catch the Court in a different mood, but for now the law is what the Fifth Circuit said it was.US Supreme Court rejects TCS challenge in $168 million trade secrets case | Business Standard 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: 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 is the official court audio, posted by the Court of Appeals on November 5, 2025. I am reposting today because the Court of Appeals has handed down a ruling today affirming the criminal conviction. Below are my thoughts from the day of the argument on appeal, and I continue to hope there can be an amicable resolution among the parties:—The appellate argument is in the appeal of Sam Bankman-Fried's criminal conviction which proceeded, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The argument was scheduled for 20 minutes or so and went beyond an hour. The bench was a hot bench, with the judges on the panel prepared to ask a lot of questions.Maybe the case will be resolved consensually?The appellant's side, SBF's counsel, argued to the appellate judges that more evidence of advice of counsel would have changed the jury's decision to convict. The judges were skeptical.But the appellee, the government, had a hard time justifying the forfeiture order against Sam Bankman-Fried, which was part of his punishment.There is a disconnect between the presentation of massive losses in the record of the criminal trial relative to representations of customers being paid in full in the FTX bankruptcy. This was discussed at some length during the argument today. I am not sure it is correct that the FTX customers who are to receive (the low) cash value of Crypto as of 11/11/2022 (the FTX bankruptcy filing date, on Veterans Day, during Crypto Winter) are expected to receive the current value of the Crypto or more in the future. So maybe a fact check of the FTX bankruptcy plan would be helpful.More generally, how well the FTX bankruptcy is going/supposed to have gone in terms of paying customers in full seems to undermine at least the forfeiture order. It is not unusual that there is interplay between a criminal case and a bankruptcy case/appeal, proceeding on separate tracks but inter-related factually.I think there could possibly be a motion for new trial at the district court level regardless of the outcome of the appeal, based on the ability to seek a new trial where there is newly discovered evidence… where the interests of Justice require, etc. even where there was a lot of evidence at trial, evidence in support of a jury verdict.The appellate argument today raises questions like how much does acting on advice of counsel count? Is a person who has lawyers acting more in good faith than a person who doesn't have lawyers? Like can a person hire lawyers to set up a business or help as it grows and be excused from criminal responsibility? If so - to what extent? One view expressed during the oral argument today was that it may depend on whether the lawyers know what the client was up to, but that is not something that would usually come into evidence at trial because of privilege issues.This was a fascinating argument. I don't know if it is what SBF wanted to be represented to the court. Is this how he was told his case would be presented? Or does he have the same problem again, where the FTX bankruptcy case was allegedly described to him as planned a certain way, but then the case went another way and he was arrested and blamed for the collapse of FTX.Wasn't he told that a bankruptcy would help liquidity, to monetize FTX assets so that customers could be paid? And then he handed over control of the company, which he laments. The pressure must have been very great, with the other FTX executives blaming him and a bankruptcy presented as a way to stabilize FTX's business and avoid customer losses… and lawyers telling him what to do.I am concerned for pressure SBF is under from lawyers - BECAUSE he does rely on advice of counsel, now as he must - and his emotional health and well being must be under so much pressure.With potential for the SBF case to be heard by the US Supreme Court or a retrial or a pardon, the stakes are high. And with billions at stake in the forfeiture order, based on losses at time of trial that have been reduced, there seems a lot of room for compromise and come to an agreement that resolves the appeal.

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.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

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

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

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)